4 ms·

Now the company has taken a political stance that likely doesn't represent the entire view of all its employees. No doubt this is talked about in all the slack

Now the company has taken a political stance that likely doesn't represent the entire view of all its employees. No doubt this is talked about in all the slack channels leaving many to be alienated. The ask for politics to be left out X these days seems to be impossible. Will only lead to more division and hatred between people with different ideologies.

jrowley 6y ago
If employees are feeling like their values are no longer in alignment with the company they can leave. ICE is hiring.
- hiimtroymclure 6y ago
  quite a privileged response for someone who has very in demand skills
  - jrowley 6y ago
    If you are fortunate enough to have privilege, you should exercise it to make the world a better place. That might mean attempting to change a company from the inside, or that might mean leaving them and not supporting them. And then once you leave, you still have to look for places to exercise your privilege to make the world a better place.
capableweb 6y ago
Yeah, politics gets in everywhere and seems impossible to avoid it. Even if you purposefully avoid it, you're making a political statement. On one hand, what does it mean to have a "no politics at work" policy? If Hootsuite have contracts with ICE, it's already political at that point, as they are helping the organization be more efficient/valuable/whatever. If they don't take any contracts that might be political, they won't be able to do any business at all. On the other hand, for-profit companies goal is to get profits. If they prioritize political stances in-front of that, they are bound to confuse people who are working there, who understands it's a business, not a political/non-profit organization.
- hiimtroymclure 6y ago
  all good points. super confusing times we live in right now. Are we going to evolve where theres conservative companies and liberal companies who only support customers of that same belief system? I dont think so but who knows. I dont see how anyone can get think we are going down a path that wont lead to ugly, ugly times.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    I think (and/or hope maybe) that eventually people will realize that corporations are just that, corporations. The purpose is to earn money. If you (also/more) care about something else, then you don't work for a corporation, you work for something else.
    - northernjames 6y ago
      Thinking only about profit can and has lead corporations to some pretty dark places. Just because you work for a corporation does not absolve you basic human decency.
      - capableweb 6y ago
        I agree! But, short-term profits are different than long-term profits as well. I think the sooner people realize what capitalism does to our world and how focusing on profits, ownership and consumerism makes everything more shit, the better.
    - rsynnott 6y ago
      > I think (and/or hope maybe) that eventually people will realize that corporations are just that, corporations. The purpose is to earn money. Even assuming that were true (Hootsuite is a B Corp, so it's not quite that simple), companies have to engage in reputation management as part of making money. The result of this is that even entirely profit-focused companies will often refuse to deal with certain suppliers and customers. This is effectively a cost of doing business for highly disreputable companies and organisations; certain suppliers simply won't deal with them. As I mentioned elsewhere, pornography is a particularly dramatic example, with its own (very expensive) supporting ecosystem of companies.
untog 6y ago
Taking a contract from ICE is an inherently political act. Blaming employees for voicing their disapproval of the company leadership's political decision seems counterproductive at best. "Leave politics out of X" is almost never actually possible. Politics is in everything. What is usually being asked is "leave politics I find uncomfortable out of X".
rsynnott 6y ago
The danger of disreputable customers isn't new. Companies have been refusing to provide service to customers they'd prefer not to be associated with for about as long as there have been companies. Notably, the pornography industry has a whole ecosystem of supporting industries for this reason, but there are many other examples.
neilk 6y ago
1) It is nonsensical to ask to leave politics out of social and economic life. 2) Hootsuite is a B Corp. This means they've already publicly committed themselves to act with social responsibility, above and beyond whatever is currently profitable. This doesn't mean that non-B-corps get to act with zero responsibility in pursuit of profit, but it's just underlining this requirement. It is curious to me that you think that acting ethically somehow sows division and hatred. Why would that happen? The whistleblower believes strongly in the company and the mission and isn't targeting anyone, not even the CEO, as a figure of hate. The worst thing that's happening here is that ICE will have to use another vendor for their social media management. I think society will be able to continue to function after this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hiimtroymclure 6y ago
  your idea of "acting ethically" may not be how I interpret the situation. Therein lies the creation of division. The "worst thing that happens is ICE uses another vendor" is such a slippery slope view point. Should all 3rd party tech companies stop servicing ICE because the employees refuse to support it? What about the millions of Americans who do not work for a company with that power? Should you be given the ability to undermine something that impacts everyone? This is the direction we are heading and it will create division.
  - _jal 6y ago
    Put ICE aside. Is there any organization that you feel "should" not be served by vendors? If you want to dodge by claiming it should hinge on the legality of the org, I'd be happy to give you a menu of several that were perfectly legal at the time to choose from.
  - vikramkr 6y ago
    If employees refuse to support it and they have the market power to change the company's behavior, then yes, they should be allowed to stop servicing ICE. Its not a power that the companies are "given" - it's a power they create by creating the product that ICE wants.
mapgrep 6y ago
Your stance on whether ICE violates human rights of children is orthogonal to your stance on policies that ICE enforces and promulgates. It's not a political stance. In other words: You can be FOR the deportations and AGAINST treating children that way. You could be AGAINST the deportations policy and OK with the implementation on a human rights level. Something that seems increasingly the case is that people conflate objections to behavior with political stances. On the left this might look like "You are accusing Biden of rape because you oppose his policies." On the right this might look like "The investigation of Trump's dealings in Ukraine are the result of people trying to achieve political goals, they don't actually care about corruption at all." It is disheartening to see this sort of thinking spread. Hootsuite's decision on whether to deal with ICE can be part of a policy centered on human rights. It's not inherently political, just because ICE currently operates under Trump (many objected to many of its behaviors under Obama as well). (Incidentally, to the person I'm replying to, I'm not accusing you of sloppy thinking or anything else. I think it's very easy for all of us to fall into this trap because it has become so completely common in the U.S. to deploy rhetoric that all accusations we don't like are made for political reasons.)

jrowley 6y ago

If employees are feeling like their values are no longer in alignment with the company they can leave. ICE is hiring.

hiimtroymclure 6y ago
quite a privileged response for someone who has very in demand skills
- jrowley 6y ago
  If you are fortunate enough to have privilege, you should exercise it to make the world a better place. That might mean attempting to change a company from the inside, or that might mean leaving them and not supporting them. And then once you leave, you still have to look for places to exercise your privilege to make the world a better place.

capableweb 6y ago

Yeah, politics gets in everywhere and seems impossible to avoid it. Even if you purposefully avoid it, you're making a political statement. On one hand, what does it mean to have a "no politics at work" policy? If Hootsuite have contracts with ICE, it's already political at that point, as they are helping the organization be more efficient/valuable/whatever. If they don't take any contracts that might be political, they won't be able to do any business at all. On the other hand, for-profit companies goal is to get profits. If they prioritize political stances in-front of that, they are bound to confuse people who are working there, who understands it's a business, not a political/non-profit organization.

hiimtroymclure 6y ago
all good points. super confusing times we live in right now. Are we going to evolve where theres conservative companies and liberal companies who only support customers of that same belief system? I dont think so but who knows. I dont see how anyone can get think we are going down a path that wont lead to ugly, ugly times.
- capableweb 6y ago
  I think (and/or hope maybe) that eventually people will realize that corporations are just that, corporations. The purpose is to earn money. If you (also/more) care about something else, then you don't work for a corporation, you work for something else.
  - northernjames 6y ago
    Thinking only about profit can and has lead corporations to some pretty dark places. Just because you work for a corporation does not absolve you basic human decency.
    - capableweb 6y ago
      I agree! But, short-term profits are different than long-term profits as well. I think the sooner people realize what capitalism does to our world and how focusing on profits, ownership and consumerism makes everything more shit, the better.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    > I think (and/or hope maybe) that eventually people will realize that corporations are just that, corporations. The purpose is to earn money. Even assuming that were true (Hootsuite is a B Corp, so it's not quite that simple), companies have to engage in reputation management as part of making money. The result of this is that even entirely profit-focused companies will often refuse to deal with certain suppliers and customers. This is effectively a cost of doing business for highly disreputable companies and organisations; certain suppliers simply won't deal with them. As I mentioned elsewhere, pornography is a particularly dramatic example, with its own (very expensive) supporting ecosystem of companies.

untog 6y ago

Taking a contract from ICE is an inherently political act. Blaming employees for voicing their disapproval of the company leadership's political decision seems counterproductive at best. "Leave politics out of X" is almost never actually possible. Politics is in everything. What is usually being asked is "leave politics I find uncomfortable out of X".

rsynnott 6y ago

The danger of disreputable customers isn't new. Companies have been refusing to provide service to customers they'd prefer not to be associated with for about as long as there have been companies. Notably, the pornography industry has a whole ecosystem of supporting industries for this reason, but there are many other examples.

neilk 6y ago

1) It is nonsensical to ask to leave politics out of social and economic life. 2) Hootsuite is a B Corp. This means they've already publicly committed themselves to act with social responsibility, above and beyond whatever is currently profitable. This doesn't mean that non-B-corps get to act with zero responsibility in pursuit of profit, but it's just underlining this requirement. It is curious to me that you think that acting ethically somehow sows division and hatred. Why would that happen? The whistleblower believes strongly in the company and the mission and isn't targeting anyone, not even the CEO, as a figure of hate. The worst thing that's happening here is that ICE will have to use another vendor for their social media management. I think society will be able to continue to function after this.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hiimtroymclure 6y ago
your idea of "acting ethically" may not be how I interpret the situation. Therein lies the creation of division. The "worst thing that happens is ICE uses another vendor" is such a slippery slope view point. Should all 3rd party tech companies stop servicing ICE because the employees refuse to support it? What about the millions of Americans who do not work for a company with that power? Should you be given the ability to undermine something that impacts everyone? This is the direction we are heading and it will create division.
- _jal 6y ago
  Put ICE aside. Is there any organization that you feel "should" not be served by vendors? If you want to dodge by claiming it should hinge on the legality of the org, I'd be happy to give you a menu of several that were perfectly legal at the time to choose from.
- vikramkr 6y ago
  If employees refuse to support it and they have the market power to change the company's behavior, then yes, they should be allowed to stop servicing ICE. Its not a power that the companies are "given" - it's a power they create by creating the product that ICE wants.

mapgrep 6y ago

Your stance on whether ICE violates human rights of children is orthogonal to your stance on policies that ICE enforces and promulgates. It's not a political stance. In other words: You can be FOR the deportations and AGAINST treating children that way. You could be AGAINST the deportations policy and OK with the implementation on a human rights level. Something that seems increasingly the case is that people conflate objections to behavior with political stances. On the left this might look like "You are accusing Biden of rape because you oppose his policies." On the right this might look like "The investigation of Trump's dealings in Ukraine are the result of people trying to achieve political goals, they don't actually care about corruption at all." It is disheartening to see this sort of thinking spread. Hootsuite's decision on whether to deal with ICE can be part of a policy centered on human rights. It's not inherently political, just because ICE currently operates under Trump (many objected to many of its behaviors under Obama as well). (Incidentally, to the person I'm replying to, I'm not accusing you of sloppy thinking or anything else. I think it's very easy for all of us to fall into this trap because it has become so completely common in the U.S. to deploy rhetoric that all accusations we don't like are made for political reasons.)