7 ms·
New Relic employees report unrest over work culture, CEO’s donations
- maxharris 6y agoHow did Mozilla fare after these same cultural forces excised Brendan Eich? And how's the Brave browser doing in comparison? (I'm using it to type this very message.) And before downvoting me, please note that I'm Jewish (ethnically speaking - I am more of a scientific pantheist in my actual views, but I digress) and bisexual. I do not support Cirne's charities or politics. I am merely calling into question the tactics that these employees are attempting to use to silence him.
- shajznnckfke 6y agoAnyone know what Brave’s market share is?
- BrendanEich 6y agohttps://brave.com/transparency https://brave.com/transparency
- bigbubba 6y agoIs there actually any data on Brave's market share? It's been my assumption that they have far fewer installs than Firefox, but admittedly my impression is not informed by any real data.
- BrendanEich 6y agohttps://brave.com/transparency https://brave.com/transparency
- thatswrong0 6y agoHolding him to the same standards that the company publicly advertises it has is not silencing.
- bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y agoYes, it is, actually. That's literally what the employees voicing their displeasure want -- (1) for his speech as a private citizen to not contradict the public values of the company he leads (i.e. for him to not donate to, say, exclusionary institutions), and, (2) most likely, going beyond (1): for his speech as a private citizen to be "in alignment" with the public values of the company he leads (i.e., to compel speech). You can agree or disagree that any of this is a reasonable or desirable or legal, but it's Orwellian doublespeak to claim it's "not silencing".
- thatswrong0 6y agoHe’s an extremely wealthy individual. His “voice” aka his “speech” aka his ability to influence the actions of the government via political donations is orders of magnitude greater than pretty much all of his employees. He ain’t being silenced. The only people being silenced here are the LGBTQ+ kids going to that abhorrent school he donated $250,000 to
- gedy 6y agoSeems like he is being singled out for his outside-of-work religious beliefs. This is not a good look for those employees who believe in "inclusion".
- Gygash 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- ThrowawayR2 6y agoDon't forget the paradox of the paradox of intolerance (a.k.a. the meta-paradox of intolerance) which states that Popper's paradox of intolerance is often cited by those seeking to justify their own intolerance, ironically identifying themselves as also among those whom the paradox of intolerance warns against. (I jest but, in seriousness, always remember that Popper's paradox works as a justification for any side and any viewpoint, whether good or bad. That's why it's a weak argument.)
- robertlagrant 6y agoIt's because tolerance is not what's actually being discussed. It's morality. No-one thinks we should tolerate rape or murder, or considers the locking in a box of those who commit those acts as being in any way intolerant, even though to a dictionary definition, it is. It's just about changing morals, with the idea of tolerance as the vehicle that smoothed the way. All the dichotomies dissolve when things are seen for what they are.
- TheOperator 6y agoGiving money to a private school that excludes gay people is far more of a choice than being a gay person. In this case by tolerating the intolerant you end up creating an inescapably intolerant society for gay people the sake of avoiding creating an escapable intolerant society for Christians. Nothing in the Bible says Thou must not let gay kids go to private school.
- 6y ago
- freen 6y agoFree speech doesn’t mean consequence free. If you were gay, would you be comfortable with an overtly homophobic boss?
- JarlUlvi 6y agoIf you were jewish, christian, or muslim, would you be comfortable with a group of overly anti-jewish, anti-christian, or anti-muslim workforce?
- runawaybottle 6y agoYou have agency to not work there.
- barumi 6y agoIf anyone has agency to stop earning their living, my guess is that they also have agency to express their opinion and hold someone else accountable for creating an hostile work environment.
- runawaybottle 6y agoThen you don’t have agency and need to deal with the nature of the contract. You take money, you put up with the circumstances. If you don’t need to take money, then you are free. I’m sorry for all those stuck, but you need the money. In a desperate situation like that, where your own principles are secondary to your very survivable, it’s proper to shut up and do your job. If you are in a position where your principles are not secondary, then quit.
- erik_seaberg 6y agoI might worry about my direct manager acting on biases, or about the company’s policies, but not the CEO’s personal opinions. New Relic has over 2,000 employees, how would he even remember my name?
- mrgordon 6y ago
- bmarquez 6y ago> Cirne’s wife is a contributor to President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, another sore point for many New Relic employees even though she has no role with the company...They see his wife’s donations to Trump as antithetical to the company’s stated values... What do the employees want to happen? Cirne to divorce or publicly condemn his wife over political contributions? He can't forbid someone else from making political contributions.
- barumi 6y ago> What do the employees want to happen? Cirne to divorce or publicly condemn his wife over political contributions? This wouldn't be the first case where donations were made through an illusory third-party for the sake of plausible deniability.
- robertlagrant 6y agoSigh. Speculation.
- barumi 6y ago> Sigh. Speculation. Not speculation, it's a pretty clear refutation of the hypothesis that channeling a donation through a third-party severs all links between the contribution and those who actually make the contribution.
- seppin 6y agoI find people using the framing of "what you can't have political beliefs" as a red herring in the age of Trump. Supporting Nixon at his most criminal and paranoid wasn't acceptable then, and it's not now.
- seppin 6y agoGreat this website has anonymously deputized users that can downvote comments without reason or explanation. Does wonders for transparency in quality control.
- dogman144 6y agoCoinbase's recent actions add interesting additions to the ammunition available for responding to employee activism. I think the longstanding questions in this area are: - are the activist employees just a vocal minority - who will care (or support) if those activists are ignored -> who just wants to get back to work and focus on whatever it is that Company X does for profit. That presents a somewhat cynical view of corporate culture. But, I'm very incredulous of arguments stating this isn't considered by companies that are large enough for employee activism to matter-matter. CB essentially tried the usually avoided approach. It said it wouldn't support this stuff by implication (would stay "only mission focused) and gave healthy severance packages to those who wanted to leave. 5% of employees left, and the makeup of the 5% reflected that of the overall workforce. I have to think other companies paid attention to this outcome, although I wonder what internal polling and the like led to CB doing it.
- robertlagrant 6y ago> 5% of employees left, and the makeup of the 5% reflected that of the overall workforce. I have to think other companies paid attention to this outcome, although I wonder what internal polling and the like led to CB doing it. What's your read on this? Bad outcome or good?
- sushicalculus 6y agoI'd say a good outcome for the company. Avoid the distraction of the vocal minority purposefully trying to create "scandals" to subvert the company's leadership.
- thu2111 6y agoGood for the firm, bad for activist employees. That data point will be used against them by people like Cirne. Clearly we're starting to see firms separating into "we just get work done here" like Coinbase/New Relic and another other category, "all in on identity politics" like Kickstarter, Google. Firms that don't want to go in that direction but were previously unclear on what the damage might be from activist exits now have at least a ballpark figure - and of course that 5% number is exaggerated. Coinbase basically gave people a huge bonus for disagreeing with the new policy. If not paying people to leave, and in the middle of a lockdown recession, the number would surely be lower.
- almost_usual 6y agoLarry Ellison donates significant amounts of money to the Trump campaign. He’s also on the board of Tesla. So are Tesla owners and shareholders funding the Trump campaign indirectly? Is that a political line?
- IMTDb 6y agoReading the article, it really looks like some New Relic employees want : - To prevent someone from supporting the presidential candidate she believes in. It's event funnier of you consider that the person if not working at NewRelic. - Control which charities the CEO should give money to with his private philantropy fund (which he has no obligation to setup). > "It is clear that some of you are devoting more energy and attention inwards, than towards our customers." Yep, sounds about right.
- downrightmike 6y agoprivate philantropy funds are generally setup to avoid taxes
- jerkstate 6y agoPretty soon these shame tactics are going to stop working at all. What then?
- crocodiletears 6y agoIf the last four years is an indicator, violence escalates.
- ykevinator 6y ago"charity" it's not a charity if you're a member of the club you're giving to
- satya71 6y agoOur politics has broken down. A minority rules, and the only avenue left to the majority is questionable tactics like this. More of these seemingly idiotic conflicts will arise until Congress functions again.
- kochthesecond 6y agoAnd to a non-American the code of conduct trying to bar employees from political initiatives seems... oddly controlling. Did we forget to disagree and discuss? The CEO here should address the dissonance between his actions and the stated values of the company when questioned. One does not have to agree, but he should care enough to address it.
- moduspol 6y agoI agree, but I don't think any employee (including the CEO) should need / bother to justify to their employer the organizations they privately contribute to or support. It's not some big mystery how someone can support a religious school or one of the two viable presidential candidates without necessarily supporting everything about those things. Having a PR person write out a statement on behalf of the CEO that says that more eloquently seems like a waste of time and resources.
- alphabettsy 6y agoA minority has ruled for quite a long time, but I suspect we’re not talking about the same minority.
- bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y agoEverybody is all up in arms about the implicit biases that emerge when homogenous clusters form in positions of influence, except for when publicly noticing threatens their self-interest...