5 ms·

And here, ladies and gents, is why companies like Microsoft, will eternally resist getting aligned with internal employee groups Resisting selling to government

by mrkstu 6y ago

And here, ladies and gents, is why companies like Microsoft, will eternally resist getting aligned with internal employee groups Resisting selling to government entities, whether ICE or the Army. There is way too much money to be lost.

tmotwu 6y ago
I mean, outspoken internal employee groups exist and higher ups acknowledge them. Satya drives home the empathy and feelings message more than any other CEO. And AFAIK, I don't recall an instance of Microsoft suppressing an employee's voice similar to what happens at Google frequently. They tried getting their employees to participate in their internal social networks but it never caught any attention. Microsoft just does a better job convincing their employees everything they do is for the greater good.
- gundmc 6y ago
  Google has also had several high profile cases of abandoning pursuit of extremely lucrative military/government contracts due to backlash from employees.
  - encryptluks2 6y ago
    If I had to choose between Google and Microsoft on which company I trusted the most to more good, I'd choose Google time and time again.
- mav3rick 6y ago
  LOL Microsoft has few forums to even voice your concern. You can't even share your salaries within Microsoft. It's such a joke to tout it as more employee friendly than Google. For starters it pays lesser across the board. Google has also backed out of many contracts when dissent was raised. The voices aren't suppressed at Microsoft, because there're no avenues to raise them anyway.
  - tmotwu 6y ago
    Yet people do voice and raise their concerns through those avenues. Just because it's underutilized, it certainly counts. Does Google have more than I am not aware about? You can't share your salaries internally at many places through official means, but it's not uncommon for people to create giant anonymous spreadsheets on salaries and share them among colleagues. Microsoft isn't THAT secretive on salaries and salary levels. I'm not exactly sure what point you're refuting?
    - mav3rick 6y ago
      The point I'm refuting is that there are far less avenues in Microsoft for employees to collectively complain or share information together or dissent against the top brass.
      - tmotwu 6y ago
        Without examples of your claim, how would I know?
        mav3rick 6y ago
        Tell me one avenue where employees have complained ? Satyas QnA ? And like you said no one does anything there. You really believe 150k people are all aligned with military contracts ? At Google there are at least 4 company level avenues to raise your voice. You can Google them. And Google has walked back on contracts after backlash on employees. So clearly there is more proactive action here. At Microsoft there is both employees are too meek or don't care and employees can't even voice their concerns. Cycle keeps going on and on.
        tmotwu 6y ago
        Again, the vast majority of the 150,000 are not R&D and don't really have anything to do with product development to even matter. Yammer, Satyas QnA - which I'm glad you mentioned because organized groups send a representative every time to talk about government contracts - quarterly all hands, etc. Not to mention the Surface/Hololens org, the org responsible for the tech, holds all hands for their teams very frequently. Sometimes, your org head could be sharing your floor, they don't have special offices. No one's voice is suppressed and no one is being meek, I don't even know how leadership would be able to control that anyway. The simple facts are - 1) there's a small coalition of employees who feel one way about it, 2) not all concerns raised are valid ones and has a need to be addressed - because frankly, it's really a good thing leadership can stand their ground and not sway on the voices of a few employees, no? The proactive action being taken here is the ability to stick with a common sense perspective, not proactively fire your employees for saying mean things about their employer.
golemiprague 6y ago
There is also a matter of principle, selling to the government is not something bad in itself. You are also benefiting from the protection that the soldiers give you, why do you thing you or some corporate should have an access to this technology but they shouldn't? If you think their job is unnecessary then just vote for someone who wills to abolish the army and live with the consquences but I don't think there is one person who thinks that's a good idea.
someonehere 6y ago
This makes me happy as we don’t lose out to technologically leapfrogging China and their military.
- WebDanube 6y ago
  True. This opinion is controversial, but I do feel if the United States doesn't invest in military tech R&D, someone else is going to do it. And that someone else is an authoritarian, one-party state that has a completely different set of values from the West. Of course, military efficiency can be made better, but it's super important to keep tabs on the 'enemy,' so to speak. We're in an arms race, whether we like it or not.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
And this is why people like me will take their place.
f154hfds 6y ago
Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft. This idea that 'no military contracts can be justified for any reason' doesn't make sense to me. I think there's room for debate on each contract's potential value to civilians, but at a high level I see so many technologies in our world today that just simply wouldn't exist without the US defense budget. Employee groups like the ones you refer to above have an overly simplistic lens of the world. Even if I think a tech is dubious doesn't mean posterity will always agree. Did we understand the value of technologies like radar, GPS, ARPANET when they were simply dollar figures getting thrown at military contractors?
neatze 6y ago
So what do you do if your neighbor decides to take you computer from your own house ? What nation should do if another nation decides to impose tariffs on resources that does not belong to them ? Army is about readiness to use directed violence to stop people/organization/nations taking what does not belong to them, there also support functions related to emergency services in case of natural, technological or other emergency situations. People who never experienced emergency situations, don't even think about what they would do and how they should they be prepared in case of fire in there own house. State of safety and security processes is taken for granted, unfortunately, by most people.
RestlessMind 6y ago
Microsoft is an American company[1]. Supporting government entities, including army, is essential to long term survival of any nation. If you believe that supporting your government/military is not essential, please go and take some history lessons. Pacifist societies are always conquered and occupied by their invaders; military might is essential (though not sufficient) for a thriving independent society. [1] yes, I know about global offices and global workforce. But it is still an American company in terms of leadership, culture and values.
- mrkstu 6y ago
  Note that I didn’t state an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the company’s or employee’s stances, just reminding people that a corporation, at it’s heart, is a mechanism for making money.
paxys 6y ago
Microsoft in general has employees who are happy to work 9-5 and go home rather than the activist sorts. Pushback, if any, comes from a very very small set. The articles mentions that 94 workers voiced concerns when they announced the original contracts, which isn't worth even talking about.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway0x2 6y ago
It's also why they weaponize "wokeism". They can virtue signal around changing the "master" branch to "main", and then pat themselves on the back and show their leftist employees they're on their side all while working directly with DoD, ICE, etc.

by mrkstu 6y ago

tmotwu 6y ago

I mean, outspoken internal employee groups exist and higher ups acknowledge them. Satya drives home the empathy and feelings message more than any other CEO. And AFAIK, I don't recall an instance of Microsoft suppressing an employee's voice similar to what happens at Google frequently. They tried getting their employees to participate in their internal social networks but it never caught any attention. Microsoft just does a better job convincing their employees everything they do is for the greater good.

gundmc 6y ago
Google has also had several high profile cases of abandoning pursuit of extremely lucrative military/government contracts due to backlash from employees.
- encryptluks2 6y ago
  If I had to choose between Google and Microsoft on which company I trusted the most to more good, I'd choose Google time and time again.
mav3rick 6y ago
LOL Microsoft has few forums to even voice your concern. You can't even share your salaries within Microsoft. It's such a joke to tout it as more employee friendly than Google. For starters it pays lesser across the board. Google has also backed out of many contracts when dissent was raised. The voices aren't suppressed at Microsoft, because there're no avenues to raise them anyway.
- tmotwu 6y ago
  Yet people do voice and raise their concerns through those avenues. Just because it's underutilized, it certainly counts. Does Google have more than I am not aware about? You can't share your salaries internally at many places through official means, but it's not uncommon for people to create giant anonymous spreadsheets on salaries and share them among colleagues. Microsoft isn't THAT secretive on salaries and salary levels. I'm not exactly sure what point you're refuting?
  - mav3rick 6y ago
    The point I'm refuting is that there are far less avenues in Microsoft for employees to collectively complain or share information together or dissent against the top brass.
    - tmotwu 6y ago
      Without examples of your claim, how would I know?
      - mav3rick 6y ago
        Tell me one avenue where employees have complained ? Satyas QnA ? And like you said no one does anything there. You really believe 150k people are all aligned with military contracts ? At Google there are at least 4 company level avenues to raise your voice. You can Google them. And Google has walked back on contracts after backlash on employees. So clearly there is more proactive action here. At Microsoft there is both employees are too meek or don't care and employees can't even voice their concerns. Cycle keeps going on and on.
        tmotwu 6y ago
        Again, the vast majority of the 150,000 are not R&D and don't really have anything to do with product development to even matter. Yammer, Satyas QnA - which I'm glad you mentioned because organized groups send a representative every time to talk about government contracts - quarterly all hands, etc. Not to mention the Surface/Hololens org, the org responsible for the tech, holds all hands for their teams very frequently. Sometimes, your org head could be sharing your floor, they don't have special offices. No one's voice is suppressed and no one is being meek, I don't even know how leadership would be able to control that anyway. The simple facts are - 1) there's a small coalition of employees who feel one way about it, 2) not all concerns raised are valid ones and has a need to be addressed - because frankly, it's really a good thing leadership can stand their ground and not sway on the voices of a few employees, no? The proactive action being taken here is the ability to stick with a common sense perspective, not proactively fire your employees for saying mean things about their employer.

golemiprague 6y ago

There is also a matter of principle, selling to the government is not something bad in itself. You are also benefiting from the protection that the soldiers give you, why do you thing you or some corporate should have an access to this technology but they shouldn't? If you think their job is unnecessary then just vote for someone who wills to abolish the army and live with the consquences but I don't think there is one person who thinks that's a good idea.

someonehere 6y ago

This makes me happy as we don’t lose out to technologically leapfrogging China and their military.

WebDanube 6y ago
True. This opinion is controversial, but I do feel if the United States doesn't invest in military tech R&D, someone else is going to do it. And that someone else is an authoritarian, one-party state that has a completely different set of values from the West. Of course, military efficiency can be made better, but it's super important to keep tabs on the 'enemy,' so to speak. We're in an arms race, whether we like it or not.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

And this is why people like me will take their place.

f154hfds 6y ago

Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft. This idea that 'no military contracts can be justified for any reason' doesn't make sense to me. I think there's room for debate on each contract's potential value to civilians, but at a high level I see so many technologies in our world today that just simply wouldn't exist without the US defense budget. Employee groups like the ones you refer to above have an overly simplistic lens of the world. Even if I think a tech is dubious doesn't mean posterity will always agree. Did we understand the value of technologies like radar, GPS, ARPANET when they were simply dollar figures getting thrown at military contractors?

neatze 6y ago

So what do you do if your neighbor decides to take you computer from your own house ? What nation should do if another nation decides to impose tariffs on resources that does not belong to them ? Army is about readiness to use directed violence to stop people/organization/nations taking what does not belong to them, there also support functions related to emergency services in case of natural, technological or other emergency situations. People who never experienced emergency situations, don't even think about what they would do and how they should they be prepared in case of fire in there own house. State of safety and security processes is taken for granted, unfortunately, by most people.

RestlessMind 6y ago

Microsoft is an American company[1]. Supporting government entities, including army, is essential to long term survival of any nation. If you believe that supporting your government/military is not essential, please go and take some history lessons. Pacifist societies are always conquered and occupied by their invaders; military might is essential (though not sufficient) for a thriving independent society. [1] yes, I know about global offices and global workforce. But it is still an American company in terms of leadership, culture and values.

mrkstu 6y ago
Note that I didn’t state an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the company’s or employee’s stances, just reminding people that a corporation, at it’s heart, is a mechanism for making money.

paxys 6y ago

Microsoft in general has employees who are happy to work 9-5 and go home rather than the activist sorts. Pushback, if any, comes from a very very small set. The articles mentions that 94 workers voiced concerns when they announced the original contracts, which isn't worth even talking about.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throwaway0x2 6y ago

It's also why they weaponize "wokeism". They can virtue signal around changing the "master" branch to "main", and then pat themselves on the back and show their leftist employees they're on their side all while working directly with DoD, ICE, etc.