4 ms·

They weren't fired for taking a stance, they were fired for how they took the stance.

reactordev 3y ago
This needs to be emphasized more. It's not that they took a stance, it's definitely how they did it that warranted being fired over it.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  What's a good way to take a stance?
  - user_7832 3y ago
    In a quiet email to the CEO which will promptly get deleted, and will never hit any big media or HN's frontpage is what a lot of commenters here would argue for. Being "polite" is nice if the person you're talking to is also nice. If the guy wanted to bring attention to the fact he did it very well.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    I mean, this may be a good way to take a stance, for someone who deeply cares about a particular issue. But it's also definitely going to result in being fired, from any company. The two things aren't incompatible. Lots of good ways to take a stance have deprived lots of people taking those stances of far more than just their jobs, like their freedom, temporarily in many cases (like Dr. King) and permanently in many others (like Navalny). Making a stand is often laudable, but also often personally consequential.
    - GordonS 3y ago
      I'm with you on this. What US-backed Israel is doing is utterly abhorrent, and protesting makes sense; I can understand why an employee wouldn't want to aid them in any way - but with oil and gas off the coast of Northern Gaza, the US about to build a port for it, and the US, UK, France and Germany govs supporting Israel to the hilt, real sanctions are not going to happen. Hell, the west is still supplying Israel with weapons, and Israel hasn't even been kicked out of EuroVision! But... one person disrupting a meeting will have limited effect, and is guaranteed to result in a firing. IMO a better plan would have been a petition, signed by as many employees as possible. Failing that, looking at strike action through union(s) could be a good idea. A single employee has very little power - but if a significant number banded together, their power is much greater.
  - salawat 3y ago
    The manager's preferred way is with them in private so they can keep their thumb on the network effects and optics, or just bury it altogether. Any means of generating substantive resonance within an org is jealously reserved by those at the top of an organizational hierarchy. It's a Catch-22, but part of Activist 101. If you aren't drawing ire, getting retaliated against, or getting surveilled by someone, odds are you aren't being a terribly effective Activist.
  - reactordev 3y ago
    Others have commented on different avenues and the consequence of it. I will introduce you to another way. Organizing. If you dislike a stance your company or community has, organize others that feel this way and plead your case to the company or community. Unions do this. Student Orgs do this. Political dissent does this. It's probably the most effective method for getting the unheard, heard. The guy should have started a movement, or a group, using the points from the guest speaker on why they shouldn't have had that speaker, etc etc... This organization of people holds more weight than an individual. This is the way. Almost every state now has at-will employment laws. The company doesn't need a reason to get rid of you.
- name_nick_sex_m 3y ago
  As with any real way to take a stance. You will get fired/jailed. Which is why we all continue to support our corporate overlords.
salawat 3y ago
The go to excuse of every apologist ever, which will be applied to anyone that takes a stand in an effective manner. The being fired is an implicit sign that the people trying to control the collective narrative of the organization feel their grip slipping.
- seneca 3y ago
  > The go to excuse of every apologist ever, which will be applied to anyone that takes a stand in an effective manner. Nothing about screaming in the middle of a meeting is effective. It's just a selfish tantrum. It doesn't change anyone's mind. > The being fired is an implicit sign that the people trying to control the collective narrative of the organization feel their grip slipping. Fantasy thinking, pure and simple. Being fired is a sure sign that the employee did something dramatic and pointless, and suffered the consequences.
PheonixPharts 3y ago
But how he did it is the important part. I mean Aaron Bushnell could have written angry letters to his representatives, but he didn't. He lit himself on fire outside of the Israel embassy after declaring he would not take part in genocide and screamed "free Palestine" with his dying breath. And because of that, today I am writing about what he had to say. If you think the correct response to genocide is politically discussing it with management then I don't think you really understand the gravity of the situation.
Yasuraka 3y ago
I suppose he knew he was out either way, at least this way it's harder to cover up. Google is known to retaliate in backhanded ways when people take a stance in a way that is allowed, such as Ms Koren in 2022 > Agree to move to São Paulo, Brazil, within 17 business days or lose your job. https://web.archive.org/web/20240226163002/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/30/technology/google-employee-israel.html https://web.archive.org/web/20240226163002/https://www.nytim...
- name_nick_sex_m 3y ago
  Internally Google has a super pro-isreal constituency (i.e. jewglers), and seems to viciously retaliate against alternate viewpoints. https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001460684#utm_source=RSS https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001460684#ut...

This needs to be emphasized more. It's not that they took a stance, it's definitely how they did it that warranted being fired over it.

hayst4ck 3y ago
What's a good way to take a stance?
- user_7832 3y ago
  In a quiet email to the CEO which will promptly get deleted, and will never hit any big media or HN's frontpage is what a lot of commenters here would argue for. Being "polite" is nice if the person you're talking to is also nice. If the guy wanted to bring attention to the fact he did it very well.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  I mean, this may be a good way to take a stance, for someone who deeply cares about a particular issue. But it's also definitely going to result in being fired, from any company. The two things aren't incompatible. Lots of good ways to take a stance have deprived lots of people taking those stances of far more than just their jobs, like their freedom, temporarily in many cases (like Dr. King) and permanently in many others (like Navalny). Making a stand is often laudable, but also often personally consequential.
  - GordonS 3y ago
    I'm with you on this. What US-backed Israel is doing is utterly abhorrent, and protesting makes sense; I can understand why an employee wouldn't want to aid them in any way - but with oil and gas off the coast of Northern Gaza, the US about to build a port for it, and the US, UK, France and Germany govs supporting Israel to the hilt, real sanctions are not going to happen. Hell, the west is still supplying Israel with weapons, and Israel hasn't even been kicked out of EuroVision! But... one person disrupting a meeting will have limited effect, and is guaranteed to result in a firing. IMO a better plan would have been a petition, signed by as many employees as possible. Failing that, looking at strike action through union(s) could be a good idea. A single employee has very little power - but if a significant number banded together, their power is much greater.
- salawat 3y ago
  The manager's preferred way is with them in private so they can keep their thumb on the network effects and optics, or just bury it altogether. Any means of generating substantive resonance within an org is jealously reserved by those at the top of an organizational hierarchy. It's a Catch-22, but part of Activist 101. If you aren't drawing ire, getting retaliated against, or getting surveilled by someone, odds are you aren't being a terribly effective Activist.
- reactordev 3y ago
  Others have commented on different avenues and the consequence of it. I will introduce you to another way. Organizing. If you dislike a stance your company or community has, organize others that feel this way and plead your case to the company or community. Unions do this. Student Orgs do this. Political dissent does this. It's probably the most effective method for getting the unheard, heard. The guy should have started a movement, or a group, using the points from the guest speaker on why they shouldn't have had that speaker, etc etc... This organization of people holds more weight than an individual. This is the way. Almost every state now has at-will employment laws. The company doesn't need a reason to get rid of you.
name_nick_sex_m 3y ago
As with any real way to take a stance. You will get fired/jailed. Which is why we all continue to support our corporate overlords.

salawat 3y ago

The go to excuse of every apologist ever, which will be applied to anyone that takes a stand in an effective manner. The being fired is an implicit sign that the people trying to control the collective narrative of the organization feel their grip slipping.

seneca 3y ago
> The go to excuse of every apologist ever, which will be applied to anyone that takes a stand in an effective manner. Nothing about screaming in the middle of a meeting is effective. It's just a selfish tantrum. It doesn't change anyone's mind. > The being fired is an implicit sign that the people trying to control the collective narrative of the organization feel their grip slipping. Fantasy thinking, pure and simple. Being fired is a sure sign that the employee did something dramatic and pointless, and suffered the consequences.

PheonixPharts 3y ago

But how he did it is the important part. I mean Aaron Bushnell could have written angry letters to his representatives, but he didn't. He lit himself on fire outside of the Israel embassy after declaring he would not take part in genocide and screamed "free Palestine" with his dying breath. And because of that, today I am writing about what he had to say. If you think the correct response to genocide is politically discussing it with management then I don't think you really understand the gravity of the situation.

Yasuraka 3y ago

I suppose he knew he was out either way, at least this way it's harder to cover up. Google is known to retaliate in backhanded ways when people take a stance in a way that is allowed, such as Ms Koren in 2022 > Agree to move to São Paulo, Brazil, within 17 business days or lose your job. https://web.archive.org/web/20240226163002/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/30/technology/google-employee-israel.html https://web.archive.org/web/20240226163002/https://www.nytim...

name_nick_sex_m 3y ago
Internally Google has a super pro-isreal constituency (i.e. jewglers), and seems to viciously retaliate against alternate viewpoints. https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001460684#utm_source=RSS https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001460684#ut...