5 ms·

Has B.Eich done anything do expose his views in the workplace? I don't think so. It's unfair to push your political/societal ideas on others in the company and

Has B.Eich done anything do expose his views in the workplace? I don't think so. It's unfair to push your political/societal ideas on others in the company and demand they conform to them. I am saying that as a note to some employees demanding B.Eich to resign, because of the donation he made. It's getting a bit ridiculous how some people are getting publicly bashed, because of their views. There is clear separation between the person with his views and the company with its vision.

natch 13y ago
My personal views outside of work have little bearing on my ability to do my job. But then, I'm not a CEO. CEOs have to be leaders, and their personal views, separate or not, are very relevant to their ability to lead.
- purringmeow 13y ago
  What does his stance on gay marriage tell you about his ability to lead? It tells me exactly nothing. Has he harrased or fired an employee for being gay? I really doubt that.
  - natch 13y ago
    Life isn't fair, but a sense of fairness is a good starting point for a leader. Not to mention empathy, compassion, and respect for equal treatment of people.
- booop 13y ago
  > CEOs have to be leaders, and their personal views, separate or not, are very relevant to their ability to lead. Utter nonsense. CEOs can have personal and professional lives, just like anyone else. Eich may have opposed gay marriage but this doesn't seem to have affected any policy at Mozilla. Those going crazy over this are only insecure.
dalke 13y ago
When is it fair "to push your political/societal ideas on others in the company and demand they conform to them"? When is it okay to publicly bash people because of their public actions? (Note that I changed "views" to "public actions", since as I understand it the main objection is to a specific public action; donating money to a political cause.) The answer certainly isn't "never". I can think of no clear boundary for when it is/isn't fair or okay. At the very least, I don't think there's always a clear separation between a person and a company's vision. One need only consider the professed vision of "Susan G. Komen for the Cure" vs. the public reactions to the specific views and actions of some of its board. Or going back a few years, consider the 2004 attempted "takeover" of the Sierra Club board by those with a stronger immigration-reduction viewpoint. Personally, I think it's completely fair to demand that others conform with your political/societal ideas. Do you think Stallman would have gotten anywhere with free software if he followed your recommendation? OTOH, I think that it's completely unrealistic to believe that others will always conform with your ideas.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >When is it okay to publicly bash people because of their public actions? Trying to get someone fired from his job is not "publicly bash". The author could have written an essay like "Brandan Eich's views on matter X are bad". He could also have tried to outvote people with Brendan's ideas in actual voting. Asking for a boycott in a company that chose to elect him as a CEO not because of some professional action of Brendan or his company, but because of his private action, is crossing the line. It is bullying. "You have to not be against X or else...". Now it's gay marriage, it could just as well be the 99% or OWS, or gun laws or whatever..
  - dalke 13y ago
    I'm glad you have your opinions. Many other disagree with your opinions, and instead put the line elsewhere. Here's a first-grade teacher who was fired for posting her private views on Facebook. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/teacher-should-be-fired-for-facebook-comment-judge-rules/5375 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/teacher-should-be-fired-f... > "The reason why she was suspended was because the incident created serious problems at the school that impeded the functioning of the building," board president Theodore Best said in a statement at the time. "You can't simply fire someone for what they have on a Facebook page; but if that spills over and affects the classroom then you can take action." A judge agreed with the decision. The final decision is described in http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-jersey-district-dismisses-teacher-wh-58206/ http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-jersey-district-dismiss... . > The ALJ noted that generally public reactions to an individual’s statement cannot limit their rights to free speech, but that “in a public school setting thoughtless words can destroy the partnership between home and school that is essential to the mission of the schools.” The appellate court agreed with the ALJ’s findings. So even in a place with 1st amendment protections, it's still possible for people to call for someone to be fired, and have it happen. Completely legal, even. A bunch of people complained: > Two angry parents went to her principal’s office to express their outrage, and one parent threatened to remove her child from school. The school also received at least a dozen irate phone calls. Twenty to 25 people gathered outside the school to protest because of the statements, and news reporters and camera crews from major news organizations descended upon the school. At the next Home-School Council meeting, the majority of the meeting was devoted to O’Brien’s posts and parents expressed their outrage over the posts. When O’Brien was made aware of the outrage against her posts, she was surprised that her posts had led to such a reaction. Certainly those people disagree that your line exists where you think it does, because they do believe that the teacher's private actions certainly are relevant. BTW, this is not bullying. You are misusing the term. There is no sense of physical or social imbalance of power used to intimidate. People call of the resignation of other people all the time, even for events from private lifes with no direct, significant effect on their professional life. Here's one example: http://voices.yahoo.com/san-francisco-mayor-newsom-admits-adultery-trouble-198831.html?cat=9 http://voices.yahoo.com/san-francisco-mayor-newsom-admits-ad... . Supervisor McGoldrick (of San Francisco) called for Mayor Gavin Newsom's resignation after Newson's affair with Rippey-Tourk become public. I think that who one has sex with is a private matter, so long as both can give legal consent. But it was enough for McGoldrick to say "the mayor failed as a leader and a role model." Your view, if I understand you correctly, is that McGoldrick was bullying, and crossed the line? April Davila, author of that yahoo.com link, disagrees: "McGoldrick can say what he likes, it is (at least for the time being) still a free country, but I for one hope Newsom stays." So you see that many people clearly disagree with your opinion and also with your framing.

natch 13y ago

My personal views outside of work have little bearing on my ability to do my job. But then, I'm not a CEO. CEOs have to be leaders, and their personal views, separate or not, are very relevant to their ability to lead.

purringmeow 13y ago
What does his stance on gay marriage tell you about his ability to lead? It tells me exactly nothing. Has he harrased or fired an employee for being gay? I really doubt that.
- natch 13y ago
  Life isn't fair, but a sense of fairness is a good starting point for a leader. Not to mention empathy, compassion, and respect for equal treatment of people.
booop 13y ago
> CEOs have to be leaders, and their personal views, separate or not, are very relevant to their ability to lead. Utter nonsense. CEOs can have personal and professional lives, just like anyone else. Eich may have opposed gay marriage but this doesn't seem to have affected any policy at Mozilla. Those going crazy over this are only insecure.

dalke 13y ago

When is it fair "to push your political/societal ideas on others in the company and demand they conform to them"? When is it okay to publicly bash people because of their public actions? (Note that I changed "views" to "public actions", since as I understand it the main objection is to a specific public action; donating money to a political cause.) The answer certainly isn't "never". I can think of no clear boundary for when it is/isn't fair or okay. At the very least, I don't think there's always a clear separation between a person and a company's vision. One need only consider the professed vision of "Susan G. Komen for the Cure" vs. the public reactions to the specific views and actions of some of its board. Or going back a few years, consider the 2004 attempted "takeover" of the Sierra Club board by those with a stronger immigration-reduction viewpoint. Personally, I think it's completely fair to demand that others conform with your political/societal ideas. Do you think Stallman would have gotten anywhere with free software if he followed your recommendation? OTOH, I think that it's completely unrealistic to believe that others will always conform with your ideas.

coldtea 13y ago
>When is it okay to publicly bash people because of their public actions? Trying to get someone fired from his job is not "publicly bash". The author could have written an essay like "Brandan Eich's views on matter X are bad". He could also have tried to outvote people with Brendan's ideas in actual voting. Asking for a boycott in a company that chose to elect him as a CEO not because of some professional action of Brendan or his company, but because of his private action, is crossing the line. It is bullying. "You have to not be against X or else...". Now it's gay marriage, it could just as well be the 99% or OWS, or gun laws or whatever..
- dalke 13y ago
  I'm glad you have your opinions. Many other disagree with your opinions, and instead put the line elsewhere. Here's a first-grade teacher who was fired for posting her private views on Facebook. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/teacher-should-be-fired-for-facebook-comment-judge-rules/5375 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/teacher-should-be-fired-f... > "The reason why she was suspended was because the incident created serious problems at the school that impeded the functioning of the building," board president Theodore Best said in a statement at the time. "You can't simply fire someone for what they have on a Facebook page; but if that spills over and affects the classroom then you can take action." A judge agreed with the decision. The final decision is described in http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-jersey-district-dismisses-teacher-wh-58206/ http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-jersey-district-dismiss... . > The ALJ noted that generally public reactions to an individual’s statement cannot limit their rights to free speech, but that “in a public school setting thoughtless words can destroy the partnership between home and school that is essential to the mission of the schools.” The appellate court agreed with the ALJ’s findings. So even in a place with 1st amendment protections, it's still possible for people to call for someone to be fired, and have it happen. Completely legal, even. A bunch of people complained: > Two angry parents went to her principal’s office to express their outrage, and one parent threatened to remove her child from school. The school also received at least a dozen irate phone calls. Twenty to 25 people gathered outside the school to protest because of the statements, and news reporters and camera crews from major news organizations descended upon the school. At the next Home-School Council meeting, the majority of the meeting was devoted to O’Brien’s posts and parents expressed their outrage over the posts. When O’Brien was made aware of the outrage against her posts, she was surprised that her posts had led to such a reaction. Certainly those people disagree that your line exists where you think it does, because they do believe that the teacher's private actions certainly are relevant. BTW, this is not bullying. You are misusing the term. There is no sense of physical or social imbalance of power used to intimidate. People call of the resignation of other people all the time, even for events from private lifes with no direct, significant effect on their professional life. Here's one example: http://voices.yahoo.com/san-francisco-mayor-newsom-admits-adultery-trouble-198831.html?cat=9 http://voices.yahoo.com/san-francisco-mayor-newsom-admits-ad... . Supervisor McGoldrick (of San Francisco) called for Mayor Gavin Newsom's resignation after Newson's affair with Rippey-Tourk become public. I think that who one has sex with is a private matter, so long as both can give legal consent. But it was enough for McGoldrick to say "the mayor failed as a leader and a role model." Your view, if I understand you correctly, is that McGoldrick was bullying, and crossed the line? April Davila, author of that yahoo.com link, disagrees: "McGoldrick can say what he likes, it is (at least for the time being) still a free country, but I for one hope Newsom stays." So you see that many people clearly disagree with your opinion and also with your framing.