[Momerath]

Mozilla gets most of it's funding from Google. Google was anti-prop 8. The Mozilla board may have been worried that Google would pull that funding and placed pressure on him to step down. In all things, follow the money.

There is an article over on Slashdot about this.

This post has been edited by Momerath: 05 April 2014 - 01:35 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

baavgai, on 05 April 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:

jon.kiparsky, on 04 April 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

my problem is to convince him that he's wrong, not to beat him with a stick until he stops acting on his beliefs

Fair enough. And if his belief were that nudism should be practiced in the workplace? Depending on his work environment, this might be acceptable. In most offices, probably not.

It's always acceptable to believe that. It's also always acceptable to advocate for that belief, in any situation where political advocacy is generally acceptable. So for example, you'd be expected to not spend your working hours talking about the nudism ballot measure, but nobody could fault you for donating to a campaign to support or oppose it. Acting on that belief is another matter. It's certainly reasonable for an employer to place certain restrictions on attire in the workplace, and many employers do so. Requiring that an employee be clothed when they're in the office or in the public representing the company does not violate the employee's right to believe that the restriction is unfair.

As far as I can see, Eich's beliefs had nothing at all to do with his actions at Mozilla - the only ground for complaint was his participation in the democratic process by making a political contribution. So I'm not sure how your nudism in the workplace example comes into it.

If Eich were accused of acting in a discriminatory fashion towards gay employees, for example by not respecting their legally valid marriages or in other ways, then I could see a case for getting rid of him. I can cut it even closer: suppose Mozilla had considered adopting some policy of recognition of gay marriages, even when not legally sanctioned, as some companies have done - for example, a policy of recognizing "life partners", broadly defined, in the same way as a legal spouse would be recognized. And suppose further that Eich had taken a stand against that policy, and prevented its enactment. In that case, I think that someone would have a grounds for complaint against him - a weak one, perhaps, but a real one. Disagreeing with me on a political contest is not a grounds for dismissal, in my book.
It's really not that complicated. If I were running a company, and an employee came to me saying "I can't work with baavgai because I don't like his political views", I'd wish them luck in their next job. Apparently, that's not a popular position. Oh, well. Misanthropy stands confirmed once more.

Quote

The point is, a society, in this case the crucible of a company, determines the level of acceptable behavior. Indeed, many professions, like teachers, sign contracts that outline what a "morals" clause entails.

Show me a morals clause that restricts your right to engage in normal political activity. Is there a teacher who isn't allowed to give money to one cause or another?

Quote

It should also be noted that damn near every company has ethics guidelines against discrimination. You might argue that you many discriminate on your own time, but doing so publicly enough does call your bias into question.

That's going way beyond the claims of his persecutors. There is no charge that he indulged in any discriminatory behavior whatsoever, he is accused only of supporting a political campaign. Let's not invent facts.

Quote

If your behavior falls outside what is acceptable in a company, regardless of how acceptable is in society as a whole, you're fired. Mozilla judged certain behaviors to be unacceptable. Period.

Mozilla gave in to public pressure. I understand that, and while I would have a lot more respect for a company management team that showed a little balls, yes, they had the right to push him out. The CEO is largely a ceremonial position, and if the holder of that position is tarnished, the company can find a new person for the role. That's all understood. The people I'm most concerned about are the ones who caused this to be an issue - the ordinary people who are perfectly willing to join in the campaign to destroy someone by whatever means convenient if that person doesn't toe their line. That's a lot of people in this country today, and that really scares me, particularly since so many of those people mouth good slogans, though they obviously don't believe them, about human rights and civil liberties. Hypocrisy is always ugly, but now it's becoming downright dangerous.

Let's bear in mind that it wasn't too long ago that it was people on the left who were destroyed for their political associations. Why is McCarthy's ghost out and walking today? And why is he playing for my team?

[baavgai]

jon.kiparsky, on 05 April 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

Show me a morals clause that restricts your right to engage in normal political activity. Is there a teacher who isn't allowed to give money to one cause or another?

Actually, there are a positions that restrict political activity. I am a State employee; there is a list of activities that are considered in conflict. Teachers often have rules about local positions dealing with school boards, etc. With a little imagination, I'm sure you can figure out causes were a donation might give the impression of impropriety.

Not that this really parallels how one feels about marriage equality. However, it's clear some folks at Mozilla took the issue very seriously. Perhaps his position on this was seen in that company as conflict. Eich did resign. We can only speculate internal conflicts that lead to that.

McCarthy hunted for commies, as Salem hunted for witches, and found them even where they didn't exist. The extent to which that situation is similar to this one is tenuous at best. It looks a little like Godwin's Law, pinko edition.

This post has been edited by baavgai: 05 April 2014 - 06:30 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

However, it's clear some folks at Mozilla took the issue very seriously.

I don't see how that matters. I'm sure plenty of bigots take their bigotry quite seriously. That doesn't excuse their behavior. The question is, is there anything to take seriously? If so, I think they would have mentioned it. They didn't. The only thing they brought against the guy is a perfectly legitimate act taken as a private citizen, six years ago, which had no connection to his work in any way. Again, if there were anything against him in his work at Mozilla, that would be another story, but I'm only interested in discussing the actual charge that was actually brought up: participation in the political process.

If anyone thinks that's a firing offense, I wish they would come forward and explain why.

Quote

McCarthy hunted for commies, as Salem hunted for witches, and found them even where they didn't exist.

The left just found a bigot where one didn't exist. So the cases are maybe not so far off.

baavgai, on 05 April 2014 - 08:30 PM, said:

Actually, there are a positions that restrict political activity. I am a State employee; there is a list of activities that are considered in conflict. Teachers often have rules about local positions dealing with school boards, etc.

Fair enough, but joining the school board a little above "normal" political activity, I'd think - particularly when the school board governs your work.
Does anyone tell you what political causes you can donate to, or what beliefs you can hold, or how you may or may not cast your vote?

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 06 April 2014 - 08:38 PM

[KYA]

Apparently this donation factoid was known and caused a stir in March of 2012. Almost two years to the day. So the board of Mozilla ignored this and bumped him up anyway? Or they didn't vet the CEO. Either way, Mozilla's attempt to take the moral high ground after what can only be a forced resignation is a butthole move.

[belgarion262]

When he was CTO they could ride out the wave, since it was small. When he became CEO the wave was that much larger, meaning they had to dump some weight.

[baavgai]

jon.kiparsky, on 05 April 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

Quote

However, it's clear some folks at Mozilla took the issue very seriously.

I don't see how that matters. I'm sure plenty of bigots take their bigotry quite seriously.

The people who disapproved of their CEO's actions are now bigots? That's another argument, I think.

First, I see your point. Our CEO participated in an open process, in an open society, and was persecuted because of it. Granted.

The nature of his offense may seem trivial; donating a relatively minor sum to some cause. However, the nature of that cause is important and the emotions surrounding it are not inconsequential.

His actions made his employees feel threatened. As much as if he burned crosses on weekends; which he's also allowed to do. The employees publicly asked for his resignation because of this. Ultimately, he did.

Honestly, I have mixed feeling about the whole thing. I see both sides. And clearly there ended up being more players here than just Eich and the employees of his company. Ultimately, I guess I have more sympathy for employees that may have perceived a hostile work environment than the CEO's right to finance bigotry.

[depricated]

I love how with jon, this guy isn't being a bigot but anyone who thinks he's wrong is a bigot.

That word. You keep using it. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[belgarion262]

[jon.kiparsky]

baavgai, on 07 April 2014 - 08:04 AM, said:

jon.kiparsky, on 05 April 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

Quote

However, it's clear some folks at Mozilla took the issue very seriously.

I don't see how that matters. I'm sure plenty of bigots take their bigotry quite seriously.

The people who disapproved of their CEO's actions are now bigots? That's another argument, I think. />/>

No, you're missing the point. The fact that someone "takes an issue seriously" doesn't excuse anything, if what they do is wrong. The fact that the people at Mozilla "took the issue seriously" doesn't have any bearing on the matter. As I said, the question is whether there was anything there to take seriously - if not, they acted wrongly, no matter how "seriously" they took it. Whatever that's meant to mean - it certainly doesn't seem to me that anyone took this issue seriously in the sense of thinking about what they were doing, considering the implications, and so forth. If they'd taken it seriously enough to think about what they were doing, they probably wouldn't have done it, considering that at least some of these people tell themselves that they believe in things like freedom of conscience and civil rights and so forth. A little shame might have come into their heads if they'd actually taken the issue seriously in the way we usually mean that phrase.

Instead, I think "they took it seriously" here means something like when you say someone "feels passionately" about an issue - it just means we're not supposed to evaluate their actions in a consistent ethical framework, we're supposed to just let them do whatever they want.

Quote

His actions made his employees feel threatened.

What actions made his employees feel threatened? No such actions have been cited that I know of. Trying to rationalize this just isn't going to work. There's nothing that Mozilla or Mozilla employees know today that they didn't know when they were evaluating this guy for the position. They have plenty of experience with who he is and how he handles a position of leadership, and they chose to put him in the CEO position. Nothing affecting that decision changed between the time he was hired and the time he resigned. Nothing was learned, no new facts were revealed. So trying to say that this is something he did, or that this made any sense at all, is just not going to fly. This was a simple witch hunt. The question is, do you change your opinion about whether someone has the right to hold a political position and support a political cause based on whether you agree with that position or support that cause?

Here's a thought experiment Let's suppose that some random CEO is fired next week because it turns out that he gave money years ago to support a woman's right to choice - pick your ballot measure, there have been plenty to choose from in recent years. And again, let's suppose that this was known prior to his being put into the position, and his actual behavior is not called into question - that is, it's the same circumstances as the Eich case, only this time you agree with the cause he supported.
What would be your position on this case? Remember: nothing changes after he's hired except that the mob shows up with their torches and pitchforks. And this time they're not your preferred mob.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 07 April 2014 - 07:16 AM

[baavgai]

jon.kiparsky, on 07 April 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

No, you're missing the point.

Indeed.

In context, taking the issue seriously means not ignoring a behaviour one feels strongly about. Making a public pronouncement ( tweeting ) that you are an employee and want the CEO to step down is pretty serious. These were no anonymous statements; depending on the environment, reprisals could be feared.

That you take such a phrase to mean something completely different and then question the ethics of it is... missing the point.

jon.kiparsky, on 07 April 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

What actions made his employees feel threatened?

Still missing. It's curious this is even a question. Your boss funds legislation that will deny you freedoms that others have, essentially labeling you a second class citizen and you feel... what? Loved? Grateful? Not threatened? Really?

jon.kiparsky, on 07 April 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

Let's suppose that some random CEO is fired next week because it turns out that he gave money years ago to support a woman's right to choice

Again, I understand this point. The question, then, is how this stance impacts the company and the employees therein. For Hobby Lobby, this could be a problem. I'd personally find it rather disappointing when such a company shuns your hypothetical pro-lifer, but then I find such companies disappointing regardless. I'd hardly be surprised.

This post has been edited by baavgai: 07 April 2014 - 08:26 AM

[Choscura]

The guy had other ways out. He could have recanted his views and donated some similar (even lesser) amount to the other side of the issue, and he took the way out that meant he didn't have to admit he was wrong.

If he'd even come out and asked if he were right or wrong, and publicly examined both sides of the issue, I'd still be on his side with this, and say the thing that lots of people are saying- that it's his personal opinion and he's entitled to it, and we should put up with his shit because he's good enough at his job.

But he didn't do that.

So fuck him.

[Bort]

He also could have easily came out and said, "These are my personal views. They have nothing to do with Mozilla. Why am I being targeted for my beliefs now when they haven't made a difference in the years I have worked here?"

If he was trying to change Mozilla company policy, then yeah, I may have a bit of a problem with that, but as it stands, he is now being harrassed for his personal views. That is not on in any company in the UK, or, I believe, also in the US. I'd like to say the rest of the world too, but we all know it isn't true.

So, discriminated against for holding non-popular beliefs, is it the First Amendment that protects your right to free speech?

This is a sticky situation, but I think Mozilla is in the wrong here. That doesn't mean I am homophobic.

[belgarion262]

It was morally wrong to get rid of him/for him to go. but practically speaking, Mozilla couldn't be seen to endorse his views even vaguely. So much of a companies value is tied up in the public perception, and it doesn't take much to start a landslide against them.

[jon.kiparsky]

baavgai, on 07 April 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

jon.kiparsky, on 07 April 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

What actions made his employees feel threatened?

Still missing. It's curious this is even a question. Your boss funds legislation that will deny you freedoms that others have, essentially labeling you a second class citizen and you feel... what? Loved? Grateful? Not threatened? Really?

Certainly not loved or grateful, but just as certainly not threatened. Really.
And of course, that action was well and widely known by all concerned when he was hired - meaning it makes no sense at all to use it as a basis for firing him two weeks later.

Quote

jon.kiparsky, on 07 April 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

Let's suppose that some random CEO is fired next week because it turns out that he gave money years ago to support a woman's right to choice

Again, I understand this point. The question, then, is how this stance impacts the company and the employees therein. For Hobby Lobby, this could be a problem. I'd personally find it rather disappointing when such a company shuns your hypothetical pro-lifer, but then I find such companies disappointing regardless. I'd hardly be surprised.

As I've said several times, I'm much more concerned about the baying mob than I am about the cowardly company that gives in to it. I expect companies to give in to market pressures. I'm pleasantly surprised when they take principled stands, particularly when those stands are ones I agree with, but they exist to make money. I understand that. I'm not talking about Mozilla's actions - I've said that before, but I'll repeat it if needed.

My question was about the person who takes a pro-choice stance by donating to or volunteering for a pro-choice political campaign, and whether you think they have some rights to political speech which should be respected. I personally think they do, and I think it would be ethically wrong to call for them to be sanctioned simply for taking that stand in that way. I think I would be a hypocrite to then turn around and think it ethically acceptable to call for the ouster of someone who does exactly the same thing, when the only difference is that that person disagrees with me.

As long as I'm spinning hypotheticals, I think that the pro-choice CEO would be out of line if, for example, they pressed their political views in the workplace, or in other ways imposed their views on their subordinates, or if they represented their position as if it were the company's position, if that were not the case. And in that case, I'd agree that they should not hold that position - just as I'd agree in a heartbeat that Eich should have been fired if there were a credible claim that he'd tried to impose his views on his subordinates or in any way denigrated his employees for their sexuality. In other words, if his actions as CEO had been inappropriate, I'd have no problem with calling for his resignation from the position of CEO. But nobody, to my knowledge, has pointed to any action he took as CEO which seems in any way inappropriate. So I don't see how I can take seriously the notion that this was anything but a witch hunt.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 07 April 2014 - 08:58 AM