Applause... You describe it perfectly. I "hide" in plane sight for that reason. The Liberals are the Communists of today - best to quietly do what is necessarily. They cannot harm you if you smack them with a pipe and call it good. They want to play rough - they will the ones left bleeding... They want to limit my freedoms - I will limit theirs and much more robustly...
I don't agree with the actions of Mozilla or the gay thought police (even though I have NO issues with gay marriage).
I also disagree with you.
The first amendment's free speech protection has nothing to do with the actions of private companies. It is ONLY about what the government may not do. Do you really want to give the government more control over free enterprise? Doesn't the government already have to much control over employers? Isn't the goal of a company to make as much profit as possible? If a company's board of directors have a CEO who they think will be unpopular and may cost them sales, they have every right to ask for his resignation. Again, if it was my decision, I would have kept the guy at his post and said fuck the social justice warriors; but it isn't my decision, nor is it your's. It is the decision of the people who have money on the line. You don't like it, you can:
A. Write to Mozilla explaining your disagreement and try to convince them that they made a mistake.
B. Not buy Mozilla's products.
C. Nothing
(D. I would have also said become 51% shareholder in the company, but Mozilla issues no stock.)
Please don't try to get the gov't more involved in the economy. That will just make things much, much worse.
It is not about getting the government more involved in the economy. This is strictly a labor issue, which is something the government must be involved in.
Labor disputes are always characterized by two parties, who are always at opposite sides of the power spectrum. The government's job, has traditionally been to serve as a shield for that weaker party(this being the employee) so that it can adequately excercise it's rights against the stronger party (the employer) who more often than not, has ample funds that it is able to trample over their rights.
If you assume that it is the employer's right to terminate an employee who might be unpopular(a reasoning independent of profits whatsoever) for their personal beliefs, then why was he hired in the first place? Where will this end?
Picture the following: One day, someone finds out you stand up to wipe your ass instead of just lifting a buttcheek and begins a campaign to get you fired because they do not believe it is normal. Eventually it spirals out into memes and so much social attention that it becomes a distraction and the company decides to fire you. In such a case, were they justified?
Guess what, with current laws and regulations, they are. Which means they don't have to pay you shit. And then imagine how hard it will be to get another job, since you're the 'stands to wipe guy'. You will end up unemployed and collecting welfare, becoming a burden on taxpayers & the government.
So, faced with that scenario and a descision, would you not prefer Government regulations against employees being fired for personal beliefs & political inclinations without proper indemnization?
With regard to Adria Richards, it's worth noting that she was also terminated from her place of employment as a result of the incident. I can't confirm it, but appears that she's not been hired elsewhere and does consulting work now.
So, you're saying that I can go out into our capitalist, free-enterprise economy... and I'm free to create my OWN company, which I OWN and CONTROL PRIVATELY, I can hire people based on contracts that I CREATE, but I can't fire some one if I want to?
You're saying that you want to allow the government to step in, and tell me, "you can't fire that person. You MUST keep them as an employee of your business.
You're saying that if I, as the PRIVATE OWNER of the company, choose to fire someone for an issue that YOU disagree with, I'm a coward? A scumbag?
The guy trying to force private businesses to adhere to the terms HE wants, isn't a scumbag?
You don't see the irony of your mocking people for viewing themselves as heroic, while you go on your little "watch myself talk" rant?
I think I get it. A private business is allowed to operate how that business sees fit... unless Captain Capitalism has a differing opinion about something.
"I want to force my opinion on a business because they have an opinion with which I disagree."
Lost in this discussion is the fact that there already are laws on the books of the type mentioned toward the end of the podcast. There is one in California. Firing this guy just for political activity would have been illegal. I'm not sure what would happen if the company said his political activity was harming customer relations, but I doubt that's a valid defense.
Eich is a unique case because he founded the company and just decided it wasn't worth fighting this whole thing and bringing down the company (though that would not have happened). Plus, he was probably working for compensation below his market value just out of loyalty to the company he founded. The other unusual thing about Eich's situation is that this issue was already known and discussed withini the company before they appointed him CEO, but when they appointed him all hell broke loose, starting with gay employees.
The dongle case obviously wasn't about politics, but to me was more eggregious on the part of the company the way it threw its employees under the bus for something so trivial.
No I would not prefer government regulations against employees being fired for personal beliefs & political inclinations without proper indemnization.
The only time government should get involved is if there was a breach of contract. If an employee can quit his/her job at any time for any reason (such as disagreeing with his/her employer's political ideas), then the employer should be free to fire anyone for any reason. (So long as it does not breach a signed contract.)
Employers are not somehow 'stronger' then the workers. They both need each other.
Applause... You describe it perfectly. I "hide" in plane sight for that reason. The Liberals are the Communists of today - best to quietly do what is necessarily. They cannot harm you if you smack them with a pipe and call it good. They want to play rough - they will the ones left bleeding... They want to limit my freedoms - I will limit theirs and much more robustly...
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the actions of Mozilla or the gay thought police (even though I have NO issues with gay marriage).
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with you.
The first amendment's free speech protection has nothing to do with the actions of private companies. It is ONLY about what the government may not do. Do you really want to give the government more control over free enterprise? Doesn't the government already have to much control over employers? Isn't the goal of a company to make as much profit as possible? If a company's board of directors have a CEO who they think will be unpopular and may cost them sales, they have every right to ask for his resignation. Again, if it was my decision, I would have kept the guy at his post and said fuck the social justice warriors; but it isn't my decision, nor is it your's. It is the decision of the people who have money on the line. You don't like it, you can:
A. Write to Mozilla explaining your disagreement and try to convince them that they made a mistake.
B. Not buy Mozilla's products.
C. Nothing
(D. I would have also said become 51% shareholder in the company, but Mozilla issues no stock.)
Please don't try to get the gov't more involved in the economy. That will just make things much, much worse.
It is not about getting the government more involved in the economy. This is strictly a labor issue, which is something the government must be involved in.
ReplyDeleteLabor disputes are always characterized by two parties, who are always at opposite sides of the power spectrum. The government's job, has traditionally been to serve as a shield for that weaker party(this being the employee) so that it can adequately excercise it's rights against the stronger party (the employer) who more often than not, has ample funds that it is able to trample over their rights.
If you assume that it is the employer's right to terminate an employee who might be unpopular(a reasoning independent of profits whatsoever) for their personal beliefs, then why was he hired in the first place? Where will this end?
Picture the following: One day, someone finds out you stand up to wipe your ass instead of just lifting a buttcheek and begins a campaign to get you fired because they do not believe it is normal. Eventually it spirals out into memes and so much social attention that it becomes a distraction and the company decides to fire you. In such a case, were they justified?
Guess what, with current laws and regulations, they are. Which means they don't have to pay you shit. And then imagine how hard it will be to get another job, since you're the 'stands to wipe guy'. You will end up unemployed and collecting welfare, becoming a burden on taxpayers & the government.
So, faced with that scenario and a descision, would you not prefer Government regulations against employees being fired for personal beliefs & political inclinations without proper indemnization?
I switched to Pale Moon the day that Mozilla fired him.
ReplyDeleteFYI I haven't watched the video yet but if there is a call for government action, I will completely disagree. So there's that.
With regard to Adria Richards, it's worth noting that she was also terminated from her place of employment as a result of the incident. I can't confirm it, but appears that she's not been hired elsewhere and does consulting work now.
ReplyDeleteSo, you're saying that I can go out into our capitalist, free-enterprise economy... and I'm free to create my OWN company, which I OWN and CONTROL PRIVATELY, I can hire people based on contracts that I CREATE, but I can't fire some one if I want to?
ReplyDeleteYou're saying that you want to allow the government to step in, and tell me, "you can't fire that person. You MUST keep them as an employee of your business.
You're saying that if I, as the PRIVATE OWNER of the company, choose to fire someone for an issue that YOU disagree with, I'm a coward? A scumbag?
The guy trying to force private businesses to adhere to the terms HE wants, isn't a scumbag?
You don't see the irony of your mocking people for viewing themselves as heroic, while you go on your little "watch myself talk" rant?
I think I get it. A private business is allowed to operate how that business sees fit... unless Captain Capitalism has a differing opinion about something.
"I want to force my opinion on a business because they have an opinion with which I disagree."
Oh, the irony.
Good way to describe them. Weak spineless pussies.
ReplyDeleteThe sentiment is totally true. Please keep this page up.
Best
Lost in this discussion is the fact that there already are laws on the books of the type mentioned toward the end of the podcast. There is one in California. Firing this guy just for political activity would have been illegal. I'm not sure what would happen if the company said his political activity was harming customer relations, but I doubt that's a valid defense.
ReplyDeleteEich is a unique case because he founded the company and just decided it wasn't worth fighting this whole thing and bringing down the company (though that would not have happened). Plus, he was probably working for compensation below his market value just out of loyalty to the company he founded. The other unusual thing about Eich's situation is that this issue was already known and discussed withini the company before they appointed him CEO, but when they appointed him all hell broke loose, starting with gay employees.
The dongle case obviously wasn't about politics, but to me was more eggregious on the part of the company the way it threw its employees under the bus for something so trivial.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=01001-02000&file=1101-1106
Anonymous 5:36 PM,
ReplyDeleteNo I would not prefer government regulations against employees being fired for personal beliefs & political inclinations without proper indemnization.
The only time government should get involved is if there was a breach of contract. If an employee can quit his/her job at any time for any reason (such as disagreeing with his/her employer's political ideas), then the employer should be free to fire anyone for any reason. (So long as it does not breach a signed contract.)
Employers are not somehow 'stronger' then the workers. They both need each other.
one important thing: Would anyone employ an irrational employee ?
ReplyDeleteHow about employing a religious person ? Is it not the same thing ?
Its the reason why we have to separate ourselve