Brendan Eich, Prop 8, Mozilla, and the "moral hazard" of his ouster

DSGamer wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

There's no "go there". It's been that way for CEOs for a hundred years.

Hell, it's been that way for spokespeople for even longer. Your CEO just happens to be your ultimate spokesperson.

I'm not being argumentative here, I want to sincerely ask this question so please take it as such. Has it always been this way? I would agree that there's a difference between a CEO and even the head of software development at Mozilla, to use this specific example. One of those is indeed a public job and in that respect is going to be scrutinized for a number of issues. Everything from political advocacy to their appearance to their temperament.

But has this always been the case? Or are there even cases today where being the CEO literally means you just run the company and otherwise you're not necessarily the face of the company? If this is too much of a derail into curiosity then feel free to ignore the question. I was just curious.

The difference is that it's usually very opaque to the public, since it's up to the board of directors. Behind the scenes, the process can get vicious and petty. We the public aren't told the criteria by which a person is or is not selected CEO.

DSGamer wrote:

"Eagerness"? Come on. But let's go with that. CEO is a different beast. Does this still not worry anyone in a larger sense? At a time when religious organizations are trying to pick and choose what parts of health insurance they pay for it seems like playing with fire to me.

Yes, eagerness. How else to you explain the amount of ink that has been spilled by conservatives trying to portray one CEO resigning as the canary in the coal mine of a vast conspiracy involving the PC thought police and that represents the dawn of a new era of liberal McCarthyism?

If you want me to worry then show me how that list of Prop 8 donors has been used to get other workers fired. Show me a group who has specifically organized to out those donors and publicly shame them. Show me the public calls from LGBT leaders for the proverbial heads of anti-gay marriage supporters.

This is all the angst of conservatives who are slowly realizing how much the public's opinion has changed about gay marriage and how far over the wrong side of the line they actually are. They're terrified of backlash: that someone's going to do to them what they've been doing to the gay community for decades.

While I'm apprehensive about the Hobby Lobby case, I've been pleasantly surprised with how well the courts have been able to parse through all the objections to gay marriage (almost all of them based on religious ideas and concepts) and reject them for what they are: utter hogwash.

Eich was not just your normal, ordinary Joe. He was the CEO and, rightly or wrongly, a much sharper microscope is placed upon them. As such, his actions (or lack thereof) reflect(ed) not only upon him, but upon the company (and its products) as a whole. He supported a position that, due to changing social opinions, is now (rightfully) not accepted. As a result of his support of that position, the company for which he was CEO was being tarnished and would have been painted with that same brush.

Eich, to his credit, recognized what was happening and stepped down from Mozilla.

There's plenty of employers today that will fire rank-and-file employees, let alone CEOs, for violating some kind of a morality clause.

I have a couple of friends who were employed by a Christian college, and the list of moral-missteps that would have gotten them fired was long and arduous. My current employer will fire me if I fail a drug test for smoking weed, and living in Washington, that's a perfectly legal thing for me to do.

This is not new, nor novel.

bandit0013 wrote:

He caused dissension. He made colleagues uncomfortable. He scared off customers. He created a distraction. He didn’t fit.

All I can say is that this line of reasoning sounds like a good reason to fire any LGBT person in any leadership role...

Sure, if it was 1954. Not so much in 2014.

SocialChameleon wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:

Personally, if I could stop seeing arguments that invoke the shades of Orwell, Joe McCarthy, Salem, witches, Frankenstein's Monster, mob justice, the Gestapo, stakes and the burning of persons thereon, pitchforks and/or torches as equal to public criticism I could pass from this world slightly happier.

Private entities should have lattitude to determine who works for them. There is a difference between having this happen in a public and private organization. In this case the dude left of his own accord, so it is a more muted point.

I wonder if he still gets his golden parachute.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. I would further say since this did not happen to Mozilla, the point is irrelevant.

Further, there is no difference whether the org is private or public. The public may, and should be able to criticize them.

Nobody is arguing otherwise.

So where is the point where criticism of belief turns into percecution? Different standards of action? Blacklists? Tests of ideological purity? Driving people from their homes?

I believe this case approaces the borders of that but does not really cross it for reasons stated above.

Somehow you seem unable to understand why people would be unconfortable with the situation, even when they agree with the actions.

When I was in grad school I saw TA's freely talk about how they thought Christians were stupid and should not go to our school even though it was a pubic university. They were also hostile to the obviously Christian people in their class, even if they were not making a particular neusance of themselves.

When I see things like this firing, it reminds me of this.

He caused dissension. He made colleagues uncomfortable. He scared off customers. He created a distraction. He didn’t fit.

All I can say is that this line of reasoning sounds like a the kind of reasoning to fire any LGBT person in any leadership role...

Oh wait, that has happened quite a bit over the years. It's not ok when it happens to them, it's not ok when it happens to Eich. As Sullivan points out (paraphrased): When we lose the ability to live and work alongside people with different viewpoints, we have lost our ideals as a liberal society. Eich, throughout his career at Mozilla never once allowed his personal religious beliefs about marriage interfere with how he interacted with LGBT professionals. He demonstrated the professionalism that we desire in the workplace.

An employee/volunteer saying they're just not comfortable working for someone with a certain belief set is uncomfortably close to me to an employee refusing to work for a LGBT manager, or a female, or a Democrat, or a Republican. It's unprofessional and perpetuates actions that I find repugnant, no matter whom they are directed against.

OG_slinger wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

He caused dissension. He made colleagues uncomfortable. He scared off customers. He created a distraction. He didn’t fit.

All I can say is that this line of reasoning sounds like a good reason to fire any LGBT person in any leadership role...

Sure, if it was 1954. Not so much in 2014.

That would really depend on geography, wouldn't it?

OG_slinger wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

He caused dissension. He made colleagues uncomfortable. He scared off customers. He created a distraction. He didn’t fit.

All I can say is that this line of reasoning sounds like a good reason to fire any LGBT person in any leadership role...

Sure, if it was 1954. Not so much in 2014.

And yet there's dismissed court cases (held in favor of employer) very recently. Like I said, that's not a world I'm comfortable with. Apparently many people are.

bandit, since Eich wasn't fired, exactly what point are you trying to make?

RoughneckGeek wrote:

Does that mean you'd be able to have a professional relationship with me after I donated $1000 to imperil your family?

We have a very different definition of imperil.

Regardless, I have never had issues having a professional relationship with anyone who acts professionally in the work place. Because, you know, I am an adult.

**Edit: technically I have worked with these people. I consider lax gun control something that imperils my family. But it doesn't mean I can't fill out someone's TPS report because they donated to the NRA.

Tenebrous wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:

Personally, if I could stop seeing arguments that invoke the shades of Orwell, Joe McCarthy, Salem, witches, Frankenstein's Monster, mob justice, the Gestapo, stakes and the burning of persons thereon, pitchforks and/or torches as equal to public criticism I could pass from this world slightly happier.

Private entities should have lattitude to determine who works for them. There is a difference between having this happen in a public and private organization. In this case the dude left of his own accord, so it is a more muted point.

I wonder if he still gets his golden parachute.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. I would further say since this did not happen to Mozilla, the point is irrelevant.

Further, there is no difference whether the org is private or public. The public may, and should be able to criticize them.

Nobody is arguing otherwise.

So where is the point where criticism of belief turns into percecution? Blacklists? Tests of ideological purity? Driving people from their homes?

I believe this case approaces the borders of that but does not really cross it for reasons stated above.

Somehow you seem unable to understand why people would be unconfortable with the situation, even when they agree with the actions.

I understand perfectly well that people might be uncomfortable with the concept of vast public pressure. They can be uncomfortable with the situation all they want, but when anyone starts to imply that blacklists and purity tests are on the horizon, I'm going to say those assertions are ridiculous and unsupported by anything actually happening in reality.

e:

When I was in grad school I saw TA's freely talk about how they thought Christians were stupid and should not go to our school even though it was a pubic university. They were also hostile to the obviously Christian people in their class, even if they were not making a particular neusance of themselves.

Sounds like your TA's were jackasses and bad at their jobs. I'm not sure what you're getting at, though.

When I see things like this firing, it reminds me of this.

Again, Eich was not fired.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

bandit, since Eich wasn't fired, exactly what point are you trying to make?

Quintin, are you asserting that if he didn't resign he wouldn't have been removed?

bandit0013 wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

bandit, since Eich wasn't fired, exactly what point are you trying to make?

Quintin, are you asserting that if he didn't resign he wouldn't have been removed?

Maybe try sticking to the facts?

Considering that the board didn't ask Eich to resign, and in fact asked him to stay and tried to find another position for him at Mozilla after he decided to resign, then yeah. I'm asserting that if he didn't resign he wouldn't have been removed.

bandit0013 wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

bandit, since Eich wasn't fired, exactly what point are you trying to make?

Quintin, are you asserting that if he didn't resign he wouldn't have been removed?

I'm supposed to have knowledge of a future that never happened? My powers are great but do not involve soothsaying.

Are you asserting that he would have been removed?

OG_slinger wrote:

If you want me to worry then show me how that list of Prop 8 donors has been used to get other workers fired. Show me a group who has specifically organized to out those donors and publicly shame them. Show me the public calls from LGBT leaders for the proverbial heads of anti-gay marriage supporters.

Two minutes on Google got me this and this. There is probably more out there if I had the time to dig more.

Even the writer for the Daily Kos (second link) said what happened was bad in the second example, and yes, I think every case he cites is wrong and problematic. I like the conclusion of his article.

People should be able to hold controversial political opinions and act upon them outside the workplace -- whether it's me, you or Scott Eckern [the guy that lost his job because of his support for prop 8] -- and not be in fear of losing our jobs. What happened to Eckern should not be cause for celebration, but cause for concern.
bandit0013 wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

bandit, since Eich wasn't fired, exactly what point are you trying to make?

Quintin, are you asserting that if he didn't resign he wouldn't have been removed?

SocialChameleon and Quintin_Stone beat me to it, but unless you have evidence to the contrary I feel fairly confident, given the fact that the board tried to get him to stay, that he would not have been removed, and that the departure was his choice.

The people who were actually fired in your links were a Kerry supporter, a candidate running for the Socialist Workers Party, and a man displaying a Confederate flag decal on his toolbox.

In all other cases, there was public protest, an exercise of free speech.

I'll repeat the question I asked earlier:

SocialChameleon wrote:

Here's a question for everyone who thinks Eich got a raw deal. What actions would you rather the public/media have taken? Not criticize Eich? Not report on the criticism? Would you rather the Mozilla employees, volunteers, those who developed for Firefox have just kept quiet? Something else?

SocialChameleon wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:

Personally, if I could stop seeing arguments that invoke the shades of Orwell, Joe McCarthy, Salem, witches, Frankenstein's Monster, mob justice, the Gestapo, stakes and the burning of persons thereon, pitchforks and/or torches as equal to public criticism I could pass from this world slightly happier.

Private entities should have lattitude to determine who works for them. There is a difference between having this happen in a public and private organization. In this case the dude left of his own accord, so it is a more muted point.

I wonder if he still gets his golden parachute.

Nobody is arguing otherwise. I would further say since this did not happen to Mozilla, the point is irrelevant.

Further, there is no difference whether the org is private or public. The public may, and should be able to criticize them.

Nobody is arguing otherwise.

So where is the point where criticism of belief turns into percecution? Blacklists? Tests of ideological purity? Driving people from their homes?

I believe this case approaces the borders of that but does not really cross it for reasons stated above.

Somehow you seem unable to understand why people would be unconfortable with the situation, even when they agree with the actions.

I understand perfectly well that people might be uncomfortable with the concept of vast public pressure. They can be uncomfortable with the situation all they want, but when anyone starts to imply that blacklists and purity tests are on the horizon, I'm going to say those assertions are ridiculous and unsupported by anything actually happening in reality.

Again you miss the point, and please stop putting in statements I never made. I never said they were on the horizon. I asked where do you think public pressure turns into percecution, and cited some examples.

When I was in grad school I saw TA's freely talk about how they thought Christians were stupid and should not go to our school even though it was a pubic university. They were also hostile to the obviously Christian people in their class, even if they were not making a particular neusance of themselves.

Sounds like your TA's were jackasses and bad at their jobs. I'm not sure what you're getting at, though.

That people will percecute others based on beliefs. I see this as a related action to what happened with the guy in question, the difference between the two is setting.

In the middle of the what ifs and false equivocation, I find the inability of anyone to find fault with what actually happened comforting.

SocialChameleon wrote:

The people who were actually fired in your links were a Kerry supporter, a candidate running for the Socialist Workers Party, and a man displaying a Confederate flag decal on his toolbox.

In all other cases, there was public protest, an exercise of free speech.

So what? No one is arguing they should not have said it. Why are you so hung up on this?

The point of the article is that people should be able to hold unpopular opinions without threat of job loss. And job loss is job loss if they were fired or resigned because they could not do their job due to protest.

Are you saying that people that hold unpopular opinions should loose their jobs if people start protesting outside their workplace?

If you are going to exert public pressure on people that hold unpopular opinions, you should be fine with that happening anywhere to anyone no matter what belief.

So, let's try this question again: Are all execises of public pressure and protest an unabsahed good?

I'll repeat the question I asked earlier:
SocialChameleon wrote:

Here's a question for everyone who thinks Eich got a raw deal. What actions would you rather the public/media have taken? Not criticize Eich? Not report on the criticism? Would you rather the Mozilla employees, volunteers, those who developed for Firefox have just kept quiet? Something else?

I would have figured some people are jerks who hold dumb opinions and moved on with my life, but that's just me.

Tenebrous wrote:

The point of the article is that people should be able to hold unpopular opinions without threat of job loss. And job loss is job loss if they were fired or resigned because they could not do their job due to protest.

So either eliminate protest or prevent people from resigning?

Bloo Driver wrote:

In the middle of the what ifs and false equivocation, I find the inability of anyone to find fault with what actually happened comforting.

Are you asserting that someone will find fault in the future?

SocialChameleon wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

So what? No one is arguing they should not have said it. Why are you so hung up on this?

Because of the claim that the protests surrounding Eich's appointment are a bad thing. I'm honestly confused what your position is. The public should have protested, but it's bad that they did because? Why?

Tenebrous wrote:

Let's try this question again: Are all execises of public pressure and protest an unabsahed good?

That depends, but my opinion of their goodness does not hinge on whether or not public protest was involved.

Tenebrous wrote:

I would have figured some people are jerks who hold dumb opinions and moved on with my life.

That's what you would have done, fine. The question is what you think the public should have done.

I am intrested in exploring if people with unpopular opinions should face job loss because of those opinions, and you are intrested in saying it was a public protest which everyone already knows. Great! Thank you for clarifying that.

SocialChameleon wrote:

That's what you would have done, fine. The question is what you think the public should have done.

Does there have be an alternative the public "should have done"? I look at these outbursts of public outrage that seem to be more and more frequent and I look at it similar to how I would think of a riot after your sports team loses the championship. I have no particular prescription, but I do wonder if we need to overturn cars and set things on fire so frequently. Especially in a country that is largely becoming more and more progressive. Gay marriage is spreading, not receding. A plurality of youths could care less about someone's sexual orientation and it appears that it's rapidly becoming less and less of an issue. There are a small minority of mostly older Americans who are kicking and screaming as the world moves forward.

Meanwhile the ice caps are melting and the planet may not be habitable in the lifetime of most children on the planet. I don't wonder what the public should have done. I wonder if we need to have continual rounds of public outrage.

Do not hire this puffin!

IMAGE(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/627/495/589.jpg)

Tenebrous wrote:

So what? No one is arguing they should not have said it. Why are you so hung up on this?

Because of the claim that the protests surrounding Eich's appointment are a bad thing. I'm honestly confused what your position is. The public should have protested, but it's bad that they did because? Why?

Tenebrous wrote:

Let's try this question again: Are all execises of public pressure and protest an unabsahed good?

That depends, but my opinion of their goodness does not hinge on whether or not public protest was involved.

Tenebrous wrote:

I would have figured some people are jerks who hold dumb opinions and moved on with my life.

That's what you would have done, fine. The question is what you think the public should have done.

e:

Tenebrous wrote:

Are you saying that people that hold unpopular opinions should loose their jobs if people start protesting outside their workplace?

No. If you can find a statement of mine where I advocated that I will happily retract it or clarify.

Tenebrous wrote:

If you are going to exert public pressure on people that hold unpopular opinions, you should be fine with that happening anywhere to anyone no matter what belief.

I am fine with that. The KKK can protest the NAACP until the end of time, Focus on the Family can protest GLAAD, the Westboro Baptist Church can protest military funerals. The Church of Scientology can protest the APA.

I can guarantee that if, by some strange twist of fate, Shirley Phelps-Roper became the CEO of General Mills, I would stop eating Cheerios tomorrow and encourage everyone I know to stop eating Cheerios. And I f*cking love Cheerios.

Tenebrous wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

So what? No one is arguing they should not have said it. Why are you so hung up on this?

Because of the claim that the protests surrounding Eich's appointment are a bad thing. I'm honestly confused what your position is. The public should have protested, but it's bad that they did because? Why?

Tenebrous wrote:

Let's try this question again: Are all execises of public pressure and protest an unabsahed good?

That depends, but my opinion of their goodness does not hinge on whether or not public protest was involved.

Tenebrous wrote:

I would have figured some people are jerks who hold dumb opinions and moved on with my life.

That's what you would have done, fine. The question is what you think the public should have done.

I am intrested in exploring if people with unpopular opinions should face job loss because of those opinions, and you are intrested in saying it was a public protest which everyone already knows. Great! Thank you for clarifying that.

I answered your post edit questions. I'd appreciate it if you answered mine. If you don't like what the public did re: Eich, what would you rather the public have done?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Do not hire this puffin!

IMAGE(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/627/495/589.jpg)

Yeah, it should be out preventing climate change, not working!