Reading comprehension fail. People are openly supporting his decision and believe it should have no consequences. Would you support your employer if you found out he donates to the KKK? I'm assuming not.
Thank you for clarifying your point. Essentially anyone that disagrees with you should face consequences. Its ok for you to be intolerant, but its not ok for others to be intolerant. That would be a classic definition of hypocrisy. I can distinguish between my employer and his choices versus his personal decisions. Eich did not donate $1000 on the behalf of Mozilla. This is where your intolerance fails to see the difference.
It's hilarious - people on this board trying to shame the ones speaking out against intolerance, painting them as 'hypocrites' and 'bullies' for standing up for people being denied fair and equal treatment. There used to be a shaming term used against those standing up for fair and equal treatment 60 years ago: "n*gger-lover is just one of those terms that don't mean anything—like snot-nose. It's hard to explain—ignorant, trashy people use it when they think somebody's favoring Negroes over and above themselves. It's slipped into usage with some people like ourselves, when they want a common, ugly term to label somebody." "You aren't really a n*gger-lover, then, are you?" "I certainly am. I do my best to love everybody... I'm hard put, sometimes—baby, it's never an insult to be called what somebody thinks is a bad name. It just shows you how poor that person is, it doesn't hurt you."
And yet no one was telling the people that did complain about Apple that they were bullies and should stop. Are you really implying that if you don't complain about all the problems in the world, you shouldn't complain about one? These employees complain because (a) it's their boss - they have a direct connection to him and (b) they have power to enact change within their organization. A CEO only functions if they have the support of their people. If he doesn't have the support of his people. Not tweeting or complaining wouldn't change the employees' feelings about him, so they might as well make their views known so the organization can take that into account when making decisions.
This is getting crazy! I support gay marriage and equal rights, but some of this crap goes to far. Last time I checked Chick-fil-a is doing just fine and I expect that Mozilla will be in the same boat. People have their opinions about homosexuality and its usually based on religious reasons. He supported a cause in which he did not believe in, and it happened to be same sex marriage. He has the right to do that in this country and you cant take that away from him, because you in turn have the right to support the cause for same sex marriage. Just think this whole gay vs anti-gay crap is getting blown up by the media and too many people are getting butt hurt over it (no pun intended).
He donated money to an anti-gay interest group. Other interest groups have a right to respond and question whether the company he leads supports such an action by association.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The CEO has the right to express his views and support them how he sees fit, as does the pro-gay marriage side can say they don't approve of him and can negatively impact his business by not supporting it. That's what makes this country great in that our citizens have rights to express their views. However, I don't think it's right to jeopardize someone's career for how they live their personal life. A person's career can mean their whole life to them, and it's not fair to judge their ability to perform their job by what they do with their personal investments, be it time, lifestyle, or their ideals. I understand why it happens as politics and appearances make a huge impact on perception of the masses, but that doesn't make it right. Where I think the pro-gay cause deserves criticism is that they have to champion to sway public opinion to be positive for their cause, as they are in the minority. By fighting hate with hate, it ends up dividing the sides further and less progress can be achieved. Instead, they should try to take the more "mature" stance and say how they realize it's a free country and the CEO can do what he wants, but they think his stance is discriminatory, wrong, and that they will be open to public forum to discuss their opinions. Basically, I think the world needs to separate the professional from the personal. Don't fight hate with more hate. Extend the olive branch and try to find some middle ground so that progress can be made.
Silicon Valley and Retail types care less if their executives are openly gay. Other companies do, and will prevent their open gay employees from rising past the glass ceiling. So I can't give equivalence to the "let's not fight hate with more hate" stance as a Mozilla is in one of those industries that can actively do something about intolerant behavior. As CEO, he has personal control over decisions beyond merit and skill. So you're damn right people, both employees and the public, will look into his personal decisions and tear apart details. I don't give a crap if he's an adulterous cheater as in most cases that doesn't reflect the company he serves. But an action and personal stance like this can affect Mozilla. On the flipside, there are people who will boycott Disney for their pro-gay stance and benefits to their employees. I might disagree with those groups, but I'm not calling for them to be banned or silenced. Big difference in "speech" rights there...
I think YOU need to get your priorities straight. Also, try not to have this like handle on my positions when you've only seen me on this forum---Foxconn protests are an issue that is top of mind for me, and why I avoid Apple products assembled in China. Anyways, you sound like you're complaining about how much wrong there is---so I REALLY don't get why instead of just inaction---you would criticize action? I mean it's like either you should go fix what you think is wrong, or really, you have no right to criticize those who are doing that. I'd be glad to hear you're already doing that, off-hand, but again will criticize you for overtly criticizing others who are being active and standing up for their values. you know all in the game, reasoned First Amendment debate, hopefully you don't take my criticism as signs we are approaching a second Holocaust.
When you are random Joe Schmoe, this is true. When you are a public figure - and the CEO of a company is one - what you do personally affects your company. That's part of what comes with being CEO and you know that when you take on that position. Part of your "ability to perform your job" is knowing how to not be controversial and not cause problems for your company. Exactly. World Vision lost of a ton of child sponsorships when they announced they would, God forbid, hire people in gay marriages. Think about that - people who supposedly committed to care for a child in need blew that off and left the kid sponsorless because the organization that handled the money had gay employees. Or look at the Coke Superbowl commercial response. The idea that this is just what the "left" does, as people like Commodore believe, is just another instance of ignoring reality. Boycotting is a way of people expressing their opinions - it is the ultimate expression of free speech and "putting your money where your mouth is". There's nothing wrong it, and no one is obligated to spend money at a certain business. It's not "bullying" or whatever other nonsensical ideas people come up with. If a company wants to take a political stand - and the CEO doing so has the same effect - they can do so, but its up to them to weigh the benefits and consequences.
There is no First Amendment issue here. Eich is free to donate and speak out on an issue that he believes in and his employees and others are free to criticize him for it. As long as the government doesn't step in either way there is no free speech issue. That said I think too much is being made of this. As others have noted Eich wasn't acting in the name of Mozilla when he made the donation and as long as he doesn't let his personal views affect his work, discriminate against Gay employees or vendors, I think he should keep his job. For any large company there are going to be personal and political views held by executives that many employees, customers, subcontractors and etc.. won't agree with. At the same time I would also like to believe that we can separate our personal lives from our work lives especially when it comes to a corporation. The business argument that I would go with though is if Eich's views are really hurting the company but I would put that with anything else that would affect how the company's doing. For example if a company marketed Kosher foods but the CEO is seen frequently eating bacon away from work. While that isn't illegal and might not have anything to do with how the business is run I can see how that would hurt the company's target market. For me I don't have to like Eich's political views to decide whether Mozilla is a browser that I think meets my need's best.
1. He's done. 2. I have a problem with the idea that employees should stfu about stuff they don't like about their CEO, as if the customer is the only stakeholder that matters. They spend their lives and their talents at this company, and to do so for a guy they have a big problem with is a waste. It's probably better for the company to do it this way with a quick execution than a long decline through the flight of talent from the workforce. Their employees are generally employable enough that they can just jump to some other company and earn the same. They aren't going to stick around and be unhappy because they're ashamed of their CEO. Instead, eliminate this one guy and make the rest of the company happy and productive.
The "business argument" is whether he is capable of leading a bunch of people who dislike him and want him gone. That's up to the company to decide, and will be a test of his skills to smooth over the anger.
This is my sentiment. People can and will complain on both sides of the issue. However, Eich is free to donate his own funds to any cause he wants as long as it isn't illegal. By the same token, employees and customers have the right to protest Eich's decision to donate to an organization they find distasteful. What I find more troubling is that there seems to be a movement to force people to confirm to particular social norms. I do not have an problem with people having an issue with an organization or corporation supporting something they repulsive. However, when CEO's or upper management does in their personal life? To me that is a different situation. What is the next step? A company or upper management deciding to fire employees that are not Republicans? It is something that has really started to become more popular the last decade or so. It reminds me of the lady at a beauty pagent that stated that she believed a marriage is between a man and a woman and was loudly criticised and some judges stated they did not vote for her just on that basis. I remember ultimately deciding that she was in a public forum and as such was fair game. That is not the case here. Who decides what is and isn't fair game? What if I give money to Planned Parenthood and work for Fox, can they put pressure on me to stop donating? Can they consistently apply pressure to get me to vote Republican? Somethings are private, and that is something that both parties and society in general needs to remember. I don't want my employer considering my personal donations when hiring me or to apply pressure on me. While I do not agree with Mr. Eich's personal beliefs (as it is bigoted), I do not think what he spends his money is my concern or anyone elses. He didn't go public with his opinions and he did not force it upon anyone else. Privacy is an important right, recognized by even those that have historically been denied equal rights (Thurgood Marshall).
I agree. He can do whatever he want to do, but others can be unhappy about it. If the employees threaten to leave, nothing he can do about it. Actions have consequences. Personally I think he should be able to donate to anti-gay organization if he wishes, but we do not live in ideal world.
