An excellent post, JV. I was thinking about how to respond to the OP, and reading this saved me the trouble. You are absolutely right that employees in Mozilla's industry are quite mobile when it comes to finding other employment, and that the company faces what has the potential to be a huge problem for them. And Major is correct in his posts that neither the CEO, nor the employees are being prevented from exercising their right to free speech. As some others have said in one form or another, what if he had donated to a racist organization? One that discriminates based on color? Ethnicity? Religion? Mozilla's employees would probably react in a similar way. The worm has turned, people. In this country, at least, it is no longer acceptable social behavior to discriminate against other Americans due to their sexual orientation. Sure, there are those who discriminate anyway, and we've seen some examples of that here, but they are fast becoming an ever smaller minority themselves, destined for insignificance, in my humble opinion, and that can't happen soon enough for me.
Keep in mind that he'd just been appointed and only was on the job for about 2-3 days when this came out last week. So there's not a history of hs leadership to look at (he was at Mozilla, but not as CEO). It would be just as easy to say "Why can't you be tolerant of their opinion that he should not be the CEO?" or "Why can't I be tolerant of your opinion that they should be more tolerant?". This isn't really a tolerance issue. No one is forcing anyone to do anything - he voiced his opinion in funding Prop 8 that gay people should not get married, and now they are voicing opinions that he shouldn't be employed.
If anyone is interested, this is his blog with response to the controversy: https://brendaneich.com/ I think he laid out his position well, but I think in terms of regaining employee trust, it would benefit him to explain his initial actions. He's certainly under no obligation to do so, but openness would be helpful for him to gain the trust and understanding of his employees. Otherwise, people just make up their own conclusions.
I would absolutely quit, Judo, and that's putting aside the second part of your post. I wouldn't work for a company that had a CEO intolerant enough to donate money to promote discrimination. Of any kind.
If he has been working at Mozilla for years already and hasn't had any problems regarding him bringing his political views at the workplace then I don't see to why it is a problem now. He obviously wasn't named to be CEO because of his views. As I said though if he is costing the company money it is the board's prerogative to force him out but that is a business decision and not a personal decision.
You have to consider though that he made the donation in 2008 and he presumably has been working at Mozilla for the 6 years since. If this wasn't a problem then what makes it a problem now? As I said you don't have to like his views if he can still perform the job and doesn't subject his political views on anyone at work. You also don't have to like his political views as a customer to judge Mozilla. Just to relate my own personal anecdotes I deal with clients and contractors of all different views, many of which I disagreed with and I'm sure probably vice versa. Further my business partner is a former Republican party chair and I've definitely had some strong disagreements with him. I still find I can work with these people as long as we stay focused on the work. Another thing to consider is that while 6 years ago wasn't that long ago attitudes regarding Gay marriage have made a sea change since then. In 2008 the President and the majority of the country were still opposed to Gay marriage and it wouldn't surprise if many of the employees, customers, and vendors working with Mozilla at the time had also voted for Prop 8. Eich views might've changed since then.
Just to add one more thing to my above post. For those of y'all who live in Texas who are think Eich should be fired. Consider that Texas is one of the reddest states so chances are that you work with, have customers, or frequently deal with people who hold different views from you regarding things like gay marriage. If you decide to never do business with those people you are probably going to find your work opportunities very restricted. We live in a pluralistic society where we have to deal with people who don't agree with us all the time. This doesn't mean we give up our own views but that we do have to tolerate the fact that there are times where we have to put up with those we don't agree with. If I was a Mozilla employee or someone who did business with them I would donate more money and time to organizations that promote legalization of same sex marriage to counter Eich rather than punish him, or spite myself by not working with Mozilla, for something that doesn't really have much to do with the business.
Well, from the employee perspective, they weren't working for him until a few days ago, so his views would be less relevant to them. That's certainly true - but at the same time, some people like to be inspired by their leadership (take Apple, as an example). If some employees don't like their CEO, it's not surprising they might voice that. Maybe they loved the approach of their old CEO and now are disappointed by the new one. Leadership is a key part of a CEO's job and is not something you measure objectively. Again, imagine your CEO funded the KKK - employees would probably not surprisingly be upset by that and probably would voice their opinion. This is a more complex issue, but it's the same basic principle. Also very true. And if this is the case for him, it may behoove him to share that he's had a change of heart in his blog (if he wants to). People are generally more than willing to forgive - but he's given no indication of anything at this point. I don't think he should be fired for donating to Prop-8 - lots of CEOs donate to causes that people don't agree with. He should be fired if he's unable to quell an employee revolt in the company caused by his actions. After all, a big part of his job is managing his people. Even if they are being unreasonable, if he can't fix it, then what is the point of Mozilla employing him as CEO? Absolutely true. But you also get to tolerate the fact that there are people asking for him to be fired. These employees are not really required to put up with anything - they can choose to do so, or they can make their views known or ask for specific changes. The company can decide what path it wants to take, and then the employees can decide whether to stay or go or take some other action. No one is having to put up with anything - everyone in every step of the process gets to make their own decisions. That's the beauty of free choice. People seem to be coming at this from some weird notion that he has a right to his job, and that anything that affects that is unfair or intolerant or whatnot. That's not remotely how a free marketplace works.
I'm actually a lot less concerned about what each party is doing as opposed to their rights to do it without lawful intervention. If anyone wants to donate to the KKK, so be it, as long as that person doesn't cry foul when there's reactions on the other side.
From reading Eich's background though he has been in a management and senior position so many Mozilla employees have worked for him before. Once again I am not denying the employees their right to voice their opinion. As I said there is no free speech issue. Let's say I found out one of my clients had privately said that he didn't like CHinese people, thought they were inscrutable and dishonest. I wouldn't like that and would think the guy is a racist but if I had otherwise not had problems working with him and more importantly he paid his fees on time and with no complaint I wouldn't necessary drop him as a client. In fact as I pointed out in the thread regarding business and public accommodation there are some professional issues with refusing to work with someone because of issues that have nothing to do with the business. For all I know I might be already dealing with clients who harbor racist views but who are working with me because they find me the most qualified, the best price or for whatever reason. Whether he has or not that is for him personally to decide. I'm just pointing out that national attitudes regarding this issue were different in 2008 when Eich made the donation. Yes that is a business decision and I would see firing him for that. I am speaking though personally if I was an employee of Mozilla. I wouldn't be calling for his firing. I have not said he has a right to his job or that the employees and vendors should be silent over this. As I said there is no free speech issue here. I am stating my own opinion that I don't think personal political opinions are something that I think should cost someone there job. I am also stating my own opinion that if you refuse to have any business dealings with people who don't agree with you politically you might find your business opportunities limited.
I'm going to bring up another example. I've heard that Daryl Morey is a Republican and has donated money for many Republican candidates and causes. Now if Daryl Morey offered to sign you would you refuse because he has donated to money and causes you don't agree with? As consumers of the Rockets should those of us who don't agree with Daryl Morey's politics be boycotting the Rockets until they replace Daryl Morey with someone whose politics are more agreeable?
Why didn't anyone say something after he made the donation in 2008 and was a high ranking employee (CTO I believe)? He made a donation 6 years ago, but we're made today because he was promoted?
This is the key who invented javascript. I think if he can do his job and not discriminate I wouldn't have a problem with it.
If it's that important to you, yes. The Mozilla employee revolt is a very extreme and very unusual reaction, which I think speaks to how important this particular issue is to these employees. You won't see some kind of slippery slope where employees start campaigning for the dismissal of the CEO because they don't like the office coffee. As an employee, you would only participate in something that undermines the business viability of your employer if it was a real make-or-break proposition: if X situation persists, I don't care if I don't have a job anymore because I can't put up with that at all. I thought I read it wasn't disclosed until 2012. Why didn't they make a stink in 2012? The CEO has a special place as the face of the business. The CTO might be your boss and might be important to the company, but the CEO represents you in the marketplace. If you're ashamed of your CEO, that's a much bigger deal because he's shaming you in public every time he's quoted in a news article or appears at a conference or whatever.
I can see it both ways. On the one hand his views can be seen as repulsive and should be protested against. On the other, we should allow divergent viewpoints. So, in sum, I dunno.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Homework assignment: compare Mozilla CEO's SSM opinion of 5 years ago (when he made donation) to Obama's from 5 years ago.</p>— John Ekdahl (@JohnEkdahl) <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnEkdahl/statuses/451069976552947712">April 1, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
he mentioned he was a fan of small government or something like that in a chat once IIRC, but as far as donating money: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=&cx=010677907462955562473:nlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID:11
He also said he would vote for Romney over Obama because he viewed the President's role to essentially be a figure head (he explained it better obviously).
