Shame on Google

[Paulo Bizarro]

I'm a conservative and believe private companies should be able to run their organization however they feel.   If you disagree with their methods than quit and start your own company or quit and write a book. 

Same goes if you work for a government agency.   No leaks.

In June 2017 64 people died in a forest fire in central Portugal; the main reason was because the Portuguese emergency communications system is run by a private company. Guess what, the system failed. So definitely no, private companies can not run their business however they feel.

[Robert Roaldi]

I'm a conservative and believe private companies should be able to run their organization however they feel.   

This is never strictly 100% true and it has never been true and it is not even an ideal to which civilized people should aspire.

Corporations can and should be allowed to define how they are run, within the confines of the surrounding culture. If the culture outlaws slave labour, for example, then no company, no matter how private, should be allowed to use slave labour. I don't think that anyone would object to such limitations.

[Otto Phocus]

This is never strictly 100% true and it has never been true and it is not even an ideal to which civilized people should aspire.

Corporations can and should be allowed to define how they are run, within the confines of the surrounding culture. If the culture outlaws slave labour, for example, then no company, no matter how private, should be allowed to use slave labour. I don't think that anyone would object to such limitations.

Just a minor nit to pick 

Corporations can and should be allowed to define how they are run, within the confines of the surrounding culture law.

Corporations must abide by the law, but they should (their choice) abide by the culture. I think that was what you meant.

[Robert Roaldi]

Just a minor nit to pick 

Corporations can and should be allowed to define how they are run, within the confines of the surrounding culture law.

Corporations must abide by the law, but they should (their choice) abide by the culture. I think that was what you meant.

Yes thanks. I was using "surrounding culture" as a proxy for law, which is not correct.

[Rob C]

So you assume that all white males do well in life, encounter that mythical level playing field? If only!

Nope. That's not what I wrote. So the rest of your post is a pointless non sequitur.

Indeed, not in those precise words, but the implication in what you did write is unmistakable.

But then, that's a way to debate, I suppose, so pointlessness seems flavour of the day.

I shall leave you to it.

[jeremyrh]

Indeed, not in those precise words, but the implication in what you did write is unmistakable.

Not even remotely.

You and I may have encountered unlevel playing fields, but to say that these are comparable to, or in some way compensate for, the injustice suffered by someone born in the wrong get sex or race is, as I said, naive.

[Rob C]

In June 2017 64 people died in a forest fire in central Portugal; the main reason was because the Portuguese emergency communications system is run by a private company. Guess what, the system failed. So definitely no, private companies can not run their business however they feel.

My view is that some services are just too vital to be left to the profit motive. Health, police, fire, trains, electricity, gas are just some that come to mind. How to pay for those? By not wasting tax money on our lazy citizens and many foreign governments abroad, and by precluding trade union militancy within those services from the start.

It seems to me that successive right-wing governments are terrified of industrial action in those sectors, and that's why they are happy to farm them out whenever they can: they can sit back and look the other way and, if pushed, shrug it off as not their fight. From the perspective of the left, the perfect set of tied-in voters would then exist, along with the circumstances for beer and pork pies in Downing Street once more. Oh, and perhaps another token pop star or two, just for old time's sake. You couldn't make it up unless you'd lived through the Wilson and Callaghan era and noted the games of one Mr Blair. And to think that each and every one of them got there by the ballot box.

There is something seriously wrong with democracy!

;-)

Rob

[Rob C]

Indeed, not in those precise words, but the implication in what you did write is unmistakable.

Not even remotely.

You and I may have encountered unlevel playing fields, but to say that these are comparable to, or in some way compensate for, the injustice suffered by someone born in the wrong get sex or race is, as I said, naive.

As I wrote, I'm leaving you to play by yourself. You simply don't grasp reality, so there's no way I can help you out. It has nothing to do with compensation; it has everything to do with the facts of life, which are that no two people are either equal or the same, and that not accepting that is not accepting reality or, worse, suggesting social engineering as some crazed solution where non exists.

Over 'n out.

[jeremyrh]

it has everything to do with the facts of life, which are that no two people are either equal or the same, and that not accepting that is not accepting reality or, worse, suggesting social engineering as some crazed solution where non exists.

I think I read some similar self-justification in a Klan pamphlet. "Discrimination is natural".

[Alan Klein]

It seems that for you sexism, racism, sexual assault is OK! Glad I'm not living in your US of A.

Do you hear yourself think?

Really?

I never said that racism sexual assault and sexism is okay. What I said was that an employee should not go public with issues he has with the boss. If you don't like how the boss is running his business you should quit or keep your mouth shut or go privately to human resources and complain to them.   You don't have the right as an employee to pass around manifestos of your personal beliefs or publicly say things that could hurt the business.   The board of directors,  executive staff and the stockholderd are responsible for setting policy,  not some minor employee.

If someone is being sexually assaulted they have the right to go to the police and/or sue.. Ditto with racism.

[Alan Klein]

Okay, I see where there is some confusion about my post. When I said that the boss can run his business as he wants, by that I mean as long as what he is doing is legal. You may not like his style, you may not like his approach, but as long as it's legal, you have to keep your mouth shut or leave or go to human resources to complain. 

[Jeremy Roussak]

In June 2017 64 people died in a forest fire in central Portugal; the main reason was because the Portuguese emergency communications system is run by a private company. Guess what, the system failed. So definitely no, private companies can not run their business however they feel.

No, they died because the system failed. Do government systems never fail? Come on.

Jeremy

[tom b]

"If you don't like how the boss is running his business you should quit or keep your mouth shut or go privately to human resources and complain to them".

Google has 70,000 plus employees. Honestly, how do you control them? Punish those that bring disrepute to a multi billion dollar company, sounds simple!

I have no idea, but this thread is ridiculous… one person in 70,000 people, give me a break!

Really,






 

[Alan Klein]

"If you don't like how the boss is running his business you should quit or keep your mouth shut or go privately to human resources and complain to them".

Google has 70,000 plus employees. Honestly, how do you control them? Punish those that bring disrepute to a multi billion dollar company, sounds simple!

I have no idea, but this thread is ridiculous… one person in 70,000 people, give me a break!

Really,






 

His manifesto was made public.  The other 69,999 employees didn't do that.  So he was fired.  You don't publicly embarrass your own company.  Work from within to change it quietly or leave.  Or get fired. 

[James Clark]

Related.   For my friends here on the right, it's from The Federalist, so you oughta like it   For my friends here on the left, it doesn't let the right off the hook, so read to the end before you start to argue with it

[MattBurt]

I think the nature of his firing would depend on the terms of employment he agreed to. Could be an overreaction but I haven't seen the contract they had. I think chances are good that Google is covered from a legal aspect. PR is another issue.

As for the premise that Trump's win has brought more freedom, well it has to some but not others. My problem with that is that I believe underdogs (minorities especially) need a little more protection or the majority mob will steamroll them and their rights. That's just human nature.

But I guess the beauty of this is we can all add our voices without fear or reciprocation by the government, at least for the time being. I suspect this administration would change that if they could based on the threats made to journalists doing their jobs but hopefully that won't succeed. For now, just be sure your speech doesn't violate your employment contract.

[Rajan Parrikar]

Peter Singer, not exactly an alt-right voice -

http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-1.3399750

[Alan Klein]

Peter Singer, not exactly an alt-right voice -

http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-1.3399750

The issue is not whether or not the guy was right or wrong in his viewpoints. The issue is the manifesto embarrassed the company and its executives.  It may cause disruption in the organization with all the bickering that would ensue.
It will hurt the bottom line.   

Business is not a debating society.   The stockholders, owners, and the executive officers they hired are the ones who make policy. The tail does not wag the dog. When an employee goes out of his way to be disrespectful of that Authority then he should be fired. A company doesn't owe somebody a job.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

… one person in 70,000 people...

Galileo.


 
[/quote]

[Rajan Parrikar]

http://blog.parrikar.com/2017/08/12/google-bent-out-of-shape/