Hacker News

points by patentatt 14 hours ago | 0 comments

Fascinatingly, this is not prima facie illegal in many US states! Wow. We live in a corporatist hell hole don’t we?

Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla for a $1k political donation.

Corporatist hellhole was your reaction to that too I imagine.

* Technically resigned, but there was significant pressure from Mozilla.

One of them is a worker drone with very little power, the other is the company's founder and CEO who is openly telling people that he believes a decent chunk of his employees don't deserve basic human rights. Quite a difference there, don't you think?

[–] Sparkle-san 12 hours ago

Software, especially open-source has an over-representation of people that identify as LGBTQ. Brendan openly signaled that he thought a good subset of his employees did not deserve the same rights as others. I don't see how he could have been an effective CEO after doing that.

[–] crote 12 hours ago

It would've been a huge liability for Mozilla. An employer is not allowed to discriminate on sexuality. Fire any LGBTQ employee, and there's now a decent chance that Mozilla will now have to prove in court that it didn't have anything to do with the CEO openly hating gay people and creating a hostile work environment.

[–] lloydde 12 hours ago

What a strange hill to stand on at this time. The overwhelming public backlash, boycotts, and resulting damage to Mozilla's brand left Eich with no practical choice but to step down.

[–] paulddraper 12 hours ago

“Overwhelming.” Eich made a modest donation to a ballot initiative, which got majority support by California btw.

But in any case, your point is “it was damaging the company, therefore it makes sense to see them gone.” And there’s your parallel.

—

In reality, whether corporate agnosticism is right depends almost exclusively on your feelings of the underlying cause.

[–] charcircuit 14 hours ago

What would be illegal about firing an employee who you think is causing your company to get a bad image?

[–] darkstar999 14 hours ago

> The lawsuit says Instacart violated a California law that bars companies from preventing their employees from becoming candidates for public office, among other complaints.

[–] wpm 14 hours ago

What would be the consequences of ensuring that only those with enough personal wealth to be able to go without a job while campaigning can run for office?

[–] 233mhz 13 hours ago

The thing about legality is that you kinda get to chose. In your case the companies' interests weight more than the people's interest.

For example in the US it's totally legal to spy on your employees with key loggers &co, in most of Europe it isn't

[–] sheepscreek 14 hours ago

She approached to ask for permission. If they had any reservations, that was the time to discuss them. She did what was expected of an employee. The fact that they blessed her and then went back on their word seems wrong.

Not a lawyer but my intuition says there might be some legal grounds here favouring the wife.

My take is someone even higher up found out later and did not like it. Now it’s entirely possible the individuals who gave their blessings were supportive of the party the wife was standing for, and the ones above them weren’t? Still whoever blessed the campaign did so in their capacity as a senior officer of the company. A total shit show nevertheless.

To the original commenter: sorry this happened to your wife. Hope she’s able to find another job that treats her right. Also congrats on the baby, hoping parenthood makes up for all of this and more. Sending the best of wishes your way.

[–] njovin 14 hours ago

AFAIK in every US state a company can fire you for any reason that’s not protected, and “we told you this was okay but changed our minds” is as good a reason as any in the law’s eyes.

[–] Humorist2290 13 hours ago

In many US states a company can fire you even for protected reasons, and just fabricate a reason that isn't protected. Of course there are examples of people fighting this because it sometimes is a fight worth having, but the vast majority just have to accept being discriminated against and try to find another job.

[–] GormHouj 14 hours ago

I think Montana is the only state not "at-will"

[–] JonathanAgosto 13 hours ago

Puerto Rico is technically not a state, but as part of the US, and counted in the statistics of the (federal) Department of Labor, I would also count it as a _not "at-will"_ state.

[–] SoftTalker 14 hours ago

Correct. If she had something in writing, signed by a person with proper authority in the organization, she might be on stronger footing. But they could just find some other reason, or state "no reason" for her termination, and that's perfectly legal in an at-will employment.

[–] charcircuit 14 hours ago

If I ask my employer if I can start a YouTube channel and then after getting permission I start posting videos that make the company look bad, and showing how awesome competitor products were I wouldn't be surprised if I got fired. I wouldn't be fired for the account but what I did with it.

[–] sheepscreek 6 hours ago

We don’t know if the person did any such thing (bad mouth the company or its products).

However, in the scenario they did, then the company would have grounds to fire them.

[–] avs733 14 hours ago

Well in normal countries…firing them for something they did outside work. In American vernacular, something something free speech.

[–] SoftTalker 14 hours ago

You have the right to free speech. Your employer, like anyone else, has a right to not be associated with what you say.

[–] gavinray 13 hours ago

I'm curious to hear other people's perspectives on why they think they should be illegal?

For example: Suppose you hire someone to help you move furniture.

You can decide you dont like the color of their shoes and tell them to kick rocks.

You dont owe anyone a job, and labor for pay is a contractual agreement, nothing more.

[–] malicka 13 hours ago

Color of shoes is one thing, that’s fair game.

Buuut it’s probably better for society to not kneecap ordinary folks just for trying to run for office. Otherwise, you only get folks in office with deep pockets who can take the hit.

[–] gavinray 13 hours ago

Sure, it's a dick move. But it's important to distinguish "shouldn't" from "legally can't".

Should you be racist? No. Should you call someone fat and ugly? No.

But personal liberty and freedom require we allow people to make choices and have opinions we don't personally agree with.

[–] Sparkle-san 12 hours ago

Personal liberty and freedom also require people to be free from economic coercion so that we can exercise those rights. Corporations have an asymmetric amount of power and we should stop anthropomorphizing them.

[–] latexr 12 hours ago

I recommend Karl Popper’s “Paradox of Tolerance”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

https://www.thealmightyguru.com/Wiki/images/2/2e/Paradox_of_...

[–] gavinray 12 hours ago

I think we're on the same page:

  > "a just society should generally tolerate the intolerant, reserving self-preserving actions for only when intolerance poses a concrete threat to liberty and stability."

Freedom of speech and self-expression applies to just that: words

If intolerance or hate poses a physical threat, or in any way infringes on the liberty and personal autonomy of others, a line has been crossed and must be swiftly dealt with.

[–] latexr 9 hours ago

I’m guessing you may not be from a minority and/or you live in a safe area? It’s a common occurrence for bigots to lob “words” at those people, in a way that they rightfully do not feel safe. On occasion, it escalates. What this means is that those people, for their own safety, have to act differently than they normally would. For example, gay/lesbian couples often have to pretend to be straight and can’t have a normal night out and display affection without being in danger.

In addition to the possibility of peril, there is also the psychological harm these interactions cause, and the living in fear.

It is only those who are safe who believe words from the intolerant are harmless. The intolerant count on that lack of knowledge to get away with “just asking questions”.

I hope you and your loved ones never have to go through any such interactions, they are harrowing, but I also urge you to have deep discussions with the recipients of them to understand a bit better why we should protect them instead of dismissing their concerns.

[–] gavinray 8 hours ago

I spent years in prison and homeless, lol

Being denied housing or employment was not just a regular occurrence but the norm for me for a large portion of my life

[–] westpfelia 13 hours ago

It limits the ability for someone to run for office. Making it only so people who CAN afford to not work to run. Seems unfair.

[–] drewbitt 14 hours ago

Even if an employee has the authority to make a decision, executive leadership should still have the legal right to terminate someone if they disagree with that choice. Let's not make running a business illegal.