Coinbase's recent actions add interesting additions to the ammunition available for responding to employee activism.
I think the longstanding questions in this area are:
- are the activist employees just a vocal minority
- who will care (or support) if those activists are ignored -> who just wants to get back to work and focus on whatever it is that Company X does for profit.
That presents a somewhat cynical view of corporate culture. But, I'm very incredulous of arguments stating this isn't considered by companies that are large enough for employee activism to matter-matter.
CB essentially tried the usually avoided approach. It said it wouldn't support this stuff by implication (would stay "only mission focused) and gave healthy severance packages to those who wanted to leave. 5% of employees left, and the makeup of the 5% reflected that of the overall workforce. I have to think other companies paid attention to this outcome, although I wonder what internal polling and the like led to CB doing it.
> 5% of employees left, and the makeup of the 5% reflected that of the overall workforce. I have to think other companies paid attention to this outcome, although I wonder what internal polling and the like led to CB doing it.
I'd say a good outcome for the company. Avoid the distraction of the vocal minority purposefully trying to create "scandals" to subvert the company's leadership.
Good for the firm, bad for activist employees. That data point will be used against them by people like Cirne.
Clearly we're starting to see firms separating into "we just get work done here" like Coinbase/New Relic and another other category, "all in on identity politics" like Kickstarter, Google. Firms that don't want to go in that direction but were previously unclear on what the damage might be from activist exits now have at least a ballpark figure - and of course that 5% number is exaggerated. Coinbase basically gave people a huge bonus for disagreeing with the new policy. If not paying people to leave, and in the middle of a lockdown recession, the number would surely be lower.
Reading the article, it really looks like some New Relic employees want :
- To prevent someone from supporting the presidential candidate she believes in. It's event funnier of you consider that the person if not working at NewRelic.
- Control which charities the CEO should give money to with his private philantropy fund (which he has no obligation to setup).
> "It is clear that some of you are devoting more energy and attention inwards, than towards our customers."
How did Mozilla fare after these same cultural forces excised Brendan Eich? And how's the Brave browser doing in comparison? (I'm using it to type this very message.)
And before downvoting me, please note that I'm Jewish (ethnically speaking - I am more of a scientific pantheist in my actual views, but I digress) and bisexual. I do not support Cirne's charities or politics. I am merely calling into question the tactics that these employees are attempting to use to silence him.
Yes, it is, actually. That's literally what the employees voicing their displeasure want --
(1) for his speech as a private citizen to not contradict the public values of the company he leads (i.e. for him to not donate to, say, exclusionary institutions), and,
(2) most likely, going beyond (1): for his speech as a private citizen to be "in alignment" with the public values of the company he leads (i.e., to compel speech).
You can agree or disagree that any of this is a reasonable or desirable or legal, but it's Orwellian doublespeak to claim it's "not silencing".
He’s an extremely wealthy individual. His “voice” aka his “speech” aka his ability to influence the actions of the government via political donations is orders of magnitude greater than pretty much all of his employees. He ain’t being silenced.
The only people being silenced here are the LGBTQ+ kids going to that abhorrent school he donated $250,000 to
Is there actually any data on Brave's market share? It's been my assumption that they have far fewer installs than Firefox, but admittedly my impression is not informed by any real data.
Our politics has broken down. A minority rules, and the only avenue left to the majority is questionable tactics like this. More of these seemingly idiotic conflicts will arise until Congress functions again.
And to a non-American the code of conduct trying to bar employees from political initiatives seems... oddly controlling.
Did we forget to disagree and discuss?
The CEO here should address the dissonance between his actions and the stated values of the company when questioned. One does not have to agree, but he should care enough to address it.
I agree, but I don't think any employee (including the CEO) should need / bother to justify to their employer the organizations they privately contribute to or support.
It's not some big mystery how someone can support a religious school or one of the two viable presidential candidates without necessarily supporting everything about those things.
Having a PR person write out a statement on behalf of the CEO that says that more eloquently seems like a waste of time and resources.
> Cirne’s wife is a contributor to President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, another sore point for many New Relic employees even though she has no role with the company...They see his wife’s donations to Trump as antithetical to the company’s stated values...
What do the employees want to happen? Cirne to divorce or publicly condemn his wife over political contributions?
He can't forbid someone else from making political contributions.
He could at the very least state that his wife's political views are not a reflection of his own. Sure, it's speculation, but I would guess that, given his other questionable donations, he probably isn't opposed to his wife's political donations.
IMO this, along with a few other choice quotes from the article [0][1], indicate to me that he's neither an inspiring nor effective leader. He blames his employees rather than himself for the failings of the company, and he blames his employees for combative discourse rather than his own actions and donations. Yuck.
Sidenote, the rush to his defense in this comment section is nothing short of odd.
[0]: "It is clear that some of you are devoting more energy and attention inwards, than towards our customers.”
[1]: Two days later Cirne sent a scolding memo to the entire company, admonishing employees to work harder and warning that New Relic was trailing competitors.
> He could at the very least state that his wife's political views are not a reflection of his own.
It's unreasonable to expect somebody to publicly denounce their spouse like this. It's inappropriate for people to make a coworker's spouse a matter of contention in the first place.
That's not denouncing. That's a neutral way of stating that he had nothing to do with those donations.
And stop pretending that this is just any ordinary coworker. This is the public face and leader of the company that publicly advertises a certain set of values. This is also a person who has been made rich by the success of the company, and then is using that money to donate to very morally questionable causes (either directly himself or via his wife).
The guy literally donated an "ordinary coworker's" years salary to an organization that explicitly discriminates against members of the LGBTQ+ community. Do tell me exactly why it is inappropriate for employees of the company to complain about such dubious donations of their CEO, who they helped make mind-numbingly rich?
> This is also a person who has been made rich by the success of the company,
Would you say the degree to which a coworker's personal relationship with their spouse is 'your business' is proportional to their salary? Or how exactly do you figure this works?
His relationship with his spouse is his business, not yours. It's really that simple.
The century where we generally assume that both members of a domestic partnership or marriage are fully aware of the actions of the other and, most likely, support said actions taken by the other, especially when those actions are public and controversial.
Assuming that two people in a relationship agree with each other's politics is a good way to make an ass out of yourself. Causing trouble at work because you dislike the politics of somebody's spouse is totally over the line and you've said nothing to make me question that.
This is the public face and leader of the company that publicly advertises a certain set of values
Presumably you're arguing they should stop advertising that set of values. But then that'd be used to condemn them as well.
why it is inappropriate for employees of the company to complain about such dubious donations of their CEO
Totally appropriate, just as long as those employees don't mind the CEO telling everyone that their political donations are dubious/questionable, demanding they publicly denounce their spouse, or controlling their private political and charitable donations.
But of course those employees would explode if the CEO even hinted at doing any of those things. One rule for them and another for the boss, likely justified with vague rhetoric about power. But, you can't have it both ways. If employees can demand control over the CEO's life but not vice-versa, then it's the employees who have the power, not the CEO. Yet we all know that's not how companies actually work. Eventually even tech CEOs will realise that, so expect them to get a lot more aggressive against this kind of employee activism in future. It's simply not fair on them, currently.
Ah yes, employees don't like what their boss is doing, they call him out, and now they have the power, not the boss. They can suddenly set their own hours, raise their pay, steer the products and take vacations whenever they like. What a load of bullshit.
The bosses have the most power and money and therefore deserve the most scrutiny.
The bosses only have power if they are willing to exercise it in order to fire the people who are 'scrutinising' them. Is that really what these people want?
Not speculation, it's a pretty clear refutation of the hypothesis that channeling a donation through a third-party severs all links between the contribution and those who actually make the contribution.
Don't forget the paradox of the paradox of intolerance (a.k.a. the meta-paradox of intolerance) which states that Popper's paradox of intolerance is often cited by those seeking to justify their own intolerance, ironically identifying themselves as also among those whom the paradox of intolerance warns against.
(I jest but, in seriousness, always remember that Popper's paradox works as a justification for any side and any viewpoint, whether good or bad. That's why it's a weak argument.)
It's because tolerance is not what's actually being discussed. It's morality. No-one thinks we should tolerate rape or murder, or considers the locking in a box of those who commit those acts as being in any way intolerant, even though to a dictionary definition, it is.
It's just about changing morals, with the idea of tolerance as the vehicle that smoothed the way. All the dichotomies dissolve when things are seen for what they are.
Giving money to a private school that excludes gay people is far more of a choice than being a gay person. In this case by tolerating the intolerant you end up creating an inescapably intolerant society for gay people the sake of avoiding creating an escapable intolerant society for Christians. Nothing in the Bible says Thou must not let gay kids go to private school.
> In September, Cirne told employees that Beloved in Christ will aid victims of the wildfires that burned more than 1 million acres across Oregon.
He mentioned his personal, religious charity at work and targeted it at all employees as part of a fundraising effort (admittedly for a good cause in this case). At that point, it's not just outside-of-work.
Normalizing and accepting intolerant viewpoints is akin to a dictator winning a democratic election. It's how bad actors use the system they despise with the explicit intention of sabotage.
Larry Ellison donates significant amounts of money to the Trump campaign. He’s also on the board of Tesla.
So are Tesla owners and shareholders funding the Trump campaign indirectly? Is that a political line?
I might worry about my direct manager acting on biases, or about the company’s policies, but not the CEO’s personal opinions. New Relic has over 2,000 employees, how would he even remember my name?
You're making the CEO extremely rich and he's donating more money than you'll probably ever make to what many consider to be the enemy, so its pretty reasonable you might not want to work for the company or the CEO anymore
Ultimately I am replaceable. My work is worth more than my cost, but it’s not me making making shareholders and management rich, it’s the customers. When I hire a doctor or a tax accountant, they absolutely don’t get a veto over my politics or how I use my money, and for the same reason I would never expect to boss the CEO around.
I’d have to work at a tiny PAC to avoid everyone who disagrees with me, or go full Tarn & Zach Adams.
If anyone has agency to stop earning their living, my guess is that they also have agency to express their opinion and hold someone else accountable for creating an hostile work environment.
Then you don’t have agency and need to deal with the nature of the contract. You take money, you put up with the circumstances. If you don’t need to take money, then you are free.
I’m sorry for all those stuck, but you need the money. In a desperate situation like that, where your own principles are secondary to your very survivable, it’s proper to shut up and do your job.
If you are in a position where your principles are not secondary, then quit.
I think the longstanding questions in this area are:
- are the activist employees just a vocal minority
- who will care (or support) if those activists are ignored -> who just wants to get back to work and focus on whatever it is that Company X does for profit.
That presents a somewhat cynical view of corporate culture. But, I'm very incredulous of arguments stating this isn't considered by companies that are large enough for employee activism to matter-matter.
CB essentially tried the usually avoided approach. It said it wouldn't support this stuff by implication (would stay "only mission focused) and gave healthy severance packages to those who wanted to leave. 5% of employees left, and the makeup of the 5% reflected that of the overall workforce. I have to think other companies paid attention to this outcome, although I wonder what internal polling and the like led to CB doing it.