The CEO's response was to sack the author. That seems quite sane to me.
-
-
Very well then, I'm part of the problem. Tell me, just what is the problem? (Please don't say that it's the fact that I don't see it.)
-
The problem is that our industry should be able to accommodate right-of-centre views, and possibly disagree them, while not sacking people.
-
In any company there are lines you don't cross. Openly attacking the CEO's policy on HR will get you sacked almost anywhere.
-
1) It wasn't open. It was a private forum for sharing views on diversity. 2) This doesn't say whether those policies are right or wrong.
-
That argument isn't an ethical one. It would require us to justify sacking ppl for saying women should get equal pay if CEO disagreed.
-
An explicitly anti-woman pay policy is illegal, no? But you could fairly be sacked if advocating women priests in a Catholic newspaper.
-
Yes. Then we'd be very critical of Catholicism for its stance on women. Just as we're very critical of Google for its stance on biology.
-
Fine, but a Catholic editor can fairly sack such a journalist. Google's "stance on biology" is endorsed by the CEO.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Companies aren't forums for free speech supporting racist and sexist views . Where on did this notion they are come from?
-
I don't know. Where have you seen it claimed that they are?
-
From people who are saying Google have no right to sack someone for disseminating views in the company that have bought it into disrepute.
-
They have the right but if ppl see memo as sexist and racist and a forum for discussing as diversity as the wrong place to discuss diversity
-
Can't really help them. They are clearly living in an entirely different reality to people who know what racism & sexism & forums are.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.