Grubhub CEO tells pro-Trump employees to resign | Hacker News Reader

Grubhub CEO tells pro-Trump employees to resign

i.sli.mg

57 pointsrandomname247 comments

Paragraph 3: "I firmly believe that we must bring together different perspectives...including all genders, races....ideological preferences."

Paragraph 4: "...I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life here in the United States."

Paragraph 5: "If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here."

How is this not a severe contradiction?

There's a difference between respecting someone's ideological preference, and discouraging hate speech. I like to think of it like this: your liberties to express ideology end where someone else's human rights begin.

I would disagree with firing someone for saying that they liked Trump. I would agree with firing someone for making racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory comments toward a co-worker. I think that's what GrubHub's CEO is getting at.

> There's a difference between respecting someone's ideological preference, and discouraging hate speech

No there is not. "Hate speech" is what liberals call inconvenient conservative speech. Approving all speech except "hate speech" is just declaring that you will censor speech you find disagreeable.

The only legitimate speech restrictions are viewpoint-neutral no matter what the viewpoint.

"You're a dirty monkey and should go back to Africa" is inconvenient conservative speech? You'll have a difficult time defending that statement.

That statement is absolutely protected speech.

I think you're mistaking the purpose of the 1st amendment. Racist comments are protected speech in that the United States Government cannot arrest/imprison/etc. you for that kind of speech.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of repercussions for your speech. New York is an at-will state, meaning there is no legal problem with this email. There is no protection for people getting fired for hate speech, just like there is no legal protection for people boycotting or refusing to work for companies that they disagree with.

Private enterprises aren't required by law to uphold a high standard of free speech, but being decent Americans does. The government MUST NOT censor, but private companies SHOULD NOT.

I think we have a very different standard of what a "decent American" is. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree for now.

What if a black person said this to another black person?

My point is that "hate speech" is not clear cut.

Today, the left is using it to silence any opposition.

If someone says "hate speech" is writing "Trump" on the ground with chalk, where does it end?

How do you draw the line?

I think I was pretty clear about where I draw the line.

> your liberties to express ideology end where someone else's human rights begin.

I won't respect your opinion if it disrespects someone's existence.

We are discussing these terms in a specific context of this email. Wild straw men arguments do not contribute to the discussion. Unless you can find someone saying,

> You're a dirty monkey and should go back to Africa

I would refrain from such bombast.

I think it would be best to delete your second sentence. Let's not delve too deeply into group A vs. group B. Your comment would be much better without it.

You are right that hate speech is a charge that can get blown out of proportion. The question then becomes how to define it in a way that protects ideological differences.

> If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here.

That is clearly stating that if you have an ideological disagreement hand in your resignation. Contradicting the claim he supports 'ideological inclusion and tolerance' in the preceding paragraph.

Nowhere in the text does the term 'hate speech' come up. He does make a reference to demeaning behaviour. That could easily mean ideological disagreement. If you find someones views on H1B visas demeaning they should hand in there resignation.

Also he states,

> we do not tolerate hateful attitudes on our team.

Again he states there is no tolerance for attitudes he may disagree with. Attitudes are simply ideas informed by ideology. What constitutes a hateful attitude could be any political disagreement of principle. Including voting for Trump.

This seems like a fairly pointed address to Trump voters that they should hand in there resignation.

It's confused. The paragraph previous to that is talking about protecting people from discrimination. If you read it charitably there's a perfectly reasonable interpretation.

Of course, a CEO should write defensively even against uncharitable interpretation and this is a pretty spectacular failure on that level.

It reads like an emotion charged poorly proofread diary entry that could at some point be used as material for a company wide email.

The fact that he just sent that out like it is on an impulse hints that there is a whole lot of reflective internal composure and professionalism filters that are missing. Thats not what you want to see in a CEO.

The language is ambiguous and buzz wordy enough that angry Clinton supporters could take it as a call to purge there fellow colleagues. And likewise Trump supporters could see it as a call for them to resign.

Overall, the damage this is going to do is precisely why you do not mix your personal politics and your business.

This also reads as reflex virtue signaling based on being sure that everybody in the company shares the same ideology bubble as the author, because all decent people do. This is only too frequent occurrence. No nuance was considered because none was necessary to consider - since everybody (worth considering) agrees anyway.

Exactly.

He was talking not only about "hate speech" (though even this category has long since have been extended by some to include anything disagreeing with the Party Line) but about nationalism and policies of Trump in general, which has been wholesale called "hateful".

Of course, one can read it as "I oppose the policies of Trump that I consider hateful but not ones that are not" but since no way of distinguishing between the two has been offered, I assume that was not the intent and surely not how most of the people read it. It reads as a wholesale denunciation of Trump and his supporters as hateful. Maybe it wasn't the intent, but in that case the nuance was lost somewhere on the way.

In a message that instructs anybody who disagrees to resign the lack of nuance is not the best idea - unless that is exactly what the author meant.

There is no such thing as hate-speech. Hate Speech is free speech too. Other than a credible threat every other expression is free speech. It is a fundamental right for all Americans to use homophobic, racist, sexist speech if they want to.

It is also Grubhub CEO's right to fire anyone who he dislikes but then it cuts both ways. All conservatives must now abandon Grubhub.

With 50% of population disliking Grubhub I bet CEO will lose his job in a day for being an as*hole.

How could it be? You can't foster or promote tolerance by supporting intolerance.

Analysis by Ken White:

Mini-lawsplainer: maybe @Grubhub isn't safe with that "resign if you support Trump's politics" email after all. /1

/2 Turns out DC is one of a few jurisdictions with a no-firing-based-on-political-affiliation law. Sec. 2-1401.11 beta.code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/cod…

/3 In fact, under 1-1401.11(4)(B) it's specifically illegal to publish a "preference, limitation, specification, or distinction" based on it

/4 So @Grubhub probably just (1) violated the law and (2) gave a fun free retaliation claim to any Trump supporter they fire or discipline.

/5 [I'll spare you the freedom of association analysis or the hypocrisy-of-talking-about-freedom-of-association analysis]

/6 In short, @Grubhub, wallow and rant, but do it on your private account. Boss speech has liability issues.

/7 [Update] For some reason I thought they were in DC. NY and Chicago. Different laws. I'll look.

The email isn't "resign if you support Trump's politics" it's "resign if you act like Trump (in his more distasteful moments) during office hours"

Followup: GrubHub isn't headquartered in DC.

IANAL, but that sounds like a pretty irresponsible email to make public for the CEO of a public company. Is it not?

Edit: CEO just posted a clarification. http://media.grubhub.com/media/press-releases/press-release-...

Getting some pretty bad backlash on Twitter.

He opened the company up to serious liability for discrimination and creating a hostile work environment. Additionally, shareholders damaged by this monumentally stupid action can sue. Class action and employment attorneys are likely searching LinkedIn and other sites for employees emails to contact as I write this, looking for the ~500 or so employees of their 1,000 that are likely affected by this.

Hillary lost. Get over it, and (this should be obvious) don't tell your employees to resign if they disagree with you.

They absolutely should not turn in their resignations. I work for a state writing unemployment insurance application software. If the CEO wants them out, he needs to lay them off/fire them. If the employees hand in their resignation, they are ineligible for benefits. That is what the CEO wants, but that is not what the workers should allow. They are owed unemployment insurance benefits in this case.

Title is wrong. He defined several actions that Trump demonstrated as grounds for immediate termination. He informed all his employees that if they do not follow company hr policies they should resign.

You could charitably interpret it that way. But he also did write these words:

Further I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump and will work to shield our community from this movement as best as I can. ... If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here.

If you identify as a nationalist or favor immigration restrictions, then you're not in agreement with his statement and are told to resign.

He is just trying to make sure everyone is a good cultural fit for the company. That excuse usually flys on HN when discussing avoiding hiring folks of my age range, so why shouldn't it also when discriminating against people based upon their political beliefs.

I think if you act in a violently nationalist way (harming or harassing someone who is "not American enough"), or taunt legal immigrants because they "look hispanic", "look indian" etc, that is all completely reasonable grounds for firing.

In my opinion, you can identify as nationalist or favor immigration restrictions as long as you don't harm, harass, threaten, etc. someone. And I think this is what the Grubhub CEO is saying (their later statement reinforces this).

This isn't censorship of ideas, it's reinforcing a culture of empathy and goodwill at a company with those values.

Think about it this way: would you enjoy working for a company that did nothing as co-workers made fun of you for your race, disability, country of origin, or sexual orientation?

> reinforcing a culture of empathy and goodwill

Starting off with politics and ending by threatening to fire people is generally not the way one cultivates empathy and goodwill.

I agree with your analysis of the motivation, but the execution was a lesson in what not to do.

I've thought about it some more and I agree with you. I don't think this letter is a shining example that should be repeated ad verbatim.

However, I do want to express my opinion that in order for racism & sexism to be defeated, it's going to take some grit and discomfort. To quote: "When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels Like oppression."

Can anyone confirm if this is real? If it is, this is probably going to turn into a PR disaster for them.

I think if anything, it'll make people in the more liberal cities - their main market - more attracted to the company. You may disagree, but my feelings after reading this are to support Grubhub, whereas before I was neutral on them. I value companies that are dedicated to inclusion and discourage hate speech.

> I think if anything, it'll make people in the more liberal cities - their main market - more attracted to the company.

I consider myself to be very liberal, and I live in New York, and I find that message to be gross as hell. I dislike everything Trump stands for, but I would likely quit if our CEO sent us an email like that.

I'm sure the CEO meant it to be an affirmation of the values that I hold myself to, but it reads more like a specifically political anti-Trump screed.

Before anyone accuses me of "being a fascist" for supporting this kind of censorship, take a moment to read the article again. He's not telling people to resign if they are pro-Trump, he's asking people who are going to actively make others' lives worse through hate-speech and derogatory action to resign. Remember that your liberties end where other's liberties begin.

Does that really need to be said? I'm sure it's already in the employee handbook that you can't call people racial epithets or sexually harass people.

Try to put yourself in the mindset of a Trump voter working st GrubHub and receiving that email. That wouldn't make you a little bit nervous? Would you really say to yourself "oh, yeah, I see what he's saying here" or would you clam up and live in fear of being outed?

It is: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/boss-tells-pro-trump-em...

Why should it be a PR disaster? The headline here is complete click-bait that mis-states what was actually said. And what was actually said is perfectly reasonable. I can't speak for anybody else, but personally I agree with the GrubHub CEO 100%.

Clickbait title, not exactly what he said.

The email sounds like it was written by someone angry and hurt and desperate to "do something" (the hypothetical "he would have been terminated" is revealing).

The actual interpretation of who is being asked to resign is ambiguous.

At the least it should be a lesson not to hastily send company-wide emails while gripped by extreme emotions.

Agreed the headline here is a bit of click baiting.

previous submission with some comments and more context in the submitted URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12924340 (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/boss-tells-pro-trump-em...)

campaigning is different than normal work, all the politics promise something just to gain votes and it's not different from all the other years. like Obama promised change but America just sank into more problems, even with the NSA "the program" he did not do anything about it and even lied to the public concealing it. I would look at the speeches and interview what he gives before and after the campaign it's totally different, and i think if Hilary gained the power America would just be more corrupt if anything even change while trump is president. i doubt it but i would rather see this positive.