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?
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.
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 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.
> You're a dirty monkey and should go back to Africa
I would refrain from such bombast.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
Of course, a CEO should write defensively even against uncharitable interpretation and this is a pretty spectacular failure on that level.
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.
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.
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.