Jeff Bezos says big tech employee activists are wrong
businessinsider.in
businessinsider.in
I 100% don't ever want to hear my co-worker's opinions on politics (even if I agree with them). I work to make a living and survive. Activism can happen outside that framework, otherwise people will be forced to endure it under the threat of losing their livelihood.
It's a distraction at best and a massive disruption to the business and people's personal lives at worst. Look at Google. People are threatening each other, stalking each other, slamming each other in the media... Google created an environment that promoted a particular brand of politics and this is how it ended up. A company that promoted right wing politics would be just as bad.
If you don't like a government policy, take it up with the government not your place of work. It's only fair to your co-workers.
The main thing that is changing is not "activism", but rather that companies such as Google started out with lofty visions and mottos like "Do no evil", but now can't help but become part of the millitary-surveillance-industrial complex. Predictably, many people who didn't sign up to work in the offense industry don't want to be implicitly transferred into it. Quitting is the easy path, but attempting voice rather than exit is understandable as well.
This is a personal and subjective thing. Each person had their own set of moral limits. And some people don't want to hear it, do their jobs, and go home.
What are the realistic alternatives? "They should find another company" can easily apply to the outspoken or the don't-wanna-hear-it groups. "Put up with it" also could also apply to both groups.
What does "morally hazardous" mean? Something that is at risk as being perceived as immoral? In that case, do you have examples of something that is not morally hazardous?
Taking on the DoD as a client is a political act. If your coworkers don’t speak about it, you are still hearing their opinions on politics — they are just expressing their tacit support. And if you can’t speak against it at work, then you are telling your coworkers to endure it under the threat of losing their livelihood.
I agree with this statement, but one could say the same of the choices people face when choosing to work for any given company: it's a political act. There are those who choose to work at companies who engage in all sorts of activities they don't find appealing politically and stay, and those who don't bother applying to work at such companies (all trade-offs considered).
It's not about politics per se, that's just the motive in this particular case. A work environment that allows and condones people "threatening each other, stalking each other, slamming each other in the media" is always a toxic environment, regardless of the political implications or lack thereof. Activism, whether on the "left" or on the "right", doesn't have to imply toxicity.
As a part of that pitch Bezos makes statements in favour of the Pentagon.
Now let's look at how the Washington Post reports that. I'm guessing there'll be a slant trashing Sanders somewhere but maybe they'll leave that out as a distraction from uncritical support of Bezos' interests.
How much is enough Bezos? You've got more money than 5 future generations of your family can ever spend on anything. Unless things get a lot worse. Go dodge some more tax. You give capitalism a bad name.
So why do you think Bezos thinks making this speech, devoid of content but a pledge of alliance to the Pentagon is a worthwhile investment of the time of the world's richest man? Consider travel time etc as well.
Why does he even want this contract at all because it's clear he does.
The people at the pointy end of the stick similarly wish the bombs would stop falling. They just lack the power to get this opinion published by mainstream propaganda rags as if it were profound.