Salesforce Will Help Relocate Employees from Texas After Abortion Law | Hacker News Reader

Salesforce Will Help Relocate Employees from Texas After Abortion Law

businessinsider.com

78 pointsbdcravens112 comments

This is good. I love Texas in general and have many close ties, but the hypocritical directions they’re taking are too much. We love Austin as well and as a startup actively looking to open its third office, Austin is a really attractive target. Although I don’t make the official decisions on such things, I cannot see any way I would do anything but strongly advocate against opening our next office in Austin because of all Texas’s nonsense. Denver seems like a good alternative.

This is bad because this is exactly the point of the law. Make Texas less friendly to blue voters and get them to leave.

This makes no sense. The law is to appease red voters. This is like saying some CA gun safety law is designed to push out red voters. Of course some might see these kinds of laws as getting rid of the “wrong” kind of people. But in general this isn’t how political science works.

You really think you can’t accomplish multiple things with a piece of legislation? That’s exactly how political science works, you craft something to benefit yourself in the most ways possible.

Hypocrisy isn't a criticism I've seen leveled at it. I thought the problem was autonomy over one's own body, like wearing masks.

Hypocrisy in view of all the other legislation issued and ideals held by the legislators.

And yet you need more sane voters to vote in a better governor and state reps. It seems like the opposite approach would be strategically better: get more educated people to move into the state and you'll have more educated voters which would lead to positive change.

It makes no difference when jerrymandering is in full swing.

Gerrymandering still requires significant popular support. In a two party system it can drop things to at minimum 25% vs 50% support in theory, but in practice it’s hard to maintain below 40%.

Don't worry, that's where voting suppression tactics under the guises of "security and fraud prevention" come in.

This is how apartheid systems perpetuate while still ostensibly offering supposed universal suffrage

Jerrymandering has significant popular support, it’s just that it’s one-sided. In a two-party system, it’s incredibly easy to maintain that support. Just look at voter suppression, it’s as one-sided as possible, yet gaining a lot of ground in a lot of states.

That’s just defeatist nonsense. Texas has turned ridiculously blue in under a decade. Almost feels like your defeatism has an agenda.

Blue? There is nothing blue about Texas’s recent policy. Austin and Houston got bluer, everywhere else got redder.

I wouldn’t call a 3.5% win, in Texas of all places, a tendency towards trending blue. You seem to be ignoring where most of the population in Texas is based.

It's tricky. Could Salesforce donate to organizations that are patching where Texas is failing (such that Bumble and Match's CEO are doing [1]) instead of offering relos out of Texas? Absolutely. Does that make it any better for those who are subjugated by extremist Texas legislative policy? It lessens the pain but the pain is still there, but to your point, the policies won't change until a critical mass of voters vote in less extremist politicians. This will happen at some point [2] [3] [4] as conservative voters age out and younger voters and immigrants (regardless of origin) become eligible to vote, but there is arguably a lot of value in accelerating the progress towards reducing the suffering of the disenfranchised. Money is speech, right?

[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033980404/texas-abortion-ban...

[2] https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/11/texas-democrats-repu...

[3] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/08/12/north-te...

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/15/texas-republ...

Your perspective makes total sense. Don’t mind the downvotes.

Why wouldn't you just mobilize the California National Guard and occupy Texas?

If recent news is any indication, I think we've learned the hard way that you can't export democracy by force

Honest question: As a non American, I don't know 100% about the law except that it makes abortion illegal if the foetus has a heart beat. And if someone carried out an abortion and you can positively prove it, you get a bounty of 10,000$.

So if a Texas resident flies to a nearby state, getting an abortion safely and legally and then they can come back home, right? Sure, the cost of flying would deter some people and it is a less than ideal solution but that cannot be illegal, right?

The problem with that is that "deter some people" is the whole point. This Wapo article goes into more detail but basically restrictions like these always fall disproportionately on historically disadvantaged groups.

So yeah if you have the money to take off work, fly to a state with legal abortion, get a hotel room for however long it takes to jump through their hoops, pay for the procedure itself, and then fly home, no problem I guess.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/19/texas-sb8-...

Yep, I understand that deterring people is the main thing.But if you really need to get one, like in the case of r*pe or a medical emergency, there doesn't seem to be a better way. Unless the Federal govt. steps in. But that will take time, no doubt.

Plus there is some precedent for this in America itself, in a far different context. During the prohibition, people went on luxury liners that used to sail outside of the waters of the US so that they could legally drink alcohol in peace (those who could afford it). Hence the term booze cruise came into existence.

The law is unconstitutional and moronic for the reasons the article outlines.

That's not why it got passed. It's not always about race. It's so hard for HN to get that but here a lot of the most serious proponents of pro-life positions are conservatives....minorities tend to be socially conservative.

It's a moral position. I always see people on HN stake out positions as though the world existed as from their perspective. There are different views on this.

I've at times felt sympathetic to this argument (that the whole debate on abortion boils down to an appeal to morality). However, what ended up really clarifying things for me was hearing accounts of the lengths to which women used to go to abort pregnancies before abortion was legal (and therefore safe). It's simply a fact that women often do not want to carry pregnancies to term. That will not change if we outlaw abortion. You can moralize all day long but it doesn't matter. We can either have safe abortion or we can have abortion by douching with Lysol.

I'm not attempting to moralize.

What I am trying to say is it didn't pass here because it was trying to target any specific group, it passed here because people tend to be conservative and for them the moral position is to be against abortion.

Let's be real. It passed because the GOP has an unbreakable majority in the Texas Legislature and the Texas and national GOP wanted another test case to try to break Roe v Wade while there's a conservative majority in the Supreme Court.

If they just wanted a Roe test case they would have done a conventional ban. They didn't, they crafted the law to maximize the chilling effect on abortion provision even if it was later held unconstitutional by gaming the rules on preemptive review to avoid getting enjoined before being applied, so that the potential litigation burden would deter abortion and drive providers out of business before a court would block enforcement.

That's a very good point.

It's that and the GOP sees that very conservative government action is popular and you've got a bunch of people trying to angle for 2024.

But I promise you, the reason why that is possible is because the conservative morality is often pragmatic when it comes to money, however, there's enough pro-life belief across the spectrum that the average voter isn't that upset, regardless of gender, race, income, etc. These are the demographics.

A) I didn't say anything about race. "Poor" is not a race.

B) The stats speak for themselves wrt who needs these procedures, regardless of your view.

"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids." - Joe Biden

He corrected himself in literally the next breath.

Your morality should have no impact on my morality, unless my actions directly effect you. For example I’m vegetarian for various reasons, but I don’t feel the need to prevent you and society from eating meat if you want.

Unconstitutional how?

It's the kind of thing that if used as precedent going forward turns into a mine field. It breaks federalism. It's something law the fugitive slave laws of the 1850s.

Protecting life breaks fugitive slave law? What? Which part of the Constitution is involved here?

It's more that the structure of the law is very similar to the fugitive slave laws, which were ruled unconstitutional.

Okay, I see now that Prigg v PA ruled that freeing slaves is tantamount to murder.

> So if a Texas resident flies to a nearby state, getting an abortion safely and legally and then they can come back home, right? Sure, the cost of flying would deter some people

The cost and time involved will not just deter a lot of people, it will make this entirely impossible for a lot of the state's poorest resident, it's likely two days bare minimum and being out thousands, that's unlikely to be an option for somebody who's working minimum wages.

Which is pretty much the point, the richer ones never had any issue accessing such services when they wanted to.

it's already two days at the very minimum in Texas: you need to get an ultrasound, mandatory counseling, then must wait 24 hours before the procedure.

I think, the main point here is not the delay, but the time you have to take out of your schedule, and you have to explain to your environment (I.e. work, taking care of family members).

> it is a less than ideal solution but that cannot be illegal, right?

First, we don’t know. The law is deliberately written in a vague and obtuse manner precisely to raise these kinds of questions so that everyone will avoid getting the procedure, except for those with the means and cover to not be harmed by the consequences of someone finding out. There’s an open question, for instance, if the driver of a cab taking someone to the airport to board a flight to a state to get an abortion would be deemed “aiding” the person.

Second, even if it isn’t, requiring someone to leave a state to exercise a right is generally considered not good under our federal system. All rights come with limits (exactly what limits are somewhat up for debate when it comes to any particular right) but, in general, current legal standing is that a person has the right to an abortion prior to the fetus’ viability. The states should not be attempting to restrict further than that.

I don't think they call really enforce that, right? Considering "state's rights" were a big point of contention in the South?

Recall that a major driver of tension before the US civil war was slave states using federal law (Fugitive Slave Act) to force free states to enforce slavery. The whole ‘states rights’ thing was only when it suited.

In Mexico till recently abortions were illegal, was sales force deciding not to do business there? Did it make motions to oppose it?

If they didn’t boycott or make a fuss in Mexico what makes Texas different or France where you’re okay till 12 weeks.

Will they boycott countries where abortions are more cumbersome than California?

The French have a decent policy for the most part perhaps we could enact something similar.

Salesforce does a lot of business in Texas, and hasn't announced any plans to change that, so I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "boycott". The source article just mentions a relocation offer. I suppose I don't know Salesforce policy specifically, but every big tech company I'm familiar with has programs to bring overseas employees to the US if they want (and can get a visa).

Texas is an American state. Are you looking for a bigger difference?

Yes I’m looking for consistency in stance instead of hypocrisy.

It’s a lot easier to transfer employees of any skill and speciality to different states. Transferring employees between countries is a lot harder, and for some careers (e.g. tech support) going to be nearly impossible.

It's not hypocritical. Salesforce wants to keep employees that relocated to their Texas offices happy. France and Mexico have not changed the status quo, and I'd assume most of their employees in those countries have always lived there.

Will they relocate me if a state raises my tax burden and offer relocate me due to the hardship?

Are they only offering the relocation to employees who might need an abortion or because you differ in opinion?

Salesforce, like most companies, adjusts compensation for local cost of living...

> Are they only offering the relocation to employees who might need an abortion or because you differ in opinion?

You know as much as I do.

The law is significantly more expansive and covers anyone assisting in the abortion services, including providing things like rides to the clinic, etc. not just the person or provider.

Wonder how long Uber will last - big ol pot of venture money - have to film the locals chasin them yelling Piñata! Piñata!

why do you think the locals would yell piñata

Spanish, from Italian pignatta, a kind of pot, probably from dialectal pigna, pine cone (from its shape) - vehicle carrying a seed. Partners of aborters would be getting money from suing them rather than being taxed for the ride in sum.

I believe you're right.

> less than ideal solution

Worth mentioning: For us lucky tech people it's maybe nbd, but those added logistics would be a high burden for people with a few more financial to time barriers (for whom unexpected pregnancies likely create more hardship).

Sorry if I'm stating sometime obvious, but I personally mostly forgot how different my life was (as a knowledge professional) until I spent some time working day labour in a factory during pandemic...!

I’d imagine the set of people who are not in a position to raise a child has significant overlap with the set of people who cannot afford (in time, money or both) to fly to another state for an abortion.

If a salesforce employee opts to stay in Texas, I wonder if that will be taken as an expression of support for the law and negatively impact their career.

Edit: I didn't expect this comment to be controversial, and I'm not sure why it is. Are the downvotes from people who think it obviously won't/shouldn't, or from people who think it obviously will/should?

It can’t be interpreted as support, because deciding to stay so you can campaign and vote to turn Texas blue is commendable.

I would hope so. On the other hand, if 9 of 10 people on your team opt to leave the state and you're the one who conspicuously doesn't, maybe your choice will be perceived differently. I would hate to find myself in that sort of situation. And elsewhere in this discussion I see mutterings about staying to vote blue being pointless because of republican gerrymandering, so evidently staying-to-vote-blue isn't seen as seen as worthwhile by all.

I don't have any insight into how many Salesforce employees will take up this offer, and I think that proportion will impact how those that stay will be perceived. All I know for sure right now is I'm glad I don't live in Texas, so I don't have to make this decision for myself.

I don’t think so. There are a million reasons someone might not want to move that have nothing to do with politics. Maybe their house is paid off, or their kids have a couple of years left to finish school, or they’re living near a sick parent, or they love the climate, or they just like it there.

This is providing assistance for people who want to leave, but says nothing at all about people who don’t want to.

You can always explain your reasoning. I would encourage anyone who’s not threatened by these laws to stay and really, seriously mess with Texas.

Will they help to relocate into Texas for those who support the law too?

Someone outside Texas can also not get an abortion just the same, there is no corollary law everywhere else forcing people to get abortions.

Better analogy: will they help me relocate from California if I don't want to deal with their bullshit gun laws?

> Better analogy: will they help me relocate from California if I don't want to deal with their bullshit gun laws?

I mean, in a discussion about women and unwanted pregnancies, as well as their ability to seek mainstream medical care from their local doctors, is one inclined to direct attention to how you wish to access more guns with less red tape?

Does this come from a feeling of being slighted? Like, it's unfair that women are receiving relocation benefits, but not those who want better access to guns?

In a branching discussion thread, it isn’t a redirect. No greater point than to suggest not thinking of the conversation as linear!

It would have been a better analogy if the gun laws in California would have been as recent/sudden as Texas' new abortion law. You seem to assume this is about identity politics but people may have been living in Texas for a long time and suddenly affected by a very recent change that may mean they are in danger of getting stuck with a pregnancy they do not wish.

They may even be otherwise conservative who find themselves in a situation where they only want to get an abortion later than 6 weeks in a pregnancy (which is a very short time scale - a lot of women wouldn't even know they're pregnant until a month or more in).

Why would they? Their position on guns is I'm sure quite different than their position on abortion. If the company agrees with California's takes on both issues then why would they fund relocations from there?

California forces people buying health insurance to pay for abortions.

Correction: California doesn’t allow health insurance to deny paying for women’s healthcare.

This 'correction' replaces a specific statement with a rather more general one, obscuring the point of the reply.

"California doesn’t allow health insurance to deny paying for abortions."

You and I said the same thing.

But the post I replied to was disingenuous. It made it sound like the law was that insurance purchasers have to pay for abortions, but that’s misleading. Don’t think so? Consider if they’d written: “California forces people buying health insurance to pay for insulin.” That sounds silly. It’s technically true, but implies something more direct than the reality.

If the point is responding to "there is no corollary law everywhere else forcing people to get abortions", a statement that doesn't mention abortion doesn't quite suffice.

Apparently there's a place, California, where health-insurance-buyers (so, ideally, everyone, and presumably all Salesforce employees) all unavoidably fund abortions, this arrangement of things being upheld by force of law.

> Consider if they’d written: “California forces people buying health insurance to pay for insulin.” That sounds silly.

Doesn't sound silly to me. If you're against insulin, then you have grounds to object against California's laws.

"It’s technically true"

So it's true. Will you bite the bullet with regard to the equivalent statement about abortion? Sure, it's an indirect arrangement of things. See my revised, hedged formulation above.

No, why would they? The stance of Salesforce is clearly, implicitly, in opposition to the law.

The article claims the announcement was "without taking a stance on the law". But that's wrong. Salesforce hasn't proclaimed a stance, but their actions (well, statements about their intended future actions) speak sufficiently loud.

I’d seriously consider whether these people are a good cultural fit.

I don not support Texas law in question. But will they help relocate from SF for those sick of homelessness, drug overdoses (more people died in SF from drug overdoses than from COVID during pandemic), raising crime and increasing anti-Asian hate?

Are there laws that mandate building affordable housing and to ensure healthcare and support for vulnerable populations?

Miami, for example, is doing much better with respect to this

Nothing should terrify women more than men fighting for women’s abortion rights.

We can fight for ourselves. Thank you very much.

This is pretty stupid IMO.

There’s no requirement to have a health procedure done in the state you live.

It’s way more convenient if Salesforce offered transportation to get an abortion, instead of forcing you to relocate to get that assistance.

They can't.

The new Texas law makes it effectively illegal to help someone get an abortion, for example by providing transport to a clinic for that purpose. Even if the clinic is outside Texas.

Shouldn't they be trying to relocate more people to TX so they can vote for more sane representation? If a bunch of people end up moving out of the state over this then the TX GOP gets what they want.

> If a bunch of people end up moving out of the state over this then the TX GOP gets what they want.

It would be more interesting to me to find out people who would actually quit/leave vs saying they will. I'd bet in actuality it's quite a small number that would follow through and certainly not an exodus. A lot of people always say they will do X, but don't actually do it when it comes down to it because it would inconvenience them or burden them too much to actually follow through. Both quit our jobs? Do we have enough saved to do that? Sell the house? Pull the kids out of school away from the only friends they've known? Find new daycare that we trust? Move away from family, extended family and everything you know? Find a new house? Find 2 new jobs making as much as we were? Finding a new city in a new state that we like and feel like we fit in? That's a lot harder to actually do than say "I'd move."

That’s a very good point. They should support people moving to districts that can be flipped so that Texas can turn blue. Also donate heavily to the races that can bring Texas back to, at least, the 20th century.

As a Texan, don't move here if you do not intend to adopt our culture. You have 49 other options after all.

I'm happy to come out to Texas and vote out your culture. Your ancestors did the same exact thing to the people that were there before.

No wait, your ancestors used guns and pushed them out by force.

Congratulations! You discovered a gem of history-- it repeats itself. Look up theory of Anacyclosis.

well credit where credit is due. I've been saying for years that there's a cycle where anarchy -> depotism -> momarchy -> democracy -> anarchy. Had no idea there was a word for it

Yeah I had this theory too and was recently introduced to the term. Turns out no idea is original.

This site is pretty good: https://anacyclosis.org/portfolio/what-is-anacyclosis/

Conservatives believe the USA is in the early stages of collapse. I happen to agree with them.

I'm not a conservative but having travelled around the world, I happen to agree. But I'd contest that there are plenty of republican policies contributing to that degradation as well. When I look at the countries with the highest inequality, what strikes me is a few things like extreme competition and tragedy of the commons effects. Things that federal regulation is suppossed to reign in.

Right. That's why folks are moving from Texas to California. Oh wait...

yes, rich people are moving to texas. for the same reason I like to be in colombia. wealth inequality is great if you're the one on the wealthy side.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com