Microsoft fires employees who organized vigil for Palestinians killed in Gaza
msn.com
msn.com
Grief is hard and what's happening in Gaza is tragic, but this is not what the workplace is for. Why is it Microsoft's job to provide the described space?
Maybe this is less of a thing on the coasts, but where I live people have families, friends, churches, bars, clubs, and many other outlets that are designed for this kind of personal reflection and mourning. We don't expect our workplace to provide it for us because we don't live at work. We go into work to earn money to provide means for us to live our lives outside of work. To the extent that we want our coworkers to be involved in those spaces, we invite them to be.
More than anything else what I'm getting from this is that the death of the third space on the West Coast must be well and truly complete, if this kind of line sounds reasonable there.
If they need their personal mourning space to be provided by their employer, that's indicative of a major gap in their non-work support networks.
If they're camouflaging a protest against company policy as personal mourning space, then they're abusing people's support of emotional wellness to justify hosting a protest on private property.
>Hossam Nasr, said the purpose of the vigil was both “to honor the victims of the Palestinian genocide in Gaza and to call attention to Microsoft’s complicity in the genocide” because of the use of its technology by the Israeli military.
You can argue whether they should or shouldn't, and I think that's valid. But when it gets selective, it gets muddy.
Expecting employees to compartmentalize their personal lives completely during work is unrealistic and dehumanizing.
I’ve worked with American companies for years and sat through countless meetings where U.S.-specific events were addressed—9/11, BLM, elections, Black History Month, Thanksgiving, natural disasters, even sensitivity and active shooter trainings. Outside of local disaster/issues, none of these are directly relevant in my country, yet we empathize, because it’s human to care.
Here’s the problem: When divisive topics arise, companies either censor them entirely or let them play out. Censorship may be inhumane, but it’s efficient. Or, a company can solicit feedback and allow employees to hold non-disruptive, neutral events outside of work hours.
If this is the path, it has to be consistent. No exceptions for topics like the war in Ukraine or U.S. cultural movements. This approach avoids corporate bias while enabling individual expression without disturbing business.
Publicly held or large companies shouldn’t hold positions on sensitive issues, but employees should have the freedom to engage, with policies that prevent harm or offense.
And, by the way, a vigil doesn’t count as harmful.
100% gone. I've been wondering lately if companies might benefit from investing in getting the third space back; increase in employee creativity would offset the drop in overtime hours.
Yet corporations are eager to show allyship and support to the cause of the moment whenever it provides benefits in term of image and recognition.
https://www.geekwire.com/2023/microsoft-ceo-heartbroken-by-a...
Microsoft was also very recently working on this:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/microsoft-launches-ai-platform...
I can't ignore it, but the more I look at this place the less it seems like anything truely new- it feels like a product of the kinds of governments that rule the world at the moment.
Ah, just another example of "cancel culture" in the US getting rid of the "politically undesirable". (It's news to me that speaking for human rights and freedom of Palestinians colonised by Israel, is now "antisemitism"). I hope Americans recognize that to an outsider like me, the slogan of "land of the free and the home of the brave" is increasingly sounding so hollow. This sad current political trajectory of "you better not have any political beliefs that offend those in power" is certain to lead the US to its downfall.
Or alternatively if we do take it for granted that presidents are quite constrained in what they themself can do (aka "separation of powers"), then why is the original comment talking as if there would be some massive sea change next time when there wasn't one last time?
This seems like another bit of Schrödinger's Trump. Like how he's both the most powerful most successful person, and also just an unfortunate victim that other people are always doing mean things to.
Politicans talk like that they are the same. Probably since pretending there is consent tips the scale in a lot of cases.
But it makes the rest of us that donmt do full time political analysis confused.
Yes, certainly lobbying and policy advocacy don't exist, so there's no actual way to be involved in politics other than holding public office and voting.
>None of this wishy washy treatment that Israel, a U.S ally has received from the current administration.
Providing the bulk of weaponry and auxiliary infrastructure to a country actively engaged in a conflict whilst offering full-throated moral support is 'wishy washy' now.
The support or wishy washyness still amounts to funding the military action that is killing thousands and thousands of civilians.
What more do you want? Even More funding and public forced support of this clear massacre?
I noticed the same: anything critical of Israel gets flagged right away. And I'm not surprised: they have a large IT ecosystem and have engaged in similar behavior before. Paul Graham complained about this [0] after it came out that Israeli VCs, tech entrepreneurs, etc. had groups for coordinating attacks on anyone questioning the Israeli narrative on social media. Like, they mentioned PG by name in their briefings.
But they'll never fire their halloween execs.
Consent manufactured.