Veelox

> And the values from the mission statement does sound like something every company should aim for

For the record here is the second listed value

> Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes. We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim.

Let me speak plainly. This type of phrasing is extremely common for progressives. A Trump voter would read this as politically charged and outside the scope of most unions. If you cannot see why someone would oppose this you need to widen the scope of people you talk to.

Their second listed value is

> Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes. We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim.

Social justice is a progressive view normally running counter to the individual responsibly outlook favored by conservatives. Prioritizing the needs of the worst off could be supported by conservatism but they will probably define "worst" in a way conservatives find objectionable. As for "Neutrality never helps the victim" that runs counter to a lot of American conservative thought that rule of law and applying rules neutrally is a massive progress over previously biased systems. The implication of the statement is that they want to remove neutrality in certain circumstances for certain people which goes against the conservative view that all people should be treated equally.

From the official union website's list of values

> Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes. We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim.

For my eyes, that is absolutely dripping with progressive ideology. If I am going a union I want it to be non-political. This seems more like a progressive advocating group than a software workers guild. Count me out.

I would pay $20 to hear the story from her manager's view. It probably has a very different spin to it.

So I am not going to update my opinion, this was legal but morally dubious on Google's part. On her part it sucks but she easily could have avoided the situation.

If she had used a company printer to print pro-union fliers and then shared them I'm 90% she could be fired for misuse of company resources. At to my intuition this feels like using the company printer without permission.

Google does https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/google-...

Apple does "For the past five years, we’ve continued to hire more women and underrepresented minorities every year." https://www.apple.com/diversity/

Facebook does "We’re committed to building a workforce that’s as diverse as the communities we serve" https://www.facebook.com/careers/facebook-life/diversity

I would look up others but I think those three make the point. Companies are actively hiring underrepresented minorities. Yes some people think more effort should be put in but to say it isn't happening is being ignorant of reality.

I mean you have articles like these https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-06-24... being written.

You can only claim tech isn't diverse if you ignore the massive overrepresentation of asians. Going off of Google's diversity report (because it's easy to find), non hispanic whites make up 43% of Google but 61% of America. For blacks it's 5% of Google and 12% of America. By those metric we should be pushing Google to hire more white and black employees.

Wow. I am surprised to see someone here such misleading and uncharitable claims. What is your definition of mass murder? What evidence do you have that the right has a strategy of it aimed at black people?

Also, I assume you are objecting to restricting abortion which is a very narrow procedure to broaden to making healthcare illegal.

>If your boss (or their boss, or their boss, etc.) makes it clear they don't support that: that's not a political statement, it's workplace discrimination / harassment.

I am going to speak plainly. I don't think people in the Valley really believe this argument. Political opinion is a protected class in California yet people feel free to create a hostile work environment for Trump supporters. It feels like there a set of right answers and you can say the right answers or shut up.

I would estimate Sr. or better is possible for someone who is able to independently run a OSS project. Going off https://www.levels.fyi/company/Google/salaries/Software-Engi... that comes out to ~$350k/yr going up one more level gets you ~$500k/yr

I will let you decide if 3.5x - 5x is "not even close".

I might be late to the threat but you have a very insidious assumption left unstated. You seem to think certain ideas are to dangerous to be shared. That they could infect people and corrupt them. If we silence all the wrong think people will act better.

This is dangerous for many reasons but particularly, what happens if something is deemed wrong think when it is objectively more true than the "right think"?

john_alan asserted that hiring where having a specific skin color is required is racist hiring. Your response is black people have been treated poorly so it isn't racism. Your argument more reads like a justification for treating people different based on race rather than this specific action isn't racist.

Would you be willing to give an alternative definition of racism?

I will agree it's a bit of a stretch and I pattern matched to other arguments I have seen but "massive-scale abuse" and "real and actual harm" is language that presupposes a negative moral judgement about what is happening.

I know this isn't what you intended to say but it what your statement implies is that everyone who disagrees is uncaring, idiotic, or evil. It might do you well to spend some time finding people to respect on the other side and listen to why they advocate for things you find so distasteful.

> The truth as of late has a strong preference for left leaning positions.

Can you give 3 examples?

> What are some examples of their blazenly liberal bias?

I think looking up why #OkDude was trending in the last few days would give you one example.

> I truly believe the left-lead media largely acts in good faith

I would like to raise to your awareness that when Bernie was accused of saying a woman couldn't be president, his talking point we're very close to what people on the right have been saying for years.

> If you can convince enough voters that immigrants are the problem and you are the solution then you can do anything you like.

You can do better than such a low effort swipe.

> ... a sexist and a racist, there is no excuse for voting for someone like him.

I will concede that Trump has sad a did some awful stuff. Even with that, there are people who feel just as strongly about abortion as you do about sexism and racism. For them, the choice to vote for Trump was just as apparent to them as the choice for you to vote against.

In a way, I envy you. You have a simple and straightforward explanation for how Trump got elected. At the same time, I pity you. You seem to have lost the ability to see good in people that disagree with you.

There are a lot of loving moms and dads that decided in 2016 that they wanted to live in a country ran by Trump. They wanted to have their kids grow up in a country shaped by him. These are people who would gladly wear a MAGA hat. Can you think they are wrong? Have at it, you might be right! But boiling down all their reasons to intolerance is a simplification I am unwilling to make.

>While wearing a MAGA hat is not illegal in itself, it is a violation of any kind of professional conduct.

To reduce your argument a bit, in the name of inclusion and diversity we must ban anyone who wears a MAGA hat.

Something seems off with that...

@ mods I 100% understand why this is flagged and it is already being a mess but it has 100+ upvotes in <1 hour. If possible I think this issue is important enough to some such as myself in the community that this post should be allowed on the front page.

It's all good. Just wanted you to know and fixed it before to many other people saw the 404.

That also 404s for me...

The FAQ button goes to https://stripe.com/docs/capital/faqs which currently 404s for me.

I have found that the best way to educate people on the importance of no government backdoors in encryption is to use the example of TSA approved locks.

Everyone knows when they put a TSA lock on their luggage it does almost nothing to improve the security of their luggage. Any serious criminal has a key to TSA locks.

Adding backdoors is like putting a TSA lock on your bank password. It keeps honest people from seeing it but doesn't do much else.

While you are taking the idea to the extreme to make a point, I agree with the underlying argument that we should work to modify behavior to improve outcomes.

A lot of money has been spent reducing tobacco use which has paid for itself in better health outcomes.

I would like to point out that you have a very privileged position in life to be able to say that cost is no object to the quality of care you receive. Not every has that luxury. Also, there are some people in some situations that would be willing to sacrifice quality of care on price.