• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mozilla’s CEO steps down amid gay marriage furor[W:577]

He lied during the hiring process, and later revealed personal affairs that reflect poorly on the company's image. He committed fraud and harmed the company.

No. He didn't. He privately donated to a political cause with which he agreed. It didn't harm anyone at the company, and he it appears that he didn't mistreat anyone at the company. And for believing and supporting something that has only now become politically incorrect, he's fired.

It's not so much the people who speak out against him as much as it's the person or persons that outted what was private previously. Obviously to do him great harm, such as it has.

As if there aren't deep dark secrets in everyone's life that they'd rather keep private, and would be damaged if made public. Who's to say that someone isn't going to make your public and causing you great harm?
 
He lied during the hiring process, and later revealed personal affairs that reflect poorly on the company's image. He committed fraud and harmed the company.

Prove that he lied. I don't think that his political donations were brought up in the conversation, nor do I really think that it's any of the employer's business what they are.
 
No. He didn't.

Yes, he did.

If a Christian cable network hired a CEO who hid that he was a drag queen and later revealed that, you would understand that there was fraud in the hiring process and damage done to the company.
 
Prove that he lied.

He was undoubtedly questioned regarding personal affairs that might reflect poorly on the company's image. He was being hired as CEO, not janitor.
 
The "gay rights movement" had nothing to do with his being fired. He, being the CEO of a major company, decided to publicly take a stance on a controversial issue and then was surprised when it backfired and he was asked to step down. When you are the face of your company, you should really just stay out of politics completely. The outcome would have been no different had he endorsed gun legislation instead of anti-gay legislation, except partisan politics would be completely reversed and liberals would be offended instead of conservatives.

Was the civil rights movement for blacks or women controversial? Yes, definitely. Unpopular? Often. Caused lots of conflict, lots of inconvenience (all those marchers....interrupting business...terrible!). Yes, it was hard to take a stance for equality back then....to be on the side of moving forward. That's why people sometimes have to 'fight' for their civil rights...because if they just sit there....nothing happens.

Were the fights for civil rights worth it for blacks and women worth it? Well, we think so.
 
He was undoubtedly questioned regarding personal affairs that might reflect poorly on the company's image. He was being hired as CEO, not janitor.

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.
--Andrew Sullivan:peace
 
didn't Obama oppose gay marriage like, 5 minutes ago?? and now if you oppose it you must be drummed out of society. I'm convinced history will look back on this era with bewildered fascination. simply incredible
 
Yes, he did.

If a Christian cable network hired a CEO who hid that he was a drag queen and later revealed that, you would understand that there was fraud in the hiring process and damage done to the company.

Hey, did you ever post where you added that link to support for your claim about requiring persona info?

Please let me know.
 
Hey, did you ever post where you added that link to support for your claim about requiring persona info?

Please let me know.

You think CEOs are hired without the company asking: "is there anything in your personal life, past or present, that would reflect poorly on the company's image".

Let's not play stupid.
 
You don't think a company, when hiring a CEO, asks if there are any personal affairs in the past or present that would reflect poorly on the company's image? I'm sure such takes place. Thus, he failed to disclose and thereby committed fraud during the hiring process.

It's no different than lying on an application.

Where was your link supporting this again?

There may be such stipulations...but having worked in an HR Dept, I'd like to see the particulars.
 
Yes, he did.

If a Christian cable network hired a CEO who hid that he was a drag queen and later revealed that, you would understand that there was fraud in the hiring process and damage done to the company.

Equating political donations with being drag queen is rather strange. How'd you come up with that?

Is it really the place of an employer to know everything, private or not, about everyone that works for them?

Do you really want to have no privacy from an employer? What you do in the privacy of your home? How far do you think that this intrusion into someone's private life should be allowed to go?

I thought the employer / employee relationship needed to be based mainly on job performance. How wide, exactly, are you planning on opening the door here?
 
You think CEOs are hired without the company asking: "is there anything in your personal life, past or present, that would reflect poorly on the company's image".

Let's not play stupid.

No problem. You even said you had a link. Please direct me to it.
 
He lied during the hiring process, and later revealed personal affairs that reflect poorly on the company's image. He committed fraud and harmed the company.

So you have proof of this? If so, please post it.
 
Equating political donations with being drag queen is rather strange. How'd you come up with that?

Simple. The CEO hid pertinent information regarding personal affairs and how they might reflect on the company's image.

If the CEO of a Christian network turned out to support gay rights, you would understand that fraud occured and the company was harmed.
 
You think CEOs are hired without the company asking: "is there anything in your personal life, past or present, that would reflect poorly on the company's image".

Let's not play stupid.

So, contributing to a political campaign is now something that would reflect poorly on the company's image, provided that at some time in the future the campaign's position becomes politically incorrect?

OK, so add a political correctness litmus test to the employment application along with the LGBT friendly litmus test.
Yeah, this is starting to sound like employment back in the robber baron days.
 
Yes, he did.

If a Christian cable network hired a CEO who hid that he was a drag queen and later revealed that, you would understand that there was fraud in the hiring process and damage done to the company.

So that's a fantasy example. You made a claim regarding THIS CEO. Please support it.

I used to work in an HR Dept. Such questions are not allowed. If there are exceptions for CEOs, certain positions, salary levels, etc...I'd like to see sources for that.
 
So, contributing to a political campaign is now something that would reflect poorly on the company's image,

It's not a political campaign, but yes. If the CEO of an equal rights supporting company turned out to have donated to Neo Nazi groups, they should also be fired for cause, having failed to disclose such activity in the hiring process and thereby causing harm to the company.
 
He was undoubtedly questioned regarding personal affairs that might reflect poorly on the company's image. He was being hired as CEO, not janitor.

I think you are confused. He was a founder of Mozilla. He was being promoted to CEO. He's been working at Mozilla for years now already.
 
He was undoubtedly questioned regarding personal affairs that might reflect poorly on the company's image. He was being hired as CEO, not janitor.

Such questions are generally illegal. Very few personal questions are allowed in the hiring process. If you have any sources that prove there is a subset of careers or industries or positions that are exempted from this, please provide them.

Otherwise the onus is on the employer to discover any conflicts of interest.
 
In the words of Andrew Sullivan:

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

:peace

I'll keep that in mind next time you say anything negative about Michael Mann. Violating his rights, how dare you. If you don't promote AGW, are you going to put him in the stocks?
 
Why do you refuse to accept common sense. What's your agenda?

Because there are many many things that are not legal to ask when someone is being hired, that's why.

So you cannot support your claim...just admit it then.
 
It's not a political campaign, but yes. If the CEO of an equal rights supporting company turned out to have donated to Neo Nazi groups, they should also be fired for cause, having failed to disclose such activity in the hiring process and thereby causing harm to the company.

Lursa. You've been in HR. I think you'd know better than myself, because I don't think so. There are specific questions that the hiring manager(s) and HR people are forbidden to ask of a candidate.

That's all moot anyway. Eich was a founder of Mozilla, has worked there for years, and was being promoted. At least that's my understanding.
 
Back
Top Bottom