• 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]

Deuce said:
So you think they made this decision for reasons other than their bottom line?
Click to expand...

I don't know why they did it. Something is strange. The guy made a $1000 contribution 6 years ago, and they felt a need to get rid of him because of that? Doesn't add up.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Enough of the personal stuff. Discuss the OP, and leave the attacks out of it.
 
eohrnberger said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's a TON of stuff you may not ask. You absolutely cannot ask about political views or contributions.
 
Deuce said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't attack MM's livelihood. I dispute his professional claims. The following seems apt.

“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
:peace
 
Lursa said:
Because there are many many things that are not legal to ask when someone is being hired, that's why.
Click to expand...

"Is there any crap in your personal life that's gonna totally screw up our image?" is not illegal.

It doesn't matter with cashiers, but it matters with CEOs.
 
ecofarm said:
"Is there any crap in your personal life that's gonna totally screw up our image?" is not illegal.
Click to expand...

Correct, not legal, nor would a candidate be obligated to answer...it's very subjective. Esp. for something like Mozilla.

You cant ask if a woman is pregnant or ever plans to be pregnant or if she even has kids now.

You *may not ask personal questions* if they are not directly applicable to the person's ability to do the job. (nothing about how they reflect 'on' the job)
 
ecofarm said:
Bullcrap. A CEO's personal life reflects on the company.
Click to expand...

Sources please.

And we're back to square one.

In a way, you are right, but it is not legal to ask it...the employer is obligated to discover it on their own if that is a concern.
 
Anthony60 said:
I don't know why they did it. Something is strange. The guy made a $1000 contribution 6 years ago, and they felt a need to get rid of him because of that? Doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

People complained. Eventually OKCupid put up a splash page talking about it. Enough anger was stirred up that this decision was made. Mozilla didn't go digging for this, their customers did.
 
Deuce said:
People complained. Eventually OKCupid put up a splash page talking about it. Enough anger was stirred up that this decision was made. Mozilla didn't go digging for this, their customers did.
Click to expand...

“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
:peace
 
Anthony60 said:
I think it's the other way around. They fired the CEO, now they are assholes.
Click to expand...
"Asshole" is a job requirement, when you're running a company.
 
The Mark said:
"Asshole" is a job requirement, when you're running a company.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in some rare cases, but more often than not, that's really counter productive to productivity, workforce moral, turnover, etc.

If that's your opinion and your leadership style, are you now leading an organization? How well does it perform?
 
Jack Hays said:
That is not only false, but a destructive delusion.:peace
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm overstating the matter.

I mainly meant that as a CEO, I suspect you must disregard emotional decisions that might negatively effect the company, in order to logically further the interests of it.

I consider his political donations emotional decisions, as indeed, the vast majority of political positions are. In this instance, he was unlucky enough to make a decision that negatively impacted the company, and I can find nothing unreasonable about his leaving.

I think that the customers who reacted negatively to the information are where the blame for his leaving should be placed - if his donations were with personal funds (as I understand is the case) and not company funds, it shouldn't really be an issue.

But when Mozilla consumers MADE it an issue, the company needed to act.
 
The Mark said:
Yeah, I'm overstating the matter.

I mainly meant that as a CEO, I suspect you must disregard emotional decisions that might negatively effect the company, in order to logically further the interests of it.

I consider his political donations emotional decisions, as indeed, the vast majority of political positions are. In this instance, he was unlucky enough to make a decision that negatively impacted the company, and I can find nothing unreasonable about his leaving.

I think that the customers who reacted negatively to the information are where the blame for his leaving should be placed - if his donations were with personal funds (as I understand is the case) and not company funds, it shouldn't really be an issue.

But when Mozilla consumers MADE it an issue, the company needed to act.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, a subset of those customers has adopted the tactics of their former oppressors.:peace

“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
 
The Mark said:
Yeah, I'm overstating the matter.

I mainly meant that as a CEO, I suspect you must disregard emotional decisions that might negatively effect the company, in order to logically further the interests of it.

I consider his political donations emotional decisions, as indeed, the vast majority of political positions are. In this instance, he was unlucky enough to make a decision that negatively impacted the company, and I can find nothing unreasonable about his leaving.

I think that the customers who reacted negatively to the information are where the blame for his leaving should be placed - if his donations were with personal funds (as I understand is the case) and not company funds, it shouldn't really be an issue.

But when Mozilla consumers MADE it an issue, the company needed to act.
Click to expand...

Umm, he made an emotional decision 6 years ago that someone with an agenda made public to damage him, and the customers made it an issue the company couldn't ignore.

The unfairness was to make public his private information, and it was also unfair of the customers for making it such an issue which they shouldn't have, especially on a settled matter such as this.

It wasn't his decision that made the company look bad, it was the customers making it such an issue that forced the company to act.
 
Jack Hays said:
Unfortunately, a subset of those customers has adopted the tactics of their former oppressors.:peace

“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Kobie said:
:roll:
Click to expand...

Rolling your eyes there Kobi, but really, those that called for Eich's firing and organized the Mozilla boycott are really no better than those that went around and beat up gays outside a gay bar.

Next thing you'll know, you may get the same treatment for being in a traditional marriage. Not outside of the realm of possibility.
 
eohrnberger said:
Rolling your eyes there Kobi, but really, those that called for Eich's firing and organized the Mozilla boycott are really no better than those that went around and beat up gays outside a gay bar.

Next thing you'll know, you may get the same treatment for being in a traditional marriage. Not outside of the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...

Calling for a boycott is "no better" than physical violence?

And it's Kobie.
 
Kobie said:
Calling for a boycott is "no better" than physical violence?
Click to expand...

Make your choice: Take a physical beating or lose your livelihood for the next 5 years.
 
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

He lied to who during what process? What on Earth are you talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom