Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law
theodp (442580) writes "While the rise and fall of Brendan Eich at Mozilla sparked a debate over how to properly strike a balance between an employee's political free speech and his employer's desire to communicate a particular corporate 'culture,' notes Brian Van Vleck at the California Workforce Resource Blog, the California Labor Code has already resolved this debate. 'Under California law,' Van Vleck explains, 'it is blatantly illegal to fire an employee because he has donated money to a political campaign. This rule is clearly set forth in Labor Code sections 1101-1102.' Section 1102 begins, 'No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.' Corporate Counsel's Marlisse Silver Sweeney adds, 'Mozilla is adamant that the board did not force Eich to resign, and asked him to stay on in another role. It also says that although some employees tweeted for his resignation, support for his leadership was expressed by a larger group of employees. And this is all a good thing for the company from a legal standpoint.' As Eich stepped down, Re/code reported that Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said Eich's ability to lead the company had been badly damaged by the continued scrutiny over the hot-button issue. 'It's clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,' Baker was quoted as saying. 'I think there has been pressure from all sides, of course, but this is Brendan's decision. Given the circumstances, this is not surprising.' Van Vleck offers these closing words of advice, 'To the extent employers want to follow in Mozilla's footsteps by policing their employees' politics in the interests of 'culture,' 'inclusiveness,' or corporate branding, they should be aware that their efforts will violate California law.'"
Yes, I thought it through and it's the only tenable option. That and social pressure. Laws forcing you to retain douchebags like this guy are insane, completely irrational.
If a company starts firing people for e.g. supporting union organizations, good luck finding employees and good luck with the media shitstorm that goes your way.
Silly laws like California's could have put Mozilla in an impossible position.
Yep. Given the Lavender Mafia, that role was probably Data Center Janitor.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Theorize: if the guy was suddenly found on record of being in support of pedophilia would this thread be happening?
Can "cannot lead" equate out to "is not fit to do his job" or "cannot do his job due to distraction."
Mozilla did a piss poor job by choosing a bigot to run an organization like this, anyway.
Why is it OK to have a hate campaign against Eich and what he believed in?
because being a bigot does not get you moral relativism? and it does not give you a free pass to just 'believe what you want'. because the active suppression of others' rights is not OK in anyone's book?
does that answer your question?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
There's no hate campaign against Eich.
Address what I've actually advocated or STFU.
I'm really tired of this. I've explained the issue countless times now, and every bloody time some idiot ignores what I've posted and substitutes some strawman instead, responding to me as if I'm advocating some terrible injustice be meted out upon Eich because I don't agree with him on something.
Respond to what I've said, or go away. Seriously.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Why is it OK to have a hate campaign against Eich and what he believed in?
because being a bigot does not get you moral relativism? and it does not give you a free pass to just 'believe what you want'. because the active suppression of others' rights is not OK in anyone's book?
does that answer your question?
In other words: leftists believe themselves to always have the moral high ground becuase there is no more superior moral than equality, and everyone else is just subhuman shit that needs to change their views, and until they do they deserve no quarter. Understood.
It sickens me... there is no more free speach... and some people clearly can be discriminated because of their political views...
You know what sickens me? The homophobes who are trying to turn this into a free speech issue, and won't even sign their name to their nonsense.
Eich was able to make his donation because of laws about free speech. And like everyone else, he gets to deal with the consequences. But I note that you are afraid to deal with the consequences of your speech; you won't even associate it with a slashdot login.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No you're redefining "false logic".
If we were to be pure to your theoretical frictionless-vacuum definition of equality then you would also need to be vehemently opposed to our treatment of child molesters, thieves and liars. We have plenty of targets of hate in our culture. The gay marriage debate though is tricky because a lot of people still think denying rights to gays is a 'justifiable' hate. Liberals however find it an unjustifiable hate.
It's tricky to be a hater. It's safe as long as it's a pedophile but on the contested areas it's a crapshoot of public opinion whether you're reasonably taking a different "political" position or you're a bigot.
Personally I think prop 8 voters are bigots. And I will give a rational explanation for why incest and gay marriage are different for example:
1) Gay marriage, no kids.
2) Incest, genetic mutants
1) Gay marriage, most likely minor power differences.
2) Incest with children/parents is fraught with psychological manipulation and questions of consent.
etc.
Group marriages aren't morally wrong but they would produce a completely different legal structure since they would have to be framed after a corporation. Divorce isn't the same when a fraction of the property has to be split off. It might be legal some day but it's going to have to be a separate legal framework. It would be impossible for 5 people to have the "same" rights as 2 people. They would by definition of the arrangement have to be discriminated against. Without breaking the laws of physics you can't give them the same rights.
The fact that there are perfectly sensible reasons for discrimination is the reason it's in my books 'justifiable' discrimination. The proposed justifications for gay marriage are: "It's gross."
Just saying "It's gross" isn't a reason to discriminate. Therefore it's bigotry.