Hootsuite melts ICE deal after staff revolt: CEO vows not to divide biz like agents divided families at the US border Hootsuite says it has scrapped a contract with the US government's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency after the internet upstart's staff read their own bosses the riot act. The Vancouver-based developer of social-media management tools said on Thursday that, after a day of protest by workers upset at the prospect of …
Yes, because mob rule is always the best form of Social Justice.
$500,000 over 3 years is about 2/3 of one FTE. So basically less than one full time employee, unless Canadian programmers work for slave wages. On the other hand, it is just software to "manage" life clutter like Facebook & Twitter.
I have to wonder if these same snowflakes have the same reaction to Canadian agencies like the ISC. Or if they even know what that is.
Truly, the employees who wish to usurp the authority of the US Congress, the US Federal court system, and ultimately the US Supreme court, over the actions and policies of the US Homeland Security department, of which Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a mere footnote, is arrogant and presumptive.
There is a lot to complain about DHS and ICE behaviour in treatment of legal and illegal immigrants to the USA. There's a lot of reporting on this topic, some of which is actually accurate.
A handful of Canadian snowflakes should not be telling the CEO of their employer and their board of directors (who represent the interests of the owners of the company) how to leap, how high to leap, and to which music to leap to. Biz is biz, if you don't want to do biz with all comers, apparently legal or not, then don't do biz.
A corollary to the employee's (reported and apparent) position: If the company doesn't agree with your political stance, they can decline to do business with you too! Or in other words, in the words of that famous TV Personality, "You're Fired!".
So, the US government and a handful of US states are capital punishment states, along with PRC, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and other well-known highly liberal entities.
I don't hear these employees complaining about such clearly unethical practices in those countries/states. Does HootSuite do business with those entities? And the employees remain silent?
So there is my what-about-ism response to your micro-aggression.
Yes, but once you remove the political anger from this argument, what's left is a matter of employees telling employers what they will and won't do. I'm not a tyrant but if I instruct my employees, that's the way it will be done. My employees are an extension of me. They are there to do things because I can't divide myself into a hundred parts to do it myself. I hired them to help me, not have a discourse between each other over whether to follow my directions or not. If my ethics and morals don't match yours, you're perfectly free to quit and start your own company where you may do as you please.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Biz is biz, if you don't want to do biz with all comers, apparently legal or not, then don't do biz."
Not only is this a morally reprehensible outlook, it's actually illegal depending on one's line of work. Banks, for example, are legally bound to screen customers for a variety of criteria indicative of risks, e.g. being a terrorist or attempting to launder money from a criminal enterprise. Many companies also have a code of ethics (since you're clearly not familiar with the word, here's the definition) which guides the company's activity. Even companies which lack a formal code of ethics may not want to outrage a significant quantity of their employees, especially skilled ones, for a variety of reasons. Despite what you may believe, labor actually does wield power. Management can fire the employees, but then who will do the work? Furthermore, and this may be shocking to you, it's possible that some of the managers themselves may object to ICE's policies and actions, so the rank and file may not be the only ones balking at the contract.
"Biz is biz, if you don't want to do biz with all comers, apparently legal or not, then don't do biz."
OK, you got me, the apparently legal or not is ethically and morally incorrect. I should not have put in the "or not". I withdraw that part of the statement. That was a mistake. I made it. Ooops.
I agree with much of your remaining argument, e.g. banks have to do their diligence on customers. And
it's possible that some of the managers themselves may object to ICE's policies and actions
Of course they do. I do.
I am not saying they don't, shouldn't or couldn't. My position is such objections belong in the political realm: "email/phone your local congresscritter/MP/PM/POTUS". If you push your views on your employer, they can push back.
"My position is such objections belong in the political realm: "email/phone your local congresscritter/MP/PM/POTUS". If you push your views on your employer, they can push back."
That's certainly true; see my comment below about the courageousness on the part of the employees for standing up to their employer. In any case, the personal is the political; some of the workers believe that their labor is being used for purposes to which they object, so they spoke up (and, remarkably, were heard). Pointing out that they could have been fired merely highlights their courage rather than demonstrating their weakness.
Why do you believe it is not an employee's right or, indeed, obligation to speak up when they believe their employer is acting illegally or unethically?
I just downvoted both AC and Bitsminer for the use of the term 'snowflake' as it is exclusively used as a pejorative term by the Right Wing (usually American) Neo-Nazis (see what I did there).
Those same mob can now Downvote away to their hearts content at this 'liberal' comment (ooh another yapping dog trigger word)
ooh another yapping dog trigger word
I believe the term is dog-whistle.
But, no, to me a snowflake is just a very very fragile thing, and labelling a person with that term is just being pejorative without intending any left/right connotations.
Perhaps you can suggest a better pejorative.
Why do you need to apply a pejorative at all to a group of people making a principled stand against what they see as oppressive behavior? To me, these employees are courageous for standing up to their employer and risking their jobs on behalf of other people they've never met. Your statements reflect the moral bankruptcy of Western conservatism, insofar as you have no respect for people taking a principled stand, even if you don't agree with the principle.
The need for a pejorative is because this is The Register comments section.
I do have respect for people taking a principled stand. Such as the people who want to sell a software service to an apparently legal US government entity authorized by the US Congress, observing the principle that they treat all persons and corporations and governments equally. (While observing export control laws, Magnitsky laws, etc.)
You don't appear to have thought of the rights of the sellers of such software.
I also have respect for people who object to mistreatment of illegal ("irregular") migrants. I think they should do it in the correct forum---the political forum.
Okay, let me spell this out for you. Let's suppose that you and I are going to do business. As you walk into my storefront, I see you kick a puppy. I decide not to do business with you because I don't like people who kick puppies. According to your argument, I am wrong for making that choice and am, in some bizarre fashion, obligated to do business with you even though I find your behavior loathsome.
Is that really the argument you want to make?
Also: "You don't appear to have thought of the rights of the sellers of such software."
What rights? How are their rights in any way being abrogated? Your arguments are nonsensical, and a reasonable person might ask why I'm bothering to argue with you, to which I can only respond, "Welcome to the Internet."
It is fortunate that Hootsuite is making enough money that they can walk away from the ICE deal, and it does speak well of them that management took the workers' concerns to heart. But what if Hootsuite was not so economically fortunate and needed the ICE deal to keep the lights on, avoid layoffs, and so on? I'm sure there will be folks who say it's better to go out of business than to take ICE money, and others will ask if it is fair to put workers out into a dodgy job market. I only bring this up because a company I worked for did not have the luxury of being able to "fire" customers. (None of the offenders were evil, just self-entitled with delusions of relevance.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
