back to article 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 …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well done

    That's all

    1. AMBxx Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: Well done

      Congratulations on outsourcing your own jobs.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well done

      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.

  2. Bitsminer Silver badge

    Sympathy for the devils

    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!".

    1. Tom 38

      Re: Sympathy for the devils

      I think its more accurate to say "We quit" than "You're fired" - as an employee, you get a choice over who you work for. Biz is biz, don't do business with unethical entities if you want to retain your ethically minded employees.

      1. Bitsminer Silver badge

        Re: Sympathy for the devils

        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.

      2. ThinkingMonkey

        Re: Sympathy for the devils

        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.

        1. tin 2

          Re: Sympathy for the devils

          Alternatively, 100 people give you some feedback and if you're a normal person you introspect a bit and have a think about if you're being a massive penis or not. Or you can just leap around ranting that you're the boss I suppose.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Sympathy for the devils

      >employees who wish to usurp the authority of the US Congress,

      The employees are Canadian. If you say they have no right to object to foreign contracts because the agency is legal in that country's regime.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sympathy for the devils

      Canadian employees are perhaps more vocal, not being indentured by employer health insurance

    4. This post has been deleted by its author

    5. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Sympathy for the devils

      "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.

      1. Bitsminer Silver badge

        Re: Sympathy for the devils

        "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.

        1. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge

          Re: Sympathy for the devils

          "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?

  3. Santa from Exeter
    FAIL

    Snowflakes

    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)

    1. Outski

      Re: Snowflakes

      With you there, same for anyone who uses 'woke' (with inverted commas) or SJW as pejoratives.

    2. Bitsminer Silver badge

      Re: Snowflakes

      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.

      1. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Snowflakes

        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.

        1. HausWolf

          Re: Snowflakes

          That is because most US conservatives left their principles behind a couple of decades ago during the "Contract on America" when they got Clinton to lie about getting a BJ all while the ringleader was doing the same.

        2. Bitsminer Silver badge

          Re: Snowflakes

          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.

          1. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
            WTF?

            Re: Snowflakes

            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."

            1. Bitsminer Silver badge

              Re: Snowflakes

              OK, let me spell this out for you.

              We have different points of view.

              And to be sure, this argument could go on longer than a HN Rust rant.

              Well, maybe not.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Snowflakes

      Those same mob can now Downvote away to their hearts content at this 'liberal' comment (ooh another yapping dog trigger word)

      OK. You're welcome.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Snowflakes

      I’ve seen both sides call each other snowflakes non-stop on Twatter...

    5. ThinkingMonkey

      Re: Snowflakes

      And I downvoted you for downvoting someone for using a term you don't like. And also, probably, for using the term "Right Wing Neo-Nazi".

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ICE separates families the same way families are separated when a parent goes to jail for a crime.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Economic choice, ethical choice

    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.)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like