Clearly, this email was a terrible idea. People have a right to their own politics without it affecting their career.
That being said, the statement sounds terrible when summarised like this. The email was (to my eyes) clearly intended as a message of support to those who felt threatened by Trump's policies.
By pairing it with Trump's politics specifically, it is turned into a threat to those who support Trump. Whether the author did this intentionally is pretty irrelevant, he's going to end up threatening those people just as he tried to defend others against being threatened. While he technically didn't say explicitly what the title claims, it's clearly implied (intentionally or not).
If instead, the email had decried actual issues that will (in my opinion) come from the Trump presidency, then that would have been reasonable.
This is, as always, the hard question of how far we have to tolerate intolerance. Generally we draw the line at a call to action, and supporting a candidate definitely doesn't cross that line.
> If instead, the email had decried actual issues that will (in my opinion) come from the Trump presidency, then that would have been reasonable.
"I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump"
While probably not a good idea (especially with Trump supporters having a bit of a chip on their shoulder), the e-mail did make it clear what behavior he's not going to accept at his work place.
My view is that plenty of Trump's support is white people who believe they are under attack - there has been a push for some time that every gain for the rights of minorities comes at the cost of the majority. Those people are falling for a racist lie, and telling them 'If you support this candidate, get out.' isn't going to help that, just push them further to feel that lie is true, and entrench their support.
Instead, if the email had explained the harm those policies might do to colleagues, and how the company aims to defend those people... maybe views get changed.
Honestly, I imagine this email is an angry mistake, intended to provide help to those who will suffer support, however, it ends up being an unintended threat. It's hard to say without a magical detector for intent, but the damage is done.
On the face of it this is of course reasonable, the problem is the context. You're basically asking people that have been oppressed and are fighting for their rights (often resulting in more vicious oppression), to now come and cuddle what they perceive as their current and former oppressors.
Another issue is that the many white males who perceive themselves as under attack respond to it by engaging in even more vicious racism and sexism. Just look at the way they treated Obama who didn't actually do much if anything to threaten white people, he was barely noticeable as black.
Maybe people who are fighting for their rights are sick and tired of the racists and sexists, and now having to reach out a hand to them yet again, when they themselves have always refused that.
"Come and cuddle" isn't really the same thing as not firing someone.
I agree with your second point - but I don't see how that's solved by firing them - again, it's just going to reinforce the idea that "white men are under attack!".
I get what you are saying, but it turns out almost half of the voting population agrees with his ideas, so the fight isn't over. I, too, thought we were past this point, but clearly we are not. It's exhausting, but it's reality.
I'm hoping that it's just people believing the lie - hopefully people will realise that denying other's their rights won't magically solve unrelated problems they have. Enabling their victim complex by doing stuff like this definitely won't help.
> "Come and cuddle" isn't really the same thing as not firing someone.
True, but it's not like he was gonna fire Trump voters just for being Trump voters. So not firing them is not enough. They also want to get listened to, and they want the feminists and the "SJW"s to accept that they are oppressed now as well. Which will simply never happen.
Well, I don't believe that was his intent, but someone who voted for Trump reading that email, who believes that white men are being persecuted, probably does. Leaving them scared, and entrenching them. It's a huge mistake to phrase it so carelessly as to allow that interpretation.
> People have a right to their own politics without it affecting their career.
Do they? Why?
What if your politics is supporting the KKK? This isn't a hyperbolic example: when I was very young, my state almost elected a former KKK grand wizard to the governorship. Are people that the KKK wants to get rid of supposed to be supportive of the careers of KKK members?
The only way I can see this working is if we treat "politics" as a sort of abstract break-room argument that we can all ignore at the end of the day. And this email is saying that, while that's usually true enough to get by, this particular presidency is an exception. (I don't expect it would have been sent for any other candidate in the primary of any party.) If it weren't possible for politics to have such exceptions time-to-time, it wouldn't be a pursuit that mattered.
Sure, but what is the limit? To a lot of people, abortion is directly equivalent to murder. Should it be expected that they say "If you are pro-choice, hand in your resignation?".
I don't have a good answer, but just supporting a candidate seems like it should not be enough. The email, in my eyes, was threatening to someone who had voted for Trump, regardless of the policies they support him on. That feels wrong to me.
I don't understand how people justified voting for Trump to themselves without holding views I find abhorrent, but I'm not omniscient. At some point you have to say that if almost half of the voting population support someone, their views are at least common enough to take pause.
I honestly don't know. Before all this, I'd have agreed with you. I thought that people who would be willing to support such - in my view - horrific policies would be few and far between, and would write them off, but clearly this is more widespread, we have not progressed as far as we thought.
Maybe it's worth offending on average half of your customers and losing staff to reject Trump's politics, but I have to ask if that's effective if this is where we are at. It's all good and well to stand up for your principles, but does it actually result in progress?
Defending your employees who might suffer as a result of the policies, 100% - it would be unconscionable not to, but the way the email was set up made it more than that.
FWIW, you bring up a good point about abortion. I'm thinking about whether my position is consistent with my belief that you shouldn't lose your job over your position on abortion.
Two partial thoughts that I'd welcome criticism on:
1. Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Pence signed and championed, gives a loud "yes" to your question. I do worry about the fact that when the left says "Racism is so wrong that it puts you beyond the bounds of civilized society," the association of the left with liberalism and permissiveness means that there's a hesitancy to follow through with that claim, whereas the right has no hesitancy in following through with the claim "Gay marriage is so wrong that it puts you beyond the bounds of civilized society." In aggregate, the left's moral voice is quieter and muddier.
2. There's a well-documented phenomenon where anti-abortion people think of themselves as exceptions, get an abortion, and continue to be anti-abortion. I don't understand it, but it separates getting an abortion from supporting abortion rights. I strongly believe that getting an abortion should not cause you to lose your job. I don't think I believe as strongly that about being vocally pro-choice. I think Matt Maloney was clear enough that this is about a particular belief, not about how you voted.
It's definitely not an easy thing. Freedom of speech doesn't mean a freedom from consequence.
Your two points, the first seems like a fair comparison to me. There is a line in most people's minds between policy they disagree with and things that are morally wrong. Those lines are not in the same places, so it is hard to say what is 'reasonable' to stand up for in such a way.
As to your second point, I think it's a little dangerous to suggest that allowing the act is primary to allowing the speech. The latter may be necessary to ensuring the former - if you can't make a living while being pro-choice, a chilling effect will be applied, and the law eventually changed. In general, if your view is kept to yourself at work, doesn't affect your work, and you don't act on it or encourage people to, it's probably best to protect expressing it.
For me here, it comes down to what is effective. My understanding of the mindset of Trump voters is that they are scared, they have been sold this lie that rights for others come at their expense. Firing Trump supporters isn't going to change that.
That's a fair point about speech being necessary to ensure acts.
I think that in this case the behavior being condemned was quite clearly intended to be behavior that affected your work (since the work of GrubHub involves being welcoming and supportive of all sorts of people who may be employees or customers). Whether that was the received message is definitely a different thing.
> Maybe it's worth offending on average half of your customers
I doubt that it is anywhere near half. GrubHub and similar services are mostly in cities. Clinton tended to do better than Trump in cities. Even in states like Texas and Florida, the major cities mostly went heavily Clinton.
In Texas, the counties that Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio went Democrat by 27%, 13%, 39%, and 13% margins, respectively. Fort Worth and Corpus Christi went Republican by 9% and 2% margins, respectively.
In Florida, the counties that include Miami, W. Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa, and Tallahassee went Democrat by margins of 30%, 15%, 7%, and 25%, respectively. Jacksonville went Republican, by 2%.
Offending a quarter to a third of your customers doesn't sound much better, frankly.
Not to mention that you're also offending Clinton voters who don't want their workplace to be infected by politics. Despite the shrill behavior of some of her online partisans, I'm sure that's still the majority.
Sure, that's true. Still, I don't think it's going to help do anything other than push the idea that white men are under attack, which is the lie that to me, seems to be fuelling the Trump train.
Question for those down voting him. Are you down voting because you don't think voting suppression was been going on for the last few years, or because you don't think it made a difference in this election and so it is not relevant to this thread?
Voter suppression is much easier to pull off and much more effective if only two parties can ever get into power. If more parties are in the running, or parties have less dominant control, gerrymandering and suppression is much harder to do effectively.
The email just shows what a sheep he is for regurgitating everything the media has said about Trump without actually taking a second to think about it.
Trump's wife is an immigrant! Can there be any better proof that Trump doesn't hate immigrants? The xenophobia argument was bullshit made up by the media to manipulate people to vote for Hillary and this CEO bought it hook line and sinker.
Trump media also told a lot of bullshit - I'm not trying to target Hillary supporters specifically. I would say the same thing if a CEO was trying to tell his employees that Hillary should be 'locked up' if Trump had lost - To me it would be equally stupid media-vomit.
It's just that when I see how much of a 'follower' (of the media) these supposed 'leaders' can be, it's depressing.
"I want to affirm to anyone on our team that is scared or feels personally exposed, that I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life for yourself and your family here in the United States. If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here."
That's not an statement against supporting Donald Trump, that's a demand for the protection of human dignity and opportunity. Perhaps the author assumes that there are no Trump supporters who support dignity and opportunity for all, an absolutely false generalization.
Respectfully, I think you are being intellectually dishonest:
"Full Email Text:
SUBJECT: So... that happened... what's next?
I'm still trying to reconcile my own worldview with the overwhelming message that was delivered last night. Clearly there are a lot of people angry and scared as the antithesis of every modern presidential candidate won and will be our next president.
While demeaning, insulting and ridiculing minorities, immigrants and the physically/mentally disabled worked for Mr. Trump, I want to be clear that this behavior - and these views, have no place at Grubhub. Had he worked here, many of his comments would have resulted in his immediate termination.
We have worked for years cultivating a culture of support and inclusiveness. I firmly believe that we must bring together different perspectives to continue innovating - including all genders, races, ethnicities and sexual, cultural or ideological preferences. We are better, faster and stronger together.
Further I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump and will work to shield our community from this movement as best as I can. As we all try to understand what this vote means to us, I want to affirm to anyone on our team that is scared or feels personally exposed, that I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life for yourself and your family here in the United States.
If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here. We do not tolerate hateful attitudes on our team.I want to repeat what Hillary said this morning, that the new administration deserves our open minds and a chance to lead, but never stop believing that the fight for what's right is worth it.
Stay strong,
Matt"
Cherry pick and twist however you want but anyone with common sense who is paying attention knows exactly what this means.
My intention was to succinctly address the post, not to cherry pick. I do not disagree with anything in Matt's email but I do see opportunities for his intention to be misinterpreted. I agree that he could have been more careful.
Frankly, statements like "anyone with common sense who is paying attention knows exactly what this means" are intellectually lazy. Please explain "exactly what this means" because I do not see it.
Again such a wrong headline. He did not say that at all. He pointed out specific ideas of Trump that he was against and those are the ones that any sane person would be against.
> those are the ones that any sane person would be against
That's the kind of elitism that put Trump into power.
That aside, I'm glad to see that some leftists are starting to come around to the idea that through trying to fight bigotry, they themselves have become the bigots. I'm not saying Donald Trump is right when it comes to issues of nationalism and immigration, but very intelligent and well meaning people exists on both sides of that debate. I'm afraid that if we don't start a dialog soon, Trump will seem like a walk in the park compared to what extremist movement will come up next.
I don't think it's elitism, it's people simply living in a different world.
If you have been left-leaning, you have been living in a world where Trump's policies are scary, racist stuff that belongs way in the past.
If you have been right-leaning, you have been living in a world where white people have been under attack for the last x years, and Trump is offering respite.
The left just didn't realise the extent of people that believed that lie. It's not elitist, it's just huge surprise - people are saying things and supporting things we thought were sorted years ago.
If a candidate came out and supported reintroducing slavery, and they got half of the vote, people would be understandably surprised. This is the light version of that.
"this statement" = "As we all try to understand what this vote means to us, I want to affirm to anyone on our team that is scared or feels personally exposed, that I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life for yourself and your family here in the United States."
Basically, if you don't feel like you can be part of the "everyone here at Gruhub [who] will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life... in the United States," you don't belong. Nothing about the act of supporting Trump, per se.
What he says at the core is perfectly fine.
His mistake is politicizing the message when there is no need for that and hinting at a connection between Trump becoming president and that the people who voted for him likely don't support what is written in the e-mail.
From an outsider's perspective: The reason for that might stem from the fact that this election was fought like a war, as in, they demonized the enemy. This was especially strong when it came to Trump. So now that the election/war is over, some people can't go back to view the "other" side in a rational way. For them, that side is still exactly everything the media told them it is and I believe that is the case here.
This statement being "I want to affirm to anyone on our team that is scared or feels personally exposed, that I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life for yourself and your family here in the United States"
I wonder what happens if somebody tells him "I voted for Trump, and now I'm scared and feel personally exposed".
I don't know how to view this. Clearly Matt wants to protect his employees from bigotry to not make them feel scared. But now the Trump supporters may feel scared. In this company, are they turning from a perceived oppressed minority into an actual one?
It's all very paradox-head-explosiony, and there aren't good answers.
Do you really think that someone who voted for Trump, and now fears for their employment in the context of a hard-left industry and hometown full of people freaking out and making wild threats, is going to carefully parse the letter in this fashion and decide they have nothing to worry about?
Imagine you got this letter from your boss. Would you then happily stroll up to him at the water cooler and tell him how proud you were to vote for Donald Trump on Tuesday?
The statement which he was asking people to agree with being:
"to anyone on our team that is scared or feels personally exposed, I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life for yourself and your family here in the United States"
That seems pretty inclusive to me. I have no idea in what way it is 'elitist'.
For many, many values of 'this', that is totally reasonable. There are ideas that I and my company hold to be sacred, that anyone wanting to challenge needs to find another job.
I understand where you're coming from, and I empathize. I'd like you to try to see the world from my eyes, where that exact same statement applies, word for word, about Hillary Clinton's stance on gun rights.
As others posted, it seems to me care wasn't taken to be super clear on what was slightly ambiguous email about telling people to resign. That is a huge deal from a CEO. That line should have been left out. CEO should not be so careless with communication.
Alright, he made a gamble here, he wrote this so leftists and liberals make it viral and the company becomes a champion for diversity and other companies join him and the stock goes up, aaaand he was wrong.
A recent wise comment said "the left takes Trump literally, but not seriously, his supporters take him seriously but not literally."
It is indeed possible that the media exaggerated his views by reporting his rhetoric in isolation to his broader message.
This is the political sport of our age. Atomise someone's speech and treat it as self-evident evil. Can anyone say "different public and private positions"?
> Upon regaining composure after reading the email today, I tried to short the stock. Too late. It had already dropped by over 4% — $120 million of shareholder value already incinerated.
> Didn’t he see the firestorm coming? Like I said from my experience, Matt has been a good steward of shareholder money. How could he do something this stupid? I don’t think Matt would have knowingly risked the damage done for political principle.
It's a weird world in which it's unthinkable that you might be willing to risk shareholder value for political principle.
This is kind of weird logic to me. I see the letter as a good thing.
He thinks the letter is bad because Grubhub's market cap dropped $120M? To me this CEO is commendable. He stands for protecting people from a dangerous and inept man, despite the monetary (and probably social capital) costs. If dumbass VCs don't see a threat in Trump's behavior and want to shun this guy, he's ok with that.
The author of this article is saying "Don't say bad things about the fascists, you'll lose money". I strongly disagree. Do everything you can to keep people, at-risk communities, and the planet safe during this presidency.
Someone else wrote it better on twitter today:
"The Holocaust Museum in DC features IBM in its permanent exhibition. Our industry can choose its role in history."
(by @marcprecipice)
If you weren't previously aware of the fact that IBM used its technology to facilitate the Holocaust, you can read about it here: http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/
Whoa, whoa, whoa. We've been assured by everyone else on this topic that the CEO wasn't saying anything bad about Trump and his supporters, no how, no way, why the very idea is absurd. And now you're saying that yup, he was, and it's great?
That being said, the statement sounds terrible when summarised like this. The email was (to my eyes) clearly intended as a message of support to those who felt threatened by Trump's policies.
By pairing it with Trump's politics specifically, it is turned into a threat to those who support Trump. Whether the author did this intentionally is pretty irrelevant, he's going to end up threatening those people just as he tried to defend others against being threatened. While he technically didn't say explicitly what the title claims, it's clearly implied (intentionally or not).
If instead, the email had decried actual issues that will (in my opinion) come from the Trump presidency, then that would have been reasonable.
This is, as always, the hard question of how far we have to tolerate intolerance. Generally we draw the line at a call to action, and supporting a candidate definitely doesn't cross that line.