His name was on a published list of donors. It's not like reporters went digging through his trash. Making a donation where there's a legal requirement to publish your contribution is not "totally private."
Why is it OK for Eich to try to prevent certain people from getting married, but it's not OK for Eich's employees to try to prevent him from having a certain job? Please explain using small words so I can understand the difference.
Is a wealthy person losing their job worse than the state making it illegal to marry the person you love because they don't like the way your genitals match?
If he personally ended gay marriage I would see what you are saying, but he donated a tiny amount of money relative to the sum total of donations to fail to stop gay marriage. It's a bit like blaming one person's commute for global warming, in a better world where global warming had been stopped.
How much support for hurting your employees and users is required before it’s justifiable to find a different CEO?
One common theme I’ve noticed among all the people arguing with me here is that you’re all steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the part where he was the CEO. You’re here comparing him to one random person. I have other replies trying to paint me as inconsistent because I’m not trying to get my bigoted coworkers fired or doing something about random bigots in the community. There’s a big difference when a person is in a leadership role. I’m pretty sure you’re all smart enough to understand that, so I can only assume that you’re avoiding that understanding because it would fatally undermine your argument.
CEOs are employees too. They don't own the company, they work for the shareholders. While on one hand that's the social justification for firing them at-will, it also means (to me at least) that they should be subject to normal HR processes that involve some rights for them. That's not special to CEOs, it should be universal to any worker.
If someone steadfastly refuses to stop bringing hate to work, or if they do something physically violent or verbally abusive, you have to fire them, but if they deviate only a little bit, they deserve to face pressure and criticism before getting kicked out - or maybe even a chance to defend themselves, or come to terms with the other side.
We have worker rights to keep people from being exploited, and because losing your job can wreck your life. None of this applies to a wealthy CEO.
How many people lose their jobs every day in this country because they were slightly less than 100% obsequious to a customer or to their boss? And we just shrug. But one CEO gets fired because he doesn’t have the confidence of his workers and you lose your minds. Why are people so sympathetic to rich people who suffer a small setback? It’s bizarre.
Why is it OK for Eich to try to prevent certain people from getting married, but it's not OK for Eich's employees to try to prevent him from having a certain job? Please explain using small words so I can understand the difference.