[bigbubba]

> He could at the very least state that his wife's political views are not a reflection of his own.

It's unreasonable to expect somebody to publicly denounce their spouse like this. It's inappropriate for people to make a coworker's spouse a matter of contention in the first place.

[thatswrong0]

That's not denouncing. That's a neutral way of stating that he had nothing to do with those donations.

And stop pretending that this is just any ordinary coworker. This is the public face and leader of the company that publicly advertises a certain set of values. This is also a person who has been made rich by the success of the company, and then is using that money to donate to very morally questionable causes (either directly himself or via his wife).

The guy literally donated an "ordinary coworker's" years salary to an organization that explicitly discriminates against members of the LGBTQ+ community. Do tell me exactly why it is inappropriate for employees of the company to complain about such dubious donations of their CEO, who they helped make mind-numbingly rich?

[bigbubba]

> This is also a person who has been made rich by the success of the company,

Would you say the degree to which a coworker's personal relationship with their spouse is 'your business' is proportional to their salary? Or how exactly do you figure this works?

His relationship with his spouse is his business, not yours. It's really that simple.

[thatswrong0]

In case you missed the details here somehow, this is in conjunction with his own personal donations to discriminatory organizations.

> His relationship with his spouse is his business, not yours. It's really that simple.

If his wife yelled racial slurs and he said nothing about it, should employees just shut up about that as well?

[bigbubba]

If you have a problem with a woman, you should take it up with that woman, not her husband. What century is this?

[thatswrong0]

The century where we generally assume that both members of a domestic partnership or marriage are fully aware of the actions of the other and, most likely, support said actions taken by the other, especially when those actions are public and controversial.

[bigbubba]

Assuming that two people in a relationship agree with each other's politics is a good way to make an ass out of yourself. Causing trouble at work because you dislike the politics of somebody's spouse is totally over the line and you've said nothing to make me question that.

[thu2111]

This is the public face and leader of the company that publicly advertises a certain set of values

Presumably you're arguing they should stop advertising that set of values. But then that'd be used to condemn them as well.

why it is inappropriate for employees of the company to complain about such dubious donations of their CEO

Totally appropriate, just as long as those employees don't mind the CEO telling everyone that their political donations are dubious/questionable, demanding they publicly denounce their spouse, or controlling their private political and charitable donations.

But of course those employees would explode if the CEO even hinted at doing any of those things. One rule for them and another for the boss, likely justified with vague rhetoric about power. But, you can't have it both ways. If employees can demand control over the CEO's life but not vice-versa, then it's the employees who have the power, not the CEO. Yet we all know that's not how companies actually work. Eventually even tech CEOs will realise that, so expect them to get a lot more aggressive against this kind of employee activism in future. It's simply not fair on them, currently.

[tpxl]

Ah yes, employees don't like what their boss is doing, they call him out, and now they have the power, not the boss. They can suddenly set their own hours, raise their pay, steer the products and take vacations whenever they like. What a load of bullshit.

The bosses have the most power and money and therefore deserve the most scrutiny.

[thu2111]

The bosses only have power if they are willing to exercise it in order to fire the people who are 'scrutinising' them. Is that really what these people want?