Jump to content

Microsoft workers demand it drop $480 million U.S. Army contract


rooster59

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Trouble said:

The company should also have the right to assign them to that work and fire them if they refuse. Should not just work one way.

 

While the guy you're responding to IS a horse's ass, he's not wrong in this case. Companies that don't take constructive feedback from their employees suffer from loss of valuable skilled workers. That said, if the company doesn't want to listen it is incumbent on the employee to exercise their moral judgement if they want to continue to work for that company any longer. Just because it's possible to do something doesn't mean it should be done. A case in point:

 

Quote

This week, Waltham, Massachusetts-based Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. said it no longer would sell or service genetic sequencers in the Muslim-majority region of Xinjiang in the northwest following complaints they were used for surveillance.

 

https://www.barchart.com/story/home/686991/china-bars-millions-from-travel-for-social-credit-offenses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

While the guy you're responding to IS a horse's ass, he's not wrong in this case. Companies that don't take constructive feedback from their employees suffer from loss of valuable skilled workers.

 

yes, but there is nothing constructive in employees refusing to work because they don't like the client.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, manarak said:

yes, but there is nothing constructive in employees refusing to work because they don't like the client.

Well, that's what I meant by them exercising their moral judgement. If they can't accept it they are free to seek other work. That's a principled stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, manarak said:

yes, but there is nothing constructive in employees refusing to work because they don't like the client.

I’ve spent most of my career working in engineering consultancy, updating HR records on where and for whom One was willing to work/not work was a fixture of the annual review process all professional staff were required to complete.

 

I certainly ticked ‘No’ against a number of clients and locations, as I am aware did many of my colleagues.

 

Coercion is not an effective management tool when dealing with professional staff. 

 

I doubt its effectiveness in any organization but there are of course poor managers who feel it works for them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The majority of shareholders however are not Microsoft employees. Microsoft has a legal obligation to its shareholders. Any corporate policy stating that MSFT will not do business with the military would basically violate this. 

 

Even Buffett said in the past that he only builds wind generators on massive scales in places like Iowa is because of the tax incentives. He said that the government policy is a bit nuts but he has a legal obligation to his shareholders to maximize all available tax advantages that he can.

 

This is really no different. Shareholders do get to vote and the employees can feel free to exercise their rights to have a say as shareholders in that avenue.

Whatever you're sayin you have not responded to my post. e.g. never stated MS should not do business with DOD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve spent most of my career working in engineering consultancy, updating HR records on where and for whom One was willing to work/not work was a fixture of the annual review process all professional staff were required to complete.

 

I certainly ticked ‘No’ against a number of clients and locations, as I am aware did many of my colleagues.

 

Coercion is not an effective management tool when dealing with professional staff. 

 

I doubt its effectiveness in any organization but there are of course poor managers who feel it works for them.

It's slightly different - with microsoft, we are not talking about going to other countries, sometimes hostage of their strange laws, other lunacies/religions and general dangers of the country. I assume this assignment would be safe and dealing with reasonable people of familiar culture.

 

The second point would be that the employees don't refuse because of the nature of their work, but because it benefits the military. Refusing to work for one's country own military, supposedly not dealing with any combat or arms systems, is beyond being an objector. Objector is a stance that I can accept - even objectors can be heroic, cf. Desmond Doss, but this is over the top. The existence of such people in society probably can't be avoided, such as anti-vaxxers or HIV deniers, but their growing power in society is concerning.
This is fueled by social media disseminating disinformation under the veil of "freedom of expression" and encouraging extreme stances as people feel they are not alone with their lunacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Grouse said:

Rednecks will never understand pointy heads. Successfully managing and motivating extremely talented staff requires great guile. You think money motivates them? Environment is far more important. 

Pointy heads need to understand. It is the shareholders that will have the last word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

I once interviewed a neural network pointy head for a job in Winchester. Exceedingly bright. Asked what his ambition was he said "to be able to sit under a tree and think"! He got the job.

Entirely off topic, but I once interviewed for a job (that I didn't particularly want, but was annoyed with current employer and wanted to make a point ☹️).

 

One of the questions asked was "Where do you see yourself in 5 years time".  I answered "On a beach in Thailand" - which was honest, but obviously not the best answer at an interview! ????

 

Needless to say - I didn't get the job, but the prospective employer was kind enough to 'phone me and say that I was one of the best of the (already short-listed) candidates ????.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Longcut said:

They can also be fired for expressing their opinion.  No freedom of speech in the workplace.

Many years ago a boss of mine pointed out that "This is not a democracy" when I voiced an objection (to something or another - nothing particularly important) at a Dept. meeting.

 

He was right of course, and so I could only (genuinely) laugh at his entirely correct comment.

 

Which is why I'm in two minds about this issue.  At the end of the day:-

 

1) I can understand the employees concerns

 

2) Assuming they're working in a dept. involved with the army contract and they're considered 'beneficial/wanted' employees, they should be given the choice of either moving to a different dept. or, resigning?

 

Either way, I'm glad the employees have raised the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Longcut said:

Pointy heads need to understand. It is the shareholders that will have the last word.

 

21 minutes ago, Longcut said:

Pointy heads need to understand. It is the shareholders that will have the last word.

I think you don't understand the modern working world.

 

In this case, the pointy heads will have the last word - Goodbye (Or F you then!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Grouse said:

I suspect you are quite wrong

 

Good pointy heads don't grow on trees! They are in a sellers market! They're not car assembly workers!

 

I had a related if minuscule situation back in the late 80s. Early A.I. Start up. Battle field simulation work for RARDE Fort Halstead and also work on intelligent torpedoes for ARE Portland. Some resistance from pointy heads. However, it turns out that Priciples of Underwater Sound and a trip on a submarine won the day together with massive quantities of Pizza!

 

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Underwater-Sound-Robert-Urick/dp/0932146627

 

If you're interested. ????

I am not quite wrong , no one is irreplaceable .maybe not easy to replace but money can move mountains a big company like that it wouldn't be to hard . seen it before with specialised people  they think that they are irreplaceable , They were Wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

I think you don't understand the modern working world.

 

In this case, the pointy heads will have the last word - Goodbye (Or F you then!)

Pretty sure I do. It is you that doesn't understand. It is the shareholders that actually "own" the company. A choice made once the company goes public. If I own 51% of the shares. You can believe I have most of the say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Longcut said:

Pretty sure I do. It is you that doesn't understand. It is the shareholders that actually "own" the company. A choice made once the company goes public. If I own 51% of the shares. You can believe I have most of the say.

Nah

 

You still don't really understand the tech world.

 

You a tech company? You NEED the best people. So treat them well or you will fail.

 

Don't believe me? Up to you.

 

Microsoft should have dressed up the project along the lines of "minimizing collateral damage".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Book mark that and we’ll come back to it the next time you’re on an anti socialism pro free market rant. 

 

Fair enough. I will simply explain this is why I do not want the government to spend my money for me. The government gets ripped off on basically anything they do. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...