It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IBM Employees Launch Petition Protesting Cooperation with Donald Trump

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   

IBM employees are taking a public stand following a personal pitch to Donald Trump from CEO Ginni Rometty and the company’s initial refusal to rule out participating in the creation of a national Muslim registry.

Source

I don’t remember reading where IBM employees would be tasked with creating the registry in the first place, but if there help is needed or wanted, there will be none.


In November, Rometty wrote Trump directly, congratulating him on his electoral victory and detailing various services the company could sell his administration. The letter was published on an internal IBM blog along with a personal note from Rometty to her enormous global staff. “As IBMers, we believe that innovation improves the human condition. … We support, tolerance, diversity, the development of expertise, and the open exchange of ideas,” she wrote in the context of lending material support to a man who won the election by rejecting all of those values.

Other IBM employees were in support, but some have been so shaken up by the thought of a Trump presidency that they are beginning to speak out. Rometty’s letter offered limited support whereas the more outspoken bunch at IBM reminded everyone that it was there “our right to refuse participation in any U.S. government contracts that violate constitutionally protected civil liberties.”


The IBMPetition.org effort has been spearheaded in part by IBM cybersecurity engineer Daniel Hanley, who told The Intercept he started organizing with his coworkers after reading Rometty’s letter. “I was shocked, of course,” Hanley said, “because IBM has purported to espouse diversity and inclusion, and yet here’s Ginni Rometty in an unqualified way reaching out to an admin whose electoral success was based on racist programs.”

The petition now has 51 signees and has only been circulated privetely. A drop in the bucket compared to how many they employ globally.

Here is a part of IBM’s letter…


Taking a conservative approach has grave implications. Our own founder’s experience and the rest of history teach us that accommodating those who unleash forces of aggressive nationalism, bigotry, racism, fear, and exclusion inevitably yields devastating outcomes for millions of innocents.

If you thought IBM was alone, you’re wrong. “Never Pledge Again” amassed almost 1700 workers’ signatures from the tech industry, pledging to never “participate in the creation of databases of identifying information for the United States government to target individuals based on race, religion, or national origin,” and to “minimize the collection and retention of data that would facilitate ethnic or religious targeting.”


But the IBM petition is perhaps the first of its kind, a rare instance of tech employees directly confronting their management in an industry where organized labor is unheard of. This may have something to do with the influence of former IBM employee Elizabeth Wood, who publicly quit the company shortly after reading Rometty’s letter. Wood, who provided advice and helped with drafts of the IBMPetition.org letter, told The Intercept that she quit because she found Trump’s “entire campaign repulsive,” and Rometty’s “willingness and eagerness to be involved made me think I want no part in this.”

While some believe that this is being blown out of proportion, others are staying strong and standing behind their beliefs. It’s hard to say what Trump will do and considering the how the moods have changed in Sweden and Germany, he just might get the support he desires.

In my opinion, the Muslim registry would be heavily protested and unless a major attack happens on US soil, it will never happen. The only way it will is if they include all Americans, something we’ve seen coming for a long time. Biometric surveillance is coming and you will be registered, if you haven’t been already.

edit on 20-12-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



+7 more 
posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Meh. If I were running a company and I had employees that refused to perform their legal duties.... I'd replace them. It's really that simple.

Edit to clarify: When I wrote "legal duties" I meant to say that as long as the employer isn't directing their employees to do something illegal, they are obliged to follow orders.
edit on 20-12-2016 by eluryh22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

I give them credit for standing up for what they believe. Damn sure I wouldn't want to be part of such a thing.

I can only hope that Trump will back down on this issue.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Like they were going to do the work anyways.
Probably would be outsourced to india.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: eluryh22

exactly. they have the right to refuse to work, just as the employer has the right to can them for doing so.
It's a beautiful system.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: eisegesis

Meh. If I were running a company and I had employees that refused to perform their legal duties.... I'd replace them. It's really that simple.


What duties are they legally obligated to perform?



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: eisegesis

Meh. If I were running a company and I had employees that refused to perform their legal duties.... I'd replace them. It's really that simple.


Me too. You can't have a few people disrupting your business. You can lay them off or not renew their contract, that is all that is needed. You do not have to fire them but you do not have to have them creating chaos in your business either. If employees are being chaotic like this, it is not even covered by unions that protect them sometimes.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: eisegesis

I give them credit for standing up for what they believe. Damn sure I wouldn't want to be part of such a thing.

I can only hope that Trump will back down on this issue.


One of your compadres will do a thread on it should that happen. And Trump will be chastised for it either way.
I personally think he used hyperbole in that case and actually wants something much more realistic and mundane, but time will be the only way to find that out.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Alternate title for thread: How to use clickbait to make a topic look urgent

Did you really have to make this an attack on Trump? How about IBM employees protest muslim registry.
edit on 20-12-2016 by Voiceofthemajority because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: eisegesis

Meh. If I were running a company and I had employees that refused to perform their legal duties.... I'd replace them. It's really that simple.


What duties are they legally obligated to perform?


I don't know. You'd have to ask the employees that are refusing to do something it seems they haven't been asked to do.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Fire them. They have no right to a petition, this inst a democracy, your an employee, not a shareholder!

Reminds me of this gem:
Snowflakes get fired for work petition



The next day, all of us who signed the petition were called into a meeting where we thought our proposal would be discussed. Instead, we were informed that due to our “unprofessional” behavior, we were being let go from our internships. We were told to hand in our ID badges and to gather our things and leave the property ASAP.


The response is on point:



.....you assumed you knew better.... .... A petition is well, it’s not something you typically see at work. It signals that you think that if you get enough signatures, your company will feel pressured to act, and that’s just not how this stuff works. A company is not going to change its dress code because its interns sign a petition.


Regardless of topic a work petition is pretentious and naive.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Do people on ATS actually think every single person doesn't already have multiple files in multiple govt databases? Why all this nonsense? It's just for show.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: eluryh22

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: eisegesis

Meh. If I were running a company and I had employees that refused to perform their legal duties.... I'd replace them. It's really that simple.


What duties are they legally obligated to perform?


I don't know. You'd have to ask the employees that are refusing to do something it seems they haven't been asked to do.


That would be grounds for termination through insubordination, but it has nothing to do with legal obligation.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: eluryh22

Right.

Can an anti-abortionist work for an abortion clinic and start up a petition to stop doing the procedure?

Didnt think so.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: eluryh22

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: eisegesis

Meh. If I were running a company and I had employees that refused to perform their legal duties.... I'd replace them. It's really that simple.


What duties are they legally obligated to perform?


I don't know. You'd have to ask the employees that are refusing to do something it seems they haven't been asked to do.


That would be grounds for termination through insubordination, but it has nothing to do with legal obligation.


I had only mentioned "legal duties" because if an employee (or employees) are asked to do something they know is illegal, I would support their refusal to perform said duties. This, does not seem to be that.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Voiceofthemajority
a reply to: eisegesis

Alternate title for thread: How to use clickbait titling to make a topic look urgent

1.) It's not my title.

2.) How did you come to that conclusion?

3.) Why did you comment only on the title and nothing else?



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis
Presumably there are Russian and Chinese companies who would be prepared to do the work instead.
If you refuse to do a job, how can you complain about out-sourcing?



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: eluryh22

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: eisegesis

Meh. If I were running a company and I had employees that refused to perform their legal duties.... I'd replace them. It's really that simple.


What duties are they legally obligated to perform?


I don't know. You'd have to ask the employees that are refusing to do something it seems they haven't been asked to do.


That would be grounds for termination through insubordination, but it has nothing to do with legal obligation.


I think he was trying to say that they can't refuse to do a job that is not breaking a law without the risk of being terminated.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Pure showmanship. Small modifications to existing personnel or census software should provide a registry and a three-letter agency would run it. IBM would not be needed; apparently they do not want Government contracts.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: eluryh22

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: eluryh22

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: eisegesis

Meh. If I were running a company and I had employees that refused to perform their legal duties.... I'd replace them. It's really that simple.


What duties are they legally obligated to perform?


I don't know. You'd have to ask the employees that are refusing to do something it seems they haven't been asked to do.


That would be grounds for termination through insubordination, but it has nothing to do with legal obligation.


I had only mentioned "legal duties" because if an employee (or employees) are asked to do something they know is illegal, I would support their refusal to perform said duties. This, does not seem to be that.


That's different and not what you said in your first post.




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join