Coinbase Offers Severance Package to Employees Unsatisfied With 'Apolitical' Mission (coindesk.com) 154
An anonymous reader shares a report: Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong sent his employees a letter telling them to get in line with a new company "culture shift," offering those unwilling to do so a "generous separation package." Armstrong sent the letter, which CoinDesk obtained, to Coinbase employees on Wednesday, stating the time has come to have a "difficult conversation" over his recent clarification of Coinbase's mission. Armstrong wrote that Coinbase had "an apolitical culture" in an open letter published Sunday that said the exchange would not engage in "broader societal issues" or entertain employee discussions about these issues. Those employees unhappy with the new direction have been informed they can take up a separation package because "life is too short to work at a company that you are not excited about." The packages includes four months' severance for employees who have been at the exchange less than three years or six months for longer-term employees. Coinbase will also offer six months of health insurance through the U.S. government's COBRA program.
This is how it should be (Score:5, Insightful)
The best approach for any business is I think to stay neutral, because political winds shift too quickly and it's way too easy to anger a group of customers through support for some political hot button issue...
Furthermore, doesn't the support of so many companies for issue end up seeming crass or disingenuous at best?
Nike for example, likes to appear to be woke while still basically employing modern slaves to make shoes. Too many companies engage in whitewashing of ethically dubious behavior by promoting the hot topic of the day, and we all seem to let them get away with it.
Good for coinable to standing up to the tosh-mobs and saying; we are a business, we rise above passions of the day.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is how it should be (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or - a better approach: "If you don't like that we refuse to allow these types of discussions inside the office or on official public related accounts, you are free to resign and no longer be employed. You will get 3 strikes of documented instances of having these discussions at or related to the workplace: on the third of which, you will be considered a repeat offender of breaking company policy and dismissed from the entity."
Either follow the rules of the workplace, or don't. They shouldn't be buying anyo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is how it should be (Score:5, Insightful)
Thankfully, this is a FREE country and you are not an indentured servant and, therefore, free to quit and find employment with another company or yourself to earn a living in an work environment more suited to your needs.
Re:This is how it should be (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because you are supposed to be a "FREE" country and not indentured servants that this is not okay.
...
the idea that people cannot discuss politics with each other where they both wish to and it is not causing problems to others is an explicit and extreme breach of freedom of expression and human and US constitutional rights.
You are confusing corporate rules with governmental restrictions. Companies are not bound by the same restrictions as the government. Political discussions, and discussion of other sensitive or hot button topics, can be both disruptive and create a hostile work environment. Employers have a right to restrict speech about certain topics in business settings and in business forums. Your employer can tell you that you cannot discuss politics, religion, sexual behavior, etc. while you are at work, using a company forum, etc. specifically because it can cause problems, including charges of having a hostile work environment.
Re: (Score:3)
"Only racists support Trump" is something that many people in the US would agree with, and that I have heard in a business setting.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask employees not to falsely accuse half of their colleagues of racism.
Wearing a "Black Lives Matter" t-shirt is promoting a racist organisation intended to incite racial divisions. I don't think it's unreasonable to call this unacceptable in the workplace.
The alternative is to allow "White Lives Matter" t-shirts and calling all supporters of B
Anal sex too? Maybe work is for work, serve custo (Score:2)
> extreme breach of freedom of expression and human and US constitutional rights. Employers pay for your work. They do not pay for you as a slave that belongs to them; the do not have a right to control things that don't impact your work.
I think you'll find that any set of principles that leads to that conclusion also leads to "you can discuss anal sex at work as much as you wish". It's just a different degree of the same concept.
Here's an idea - how about what we do at work is we *serve our customers*.
Re: (Score:2)
"and it is not causing problems to others"
That's the problem. Nobody gave a crap what you talked about around the water cooler, except that it started to cause problems. Big problems. And we made companies responsible for their employee's behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually do work at a company with a long standing policy very much like this - much longer than what I've been working here. I knew what I was going into, and it's perfectly fine not to be forced to work with an agenda hanging over my head dictating how I handle a task.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is how it should be (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't want to work for any company that sends out a memo like that. Holy fuck.
That's exactly the type of company I want to work for.
What strange reality have we moved into where employees expect to be paid to be activists. If you want to be an activist, more power to you, but do it on your own time, and dime. It's all so disingenuous. Fight the power, as long as it doesn't get in the way of my weekend plans and it's the company paying for it.
And Jesus... 4 months severance for *voluntary* separation?
Re: (Score:3)
What strange reality have we moved into where employees expect to be paid to be activists. If you want to be an activist, more power to you, but do it on your own time, and dime. It's all so disingenuous. Fight the power, as long as it doesn't get in the way of my weekend plans and it's the company paying for it.
Ah. The old "nose to the grindstone" argument. Nobody is suggesting that employers pay people to be activists. But what you are suggesting is that any activity during work time that does not contribute directly to the bottom line is a misuse of company funds. You get your allotted break times, but when you are at work, work is all you do.
This ignores the crucial social benefit of a bit of banter and discussion during work time, which helps build useful social units and collaboration within the workplace. A
Re: (Score:2)
No? "You are not allowed to discuss boinking your coworkers at work. You get three strikes, then you're fired."
Religion and politics are supposed to be topics not discussed at the dinner table. Why not work too?
Re:This is how it should be (Score:5, Insightful)
The implication in this is that anyone who stays now is not following company policy when engaging in political discussion and they are penalized for doing so. And anyone who stays cannot make the argument that they didn't know or were offered an unfair situation, because the buyout is generous. It's also sufficiently generous to encourage anyone who is unhappy with this approach to leave, meaning those who are left are more aligned with the company's view of culture and they are the type of people who are committed to the mission above a 4 month payout, COBRA, and time to find a new job.
The problem with your approach is without a nice carrot to entice people to leave if they're unhappy, there are those who will choose to stay and remain quietly disgruntled. This may seem expensive in cash, but the value is that when the dust settles those who are left are super aligned with the company's mission and goals, meaning the team as a whole will be much more effective. That has tremendous long-term value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most companies don't have policies like that precisely because it's prohibitively costly to enforce. You'd be spending more money retraining people than you would on whatever it costs you to allow people to talk about politics in the office or deal with the occasional disruption or conflict that arises from it. You think Coinbase is offering money for people to go away because they're fluffy and nice? No, it's because it's a reasonable compromise that is intended to serve everyone's best interests, includin
Re:This is how it should be (Score:4, Insightful)
The best approach for any business is I think to stay neutral.
This is harder than it sounds in the current US political landscape. Lobbying the government for improvements for the benefit of the people has completely failed. Organizations and individuals now lobby companies because it is more likely to get results. If the government actually worked for the people, lobbying of individual companies would be greatly reduced since it would be unnecessary.
Re:This is how it should be (Score:5, Insightful)
If all else fails, try voting for people that truly support what you believe and need.
Hell, maybe even run yourself or organize on your own time to gain voters and support candidates in the parties that actually represent you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is every freaking thing can be political nowadays. Nike Shoes, Goya Beans, Prius and Tesla Cars, Ford and Chevy Trucks... Everything is now so polarized being neutral will mean you don't care of the issue facing one side or the other.
Your Nike Example. it is from a case, where they were designing a set of shoes that were American Themed. that used the Betsy Ross 13 Star American Flag. However after doing the design they found out that White Supremacist groups like using that flag as a symbol of
It's only a problem if you make it one (Score:5, Insightful)
Your Nike Example. it is from a case, where they were designing a set of shoes that were American Themed. that used the Betsy Ross 13 Star American Flag. However after doing the design they found out that White Supremacist groups like using that flag as a symbol of their group.
See right there is the issue - everything is political, because everyone treats these fringe issues as if they matter.
Fuck that WS groups use of the Betsy Ross flag, they are ultra fringe - make a million other Betsy Ross flag products and it doesn't matter if some wild group uses it, because they are irrelevant.
Nike by abandoning that symbol to the group, in one fell swoop gave that group WAY more power than they should have, away more press than they should have, and weakened the use of a classic symbol that should be tied to freedom for everyone.
So basically, stay neutral and stop bowing to every nut job that claim some thing you are doing relates to current political issues. What you are doing is your own thing, do not give people power over your own designs and intent.
Re: (Score:3)
Also keep in mind, Nike Shoes are popular for the African American Demographics. While this may have caused a Fringe Group to get more attention, allowing it may have also gave them some credence that they are not as bad as they really are. So in term alienating a core customer demographic.
It really is a lose lose situation for Nike, if they didn't preview that shoe probably nothing major would happen. Their mistake was they didn't do the research until they did the reveal. There are a lot of redesigns th
Re: (Score:2)
I used to be a Nike customer. They are one of the few manufacturers of athletic shoes that make shoes in widths I can wear. I used to buy them regularly but I haven't bought a Nike for years now. If they w
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is how it should be (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The best approach for any business is I think to stay neutral
That's a great way of becoming a mediocre small business. If you have any desire to make it in the big leagues you'll have to not only take a side, but also lobby that side.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Many companies donate to both parties at the same time. That's how unimportant it is who fucking gets elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as apolitical or politically neutral actions or leadership. What attempts at it or belief in it result in would be centrism or simply reckless political blindness.
Attempting it isn't "rising above the passions of the day," although A+ for such a romantic description, it's ignoring society's issues in the service of amoral profiteering.
Re: (Score:2)
To you. Everything is political to you, since if it's not in agreement with your values and beliefs, then it's against your politics.
People like you aren't the source of the problems we face today, but you sure contribute to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Quietly sitting on the fence supports the status quo, and worse yet, the sides are free to move the fence around.
If you're willing to do business with anyone, you can end up profiting from helping the worst causes.
Re: (Score:2)
So out of morbid curiosity, how do you avoid all the non-woke companies? I mean, you can't even buy Nike, unless you are just turning a blind eye to their labor practices.
Not trying to be a jerk on this one. Just curious how you navigate such a market place where even "woke" companies are full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
You do the best you can. It's easy to not buy Nike, they fall apart if you look at them wrong anyway. You'll never get it perfect, but there's no reason to let perfect be the enemy of good.
Re: (Score:2)
This just in; IBM was "rising above the passions of the day" when they sold computers to Some Very Fine People in the '30s (saying their old-school name now triggers the lameness filter? Um, what!?), and Cisco was also "rising above the passions of the day" when they helped China build the Great Firewall :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Lose the intolerance (Score:3, Insightful)
I would not work at a place that made an announcement like this, as I am a leftist.
That is really unfortunate, you are only hurting yourself (A) by limiting who you can work for, and (B) not exposing yourself to views that counter you own.
I am very libertarian, and I work for a company where every other person is extremely far left, to the point where some post frankly inappropriate political commentary to all other employees.. but I don't see why I would not want to work with them, as in a lot of other way
Re: (Score:2)
I am regularly, with or without expending any effort to do so, exposed to views diametrically opposed to mine. I used to HAVE views diametrically opposed to mine.
I don't want my life to be defined by "the marketplace of ideas," especially since my views' "stock value" is pitifully low. I don't need every aspect of my life to remind me of how impotently angry I am. I just want to live in peace.
Re: (Score:2)
You are lost my son, someday I hope you find the light again that you have lost.
It is in fact possible to see that other people want to help, they just have different ideas about what helps.
That is the core of the matter, you believe only one thing can possibly help, and are unwilling to ascribe the motive of helping others to anyone who does not think in lock-step with you... truly that is the path on loneliness, the path of the incel. You will become what you despise if you carry on down this road of da
Re: This is how it should be (Score:2)
That makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
They also should not be involved in any government contracts.
Government contracts are the ultimate in apolitical things a company can do, since people controlling the government (in a democracy anyway) can and will change over time. A government contract can easily span administrations from multiple parties; the act of refusing to take government contracts is generally entirely political and based around whoever is running things currently (I do admit there are some limited cases where companies may not take government contracts for other reasons, but politics is the bulk of them).
FINALLY!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno when having your job being such a political thing came about, but I'm just fscking tired of it.
Everyone is free to have their own beliefs, but keep it on your own personal time.
People these days keep calling for "safe spaces" well, let's make the job site a safe space...free from politics.
If you don't like what the company does or who it makes contracts for work with...feel free to leave, that's the proper way to vote, with your talent and money.
But quit trying to change the business and interrupt it with pushing your politics on the company and all the other employees.
There's a time and place for everything and the job site is NOT the place for politics, it is a place to work and earn a living, period.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the problem is many "champagne socialist" executives are using current issues to virtue signal and cram "their" beliefs down employee throats.
Re:FINALLY!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that is wrong too.
Earning a living is a basic NEED for everyone.
And especially in times like these, when people are so polarized, your ability to earn a living should not be based upon one's political bent.
Like I said, THIS should be a safe zone, as that it is so basic and necessary for livelihood and life in the modern world.
The employer and employee should not be saddled with this extra stress...it's tough enough to do a good job and meet deadlines and develop new ideas.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FINALLY!! (Score:5, Interesting)
You're conflating two issues. One, the education of employees on racism or sexism isn't political any more than education on workplace safety. Two, any employer who tells you who to vote for is breaking the law. Get a lawyer for that one.
A class on systemic racism is not telling you how to think. It's telling you how your behavior affects others and that it's not allowed at work. You can certainly go home, salute your confederate flag, and think all the racist thoughts you want, just not at work.
Re: (Score:2)
You havnt been through one of the indoctrination courses, have you.
If they were teaching you race, gender, sex doenst matter, you should not even see it, all people should be treated equally' then I would agree.
They are, however SO far from that that its scary, they are end to end 'this is the special treatment you are REQUIRED to give to certain classes?
BTW, there is by definition no such thing as automatic systemic racism, BY DEFINITION, because there is no system that is enforced on all people.
Are you as
Re: (Score:3)
A class on "systemic racism" is the most racist thing I've ever been subjected to. It tells you that the most important thing in anyone's life is their race, and that if you are of one race you are a victim, and another race an oppressor. All of that regardless of any actual experiences or behaviours you've ever been involved in.
That's not against racism, that IS racism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can be against racism but not be for BLM. Which is exactly the point being made. BLM is not the end-all, be-all movement for combatting racism. It's one group/movement, not an authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps in theory, but I've never seen it happen. Give me an example of why someone would be offended by the mere mention of BLM while being an anti-racist.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you serious? How about the desire to not have buildings burned down and looted. How about the ability to eat at a restaurant without worrying that a mob will storm the place, upending tables, and demand you recite BLM talking points. How about being able to sleep at night without worrying if a mob will fill up the street in front of your house, blast loud music, and shout threats. How about being able to defend yourself from criminal attack without fear of being prosecuted for perfectly legal self-d
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't fact-checked each of those scenarios, but I'm well-informed enough that I can be sure that they're something between cherry-pickings and outright fabrications. BLM protesters are largely peaceful, in fact I've run across a few IRL recently and they haven't inconvenienced me in the slightest.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would someone who is against racism be offended by the most racist organization in the current world? Funny question to ask.
I'm against racism. That means I do not believe race should play any part in anything. BLM believes the opposite, they believe that race should define everything that anyone ever does.
As someone who is against racism in all forms I am deeply offended by the mere mention of BLM.
Re: (Score:2)
You mistake anti-racism for colorblindness, which is better than active racism but powerless against systemic/institutional racism. It couldn't even explain current racial inequalities in society without coming to a racist conclusion, since it ignores history.
Re: (Score:2)
No, YOU mistake racism for anti-racism. You cannot believe that people are defined by their race without being a racist.
There is no such thing as "systemic/institutional racism". That was abolished decades ago. There are racists who make decisions based on race, and there are people who don't believe race should be a factor in anything. There is no middle ground. You either make race a factor, and are therefore a racist. Or you do not allow race to play a part in decisions and are anti-racist. Your own race
Re: (Score:2)
I have never seen a more racist movement than BLM. They are not in any way combatting racism, they are promoting it.
A group that is against racism would believe that race should not be a factor in anything. BLM believes it should be the single all encompassing factor in everything.
Re: FINALLY!! (Score:2)
Would you work for Facebook? How about Oracle? Microsoft? Google?
How about a fur farm? You know, the ones that raise mink and dog for their fur, that a few EU countries want to ban? And yes, they still farm dogs for their fur. https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
How about an anti-abortion organization? A pro-abortion organization?
How about working in the Vatican? Or anywhere with covid and no PPE?
Would you work in a Chinese concentration camp?
All of these have political ramifications.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No many people don't, and a corporation can get someone blacklisted in a field. And you think there is hiring like normal right now, or that big cuts aren't planned with the real economic contraction (not talking about fed fluffing markets)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure I want to keep politics out of my workplace, I don't want to discuss this stuff and argue with people I need to work with, it creates a toxic environment. However it will need to be handled very delicately. Because one wrong thing can trigger a storm. of trouble. Even with just a friendly comment.
Apparently Slashdot is also seeming that I am being creative with ascii art.
Re: (Score:2)
I really struggle with this one. I think there are some things to consider.
1. People don't stop being moral agents because they need to eat. Groups of people ( teams bussines etc ) are still moral agents.
2. That being said I fully agree with "f you don't like what the company does or who it makes contracts for work with...feel free to leave, that's the proper way to vote"
The question comes when you say 'who makes the decisions that influence #2.
In a small company the owner obviously. In a large company
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People these days keep calling for "safe spaces" well, let's make the job site a safe space...free from politics.
Ironically what you just did was play politics. If politically everyone was treated equally there wouldn't be a call for anything. It's easy to be the one to dismiss an issue if it doesn't affect you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a time and place for everything and the job site is NOT the place for politics, it is a place to work and earn a living, period.
Just when I start to feel bad about the political science "experts" who pissed away thousands of dollars on higher education so they can continue to be stuck in the shithole that has become their "dream" job of being "in" politics...I remember how much damage they have caused.
To those stuck in that career, I say enjoy it. You earned it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's good. He wouldn't work for you either.
You want to actively alienate more than half your potential customer base? Sounds like a company that's got a great future! (doesn't even matter which side you choose, you'll still alienate more than half, though I can guess as only one side tends to make such stupid business decisions.)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this is that most of the people who agitate about these sorts of things (as opposed to the ones who already quietly do what you suggest) realize that if they were evaluated based on those metrics, their votes would be essentially worthless.
Rob
Life may be short, but bills need to be paid. (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: life is too short to work at a company that you are not excited about.
For most people, work isn't optional and the options are limited. There are SOME people who are fortunate enough to work for companies "that they are excited about." But most people must pick between a set of unappealing options. That's just reality.
Re: (Score:2)
But most people must pick between a set of unappealing options. That's just reality.
So the wokerati should just quiet down in the workplace, like conservatives are forced to do already.
Re: (Score:2)
FTA: life is too short to work at a company that you are not excited about.
For most people, work isn't optional and the options are limited. There are SOME people who are fortunate enough to work for companies "that they are excited about." But most people must pick between a set of unappealing options. That's just reality.
Aside from disagreeing that you represent most people there's another issue. To your point first, most people's skills aren't transferable to another field, but they are definitely able to chose to work elsewhere. This applies if you're a hot shot programmer, if you drive the local garbage truck, or just an unpaid labourer. For *most* people there are other companies out there looking for the same skill set. They may not be looking for them right this very second but opportunities are out there for those wh
Re: (Score:2)
...most people must pick between a set of unappealing options. That's just reality.
Are we talking about jobs, or presidential elections here?
Either way, that reality, is fucking depressing.
Re: (Score:2)
And, if all the companies in your chosen field of work are "unappealing options" then you should find a new field of work
Pink capitalism (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Corporations should not be involved in politics for a variety of reasons, one of which is there is no such thing as the "corporation believing X." Corporations aren't people, they're bundles of assets and people who have contractual (employment and otherwise) relationships with them.
Labor unions should not be involved in politics for a variety of reasons, one of which is there is no such thing as the "union believing X." Unions aren't people, they're bundles of assets and people who have contractual (employment and otherwise) relationships with them...
I mean, I'm personally on board. What's good for the goose, and all that. But I know a lot of folks would get nervous about such restrictions if they were aimed at a labor union, yet I haven't heard a particularly compelling argument
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations should not be involved in politics
That's fine in theory. But in practice, politicians are in a position to either help out a corporation or make their life hell if they refuse to drop a few bucks into the campaign kitty. And kiss the ass of government officials pursuing their own personal agendas.
Re: (Score:2)
As ANY business should be...NEUTRAL! (Score:2)
FINALLY! A Company that stops lobbying Gov't! (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh... you didn't mean any of that? You just meant that standing behind your employees is something you don't want to do? Tired of taking a principled stand on issues of universal importance because
Re:FINALLY! A Company that stops lobbying Gov't! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not every employee agrees on "issues of universal importance". Just because the Progressive leaning employees are loud and sanctimonious about it, doesn't mean it's important to the vast majority of the employees. Odds are there are several co-workers you interact with on a daily basis that feel bullied in to silence. That have to sit there every day hearing the same people lecture others on political issues and have witnessed others being shunned for not agreeing.
It's no longer an open debate. It's people living in a bubble believing their ideology is the only moral one and placing vengeance on those in disagreement. It's a disease that does not belong in a work environment where everyone needs to work together.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks in advance.
Apolitical is political (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apolitical is a restaurant saying they will serve food to both Republicans and Democrats and other parties, and the servers should not share their political, religious, sexual, or other personal beliefs with the customers. It is not a nod to the status quo. It is someone saying, focus on what I'm paying you for, keep your personal beliefs to your personal time.
Re: (Score:2)
A company is a collection of individuals, and each of them should take their own position on issues on their own time. A company being apolitical simply means that no person or group in that company will impose their position on any others during work. I would expect that most companies are politically conservative, especially if you count small businesses, and that they are largely not apolitical in the sense this article discusses. It would seem then that it would be far more in your interest, as an app
Re: (Score:2)
The stance of "this company is apolitical" is itself a political stance. It means you favour the status quo and are refusing to listen to (or give voice to) anyone who disagrees. Basically, the CEO is saying they are politically conservative and telling anyone who doesn't like it to leave. There is no such thing as a politically neutral stance in a country with two polarized political parties. Claiming to be taking some neutral or moral stance of "not talking politics" is just a cowardly way of saying "We support the current power balance and won't discuss alternatives."
No it isn't, Apolitical is being divorced from the political scene all together, whether that is the status Quo or an evolving/changing environment. It is basically not engaging in the politics REGARDLESS of the direction. That is a good and sane stance for most businesses as they have to operate in all environments regardless of who is in charge and which shit hole the country is proceeding down. It doesn't mean individuals have to be neutral (just as long as they aren't using the business as a means to th
Re: (Score:2)
Companies shouldn't be engaged in politics. Politics is for people. Companies are formed to hold and organize capital and labor for the benefit of all. Just because they are made of people doesn't mean all those people are of the same political party. People generally don't go looking for a job because of it's politics.
Coinbase Spent $100K Lobbying (Score:2)
Apolitical, huh?
Then why have they spent $110,000 YTD on lobbying?
https://www.opensecrets.org/fe... [opensecrets.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The letter did have a weasly qualification: "We don’t advocate for any particular causes or candidates internally that are unrelated to our mission ..."
Re: (Score:2)
Even as an American, I forget sometimes the unspoken, unwritten caveat "...unless it makes owners, COs and shareholders more money".
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable, IF.... (Score:2)
I think this position is reasonable with one big caveat: As long as Coinbase doesn't punish its employees for being activist on their own time and with their own resources. But if they do punish employees who speak out on their own time while not claiming to represent Coinbase, then it's a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the big problem these days. It used to be that you could do whatever you wanted after you clocked out, until you clocked in the next day, and there was nothing the company could do about it. Then it changed to being "anything" as long as you didn't badmouth your own company. Now it's become "anything", as long as it's exactly the same things you're allowed to do on company time.
This has been a long transition, but it's not a good one. I enjoy my work, but it's not who I am. When I clock out, the comp
Conflating two issues (Score:2)
I don't know exactly what problem Coinbase is trying to address, but there's two "social" issues that seem to come up these days. One is the treatment of employees (or customers) by the company, and the other is the impact of the company's business model on society as a whole.
I would say that every company should try to address both of these issues in a positive and progressive way, but if an employee isn't happy with a company's policy, they can either try to influence it from within, or they can resign.
In