The ask for politics to be left out X these days seems to be impossible. Will only lead to more division and hatred between people with different ideologies.
2) Hootsuite is a B Corp. This means they've already publicly committed themselves to act with social responsibility, above and beyond whatever is currently profitable.
This doesn't mean that non-B-corps get to act with zero responsibility in pursuit of profit, but it's just underlining this requirement.
It is curious to me that you think that acting ethically somehow sows division and hatred. Why would that happen? The whistleblower believes strongly in the company and the mission and isn't targeting anyone, not even the CEO, as a figure of hate. The worst thing that's happening here is that ICE will have to use another vendor for their social media management. I think society will be able to continue to function after this.
> It is curious to me that you think that acting ethically somehow sows division and hatred.
It does, after a fashion. The question is 'do we care'? There are many parties that get upset with people who are assertive. People-pleasers get trapped into thinking that it's their fault if everyone isn't happy with them at all times and in all things. It's unhealthy. Every choosing beggar they meet turns them into their own personal doormat.
In interpersonal dynamics there is a concept that:
"The sort of person who wouldn't like that is not the sort of person you'd want as a friend."
The "worst thing that happens is ICE uses another vendor" is such a slippery slope view point.
Should all 3rd party tech companies stop servicing ICE because the employees refuse to support it? What about the millions of Americans who do not work for a company with that power? Should you be given the ability to undermine something that impacts everyone?
This is the direction we are heading and it will create division.
If you want to dodge by claiming it should hinge on the legality of the org, I'd be happy to give you a menu of several that were perfectly legal at the time to choose from.
On one hand, what does it mean to have a "no politics at work" policy? If Hootsuite have contracts with ICE, it's already political at that point, as they are helping the organization be more efficient/valuable/whatever. If they don't take any contracts that might be political, they won't be able to do any business at all.
On the other hand, for-profit companies goal is to get profits. If they prioritize political stances in-front of that, they are bound to confuse people who are working there, who understands it's a business, not a political/non-profit organization.
It starts being murky when the $1 changes to $10 or $100, as now you're trying to balance two values, profits and overall helpfulness. If you're asking the company to take a stance, you and others might feel differently about what's important.
Some industries simply look the other way and make the simple statement that it's all about money, nothing else. Sometimes I dream of taking that stance, just because everything would be simpler.
Hootsuite has basically eroded every client's faith.
Even assuming that were true (Hootsuite is a B Corp, so it's not quite that simple), companies have to engage in reputation management as part of making money. The result of this is that even entirely profit-focused companies will often refuse to deal with certain suppliers and customers. This is effectively a cost of doing business for highly disreputable companies and organisations; certain suppliers simply won't deal with them. As I mentioned elsewhere, pornography is a particularly dramatic example, with its own (very expensive) supporting ecosystem of companies.
I think the sooner people realize what capitalism does to our world and how focusing on profits, ownership and consumerism makes everything more shit, the better.
> Refusing to make business with the government if it's not your guys calling the shots is political activism though.
Only, ICE was deplorable under Obama too.
If holding children in cages, subjecting them to deplorable conditions, separating families, and forcing/denying medical procedures aren't where someone draws the line, then... well... I don't really want to know where they draw the line.
As to "separating families" and "denying medical procedures" you seem to think it's somehow a God given right to come somewhere and be granted resources and time of others. In many people view it's not. The blame is on the immigrants and their countries not on US. The policy is clear: you can't come without having permission. It's entirely reasonable to not want to give resources to people who are not part of your group, didn't contribute to development of your country, don't help to fund your services and are actively breaking your rules in your own country. It's a difficult situation when someone comes anyway and with small children as well but the blame is not on ICE or your policies. Medical procedures don't grow on trees. Granting them means taking time and resources of others. It means someone will have less time for their families/personal life, that someone else will have to work more to get treatment or in some cases won't get treatment at all or get it later. You can't just hand stuff to all comers or then your policy is meaningless. It also means millions of others who want to immigrate to US legally but respect the procedure will wait for longer or never get in. There are many, many people in the world in a very shitty situation who would love to come to US if given a chance. Knowing that but letting in those who force their way is at best morally suspect.
It's nothing like actively pursuing people who live in your society, packing them on trains and killing them in camps. That's why one is universally seen as morally deplorable and the other is a hotly debated issue.
Second, many detainees are asylum seekers. The us has policies and processes by which people can lawfully seek asylum in the US. And they're being subject to inhumane treatments that we don't even tolerate in prisons.
Some governments and some agencies do enough evil that the decision to do business with them is a moral choice.
ICE may be one of those agencies. NSA likewise.
Arguably contacting with the US military falls in a similar bucket. I wouldn't call it evil, but it exists almost solely to enforce American interests abroad (vs a purely defensive force). I wouldn't fault somebody for seeing that business as immoral.
There's also a huge difference between selling a product to that agency, but is not specific to that agency (Word, Linux tech support) vs something that exists only to enable that organization to do bad (spying equipment, the cages used to imprison immigrants, etc).
Same goes for military. If it should be a purely defensive force it one ensuring global interests is a polarizing political issue. It's not simply evil or good.
I don't think anyone is ok with forced sterilization. I don't really know why you put it on ICE or the immigration policy. It has to be investigated and from the information we have that it doesn't seem to be either widespread nor as simple as you portray it. Sure, investigate it, punish the offenders. It doesn't mean you owe stuff to all comers and have to take care of them.
There's probably an argument to be made that the profit motive has the ability to strip all other political motivations from a decision, but the result of the decision can still be deeply political.
I really don't think that's what's happening here. It doesn't take long to read up on the activities ICE has been (very plausibly) accused of doing that would shock many people. Excusing that just because they're a government agency just seems strange to me.
Could you object if it was a private company doing it, but not object if it's a government agency? I don't get it.
And disagreeing with specific measures is not the same as "if the other group won the vote" either.
And even if an elected government does something it doesn't make it automatically ethical and worthy of support.
But it is, and will always be, political to do anything. If you're accepting a contract with the government, you're saying that you agree that this government should exists, that governments are a good idea in general, and this one is the current rightful government for where you are, otherwise you wouldn't work with them.
It's a fruitless exercise in trying to remove politics from anything, because anything can and will be politicalized.
Notably, the pornography industry has a whole ecosystem of supporting industries for this reason, but there are many other examples.
That might mean attempting to change a company from the inside, or that might mean leaving them and not supporting them. And then once you leave, you still have to look for places to exercise your privilege to make the world a better place.
"Leave politics out of X" is almost never actually possible. Politics is in everything. What is usually being asked is "leave politics I find uncomfortable out of X".
You can be FOR the deportations and AGAINST treating children that way. You could be AGAINST the deportations policy and OK with the implementation on a human rights level.
Something that seems increasingly the case is that people conflate objections to behavior with political stances.
On the left this might look like "You are accusing Biden of rape because you oppose his policies."
On the right this might look like "The investigation of Trump's dealings in Ukraine are the result of people trying to achieve political goals, they don't actually care about corruption at all."
It is disheartening to see this sort of thinking spread. Hootsuite's decision on whether to deal with ICE can be part of a policy centered on human rights. It's not inherently political, just because ICE currently operates under Trump (many objected to many of its behaviors under Obama as well).
(Incidentally, to the person I'm replying to, I'm not accusing you of sloppy thinking or anything else. I think it's very easy for all of us to fall into this trap because it has become so completely common in the U.S. to deploy rhetoric that all accusations we don't like are made for political reasons.)