According to Politico, heads of some tech companies will be meeting with the President on Monday. But the lower echelons of techdom are pushing back on engagement with the Trump administration.
The fraught relationship between the country's leading tech executives and President Donald Trump is about to get even more tense.
The latest uncomfortable moment arrives Monday, when top tech CEOs are expected to sit down with Trump at the White House to talk about modernizing government technology. Many of the companies have refused to confirm their attendance publicly, in a sign of how sensitive their dealings with the Trump administration have become in a liberal Silicon Valley that loathes his policies on issues like immigration and climate change.
Despite unease and rumblings from below, many are going to attend anyway.
Even so, executives from Google's parent Alphabet, IBM, Cisco and Oracle will be among those in attendance, as will billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel. Other corporate participants named in media reports include Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and possibly Facebook. Those four companies have all declined to comment on their plans despite repeated requests, and sources close to Alphabet and IBM only confirmed their participation Thursday. Companies declined to comment for this story.
Politico seems to think that tech workers have more clout with regard to the political activities of their bosses, an interesting point of view.
Indeed, as the leaders of multinational corporations, tech executives have a financial obligation to shareholders to engage the federal government, which sets key industry regulations and, in many cases, buys their products. Some, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, have expressed a moral and patriotic responsibility to weigh in on public policy matters where executives have expertise.
But now companies face growing pressure from their liberal employees and chunks of their customer base to resist the White House over its actions on immigration, climate change and transgender rights. And even though the CEOs have become more vocal in their criticism of Trump — over the Paris pullout, for example — their argument for continued engagement is becoming riskier as Trump's political agenda skews further and further away from the progressive worldview.
And that could have workforce implications. Technology workers, particularly engineers, hold special sway over their bosses compared to employees in other industries. They have in-demand technical skills that companies often struggle to find, and often have more leeway to speak their mind with less fear of reprisal.
So is it true that tech workers have more pull than the average corporate cog? Will this affect technology policy of the Untied States of America?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @01:45PM
... then your system is poorly constructed.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by J_Darnley on Monday June 19 2017, @01:53PM (4 children)
What are the employees going to do if they don't like the outcome their employers want? Are they going to quit their six figure jobs or are they going to be silent because they like being employed? My money is on most of them staying silent. They wouldn't like being one of the proletariat despite their superficial political ideas. A few will quit because they can rely on daddy's money. A few more will quit because they actually hold their own beliefs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @01:58PM
Virtually no one gives a fuck about any of this stuff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:07PM (1 child)
I don't think you quite understand the culture in tech right now. For top talent, it's a worker's market. Many (and I want to say most) people in Silicon Valley swap companies pretty regularly. They get better offers or just get tired of doing the same thing. Or a friend at another company just casually recruits them. Companies have a really tough time holding onto top talent and there are countless opportunities for anybody with a nice CV. For that matter there's also endless entrepreneurial opportunity. There's more venture capital than good sense in California that still shows no sign of abating even though it's imminent demise is reported upon every other year.
The reason most people are working those jobs is because they want to be working those jobs - not because they need to be working that specific job, or in many cases any job at all. Like you mention salaries are pretty healthy and somebody getting a 7 figure nest egg doesn't take all that long.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @06:11PM
Sorry, not all of us are lucky enough to be able to live in SV long enough to be able to get a six figure salary job to afford the rent to be able to live in SV.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday June 19 2017, @04:35PM
You are right that they would be silent. What happens is the software engineers create a really shitty implementation for that undesired "solution". Either that or the good engineers work on what they want to work on so the more junior ones build the undesired implementation. Either way, don't shit on the engineers building things. Unless you don't mind your product being shit as well.
Good talent is expensive and limited. If an engineer thinks their project sucks and can't move to a different one then they'll just quit that company. If you want your company to send its best talent to a competitor then plow right through their opinions. Your company probably won't die or anything. You'll just have a lot more emergency meetings to deal with production problems and so on.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday June 19 2017, @01:57PM (10 children)
From TFS:
There are gub'mint contracts worth billions [youtube.com] to be had. Of course they're going. Despite your advanced (what is it, 2,330 by now?) age, Aristarchus, you don't seem to fathom the obvious.
Or are you too busy achieving happiness (defined by jms [quotes.net] as involving "three goats and a jug of wine") to pay attention these days?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:40PM (3 children)
Nice bleak outlook you have there. It sure would be amazing if this situation gets so bad that a bunch of workers actually do strike. Maybe the reason they have more clout is that this time the CEOs know they can't just hire cheap scabs to replace their talent. Even if you can find competent overseas coders in your specific field, the time difference is quite a killer so proper workflows can become difficult.
We are due for another worker revolution, and the next political step seems to be moving towards direct democracy. I bet we'll see a massive uptick in political involvement once people's vote actually matters. Not just another leaf in the wind of gerrymandered districts that dilute people's power, but a real direct vote. Of course this will require transparency so citizens can verify their count, public access to vote results, and encryption / hashing to make sure some dynamic tampering doesn't game the system. It needs to be very open, very transparent, and very secure.
Maybe they can just use paper ballots, not sure if that is highly feasible for a more widespread public voting system.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday June 19 2017, @05:07PM (1 child)
That would be nice, but I won't hold my breath.
It's adorable that you think that might happen though. So cute!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @08:55PM
I think I covered your smartass reply with "it sure would be amazing". But go ahead, by a cynically redundant jagoff.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Monday June 19 2017, @09:16PM
The votes started mattering less and less because political involvement of the people declined. I once read a quote, and I cannot remember from where and have been unable to again find the source, but it went something like this: "In the sixties, a great many young people came of age who were well off and well educated. They became a great bother to the government. This must never be allowed to happen again". The decline of the middle class, particularly since 1980, has, whether coincidentally or not, has gone hand in hand with achieving that goal.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday June 19 2017, @04:49PM (5 children)
Politico's words, not mine, NotSang! You should not attack the messenger! And, human behavior under late capitalism is hardly the way humans have behaved for the vast majority of their existence on earth.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @05:05PM
Sorta, human behavior has remained somewhat consistent as far as greed and power goes. Capitalism has simply abstracted the rewards into complicated financialese that makes it easier to pull the wool over everyone's eyes so we think it is the pinnacle of achievement instead of a modern version of kingdoms / fiefdoms.
The CEO is king/queen, the shareholders are the royal court, and the workers are the unwashed masses. The other people? The consumers? They are the cattle milked and slaughtered for their juicy banking account numbers.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday June 19 2017, @05:06PM (3 children)
This bit:
Is not from TFA. Are they not your words? Or did the editors insert that line?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday June 19 2017, @05:36PM (2 children)
NotSang goes in for the squeeky-tight literal? I thought that was more a paraphrase of
than an opinion expressed on my own part.
.
But never mind that now. What is your point, oh sticklerly NotSanguine?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday June 19 2017, @06:48PM (1 child)
Put down that jug of wine and get your hands (and other parts) off the goats, Aristarchus.
I already made my point in my original post. Literacy is *not* overrated.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @08:58PM
You have mastered literacy, now how about basic analysis / critical thinking? Or maybe you just have extreme OCD which makes you need everything defined to pinpoint accuracy?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GlennC on Monday June 19 2017, @02:15PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA..oh, was that a serious question? The answer is NO... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Only if the corporate leaders being pallet loads of cash.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by linkdude64 on Monday June 19 2017, @02:18PM (18 children)
What we are seeing is the Left attempting to apply their social-outcasting technique on a national scale. Even if you meet with Trump to try and dissuade him of his policies, if you do anything short of call for his murder, you are a Trump supporter, a racist, a hate-filled climate change denier and unforgivable human being - and we all know it's okay to be violent toward unforgivable human beings! Nazis, remember?
This is not critical thinking. This is not adult behavior. This is not respect toward a diversity of ideas.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday June 19 2017, @02:26PM (4 children)
Did you read the same TFS I did? What are you blathering on about? Or perhaps you got confused as you were reading this [marxists.org]?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:50AM (3 children)
???
This should demonstrate that my comment regarding Liberal sentiment toward the Trump administration was entirely on-topic. Can you submit evidence that my discussion of Liberal social behavior is out of place in a summary which itself includes discussion on Liberal social behavior? This is almost a rhetorical question, but I am looking forward to your answer.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:08PM (2 children)
You said:
Go ahead and say whatever you want. I have no axe to grind. But what you were going on about is so far from the story presented, or even the tenor of the presentation, I have to wonder what your agenda might be.
As to your reply to me, you walked back significantly from your initial statement. Murder? social-outcasting? National basis? Racism? Climate change denier? Where exactly is that even implied, let alone stated? Your paranoia seems to be getting the better of you.
Do you even read the stuff you write? Based on your reply to me, it would seem not.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:58PM (1 child)
Alright, we'll take this a little slower.
The article is discussing the paranoia with which extremely powerful people are treading around the topic of even speaking with President Trump.
Take one very small step back from that objective truth, and we can ask the question, "Why are these extremely powerful, intelligent, and influential people essentially in hiding? Why are they, of all people, not completely free to speak with whomever they want?"
Taking one very small step forward from the objective truth of their skirting around the issue, not responding to Politico's reporters for comment, etc. we can infer that the reason they are acting so paranoid is because of what we have seen time and time again from the Left side - meaning, all of the stuff that I have mentioned. The intolerance. The boycotts. The death threats. The riots. All from the Left.
I did not back down on my statement whatsoever. If you do not want to see that the Anti-Trump sentiment is far more violent and virulent than the Anti-Obama sentiment ever was, then we can agree to disagree.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 20 2017, @10:16PM
Yep, definitely paranoia.
Have you considered psychiatric treatment? Or maybe it's time to lay off the ganja for a while?
I do agree that I disagree with you, but sadly I think you have much bigger issues than some semi-random internet user who doesn't see things your way.
I hope things improve for you, sir. I wish you all the best.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @02:26PM
The problem is that the price system of the "free market" hides all those details. You have to demand that your suppliers have a conscience. Annoying, really.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19 2017, @03:38PM (7 children)
Even worse, this is not even thinking.
I wonder how you managed to write it, though? Randomly pressing the keys leads to a very insignificant probability of the Godwining above, so it must be some kind of reflex or compulsion involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:59PM
Conservative types are well known for their reactive emotional outbursts. Wave a flag in their face and they'll support any goddamn thing you want. They went from freedom loving independent fighters to group think pro-dictatorship in a very short time period. I don't know how Reagan did it, but he made them into loony tunes characters.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:47AM (5 children)
c0lo, you have a real talent for writing irrelevant non-statements which have no measureable effect on discussion.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:41AM (4 children)
Doesn't everybody?
(Am I that special?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 20 2017, @06:55AM (3 children)
Two points:
Point one" Linkdude62 is more specialier! He can lob a "irrelevant non-statement which has no measureable effect on the discussion" into a gnat's ear at near up to a thousand yards!
Point two: There was no discussion going on, only pathetic emotional response by a betrayed and abandoned American Conservative (formerly denominated as "a Republican").
.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 20 2017, @10:01AM (2 children)
That was somehow evident to me.
My attempts were directed towards inciting a discussion (oh, wow, almost a rebellion), as pointless as it may have been in/by itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @09:05PM (1 child)
"My attempts were directed towards inciting a discussion"
Your post was claiming that I randomly hit keys on my keyboard to create my comment, and that is pretty much all.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:13PM
I was asking how exactly did you get to post such in incoherent rant, Godwining the thread just from the start.
Did you see my question of "(Am I that special)"? 'Twas an invitation to a self-reflection on the quality of your post/position. You know? one of the qualities critical thinking requires - finding weaknesses not only in the positions of the others, but also in the ones advanced by you. (was that invitation too subtle for you?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:21PM (1 child)
OK, take your persecution complex and trundle off the stage now. Your 15 seconds of fame are long past. Thanks and best of luck in your future.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:42AM
Trump is the President of the United States of America. I have over 7 years of fame left, because my country's success is my success.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:36PM
Agreed, I said as much during the Cuba Embassy debate.
What I said was that there was no good reason to not, at least, speak and listen to Cuba. The only valid reasons to not have an embassy in another nation are 1) you fear that embassy will be attacked 2) you cannot afford that embassy. Since the US could afford the embassy and there wasn't any credible expectation of attack, we owed it to ourselves to have the embassy.
Likewise, with Trump there isn't a good reason not to engage him, unless you think that you are more likely to harm yourself with your presence (make a joke at Trump's expense ->executive order against buying your product?) than with your absence would.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:45PM
Social outcasting begins NOW!
Hmmm that's weird, linkdude64 is still around even after being told to piss off. What sort of black magic IS THIS? Why won't our super secret shame tactics woorkkk???
whatta crybaby
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AnonTechie on Monday June 19 2017, @02:36PM
Silicon Valley’s elite comes to Trump’s Washington [axios.com]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:53PM
This is a wonderful illustration of how our corporate structure is just a return to feudal society. Only the serfs with enough clout are even slightly capable of having their opinions matter to their overlords. Easy solution: workers need to get together and recreate businesses as worker owned cooperatives. They aren't perfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than a pyramid scheme where the couple of people at the top get to skim off the profits of the lower tiers.
Upsides: workers are more committed and satisfied with their jobs, wages and profits are more fairly distributed (not strictly equal), and worker feedback would actually matter.
Downsides: more committees, some things could become slower. Corruption becomes harder, no single CEO to make the backroom deal. Umm, ya. Really not much in the way of downsides.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @05:38PM
Of the three issues: immigration, climate change and transgender rights, these tech execs would seem most interested in H1B visas. They will find a sympathetic ear with Trump, who likes to employ foreign workers himself in the US. As a shrewd negotiator, he will ask for something in return though. What will that be?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday June 19 2017, @10:26PM (2 children)
I'm sure some of the execs will make good suggestions. Trump may even listen to them. His inability to focus, though, will prevent any of them from going anywhere.
A key limitation of being President is time. Everybody wants some of it. If you do not have a plan you mean to execute, and filter accordingly, you will never finish a thought or a sentence and will accomplish nothing.
It also doesn't help in those circumstances if you have no real idea what it takes to accomplish any of the things you intend. It's a key shortcoming in our system that nearly all politicians are lawyers or the like who don't know how to build or design anything.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @11:25PM (1 child)
They think they'll get something from him when in fact he'll probably get something from them, even if it is an inclination of whether geek #3 is someone he can further manipulate. Anyone going into a meeting thinking he's an idiot who has short attention span is making the mistake of bringing a knife to a gun fight. He's a lot of mean things, probably I don't know, but he's definitely not stupid like a lot of the MSM and left likes to claim he is.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by linkdude64 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:56AM
I am almost positive that everyone on the Left feels Trump is a failure of a human being because of the metrics of success they have set for themselves.
Success means participation, not victory.
Success means graduation, not employment (read: competence) in your field of study.
Success, most importantly, means proliferating this ideology for the next generation and trying really hard to make them believe it isn't insane.