Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Monday June 19 2017, @01:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the round-two dept.

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:50AM (3 children)

    by linkdude64 (5482) on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:50AM (#528328)

    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.

    ???

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:08PM (2 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.

    You said:

    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

    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)

      by linkdude64 (5482) on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:58PM (#528715)

      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