Don't be shrill. They "lost their moral compass" because they fired someone who violated a clear policy and wanted to make it clear to all employees that such behavior is unexpected? Give me a break.
You are right that professional execution of unconscionable policies is itself unconscionable. But this isn't that. It's just illegal. There are degrees. Whether current Google recruiters should be blacklisted from further jobs for enforcing a policy that they should-have-known-better about is an interesting question that I don't see anyone asking... because the tone of this article engenders polarized arguments, not reasoned debate.
Lastly, I couldn't disagree more with your assertion that "sometimes readers... need to be spoon-fed." That's not your job, nor the press' job. I do notnotnot want anyone's interpretation of the facts mixed with reporting of the facts. Save the paternalism for your kids.
Let me be clear: I agree. What they (the mid-level HR people) did was immoral. Obviously.
My point is that there's no need to compare them to war criminals, or for the dramatics in an ostensibly "news" site- "sadistic," "brutal," et al.
When we do so, we displace a conversation about the real story: a tech cartel that colludes to depress salaries, and the secondary but still very interesting question of how their mid- and lower-level employees who enforced the policies should be treated.
> What they (the mid-level HR people) did was immoral. Obviously.
"Geshuri’s decision to “terminate within the hour” the recruiter was enthusiastically seconded by Google’s VP for Human Resources, Shona Brown ..."
There's nothing mid-level about the VP of HR. She should have known this was illegal, certainly was responsible to know that it was illegal, and was responsible for either advising the company that it's illegal or leave the company.
You're conflating law and morality. To resurface Godwin again, if a soldier was fired for executing a jew you were trying to save by implementing a secret policy of breaking the law to save them, would that be immoral?
Whether you want it or not it's irrelevant, and regarding this topic it seems you live in a fantasy world that belongs to young people. Show me an objective independent newspaper on the planet; there's no such thing. The simple act of reporting news is (or at least can be interpreted) as partisan. Interpretation is mixed with the facts ALL THE TIME.
In this case you don't want the journalist to be overtly taking sides but nevertheless he is, so he might as well not pretend to be objective. If he had not thought this affair to be immoral he would not have written about it, just like media doesn't report on so many encounters with the law of big tech companies. In for a penny, in for a pound.
You are right that professional execution of unconscionable policies is itself unconscionable. But this isn't that. It's just illegal. There are degrees. Whether current Google recruiters should be blacklisted from further jobs for enforcing a policy that they should-have-known-better about is an interesting question that I don't see anyone asking... because the tone of this article engenders polarized arguments, not reasoned debate.
Lastly, I couldn't disagree more with your assertion that "sometimes readers... need to be spoon-fed." That's not your job, nor the press' job. I do not not not want anyone's interpretation of the facts mixed with reporting of the facts. Save the paternalism for your kids.