>>Xordev+(OP)
I guess this is the reason lot of corporates try to stay out of politics. Because once you set a precedence then people will use that as to push their own political agendas. I personally don't like the slippery slope argument since it's very lazy and justifies inaction in many cases. But at the same time when I see news like this, I just wonder how long it will take two different subgroups trying push their own conflicting agendas and how the company should react in such a case.
>>johnce+bg
We are going through a very strange and extreme period in US History. Corporations are a huge part of the political landscape. Of course workers who are powerful will demand things of their workplaces.
All corporations are political. By accepting the ICE contract previously it was political. Now by reversing they would be changing sides. They were already in the political fray.
>>mchans+Ri
I find that completely absurd. I work at a large bank. If my employer provides services to ICE am I practicing politics by showing up to work? Is my employer practicing politics by providing loans at the standard rate and standard anti-discriminatory process equally to all applicants? To be free of politics should my employer stop providing loans to everybody?
At what point does this make sense in an objectively measurable way?