[tonypags]

> the nature of working for a company is that you need to align yourself with the company's mission and methods

This is correct for any business. If you ran a business, would you tolerate any employee who attempts to subvert your products and revenue?

[farleykr]

I'm not taking issue with him expecting employees to get in line with the mission and methods. I'm saying he should be more frank and transparent about the fact that this is what he's doing instead of acting like Google as an entity is objective and impartial.

[tonypags]

Reading into these statements is a mistake. It's full of soft language, which in context can be twisted to fit anyone's perception. I'm not defending Google; I am defending the termination of employees that have obviously prioritized the wrong things in their careers, or did not have the mentorship available to guide them to better ways of expressing themselves other than corporate sabotage.

Also you're adding that word impartial as if they used it, but they didn't. Impartiality infers some personal lack of favoritism. A private company can obviously play favorites with whatever they think will make them more money as part of their mission.

Politics do not belong in the work place or at the dinner table. They belong in your head and to be cast on your annual voter ballot, and if you feel like expressing yourself: penned in letters/tweeted to your various representatives, and nowhere else. I don't mind it being on socials as long as there's a way to filter it out of my feed.

People used to say it a lot: never talk about politics or religion unless you want to make enemies out of your friends/family. It's still good advice, even if no one is listening. Be the change you want to see in the world (Nelson Mandela). If you want to be objective, start from there, don't start in your boss' boss' boss' boss' office.