Expensify's CEO on the importance of voting for Joe Biden

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,646
Reaction score
14,870
Location
Massachusetts
Expensify is a company my employer contracts with, to handle expense reports.

All of us at my employer received this email today, which I've copied & pasted below. I'm going to presume the author of it would like me to spread it widely, since it appears he's blast-o-gramming it to everyone who can use his company's service.

I don't know whether he asked for permission from my employer to send this to all of us? It's a rather extraordinary thing to do, in my professional experience.

Expensify CEO David Barrett said:
I know you don’t want to hear this from me. And I guarantee I don’t want to say it. But we are facing an unprecedented attack on the foundations of democracy itself. If you are a US citizen, anything less than a vote for Biden is a vote against democracy.

That’s right, I’m saying a vote for Trump, a vote for a third-party candidate, or simply not voting at all -- they’re all the same, and they all mean:

“I care more about my favorite issue than democracy. I believe Trump winning is more important than democracy. I am comfortable standing aside and allowing democracy to be methodically dismantled, in plain sight.”

If the polls are accurate, there’s a roughly 50% chance that you agree Trump needs to go. You know what to do: show up on November 3rd and vote for Biden. Or even better, don’t wait until then: vote today. Go to Vote.org if you need help figuring out how.

The rest of this email is intended to address the concerns of those who disagree, and I’ll try to take the most likely questions in turn:

Q: Why do you care so much about democracy?

Democracy is core to our business success, in a variety of ways. Internally, we are a famously “flat” organization -- nobody reports to anyone else, and advancement is the result of meeting well defined criteria as judged by the vote of those who have already advanced. How we compensate each other is left up to a team vote as well. Even our external business model depends on individual employees “electing” to adopt Expensify as individuals, and then “campaigning” internally to get it adopted companywide. At every layer, democracy is our core competitive advantage -- both as a company, and as a nation. But that advantage is only as strong as the clarity of our rules and the fairness of their application. Any attempt to disrupt the rules or apply them unfairly is a direct threat to the strength of our company, and the strength of our nation.

Q: What gives you the right to tell me what to do?

The first amendment. To be clear, you don’t need to listen. But the first amendment exists to encourage people like you and me to find some way to talk about the issues that matter, set aside our differences, and find a common ground on which to collectively govern 331 million citizens. Yes democratic self-rule can be inconvenient. But a burden of democracy is that this is literally our job, so I’m asking all of us to take it seriously.

Q: But you’re a company, shouldn’t you remain neutral?

Expensify depends on a functioning society and economy; not many expense reports get filed during a civil war. As CEO of this business, it’s my job to plot a course through any storm -- and all evidence suggests that another 4 (or as Trump has hinted -- 8, or more?) years of Trump leadership will damage our democracy to such an extent, I’m obligated on behalf of shareholders to take any action I can to avoid it. I am confident our democracy (and Expensify) can survive a Biden presidency. I can’t say the same about Trump. It’s truly as simple as that.

Q: Don’t you think you’re… exaggerating a bit?

I truly wish I was. I wouldn’t be sending this email if this election were just about “normal issues” -- taxes, legislative priorities, healthcare, etc. But it isn’t. This election is a referendum on what limits, if any, we place on our elected leaders to govern us in a fair and representative way. This election will decide if widespread voter suppression is an acceptable governing tactic.

Q: Doesn’t everyone suppress votes?

Not like Trump. This is the most heavily litigated election in history, with over 300 lawsuits rushing through the courts before election day. And in every case, Biden is pushing to enable voters while Trump is pushing to suppress them. The trend couldn’t be more clear: Biden wants democracy, Trump does not. A vote for Trump is to endorse voter suppression, it really is very basic. This isn’t about party politics: if Biden were advocating for half of the voter suppression that Trump is actively doing, then I'd be fighting against Biden, too. This is bigger than politics as usual: this is about the very foundation of our nation.

Q: Isn’t Trump just trying to prevent voter fraud?

Voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, as overwhelmingly shown by data showcased by the White House itself. That data comes from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank counting every single known case of voter fraud since 1948, which adds up to only 1,290 distinct votes over 78 years. In 2016 alone there were 138 million votes. There is just no credible argument that voter fraud is significant, even based on Trump’s own data.

Q: Isn’t Biden just using more widespread voting to get elected?

Absolutely. This is the heart of the issue. Biden believes that enabling more people to vote will help him win. Biden wins by promoting democracy; Trump wins by suppressing it. A vote for Biden is a vote for democracy.

Q: So what if Trump gets elected by voter suppression, all’s fair right?

Well that’s what we’re going to decide, on November 3rd. Do you want your elected official to win based on the merits of their ideas? Or based on the ruthlessness of their voter suppression? And if you’re ok with “just a little suppression” -- where do you draw the line?

Q: Why send me this when the polls say Biden is going to win?

The polls said Trump was going to lose last time, and he didn’t. But even if the polls can be trusted, that might still not be enough. Trump has stated repeatedly he will only honor an election that he personally feels is fair. So much depending on his personal judgement is worrying, because he has rejected the overwhelming expert consensus that voter fraud has been negligible historically, and has also said he believes it would be impossible to lose a fair election. Accordingly, the only way to ensure a peaceful transition of power is to ensure this election is an overwhelming, undeniable landslide in favor of Biden. Any excuse to question the election is an opportunity for Trump to refuse to leave the White House, plunging this country into a Constitutional crisis bordering on civil war. No matter how slight that risk might be, the consequences of it happening would be so catastrophic to society and the economy, we need to do all we can to prevent it.

So one final plea. As a fellow citizen, I fully support and respect your Constitutional right to disagree -- and as an avid supporter of democracy, I value that disagreement. Constructive, well-informed debate (hopefully using the most accurate, least biased news source available) is what makes this nation so exceptional.

But the Constitution is only as strong as the respect we give it. I’m asking you to cherish it close to your heart, and demand that those you elect do the same.

-david
Founder and CEO of Expensify
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,781
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
This sums things up pretty well.

Some conservatives understand what's at stake. I don't know why more more conservative voters don't see it.

I do understand why Mitch McConnel and company don't care if Democracy goes tits up. They they are running out of time to pursue their agenda (which for many of them is probably mostly about staying in power, though some have probably become true believers in white nationalism, male supremacy, and evangelical theocracy too). They can no longer afford to wait until the next election, because it is clear that the country is growing more diverse by the day, and that even among their traditional voter base (white people) there is attrition by the young, not to mention a widening gender gap.

The way politics is "supposed" to work is if a party can't complete via fair and open elections, they shift their agenda a bit. The GOP is no longer willing to do this. They are beholden to an increasingly entrenched minority of voters and they fear a shift towards the center will lose them more votes than they will gain. They have, of course, been pushing this cultural and political polarization for decades, and now they are beholden to it. With their voter base both shrinking (in relative terms) and growing more extreme, they are running out of time.

I only hope they will ultimately be impaled on their own swords. The complicating factor is that we live in very turbulent times, with both technological and social change happening so rapidly many can't deal with it. And with climate change, we will be seeing more natural disasters, famines, waves of refugees, and wars over resources. Even people who aren't rabid social conservatives will feel the pressure to circle the wagons and protect "their own" first.

This scares me.
 
Last edited:

Maddy Knight

Banned
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
66
Reaction score
6
This marginalizes conservative employees who may vote for President Trump. Perhaps the employer needs to send out a follow-up assuring everyone is equal no matter which way they lean.

In my opinion.
 
Last edited:

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
This memo of sorts creates a hostile work environment. Shame on your employer and that CEO, David. Maybe I should send a letter.

I suggest you re-read the OP first.

* The letter was sent by an outside vendor.

* It wasn't sent by the OP's employer.

* You might cause problems for the OP by responding.

* The central issue is not that it's harassment or intimidation since it wasn't from the employer. Moreover, it asserts multiple times that it is an opinion.

* The central issue is that it almost certainly violates standard privacy policies because the vendor does not have the employees consent via an opt-in for unsolicited mail; it potentially violates the CAN SPAM act in several respects.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,539
Reaction score
24,113
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
I'm a bit put in mind of Penzey's Spices, which has become overtly political since 2016. This situation is different, of course, as AW Admin points out - this wasn't sent to an established opt-in mailing list of customers. And while I can imagine those who disagree with its message might find it an irritant, I suspect, alas, they might also find it an incentive.

I can't see it as voter intimidation, since it didn't directly threaten anyone's livelihood (or housing) should the voter choose to vote differently. I could see it backfiring on the company, though.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,539
Reaction score
24,113
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
I adjusted my message.

Yeah, but I'm not sure you read what AW Admin pointed out. "Hostile work environment" is only an issue if it's your employer creating it. This was an (apparently) unsolicited email sent from a third-party vendor.

He's also entirely correct in what he says, of course, but I do recognize that's not the entirety of the point here. It was a pretty risky move for him, in terms of leading his company. I'd expect at the least they'll lose some business over it, even if only on the principle.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
I adjusted my message.

Thanks.

You're missing the point.

* It wasn't sent by the employer.

The writer has no power or ability to affect the employees. They're a vendor. It's not a hostile workplace issue because it isn't the employer and it isn't threatening any kind of retaliatory or punitive action.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,539
Reaction score
24,113
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
I was raised around self-identified conservatives. I do believe that in the past, at least, differences in approaching some issues of government were nuanced and legitimate. I'm also aware that as a white middle-class person I missed (and still miss) a lot of the inequities of our society. I've always tried to learn, to keep my eyes open for more information, and to adjust my perspective as appropriate.

The current administration, though..."conservative" is the wrong word. This is radical religious fundamentalism. It's easy to see how it was nurtured within the Republican party to the point that it's now completely out of control. I don't think saying that the current administration and most of the current elected members of the GOP are virulently, outspokenly racist is controversial.

The conservatives who raised me, btw, stopped considering themselves Republicans in 1992, which IMHO was about twelve years late; but given that they taught me the ideals I still hold, I'm not at all surprised they changed.

And to further clarify - any "hatreds" I may hold (and there aren't many) are not unfounded. They're quite carefully thought out.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,539
Reaction score
24,113
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
I would feel pretty unhappy if this happened at my workplace, and I would worry if it emboldened one or even a few fellow employees to isolate those who don't agree with the memo. If I remember, conservative Google employees complained about this very issue.

In a perfect world, this would never happen.

In a perfect world, a Google employee wouldn't have distributed to his fellow employees a poorly-researched essay declaring half the world less competent than he was. Talk about a hostile work environment.

I'd imagine those bothered by this breach probably are complaining.
 

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,646
Reaction score
14,870
Location
Massachusetts
For what it’s worth, the official response of my employer was an email telling us how to opt out of future emails from this vendor, if we so wished.

My employer is smallish (~200 people). They were half that size when I was interviewed and hired by the CTO and co-founder. I’ve spoken one-on-one with the CEO / other co-founder several times. Both are ex-military. I don’t know the political opinions of either man. I’ve never offered mine to them. But I do know that neither of them are shy to voice a professional disagreement. That they haven’t, suggests that at minimum they don’t fundamentally disagree with the gist of that vendor’s email. (It probably also suggests that they were asked for and gave consent for it to be sent.)

Also worth noting: I’ve never seen either of them “squash” an employee’s opinion. The employees are a fairly vocal bunch. I’ve worked at places where voicing your opinion could be “career limiting”. This isn’t one of those places.

Full disclosure: I agree with that email’s gist myself. I cast my first Presidential vote in 1980. I’ve never voted for the Republican candidate. I’ve often thought their stated policies were detrimental to the country, but until Trump I never thought they were an actual danger to our democracy. That so many high-ranking Republican officials this year are encouraging people to vote for Biden shows I’m not the only one who fears this.

I hope for a crushing defeat of Trump and the GOP next month. I want it to be of epic proportions. I want the GOP to be so humbled that they are forced to reevaluate their current platforms, and return to a semblance of classic conservancy of the kind we probably last saw in Eisenhower. The party has cheerfully welded their fortunes to that of Trump, and unless and until they shed that, they don’t deserve to be near the levers of power.
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,781
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
You're missing the point.

* It wasn't sent by the employer.

The writer has no power or ability to affect the employees. They're a vendor. It's not a hostile workplace issue because it isn't the employer and it isn't threatening any kind of retaliatory or punitive action.

As I understand it, companies can be held accountable for harassment by vendors, and even customers, at least with respect to sexual harassment.

But I don't think this letter constitutes harassment in the sense it is usually meant. It is expressing political views, not personal ones. Does hostile workplace harassment policies even apply to political expressions (as opposed to negative statements about gender, orientation, or race) sent or expressed at work anyway, even if it were the employer themselves sending it? Where is the line for hostile workplace when it comes to politics? Does expressing a political position, or making a political argument, that might not be shared by all employees constitute harassment? Plenty of companies have pretty blatantly political views and positions, conservative or liberal. Companies are even allowed to force their religious/political views on employees regarding whether or not they cover certain medical services in their health care plans and so on. Companies are also allowed to restrict political speech at work, and sometimes even outside of work.

What is interesting is that many organizations and publications that generally strive to remain neutral, at least with respect to political endorsements, are speaking out this election. Many would argue that this is yet another sign that this is not a normal election and what is at stake is not simply which issues and policies will predominate for the next four years, but the foundations of our democratic system itself.

This is an interesting piece on political discrimination in the workplace. It argues that political discrimination and harassment, such that it is, may be in a different legal category than harassment for immutable traits, like race, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

https://law.emory.edu/ecgar/perspec...oogle-political-discrimination-workplace.html

Though it is difficult to accept the idea that any kind of discrimination should be allowable, political discrimination is unique. By definition, when Americans vote for a candidate or express a policy preference, they are “discriminating” against the opposite political stance. There is something about an individual’s political affiliation that society does not find as sacred as an individual’s race, gender, or sexual orientation; perhaps because people can choose their political party, but they cannot choose the latter. While it is considered socially unacceptable to openly insult a person’s race, people vigorously insult each other’s politics on a regular basis; and not only in private settings—barbs exchanged between Republicans and Democrats are nationally televised daily.

Due to the difference between an individual’s political affiliation and other characteristics, like race and gender, it makes sense that political discrimination would be treated differently by the law than other kinds of discrimination...

Whether or not this particular letter backfires is another question, of course.
 
Last edited:

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
As I understand it, companies can be held accountable for harassment by vendors, and even customers, at least with respect to sexual harassment.

They can, absolutely. But is covered by the Communication Decency Act and the CAN SPAM laws, specifically, because it took place via the Internet exclusively, rather than direct contact, and it was sent to the collective staff, rather than targeting specific individuals or a subset of staff.

It was not appropriate for the vendor to use email in this fashion, though I agree with the sentiments, and understand the deep levels of concern it reflects.

But it was not threatening or harassing. It's not sexual harassment since it isn't directed to a specific individual or sex or orientation. It isn't creating a hostile workplace in that it was a one time message, rather than a collection of messages or multiple behaviors, and the contents do not harass, threaten or insult employees.

It's, moreover, the kind of thing that happens at small companies, in particular, where all the employees may know each other, and the vendors. Small companies are likely to have major policy governance in place, but might not have policies for this kind of thing in place until they are needed.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,781
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
They can, absolutely. But is covered by the Communication Decency Act and the CAN SPAM laws, specifically, because it took place via the Internet exclusively, rather than direct contact, and it was sent to the collective staff, rather than targeting specific individuals or a subset of staff.

It was not appropriate for the vendor to use email in this fashion, though I agree with the sentiments, and understand the deep levels of concern it reflects.

But it was not threatening or harassing. It's not sexual harassment since it isn't directed to a specific individual or sex or orientation. It isn't creating a hostile workplace in that it was a one time message, rather than a collection of messages or multiple behaviors, and the contents do not harass, threaten or insult employees.

It's, moreover, the kind of thing that happens at small companies, in particular, where all the employees may know each other, and the vendors. Small companies are likely to have major policy governance in place, but might not have policies for this kind of thing in place until they are needed.

Makes sense about small companies. Without a team of lawyers to advise them, they are unlikely to be able anticipate everything that could come up until it does.

I agree that it was a poor choice for the vendor to have done this, and the employer stepping up and advising employees that they can opt out was a good idea. But I was responding more to the post that implied it was a violation of workplace harassment laws. It is possible for political harassment to constitute an intimidating workplace, but the bar seems to be fairly high for this.

And private employers are allowed to discriminate against employees based on politics too, though this varies with state.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclop...ased-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html
 
Last edited:

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
Of course, there's no way of knowing how many of the people it was 'blasted' to read it. At my place of work long screeds that don't seem to apply to us ie wages/hours/workplace tend to get ignored, unless some bored employee reads it and notes something of interest to others.

Same with employees 'isolating' a co-worker for their political views. There are lots of reasons for someone to shun another, shunners aren't waiting around for a outsider to give them ideas. Therefore, everybody knows who they are and ignores them.

People are simultaneously much better and much worse than they get credit for.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,781
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Of course, there's no way of knowing how many of the people it was 'blasted' to read it. At my place of work long screeds that don't seem to apply to us ie wages/hours/workplace tend to get ignored, unless some bored employee reads it and notes something of interest to others.

Same with employees 'isolating' a co-worker for their political views. There are lots of reasons for someone to shun another, shunners aren't waiting around for a outsider to give them ideas. Therefore, everybody knows who they are and ignores them.

People are simultaneously much better and much worse than they get credit for.

It's also the case that regarding an outside e-mail, other people at the company have no way of knowing how one feels about or responds to said e-mail unless one chooses to tell them or unless people start talking about it and expressing opinions about it in public spaces at work. In that respect, it's a bit different from a loud conversation in the break room about how evil people who are voting for such and such a candidate are.

Lol, at my workplace, I get so many e-mails each day that I delete most unopened, including some from administrators and colleagues re issues that clearly don't concern of affect me. Anything that seems like a form e-mail or solicitation, especially if it's from an outside source or someone I don't know, I delete. I've been quite adamant with my students, in particular, that their e-mails must include a subject line with their name, class, and section ID, or it might be deleted unread (some still ignore this, and they get a terse, "I can't answer this question until I know who you are and which of my classes and sections you are in" as a response).

My inbox even sorts messages into essential and insessential folders, though it doesn't always get things right. I think a blasted e-mail from an outside vendor like this would have gone in my inessential, maybe even my spam folder. Incidentally, I do get e-mails from political groups sent to my work e-mail (also into my insessential folder). They are all from organizations with which I agree politically, but I don't have time to deal with this when checking work e-mail. I don't know how they even found my work e-mail address, as all my contributions and social media activity (with various likes and retweets) are done via personal e-mail or via accounts with a personal e-mail linked.