The original article states “We care deeply about diversity at Slack…” it also adds the “Diversity”…
Gaëtan Voyer-Perrault
1

tl;dr You assign morality where none exists.

Slack says they are about Diversity, but then they produce hiring standards that explicitly remove Diversity from the pool of candidates they hire. That’s intentionally two-faced.

This is the problem I have with your entire argument. You make the extreme claim that they are intentionally being two-faced. That’s clearly ridiculous.

I doubt Slack had an internal conversation where they said “hey, let’s not hire remote workers so we can actively reduce the diversity of our workforce.” Who the heck would say that? Yet that’s your claim.

They most likely just decided that the cons of remote teams outweigh the pros. I doubt that decision was made with the purpose of reducing diversity. To assign such malice to what is a practical decision devoid of morality is not only wrong, it’s harmful.

Slack is a company whose tool is about connecting remote teams

I don’t see anything about Slack claiming to be a tool connecting remote teams: https://slack.com/is. I’ve also searched online and have not found a single statement about Slack claiming to be a tool promoting remote work: https://www.google.com/search?q=slack+remote+teams. You made that up based on your own projections and biases. Even without remote teams, Slack is an incredible tool for communicating with the person who’s literally sitting next to you, as we use it all the time for at our office.

They sell a product designed to revolutionize internal corporate communications, but they’ve made an active decision that face-to-face communications are so important they need people on site.

I don’t see a contradiction whatsoever. Slack is not a 100% replacement for face-to-face communication or in-person meetings. Again, you’re projecting what you want it to be instead what it actually is. We use Slack at our company despite having almost everyone on-site. We also have in-person meetings because they’re useful. Has Slack reduced the need for meetings? Perhaps a little bit. But we still have many in-person meetings, and I’m sure that most companies in the world who use Slack still have a ton of in-person meetings.

Again, the obligation is Slack’s.

The obligation is not on Slack to allow remote work. Nowhere in their mission, vision, or press statements, have they said that they are a remote-work communication tool: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=remote+site:slack.com&*. That some remote teams use them for remote communication is great, but that was never Slack’s explicitly stated goal.

They are literally admitting that their own product isn’t good enough to solve the problem it is designed to solve.

Again, nowhere do they claim to solve the “remote-work problem”. You claimed they do, but they never claimed such a thing. I don’t know where you’re getting all of these false ideas from.

Honestly the whole thing reeks of entitlement. You feel entitled to be able to be able to work remotely at Slack, but they are in no way entitled to offer that to you or anyone else.

Like what you read? Give Kevin a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.