With the Trump administration’s immigration policies under fire in Congress and the courts, a growing number of U.S. workers are pushing their employers to sever contracts with federal agencies carrying out the president’s plans.
The protests mark an emerging flashpoint in the annals of corporate activism, in which employees are making clear they expect the companies writing their paychecks to take a stand against political actions with which they disagree.
“You’re boycotting people for the company they keep, and that seems like it’s a new frontier,” said Jerry Davis, a professor of management and organizations at the University of Michigan. “It does feel a lot like the corporate version of the Arab Spring, that we’re seeing something that had seemed unprecedented or impossible suddenly sweep everyone up.”
The protests stem from opposition to the president’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy, which has led to the separation of children and parents apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border as well as raids targeting illegal immigrants whose removal has been ordered by courts.
The actions are part of President Trump’s efforts to stem the flow of migrants crossing the southern border, which he says strain U.S. resources and threaten national security. The administration’s critics argue its rules are discriminatory and have led to overcrowding and unsafe conditions at detention centers.
The conditions at those facilities put online home goods company Wayfair in the crosshairs of its workforce last month. More than 500 employees walked off their jobs at the firm’s Boston headquarters after learning Wayfair sold $200,000 in bedroom furniture to a government contractor that operates detention centers near the Mexican border.
In response, co-founder Steve Conine said the company is “not a political entity” and has a “duty not to be a discriminatory business.”
The firm, which went on to donate $100,000 to the American Red Cross, is one of at least half a dozen to encounter vocal criticism from workers after taking government contracts or doing business with firms that have.
Following Trump’s implementation of the zero-tolerance policy, more than 650 employees of cloud-based software company Salesforce urged the firm to end its contract with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. CEO Marc Benioff, who is known for his social activism, declined to do so; he told employees in a memo that Salesforce products weren’t involved with the policy.
Even e-commerce giant Amazon, a frequent target of Trump’s ire, hasn’t been immune from complaints that it’s enabling the administration. The Seattle-based company’s workers want it to drop data-mining company Palantir as a web-services customer.
Palantir, co-founded by Trump ally Peter Thiel, has a $10.6 million contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for operations and maintenance support for the FALCON system, which culls data from law enforcement records. Emails obtained by WNYC radio indicated a Palantir program called FALCON mobile was used in recent workplace raids by federal immigration authorities.
An email to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos urging the company to cut off Palantir and stop selling its facial recognition technology to the government circulated among employees this month, garnering more than 500 signatures.
“The U.S. government has been responsible for detaining people, including young children, in concentration camps under horrific conditions,” the email said. “This is a horrifying violation of human rights — and it’s powered by AWS,” the acronym for Amazon Web Services.
Hundreds of demonstrators also protested at the Amazon Web Services Summit in New York City this month, urging the company to stop doing business with ICE.
Davis, who co-authored the book “Changing your Company from the Inside Out: A Guide for Social Intrapreneurs,” said employees — particularly those in the tech industry with “rare and valuable skills” that afford them more leverage — tend to be younger and more likely to expect their employers to “act consistently with their own values.” They also have technology at their fingertips that makes it easier to organize protests.
Nonetheless, few of the workers’ efforts have met with success: Only one major company, management consultant McKinsey & Company, ended its work for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The company, which did more than $20 million in work for the immigration agency, “will not, under any circumstances, engage in any work, anywhere in the world, that advances or assists policies that are at odds with our values,” McKinsey managing partner Kevin Sneader wrote in a note to former employees last year.
Bank of America, one of the largest U.S. lenders, said last month it will stop lending to companies that operate migrant detention centers and private prisons.
“The private sector is attempting to respond to public policy and government needs in the absence of longstanding and widely recognized reforms needed in criminal justice and immigration policies,” the Charlotte, N.C.-based company said in a statement. “Lacking further clarity and policy clarity, and in recognition of the concerns of our employees and stakeholders in the communities we serve, it is our intention to exit these relationships.”
Such decisions, particularly those tied to the president’s immigration agenda, have prompted criticism from some Republicans.
In the wake of Bank of American’s announcement, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, tweeted that he “may have to change banks,” and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Florida, said companies that don’t back the federal government’s policies “shouldn’t benefit from doing business with the federal government.”
The number of firms that respond to internal pressures and end their relationships with the federal government could shift if a big, well-known player like Amazon takes the plunge, Davis said.
“It might license others to say, ‘this works,’” he said. “In the history of social movements, it’s often that someone tries out an activity, and it becomes part of the common repertoire, part of someone’s toolkit.”
