>Organizing a labor protest because of unfair working conditions, or as an attempt to unionize, is "protected" by US regulations

>Organizing a labor protest because of a (real or perceived) culture of sexual harassment is not.

...Pardon me, but do you not consider a workplace wherein sexual harassment is implicitly encouraged or tolerated to the point that someone feels the need to clarify or remind others this a workplace to not be a subset of unfair working conditions? I do. Generally it is something that hardly needs explaining in the majority of places I've been, but in the places that needed it, it was needed. It can be overdone. Given recent history on Google however, I'm willing to entertain the benefit of a doubt.

>The same thing goes for trying to organize a meeting with a speaker who will talk about the caste system in Silicon Valley. Yeah, caste == bad, but is the employer obligated to host such a meeting (at their expense)?

Does the employer outsource a sizable chunk of business to somewhere where these concerns are valid? Is management composed of people to whom these concerns should apply? If yes, then absolutely.

Look, the bigger a collective unit of humanity you are, the higher my standards go. Everyone individually is prone to their own vices/biases/fallibilities/etc... but the entire point behind collectives is that not all component members are hopefully having an evil day at the same time. So on average, behavior should tend away from blatant unethical or immoral behavior. This is doubly important, because group behavior is indicative of culture of the constituent parts.

I understand there are some people who look at businesses as nothing but profit engines. I don't. If your business ends up perpetuating discriminatory practices because there is some executive at the top who is a caste-ist bastard, and you've got boots on the ground attestating that yes, that tendency shines through to them numerous enough, then it is absolutely a valid expenditure of our collective society's time.

Should it eclipse everything else? No not necessarily. Is there a point where one needs to rein it in? Who should be entrusted with that decision?

Certainly not those in power/up top. There are fewer of them, and the power they wield taints their impartiality. It is most safely ensconced amongst your workers.

If one person asks for it, say no. Two or three do, start paying attention, possibly escalate. If it is worth your people's time to hear this person out, it is worth your time.

Beside's which, as a leader, you are best thought of as a cache. If you haven't formed a stance or policy in it, do the expensive operation, then cache the result.

Boom. Done. Everybody's happy. Ignoring the potential problem won't make it go away.

Bottom up, not top down. Telling the bottom to chill out because Fearless Leader would never let anything improper happen is about the most unamerican thing I can possibly imagine... Nevermind the biggest bloody lie out there.

In short; I tend to disagree with your standpoint. My job isn't to optimize your accountant's profit figures, it's to make sure that signals get handled so the people doing the real work can concentrate on that. The profit will generally take care of itself.

People are complicated. Those that think they've simplified them enough are inevitably due for a refresher in human nature.