3 ms·

Thank you for understanding the thesis of my comment. It's already getting downvoted unfortunately. The most absurd thing to me is how is this kind of rhetoric

Thank you for understanding the thesis of my comment. It's already getting downvoted unfortunately. The most absurd thing to me is how is this kind of rhetoric acceptable at a company sponsored event? It is obviously politically motivated and totally biased. One speaker nearly started crying about Hillary losing. How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative?

nkurz 8y ago
How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative? What obligation do you think that a company should have to respect the political leanings of its employees? While it might be in a company's self-interest not to alienate talented employees with minority political beliefs, do you believe it should be forbidden for the company to "choose sides"?
- nodesocket 8y ago
  Just as liberals like to promote social justice, I think it's not fair to conservatives that are harassed, outed, and unfairly represented. Since when is it ok for a company to hold a political rally?
  - jayd16 8y ago
    Not that I agree but certainly since the Citizens United ruling.
  - nkurz 8y ago
    Since when is it ok for a company to hold a political rally? There are at least two separate angles, legal and moral. I'm certainly not aware of all the laws, but I think 'jayd16' in the sibling is right that it's been definitely legal under federal law for a company to express support for a particular party or candidate at least since the Citizen's United decision. California state law may override this with regard to a "rally" with it's "hostile workplace" laws, but I don't think there is clear precedent. This seems like reasonable overview article on the legal situation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/10/21/what-your-boss-can-and-cant-do-when-it-comes-to-politics-at-work/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/10... Morally, I personally view it mostly from the angle of "free association". For me, if a group of people who run a company want to express their support for a candidate, they should be allowed to do so even if not all the employees agree. If the group's goal is primarily monetary, I'd expect that they'd avoid alienating employees because of their political beliefs, but I don't think it should be forbidden for them to have other priorities, even if it causes certain employees to feel unwelcome. This isn't great, but it's better (in my mind) than the alternative of forcing the larger group to silence themselves. I was asking you what your thoughts were on it, because currently the usual pairing is "conservative" and "pro-Citizen's United". You seem to be pro-conservative (or at least concerned about the treatment of conservative employees) but against allowing corporations to express political preference. Thus I was wondering where the lines are for you.
jayd16 8y ago
You act like Trump didn't quickly move to travel bans and visa shenanigans that have a serious impact on employees. Worrying about harshing a victory buzz is not a priority. I'm not sure why you think politics doesn't effect Google and the people who work there or why concerns shouldn't be addressed in an all hands.
carapace 8y ago
> Thank you for understanding the thesis of my comment. Cheers! I wanted to back you up from my side of the aisle. I've seen some pretty shabby behaviour from my own and I'll help you call it out. > It's already getting downvoted unfortunately. Well, you were pretty salty. :-) > The most absurd thing to me is how is this kind of rhetoric acceptable at a company sponsored event? It is obviously politically motivated and totally biased. One speaker nearly started crying about Hillary losing. Well, it was a very strange moment. Yosemite Sam had just been elected, proving that we're definitely stuck in Timeline XX7J5, the really shitty one, and emotions were raw. Judgement faltered. I myself nearly wound up sitting in the middle of the street wearing nothing but an adult diaper and sign around my neck that read "Give me food or kill me." > How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative? It's not. It's actually pretty gross. And again, I'm saying this as a left-leaning person who was appalled by the election results. All it takes to understand how messed up this is (if you don't already) is to try to imagine a bunch of right-wing people doing the same thing if Clinton had been elected. We were talking about this exact subject one day in our cubicle farm and someone pointed out that there were no doubt people in the room who had voted for Trump. I piped up in my best Michael Palin voice, "A witch! Burn 'em!" and we all had a chuckle, but there was nervous edge. No one admitted to voting Republican though. Tribalism sucks. (But Trump makes me miss Dick Cheney.)
akhilcacharya 8y ago
How is Trump winning fair to the Iranian immigrants working at Google?

nkurz 8y ago

How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative? What obligation do you think that a company should have to respect the political leanings of its employees? While it might be in a company's self-interest not to alienate talented employees with minority political beliefs, do you believe it should be forbidden for the company to "choose sides"?

nodesocket 8y ago
Just as liberals like to promote social justice, I think it's not fair to conservatives that are harassed, outed, and unfairly represented. Since when is it ok for a company to hold a political rally?
- jayd16 8y ago
  Not that I agree but certainly since the Citizens United ruling.
- nkurz 8y ago
  Since when is it ok for a company to hold a political rally? There are at least two separate angles, legal and moral. I'm certainly not aware of all the laws, but I think 'jayd16' in the sibling is right that it's been definitely legal under federal law for a company to express support for a particular party or candidate at least since the Citizen's United decision. California state law may override this with regard to a "rally" with it's "hostile workplace" laws, but I don't think there is clear precedent. This seems like reasonable overview article on the legal situation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/10/21/what-your-boss-can-and-cant-do-when-it-comes-to-politics-at-work/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/10... Morally, I personally view it mostly from the angle of "free association". For me, if a group of people who run a company want to express their support for a candidate, they should be allowed to do so even if not all the employees agree. If the group's goal is primarily monetary, I'd expect that they'd avoid alienating employees because of their political beliefs, but I don't think it should be forbidden for them to have other priorities, even if it causes certain employees to feel unwelcome. This isn't great, but it's better (in my mind) than the alternative of forcing the larger group to silence themselves. I was asking you what your thoughts were on it, because currently the usual pairing is "conservative" and "pro-Citizen's United". You seem to be pro-conservative (or at least concerned about the treatment of conservative employees) but against allowing corporations to express political preference. Thus I was wondering where the lines are for you.

jayd16 8y ago

You act like Trump didn't quickly move to travel bans and visa shenanigans that have a serious impact on employees. Worrying about harshing a victory buzz is not a priority. I'm not sure why you think politics doesn't effect Google and the people who work there or why concerns shouldn't be addressed in an all hands.

carapace 8y ago

> Thank you for understanding the thesis of my comment. Cheers! I wanted to back you up from my side of the aisle. I've seen some pretty shabby behaviour from my own and I'll help you call it out. > It's already getting downvoted unfortunately. Well, you were pretty salty. :-) > The most absurd thing to me is how is this kind of rhetoric acceptable at a company sponsored event? It is obviously politically motivated and totally biased. One speaker nearly started crying about Hillary losing. Well, it was a very strange moment. Yosemite Sam had just been elected, proving that we're definitely stuck in Timeline XX7J5, the really shitty one, and emotions were raw. Judgement faltered. I myself nearly wound up sitting in the middle of the street wearing nothing but an adult diaper and sign around my neck that read "Give me food or kill me." > How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative? It's not. It's actually pretty gross. And again, I'm saying this as a left-leaning person who was appalled by the election results. All it takes to understand how messed up this is (if you don't already) is to try to imagine a bunch of right-wing people doing the same thing if Clinton had been elected. We were talking about this exact subject one day in our cubicle farm and someone pointed out that there were no doubt people in the room who had voted for Trump. I piped up in my best Michael Palin voice, "A witch! Burn 'em!" and we all had a chuckle, but there was nervous edge. No one admitted to voting Republican though. Tribalism sucks. (But Trump makes me miss Dick Cheney.)

akhilcacharya 8y ago

How is Trump winning fair to the Iranian immigrants working at Google?