4 ms·

These are some fine ideas, but I'd argue they should be separated from the very ideological elements in the reference 'micro promotions' document here: [1] It

These are some fine ideas, but I'd argue they should be separated from the very ideological elements in the reference 'micro promotions' document here: [1] It may very well have policies that are in fact illegal in terms of their application. I would never work at a company that promoted these specific ideals in an official manner, not because I don't believe in the general impetus of the notion that 'we should be helpful to those who are minorities in tech' (of course we should), rather, that one would be subjected to wicked well-intentioned-but-ultimately-maligned discriminatory policies. + For example, boycotting / refusing to attend 'speaking engagements that require 50/50 female/male representation in micro cultures that are in fact heavily skewed in one direction - this is in fact discriminatory. I'm not going to boycott a conference because it's mostly dudes, or women, or whatever group may constitute the majority of speakers/attendees. + "Discipline or fire employees who abuse privilege". This is definitely a dealbreaker, as in, 'run away from this company as fast as you can'. Consider for a moment who is defining privilege, on what basis, and what might constitute 'abuse' of such privilege? Besides the fact that this is probably illegal, and surely immoral - it means that you will be subject to disciplining and firing on the basis of your perceived status as defined by race, gender, background, nationality, immigration status? What else? And who is making such assertions? By what standards? Are they clear? I'd dare the author to articulate one instance of admonishing someone for 'abuse of privilege' which is not in fact illegal. This policy essentially promotes cult-like authoritarian behaviour on the part of senior management, whereby they'll be empowered to promote, fire, denigrate or support individuals on some arbitrary social basis that basically has nothing to do with one's level of general professionalism, or work ethic. A much simpler, more pragmatic, less ideological framework would actually help the framers of this policy achieve basic goals. And again, some 'micro cultural' issues in the article I think have merit, outside the context of the aforementioned document. Finally, I will say, that a lot of this 'decent management' is normalized in other professions. I think perhaps what we might be talking a lot about companies which are really just 'a bunch of guys who just finished school' - who may not even have had a lot of mentorship or professional experience themselves. Combined with the longer hours, stress ... maybe it makes for a more toxic work environment wherein 'high five' behaviours are not common? [1] https://maleallies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Male-Allies-Bingo-JAN-15-2015.pdf https://maleallies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Male-Allie...

kristianc 8y ago
> This policy essentially promotes cult-like authoritarian behaviour on the part of senior management, whereby they'll be empowered to promote, fire, denigrate or support individuals on some arbitrary social basis that basically has nothing to do with one's level of general professionalism, or work ethic. Uh, I'd say this predates current practices by a good 50 years. Companies have always done this.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Yes, having worked in 'cult like companies' I'm inclined to agree, though maybe not so much 50 years, but 'since the dawn of time'. But to codify one's arbitrary ideological assumptions, which are probably illegal, is beyond pale. They are asking for a major lawsuit.
hopler 8y ago
Punishing abusive employees is not illegal, and neither is declining an invitation to speak at a conference.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Punishing abusive employees is not illegal" Certainly not. But it's illegal to define abuse in terms of gender or race, though, i.e. the policy is to fire people who are abusing their 'privilege'. An HR busybody could feasibly interpret this to mean "a white person yelled at a black person, which is an abuse of racial privilege, ergo, we're condemning/firing them" - or something along those lines. My point is that the definition of 'privilege' is going to be arbitrary, probably based on race, gender etc. and therefore illegal. And it's certainly not illegal to decline an invitation to a conf., but it might be discriminatory to decline an invitation to some conference because they didn't adhere to some kind of ideological version of equality, i.e. 'we're not going to the gaming conf. because most of the speakers are men'. These are important issues, we need nuance, I think that the chart I referred to lacks such nuance and is to intersectionally heavy handed. We all want people to get along, but that doesn't mean any policy with that intent will have a positive effect.
8y ago

kristianc 8y ago

> This policy essentially promotes cult-like authoritarian behaviour on the part of senior management, whereby they'll be empowered to promote, fire, denigrate or support individuals on some arbitrary social basis that basically has nothing to do with one's level of general professionalism, or work ethic. Uh, I'd say this predates current practices by a good 50 years. Companies have always done this.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
Yes, having worked in 'cult like companies' I'm inclined to agree, though maybe not so much 50 years, but 'since the dawn of time'. But to codify one's arbitrary ideological assumptions, which are probably illegal, is beyond pale. They are asking for a major lawsuit.

hopler 8y ago

Punishing abusive employees is not illegal, and neither is declining an invitation to speak at a conference.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Punishing abusive employees is not illegal" Certainly not. But it's illegal to define abuse in terms of gender or race, though, i.e. the policy is to fire people who are abusing their 'privilege'. An HR busybody could feasibly interpret this to mean "a white person yelled at a black person, which is an abuse of racial privilege, ergo, we're condemning/firing them" - or something along those lines. My point is that the definition of 'privilege' is going to be arbitrary, probably based on race, gender etc. and therefore illegal. And it's certainly not illegal to decline an invitation to a conf., but it might be discriminatory to decline an invitation to some conference because they didn't adhere to some kind of ideological version of equality, i.e. 'we're not going to the gaming conf. because most of the speakers are men'. These are important issues, we need nuance, I think that the chart I referred to lacks such nuance and is to intersectionally heavy handed. We all want people to get along, but that doesn't mean any policy with that intent will have a positive effect.

8y ago