7 ms·

As a biracial and transgender individual working for a startup: I would prefer (and am appreciative of my company's ability to) not discussing these things at w

As a biracial and transgender individual working for a startup: I would prefer (and am appreciative of my company's ability to) not discussing these things at work to begin with. I can't imagine why on Earth anyone would want to bring such a personal topic into the workplace. As a matter of fact, it kind of disturbs the integrity of a professional environment to have these kinds of discussions during working hours anyway. For the record, I have never felt discriminated against or left-out, or anything other than being another member of my team in a meaningful way. I think focusing on these kinds of sensitivities can pull a sense of mistrust and underhandedness to the team. I'm not going to invalidate his feelings on the issue, because we are all allowed to feel how we feel; but I would caution anyone in engaging those feelings at work for the benefit of all parties involved.

bluntfang 7y ago
right, just ignore your feelings. put your head down. do your work. nothing to see here.
- dang 7y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - bluntfang 7y ago
    maybe an explanation of your opinion would help bring more substantive comments to hacker news?
    - dang 7y ago
      Alas it would bring more unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
My company held an optional meeting / fireside chat to discuss being LGBT in the workplace, as part of the office's Pride celebration. Compared to my old company --which never even acknowledged Pride occurred-- it was kind of nice to have an hour to reflect on that. Otherwise, personal topics like this never come up. I think it's okay if it's a group of people who choose to opt-in for a discussion for 1 hour once a year. Then you're not "forcing" coworkers who don't want to be there to listen, or worry about sewing mistrust, as you have mentioned, which is a valid concern. You don't want people worried about preemptively stepping on your toes to the point where it could impact you professionally.
- magduf 7y ago
  >I think it's okay if it's a group of people who choose to opt-in for a discussion for 1 hour once a year. Then you're not "forcing" coworkers who don't want to be there to listen, or worry about sewing mistrust, as you have mentioned, which is a valid concern. Yeah, but what happens when someone never shows up for things like this? Do people start getting suspicious that they're anti-LGBT? That's my worry whenever a workplace starts trying to bring non-work-related stuff into the workplace like this. I have a hard enough time with companies that want to have "team lunches" or dinners. Even though they're really optional (or "optional"), if you never show up for them, it makes you look like you're "not part of the team". It's inevitable with any workplace social activities: if you're the one guy who never attends, it makes you stand out. What if your company/team likes to go to happy hours regularly, and you don't drink and hate bars? Again, it makes you look like a black sheep. Honestly, I'd prefer it if employers stopped trying to act like my family and just stuck to getting work done, and letting me go home ASAP so I can do things I prefer and eat food I prefer. (With those team meals, they always pick restaurants I hate.)
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    > Yeah, but what happens when someone never shows up for things like this? Do people start getting suspicious that they're anti-LGBT? There was no expectation for everyone to show up. The meeting space wouldn't even have facilitated it. It would be unreasonable for there to have been an expectation for that reason alone. Nobody's going to think your anti-LGBT unless you make comments at work disparaging LGBT people. You don't have to be proactively pro-LGBT in the workplace to be not "against it".
human20190310 7y ago
Maintaining a professional distance while in the workplace makes sense by itself, but it's inconsistent with the "bring your whole self to work" policy that the author cites.
- Balgair 7y ago
  Google somewhat prides itself on it's 'open culture'[0] and I'd say that this is not only well known, but is a point of pride in it's hiring process and a recruitment tool. The ethos of talking about anything and everything is celebrated and encouraged. To then have an 'open' culture in every respect except with racial issues (broadly defined here) as indicated by the memo's author, does not square. Sure, the OP here may agrue that a work first culture is better (and I agree to a certain extent), but that does not fit within Google's culture. The memo's author is correct to point out the mis-match, and in the open culture of Google should be celebrated for doing so. If they do get flak for it from higher-ups, then I think it is fair to state that the open culture of Google is de facto dead and Googlers should adjust. Happily for HNers, this means that the FAANGs are on the way out and their 'moats' may start to develop holes that can be exploited by start-ups. Look out for the greybeards sooner than later as the elves start to leave middle earth, so to speak. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-culture-of-transparency-2015-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-culture-of-transparen...
- zettatron 7y ago
  I think most people are freer than they believe to bring themself to work. Even at companies in rural areas, people can generally be somewhat "weird" or "alternative" and still be accepted at work if they don't make their personality a weapon to annoy people with.
jmcqk6 7y ago
>I can't imagine why on Earth anyone would want to bring such a personal topic into the workplace. As a matter of fact, it kind of disturbs the integrity of a professional environment to have these kinds of discussions during working hours anyway A lot of times, it isn't their choice. I'm glad that you have never felt discriminated against, but just because that's your experience, doesn't mean everyone else's experiences are the same. Most of my friends are members of the LGBT community, though I am not. I know for them, they want nothing else than to just be who they are, do their work, and go home at the end of the day. But they have been denied that over and over again because they have been forced to work with assholes. Yeah, society is becoming more accepting, and that's great. I think that makes the negative experiences even worse.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  And I'm sympathetic to your friends' struggles, but I don't think it helps them to establish a norm that you must always talk about social issues of the day at work. Sometimes people will be having a welcoming discussion about the most recent antidiscrimination law, and sometimes they'll be having an incredibly non-welcoming discussion about Jessica Yaniv.
- johnisgood 7y ago
  > forced to work with assholes. Is that so? Where is this slavery taking place exactly?
  - jmcqk6 7y ago
    It takes a particularly simplistic view of the world to have a response like this. For many in the tech world, getting a new job is straight forward, but that is not the norm. It is stressful. It might require moving to a new location. it might require taking a pay cut. There are many reasons someone might want to stay in a crappy job. One might be it's the only job they can find in their current location (especially outside of tech hubs), and they are tied to their current location for reasons of family or other obligations. I have a friend who is staying in a shitty job because one of the perks of the job is reduced college tuition for her son, and that's more important to her than being happy at work. You are a privileged person if you have never experienced something like that. I hope you never do. But please don't assume just because you haven't that no one else has either.
tryitnow 7y ago
I honestly don't understand your comment. It's pretty clear that the author is bringing these issues up precisely because other employees at Google did not heed the advice you give: "“Over the last 5 years I’ve heard co-workers spew hateful words about immigrants, boast unabashedly about gentrifying neighborhoods, mockingly imitate people who speak different languages, reject candidates of color without evidence because of ‘fit’ and so much more,”" In other words, there were many Googlers who did in fact discuss these issues at work. Sure, it's nice to say, "I would prefer...", but honestly, we would all prefer things to be different than they are. But they're not. And this is where I really don't understand your comment. Your comment seems to totally ignore the very issue that is explicitly mentioned sub-headline of the article: Apparently, some people at Google not only felt free to discuss these issues in the work place, they did so in a profoundly unprofessional manner thereby creating a hostile workplace. So stating that "I would prefer...not discussing these things..." doesn't really address the issue that these things were in fact discussed. That's sort of like saying, "I would really prefer it if my code always worked the way I wanted it to..." or.."I'd really prefer not to procrastinate so much on HN..." Don't we all? Alas, that's not the world we live in. The crux of life is what do we do when things happen that we prefer would not happen? Controversial issues were discussed at work, the author of the memo highlighted the problem and gave solutions, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't, but I think it's important to move beyond just stating our preferences.
- surge 7y ago
  I think what they're saying is none of those issues should ever come up at work. Most companies its understood that talking about that stuff leads to a meeting with HR, I also imagine the conversations about police brutality is why they were so silent, because people are afraid to discuss it without saying something that's likely to offend or know its a highly sensitive topic. I agree work should be neutral ground, at least if you want to keep non-hostile.
- manigandham 7y ago
  All of that is subjective. Every single person will have a different interpretation and clearly the colleagues were fine with it. Without knowing what was actually said, there's no objective measure of whether anything even crosses the professional line or if it was this person just finding it personally disagreeable (which seems likely given the rest of the note). There needs to be some pushback on how far people expect others to constantly read their mind and cater to their level of offense and sensitivity. Otherwise workplaces and society itself will start to grind to a halt.
falcolas 7y ago
As a straight white male working for a former startup: I agree wholeheartedly. Even when (maybe that should be especially when) you are supposedly encouraged by the company to do so. Discussing politics, race, sexuality, or religion at work only ever leads to discomfort or hurt feelings on someone's part, even if they are superficially identical to you. Hell, even someone being vehemently anti-Trump at work makes me super uncomfortable, even when I feel similarly.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>As a matter of fact, it kind of disturbs the integrity of a professional environment to have these kinds of discussions during working hours anyway. I don't see it possible to not reference these issues indirectly. For example, how many times do coworkers discuss children. If one is unable to have children, due to either medical issues or identity, their relationship to the topic is inherently impacted and they have a hard time avoiding the topic. They can sometimes punt by mentioning adopting or not wanting kids, but this still forces the individual to think about the topic even if they can hide it from whomever they are interacting with. Is this a big deal? I would say that differs between people impacted based on their personal situations.
tracker1 7y ago
You literally want to spend nearly half of your awake time with people you have no social interaction with? I'm not saying all topics are appropriate for the workplace... but there has to be some wiggle room.

bluntfang 7y ago

right, just ignore your feelings. put your head down. do your work. nothing to see here.

dang 7y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- bluntfang 7y ago
  maybe an explanation of your opinion would help bring more substantive comments to hacker news?
  - dang 7y ago
    Alas it would bring more unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

My company held an optional meeting / fireside chat to discuss being LGBT in the workplace, as part of the office's Pride celebration. Compared to my old company --which never even acknowledged Pride occurred-- it was kind of nice to have an hour to reflect on that. Otherwise, personal topics like this never come up. I think it's okay if it's a group of people who choose to opt-in for a discussion for 1 hour once a year. Then you're not "forcing" coworkers who don't want to be there to listen, or worry about sewing mistrust, as you have mentioned, which is a valid concern. You don't want people worried about preemptively stepping on your toes to the point where it could impact you professionally.

magduf 7y ago
>I think it's okay if it's a group of people who choose to opt-in for a discussion for 1 hour once a year. Then you're not "forcing" coworkers who don't want to be there to listen, or worry about sewing mistrust, as you have mentioned, which is a valid concern. Yeah, but what happens when someone never shows up for things like this? Do people start getting suspicious that they're anti-LGBT? That's my worry whenever a workplace starts trying to bring non-work-related stuff into the workplace like this. I have a hard enough time with companies that want to have "team lunches" or dinners. Even though they're really optional (or "optional"), if you never show up for them, it makes you look like you're "not part of the team". It's inevitable with any workplace social activities: if you're the one guy who never attends, it makes you stand out. What if your company/team likes to go to happy hours regularly, and you don't drink and hate bars? Again, it makes you look like a black sheep. Honestly, I'd prefer it if employers stopped trying to act like my family and just stuck to getting work done, and letting me go home ASAP so I can do things I prefer and eat food I prefer. (With those team meals, they always pick restaurants I hate.)
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  > Yeah, but what happens when someone never shows up for things like this? Do people start getting suspicious that they're anti-LGBT? There was no expectation for everyone to show up. The meeting space wouldn't even have facilitated it. It would be unreasonable for there to have been an expectation for that reason alone. Nobody's going to think your anti-LGBT unless you make comments at work disparaging LGBT people. You don't have to be proactively pro-LGBT in the workplace to be not "against it".

human20190310 7y ago

Maintaining a professional distance while in the workplace makes sense by itself, but it's inconsistent with the "bring your whole self to work" policy that the author cites.

Balgair 7y ago
Google somewhat prides itself on it's 'open culture'[0] and I'd say that this is not only well known, but is a point of pride in it's hiring process and a recruitment tool. The ethos of talking about anything and everything is celebrated and encouraged. To then have an 'open' culture in every respect except with racial issues (broadly defined here) as indicated by the memo's author, does not square. Sure, the OP here may agrue that a work first culture is better (and I agree to a certain extent), but that does not fit within Google's culture. The memo's author is correct to point out the mis-match, and in the open culture of Google should be celebrated for doing so. If they do get flak for it from higher-ups, then I think it is fair to state that the open culture of Google is de facto dead and Googlers should adjust. Happily for HNers, this means that the FAANGs are on the way out and their 'moats' may start to develop holes that can be exploited by start-ups. Look out for the greybeards sooner than later as the elves start to leave middle earth, so to speak. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-culture-of-transparency-2015-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-culture-of-transparen...
zettatron 7y ago
I think most people are freer than they believe to bring themself to work. Even at companies in rural areas, people can generally be somewhat "weird" or "alternative" and still be accepted at work if they don't make their personality a weapon to annoy people with.

jmcqk6 7y ago

>I can't imagine why on Earth anyone would want to bring such a personal topic into the workplace. As a matter of fact, it kind of disturbs the integrity of a professional environment to have these kinds of discussions during working hours anyway A lot of times, it isn't their choice. I'm glad that you have never felt discriminated against, but just because that's your experience, doesn't mean everyone else's experiences are the same. Most of my friends are members of the LGBT community, though I am not. I know for them, they want nothing else than to just be who they are, do their work, and go home at the end of the day. But they have been denied that over and over again because they have been forced to work with assholes. Yeah, society is becoming more accepting, and that's great. I think that makes the negative experiences even worse.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
And I'm sympathetic to your friends' struggles, but I don't think it helps them to establish a norm that you must always talk about social issues of the day at work. Sometimes people will be having a welcoming discussion about the most recent antidiscrimination law, and sometimes they'll be having an incredibly non-welcoming discussion about Jessica Yaniv.
johnisgood 7y ago
> forced to work with assholes. Is that so? Where is this slavery taking place exactly?
- jmcqk6 7y ago
  It takes a particularly simplistic view of the world to have a response like this. For many in the tech world, getting a new job is straight forward, but that is not the norm. It is stressful. It might require moving to a new location. it might require taking a pay cut. There are many reasons someone might want to stay in a crappy job. One might be it's the only job they can find in their current location (especially outside of tech hubs), and they are tied to their current location for reasons of family or other obligations. I have a friend who is staying in a shitty job because one of the perks of the job is reduced college tuition for her son, and that's more important to her than being happy at work. You are a privileged person if you have never experienced something like that. I hope you never do. But please don't assume just because you haven't that no one else has either.

tryitnow 7y ago

I honestly don't understand your comment. It's pretty clear that the author is bringing these issues up precisely because other employees at Google did not heed the advice you give: "“Over the last 5 years I’ve heard co-workers spew hateful words about immigrants, boast unabashedly about gentrifying neighborhoods, mockingly imitate people who speak different languages, reject candidates of color without evidence because of ‘fit’ and so much more,”" In other words, there were many Googlers who did in fact discuss these issues at work. Sure, it's nice to say, "I would prefer...", but honestly, we would all prefer things to be different than they are. But they're not. And this is where I really don't understand your comment. Your comment seems to totally ignore the very issue that is explicitly mentioned sub-headline of the article: Apparently, some people at Google not only felt free to discuss these issues in the work place, they did so in a profoundly unprofessional manner thereby creating a hostile workplace. So stating that "I would prefer...not discussing these things..." doesn't really address the issue that these things were in fact discussed. That's sort of like saying, "I would really prefer it if my code always worked the way I wanted it to..." or.."I'd really prefer not to procrastinate so much on HN..." Don't we all? Alas, that's not the world we live in. The crux of life is what do we do when things happen that we prefer would not happen? Controversial issues were discussed at work, the author of the memo highlighted the problem and gave solutions, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't, but I think it's important to move beyond just stating our preferences.

surge 7y ago
I think what they're saying is none of those issues should ever come up at work. Most companies its understood that talking about that stuff leads to a meeting with HR, I also imagine the conversations about police brutality is why they were so silent, because people are afraid to discuss it without saying something that's likely to offend or know its a highly sensitive topic. I agree work should be neutral ground, at least if you want to keep non-hostile.
manigandham 7y ago
All of that is subjective. Every single person will have a different interpretation and clearly the colleagues were fine with it. Without knowing what was actually said, there's no objective measure of whether anything even crosses the professional line or if it was this person just finding it personally disagreeable (which seems likely given the rest of the note). There needs to be some pushback on how far people expect others to constantly read their mind and cater to their level of offense and sensitivity. Otherwise workplaces and society itself will start to grind to a halt.

falcolas 7y ago

As a straight white male working for a former startup: I agree wholeheartedly. Even when (maybe that should be especially when) you are supposedly encouraged by the company to do so. Discussing politics, race, sexuality, or religion at work only ever leads to discomfort or hurt feelings on someone's part, even if they are superficially identical to you. Hell, even someone being vehemently anti-Trump at work makes me super uncomfortable, even when I feel similarly.

SkyBelow 7y ago

>As a matter of fact, it kind of disturbs the integrity of a professional environment to have these kinds of discussions during working hours anyway. I don't see it possible to not reference these issues indirectly. For example, how many times do coworkers discuss children. If one is unable to have children, due to either medical issues or identity, their relationship to the topic is inherently impacted and they have a hard time avoiding the topic. They can sometimes punt by mentioning adopting or not wanting kids, but this still forces the individual to think about the topic even if they can hide it from whomever they are interacting with. Is this a big deal? I would say that differs between people impacted based on their personal situations.

tracker1 7y ago

You literally want to spend nearly half of your awake time with people you have no social interaction with? I'm not saying all topics are appropriate for the workplace... but there has to be some wiggle room.