22 ms·

> I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. Purely from a commercial stance

> I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. Purely from a commercial stance, team cohesion has a positive impact on people and product. Why do anything to disturb that? The health of the democracy is far more important than your company's profit margin. And besides, enforcing silence is still a political move that strongly favours the opinions that the power structures imply with their actions.

corndoge 7y ago
I don't want to hear your political opinions at work. I want to work and make money for myself. Just because I have to be at work to make money for myself shouldn't mean I now have to listen to your views on politics. That is my view on it.
- keithnz 7y ago
  no ones talking about forcing you to talk about it, question is, if you wanted to talk about the ethics / poltical impact of what you are doing with coworkers, shouldn't you be allowed to?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    I come to work for one reason -- to get a paycheck. If you want to talk about politics to your friends/coworkers, do it after work. If you don't like your company's ethics-- change companies.
    - eropple 7y ago
      So nobody should ever advocate for the fictional person to whom their work is assigned, whose existence is granted by the society at large only because of the theory that its existence improves and betters that society, should be a better citizen of that society? That's not super dystopic and antisocial at all.
      - gtirloni 7y ago
        That has worked great at countless workplaces /s
    - snowflakeandrey 7y ago
      Every moral system I can think of would prescribe that, everything else being equal, you should attempt to change the behavior of the company you find unethical while you have at least some power over it, rather than removing yourself from a position of power to affect more ethical behavior. It strikes me as very strange to advocate that folks remove themselves from positions of power to effect moral progress.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        How much power do you think an employee has at a global company - especially one that is now owned by Microsoft?
        grzm 7y ago
        GitLab ≠ GitHub.
        Nullabillity 7y ago
        Look at Google and Maven. Individually, not that much. Collectively? More than you think.
    - debatem1 7y ago
      I'm on board with this right up until the end. I'm a security guy and have been a privacy person. My job is often to advocate for the customer over the immediate desires of my employer. There's no pretending that doesn't have a moral or ethical dimension. So, how am I supposed to do my job without trying to change-- steer, guide, develop, choose another word if you prefer-- my company's ethics?
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Advocating for your customer is different than ranting about geo political conflict.
        throwaway2048 7y ago
        What if your customer is a geopolitical entity involved in a conflict. What if they are an entity having "politics done to them" by a geo political entity.
        debatem1 7y ago
        A lot of the time I agree. I don't think I've ever had a need to opine on the merits or demerits of the filibuster at work. But "should we deploy in China, knowing we will have to hand over data on possible dissidents?" is something I've had to deal with repeatedly. I see no way of having that discussion without getting into politics. Of course, you can rightly say that some people just sit down and write code without becoming embroiled in the great conflicts of our time. That's true. But the struggle for diversity in tech and equality more broadly is one of the great struggles of our time, and I know of very few engineers who do not recruit, interview, or hire. Should those people just cash their paycheck, or should they take the time to discuss an issue that nearly all employers claim to take seriously? I think you can continue with this line of reasoning to include things like compensation (especially health insurance, m/paternal leave, and sick leave policy). And nearly everybody has a stake in the compensation discussion. So, while I get the desire to just do the work and go home, I don't think it's so easy to separate politics from work without doing grievous harm to both. Which suggests to me the obvious thing: that the real goal of these efforts is not to foster inclusiveness or provide a better working environment, but rather to prevent a dialogue about how to do just that.
    - Nagyman 7y ago
      Is this an opinion strictly about politics? Or does it apply to other topics? Sports? Art? Entertainment? Sometimes others look for more than just a paycheque at work.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        If you come to my desk while I am working and start ranting about you don’t believe how bad your sports team is, I don’t care about that either. I have friends. I even have made friends at work (very cautiously). But we shoot the shit after work.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      > If you don't like your company's ethics-- change companies Why is that the only recourse? Attempting to change your company's mind is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You may find that you're unable, and then would prefer to quit, but quitting in protest should always be the option of last resort.
  - earthscienceman 7y ago
    I would go as far to say: aren't you morally obligated to? There are jobs that are inherently in political/philosophical/moral bounds. And they should be treated as such.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - corndoge 7y ago
    I didn't say anything about forcing me to talk about it, I said I shouldn't have to listen to it.
  - sigzero 7y ago
    Do it at lunch or on a break. During work, nope.
  - tomohawk 7y ago
    If it's important to you, you should be willing to pay for it yourself instead of insisting someone else pay for it. Whatever activities you're doing on company time are paid for by the company. If you're yakking about politics, it is impacting the time of coworkers around you. It's distracting and unnecessary.
- z3phyr 7y ago
  Democracy bestows upon you, certain responsibilities. Earlier, you did not have to worry about political stuff because someone else (the lord of the land, the king or an emperor by divine right) took care of the things for you. You just work the fields or smith around. Since the concept of democracy, the rule of the people, politics is also one of the unwritten (or written) responsibility of the people. If you do not want to do it, then you are actively running from your responsibilities, which might make you a bad citizen in other people's eyes. Fact: In ancient Athens, if you were a free citizen and you did not participate in politics, you would have been considered a non ideal / bad citizen
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
vowelless 7y ago
How is it a useful democratic exercise to inundate non political employees, or employees who don’t share the majority’s moral political views? The types of moral politics I am thinking about is discussing the tweet-du-jour, basically celebrity gossip about politicians, etc. Worse still would be people taking strong, loud and uninformed positions on foreign policy, like Syria. I actually happen to find that triggering, given my background. I would rather that people keep their opinions outside of my cubicle so that I can focus on producing the best work I can - instead of constantly being reminded of the shithole I left behind.
- Nullabillity 7y ago
  What you do matters. The people on the ground turning Syria into the shithole you consider it to be were probably also "just focusing on producing the best work they could". Apparently they did a pretty good job.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Will someone talking about Syria at Gitlab have any meaningful affect?
    - Nullabillity 7y ago
      Syria was an example, in practice it depends the relevant questions will depend on your company. For example: I work at a MedTech company. I consider it supremely important that I (and everyone else) am able to say no, I am not going to work on feature X because it would breach patient privacy, or feature Y that is impossible to do without unacceptable risks of causing malpractice. Of course, whoever proposed those projects would then be free to make a convincing case for how we could mitigate those problems, or why I might be wrong.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        That’s not discussing politics - that’s keeping your company in compliance and keeping them from getting sued. That is work related. I would go so far as advocating not manufacturing in China because of the current political climate is work related because it can have a direct impact on the bottom line.
aantix 7y ago
Democracy is fine. The health of my family is more important than your politics.
- Nullabillity 7y ago
  The health of politics has a massive impact on the health of your family.
  - koonsolo 7y ago
    Every lunchtime my colleagues and me solve world problems. We talk about how stupid the current leaders are, and how easy it is to fix the problems in the world. We solved world hunger a few times, and also transportation issues and other things. Then we say "Another world problem solved!" and go back to work.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    What exactly is the "health of politics"? And what does some discussion in the workplace where you're paid for productivity have to do with it?
jlawson 7y ago
The health of democracy requires that individuals be able to speak their mind and advocate their beliefs. This doesn't work if their livelihood is controlled by a group of hyper-intolerant political totalitarians. What GitHub is doing is giving individuals rooms to breathe, think, and live. It's preventing the rule of the intolerant minority, the forced homogenization of thought and suppression of dissent. We banned these things from the government long ago; this is a good step towards reducing the power of non-governmental power centers in corporations to coerce speech and thought of people around them. As a free-thinking person this would make me much more likely to want to work for GH. At a place like Google I know I'd have to be deeply closeted as others flagrantly denigrate my identity and ideas around me. Here at least everyone can be closeted together, and live in a pluralistic way with different beliefs alongside each other. This is how we suppress constant political conflict. You just aren't allowed to go after people for who they are or what they believe; we accept differences. And reducing political speech at work helps with that.
- kova12 7y ago
  At my place of work, when I brought up my opinions on diversity/inclusion/gender neutral speech, I was verbally bullied, and resent this still, after 3 years of working there. Talking politics at work is not democracy, because people with dissenting opinions get silenced by belligerent activists. I applaud gitlab for refusing to be arbiter of morals
- keiferski 7y ago
  Not sure if/what Github is doing, but I think you meant Gitlab.
- Nullabillity 7y ago
  > The health of democracy requires that individuals be able to speak their mind and advocate their beliefs. Exactly. > This doesn't work if their livelihood is controlled by a group of hyper-intolerant political totalitarians. Exactly. Hence why we need to acknowledge the right to speak your mind. > a place like Google I know I'd have to be deeply closeted as others flagrantly denigrate my identity and ideas around me. The Google case is interesting. Maven was pretty equivalent to a peaceful demonstration. Management had one opinion, (many) employees had ethical objections and eventually got their way. Damore's case was.. messier, and more relevant to your point. Then again, this policy would just subject everyone to the same thing, while sacrifing the previous benefits. And it's all ultimately enforced by humans anyway, so if anything I'd expect it to lead to further polarization. > Here at least everyone can be closeted together, and live in a pluralistic way with different beliefs alongside each other. Many decisions don't have a neutral option. This policy just means that you won't have any say once those crossroads become relevant.
manigandham 7y ago
Democracy is fine. So is your freedom to choose a different job where you can discuss and do what you want. The fact that other companies exist without this policy means there is no "power structure" other than a private company deciding what's best for its own culture.
weberc2 7y ago
The health of the democracy is independent of discussing politics in the workplace. There are plenty of other opportunities to discuss politics and otherwise tend to the democracy.
MFLoon 7y ago
Since when are businesses responsible for the health of democracy? Have most business in American history been hotbeds of political discussion and activity? Have we previously attributed the relative health of American democracy to this characteristic of American businesses?
- cloverich 7y ago
  Probably since at least Citizens United and social media provided a medium for spreading targeted propaganda.

corndoge 7y ago

I don't want to hear your political opinions at work. I want to work and make money for myself. Just because I have to be at work to make money for myself shouldn't mean I now have to listen to your views on politics. That is my view on it.

keithnz 7y ago
no ones talking about forcing you to talk about it, question is, if you wanted to talk about the ethics / poltical impact of what you are doing with coworkers, shouldn't you be allowed to?
- scarface74 7y ago
  I come to work for one reason -- to get a paycheck. If you want to talk about politics to your friends/coworkers, do it after work. If you don't like your company's ethics-- change companies.
  - eropple 7y ago
    So nobody should ever advocate for the fictional person to whom their work is assigned, whose existence is granted by the society at large only because of the theory that its existence improves and betters that society, should be a better citizen of that society? That's not super dystopic and antisocial at all.
    - gtirloni 7y ago
      That has worked great at countless workplaces /s
  - snowflakeandrey 7y ago
    Every moral system I can think of would prescribe that, everything else being equal, you should attempt to change the behavior of the company you find unethical while you have at least some power over it, rather than removing yourself from a position of power to affect more ethical behavior. It strikes me as very strange to advocate that folks remove themselves from positions of power to effect moral progress.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      How much power do you think an employee has at a global company - especially one that is now owned by Microsoft?
      - grzm 7y ago
        GitLab ≠ GitHub.
      - Nullabillity 7y ago
        Look at Google and Maven. Individually, not that much. Collectively? More than you think.
  - debatem1 7y ago
    I'm on board with this right up until the end. I'm a security guy and have been a privacy person. My job is often to advocate for the customer over the immediate desires of my employer. There's no pretending that doesn't have a moral or ethical dimension. So, how am I supposed to do my job without trying to change-- steer, guide, develop, choose another word if you prefer-- my company's ethics?
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Advocating for your customer is different than ranting about geo political conflict.
      - throwaway2048 7y ago
        What if your customer is a geopolitical entity involved in a conflict. What if they are an entity having "politics done to them" by a geo political entity.
      - debatem1 7y ago
        A lot of the time I agree. I don't think I've ever had a need to opine on the merits or demerits of the filibuster at work. But "should we deploy in China, knowing we will have to hand over data on possible dissidents?" is something I've had to deal with repeatedly. I see no way of having that discussion without getting into politics. Of course, you can rightly say that some people just sit down and write code without becoming embroiled in the great conflicts of our time. That's true. But the struggle for diversity in tech and equality more broadly is one of the great struggles of our time, and I know of very few engineers who do not recruit, interview, or hire. Should those people just cash their paycheck, or should they take the time to discuss an issue that nearly all employers claim to take seriously? I think you can continue with this line of reasoning to include things like compensation (especially health insurance, m/paternal leave, and sick leave policy). And nearly everybody has a stake in the compensation discussion. So, while I get the desire to just do the work and go home, I don't think it's so easy to separate politics from work without doing grievous harm to both. Which suggests to me the obvious thing: that the real goal of these efforts is not to foster inclusiveness or provide a better working environment, but rather to prevent a dialogue about how to do just that.
  - Nagyman 7y ago
    Is this an opinion strictly about politics? Or does it apply to other topics? Sports? Art? Entertainment? Sometimes others look for more than just a paycheque at work.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      If you come to my desk while I am working and start ranting about you don’t believe how bad your sports team is, I don’t care about that either. I have friends. I even have made friends at work (very cautiously). But we shoot the shit after work.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    > If you don't like your company's ethics-- change companies Why is that the only recourse? Attempting to change your company's mind is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You may find that you're unable, and then would prefer to quit, but quitting in protest should always be the option of last resort.
- earthscienceman 7y ago
  I would go as far to say: aren't you morally obligated to? There are jobs that are inherently in political/philosophical/moral bounds. And they should be treated as such.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- corndoge 7y ago
  I didn't say anything about forcing me to talk about it, I said I shouldn't have to listen to it.
- sigzero 7y ago
  Do it at lunch or on a break. During work, nope.
- tomohawk 7y ago
  If it's important to you, you should be willing to pay for it yourself instead of insisting someone else pay for it. Whatever activities you're doing on company time are paid for by the company. If you're yakking about politics, it is impacting the time of coworkers around you. It's distracting and unnecessary.
z3phyr 7y ago
Democracy bestows upon you, certain responsibilities. Earlier, you did not have to worry about political stuff because someone else (the lord of the land, the king or an emperor by divine right) took care of the things for you. You just work the fields or smith around. Since the concept of democracy, the rule of the people, politics is also one of the unwritten (or written) responsibility of the people. If you do not want to do it, then you are actively running from your responsibilities, which might make you a bad citizen in other people's eyes. Fact: In ancient Athens, if you were a free citizen and you did not participate in politics, you would have been considered a non ideal / bad citizen
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

vowelless 7y ago

How is it a useful democratic exercise to inundate non political employees, or employees who don’t share the majority’s moral political views? The types of moral politics I am thinking about is discussing the tweet-du-jour, basically celebrity gossip about politicians, etc. Worse still would be people taking strong, loud and uninformed positions on foreign policy, like Syria. I actually happen to find that triggering, given my background. I would rather that people keep their opinions outside of my cubicle so that I can focus on producing the best work I can - instead of constantly being reminded of the shithole I left behind.

Nullabillity 7y ago
What you do matters. The people on the ground turning Syria into the shithole you consider it to be were probably also "just focusing on producing the best work they could". Apparently they did a pretty good job.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Will someone talking about Syria at Gitlab have any meaningful affect?
  - Nullabillity 7y ago
    Syria was an example, in practice it depends the relevant questions will depend on your company. For example: I work at a MedTech company. I consider it supremely important that I (and everyone else) am able to say no, I am not going to work on feature X because it would breach patient privacy, or feature Y that is impossible to do without unacceptable risks of causing malpractice. Of course, whoever proposed those projects would then be free to make a convincing case for how we could mitigate those problems, or why I might be wrong.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      That’s not discussing politics - that’s keeping your company in compliance and keeping them from getting sued. That is work related. I would go so far as advocating not manufacturing in China because of the current political climate is work related because it can have a direct impact on the bottom line.

aantix 7y ago

Democracy is fine. The health of my family is more important than your politics.

Nullabillity 7y ago
The health of politics has a massive impact on the health of your family.
- koonsolo 7y ago
  Every lunchtime my colleagues and me solve world problems. We talk about how stupid the current leaders are, and how easy it is to fix the problems in the world. We solved world hunger a few times, and also transportation issues and other things. Then we say "Another world problem solved!" and go back to work.
- manigandham 7y ago
  What exactly is the "health of politics"? And what does some discussion in the workplace where you're paid for productivity have to do with it?

jlawson 7y ago

The health of democracy requires that individuals be able to speak their mind and advocate their beliefs. This doesn't work if their livelihood is controlled by a group of hyper-intolerant political totalitarians. What GitHub is doing is giving individuals rooms to breathe, think, and live. It's preventing the rule of the intolerant minority, the forced homogenization of thought and suppression of dissent. We banned these things from the government long ago; this is a good step towards reducing the power of non-governmental power centers in corporations to coerce speech and thought of people around them. As a free-thinking person this would make me much more likely to want to work for GH. At a place like Google I know I'd have to be deeply closeted as others flagrantly denigrate my identity and ideas around me. Here at least everyone can be closeted together, and live in a pluralistic way with different beliefs alongside each other. This is how we suppress constant political conflict. You just aren't allowed to go after people for who they are or what they believe; we accept differences. And reducing political speech at work helps with that.

kova12 7y ago
At my place of work, when I brought up my opinions on diversity/inclusion/gender neutral speech, I was verbally bullied, and resent this still, after 3 years of working there. Talking politics at work is not democracy, because people with dissenting opinions get silenced by belligerent activists. I applaud gitlab for refusing to be arbiter of morals
keiferski 7y ago
Not sure if/what Github is doing, but I think you meant Gitlab.
Nullabillity 7y ago
> The health of democracy requires that individuals be able to speak their mind and advocate their beliefs. Exactly. > This doesn't work if their livelihood is controlled by a group of hyper-intolerant political totalitarians. Exactly. Hence why we need to acknowledge the right to speak your mind. > a place like Google I know I'd have to be deeply closeted as others flagrantly denigrate my identity and ideas around me. The Google case is interesting. Maven was pretty equivalent to a peaceful demonstration. Management had one opinion, (many) employees had ethical objections and eventually got their way. Damore's case was.. messier, and more relevant to your point. Then again, this policy would just subject everyone to the same thing, while sacrifing the previous benefits. And it's all ultimately enforced by humans anyway, so if anything I'd expect it to lead to further polarization. > Here at least everyone can be closeted together, and live in a pluralistic way with different beliefs alongside each other. Many decisions don't have a neutral option. This policy just means that you won't have any say once those crossroads become relevant.

manigandham 7y ago

Democracy is fine. So is your freedom to choose a different job where you can discuss and do what you want. The fact that other companies exist without this policy means there is no "power structure" other than a private company deciding what's best for its own culture.

weberc2 7y ago

The health of the democracy is independent of discussing politics in the workplace. There are plenty of other opportunities to discuss politics and otherwise tend to the democracy.

MFLoon 7y ago

Since when are businesses responsible for the health of democracy? Have most business in American history been hotbeds of political discussion and activity? Have we previously attributed the relative health of American democracy to this characteristic of American businesses?

cloverich 7y ago
Probably since at least Citizens United and social media provided a medium for spreading targeted propaganda.