5 ms·

I'm not sure what you think my perspective is? Allowing religious employees the space to practice their faith at work is explicitly part of diversity and inclu

I'm not sure what you think my perspective is? Allowing religious employees the space to practice their faith at work is explicitly part of diversity and inclusion. That is why many workplaces have prayer rooms, why dress codes allow people to wear crucifixes, why on-call rotations are moved around to cater for high holidays, why the cafeteria has vege options, and so on. Religion isn't the opposite of diversity - on the contrary! I think it's disingenuous to portray modern attempts to make the workplace a more inclusive environment for people of different backgrounds as some kind of political indoctrination. There is nothing controversial about companies expecting their increasingly diverse workforce to do their best not to offend one another. It's good people management. It's good business. If there really is - as you suggest - an "indifferent majority" who find it outrageously disruptive to learn how to treat their colleagues with respect, then that just reinforces the OC's point: people who resist "discussing politics" at work are privileged because they are the majority. Fortunately, in my experience, that is not the case. I don't think most employees have a problem with doing training on unconscious bias or inclusion or whatever else, because they understand that they are at work and they are expected to uphold a certain level of professionalism. There are lots of trainings people do at work that they don't care deeply about - bribery, first aid, occupational health and safety, etc. Some of that will sink in, some of it won't, but overall the trend will be toward a happier, safer and more productive workplace for everyone.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I think you're still missing my point. I didn't mean any religion. I explicitly and purposefully brought up proselytizing religions - as a parallel to the kind of people who push for doing politics at work. Much like many workspaces cater to the regular needs of religious people, many workplaces cater for the diversity requirements for their employees. This is non-controversial, and people generally aren't against it. But there is a reason why most of the same workplaces will frown upon making a show of practicing your own religion at workplace, or constantly bringing it up and pushing your religious views on your co-workers. There's a difference between inclusiveness and converting. The same applies to politics, and to identity politics in particular. > If there really is - as you suggest - an "indifferent majority" who find it outrageously disruptive to learn how to treat their colleagues with respect I really hate this rhetorical trick. It's totally disingenuous. The indifferent majority doesn't "find it outrageously disruptive to learn how to treat their colleagues with respect". They treat their colleagues with respect already. What they find disruptive is the disrespectful colleagues who try to bully them into things by abusing their minority status, or aggressively try to force their involvement in issues they're not interested in. The "practicing politics" of this colleagues is the adult environment of punching someone in the face and then asking, "why are you hitting my fist with your face?". You may not agree with anything I said. But consider at least the possibility that the opponents of politics at workplace, who you try to paint as morally deficient and ignoring basic decency, actually view this the way I described it. That it's true from their point of view. Accepting that will make it much easier for you to understand why they react the way they do.
- alisonatwork 7y ago
  You seem to be operating under the absolutist assumption that all people who discuss politics at work have some kind of malicious intent to entrap or brainwash their colleagues. That is not the case. All that the OC pointed out is that there are situations at work - and diversity and inclusion programs are one - where the discussion of issues deemed to be "politics" can be in the interests of improving the workplace. Obviously if an employee is disruptive, that is a problem. Your hypothetical preacher is disruptive. Your hypothetical diversity advocate who bullies their colleagues is also disruptive. But both of these are straw people. Bullying is clearly not appropriate at the workplace. That is separate to the issue of discussing politics. I would be very surprised if the "indifferent majority" feels that inclusion programs containing some political discussion is tantamount to workplace bullying. If that were the case, it would be observable in the metrics. At least engagement and likely also productivity would take a hit if the majority of employees felt bullied. I am quite sure HR and People Ops professionals would adjust their programs if they were received that poorly. I think the reality is that the majority of people truly are indifferent. That is, they don't care about diversity and inclusion one way or the other. They do the trainings. They hear that certain groups feel oppressed in society. They stop describing situations as "gay" or "retarded". They let women speak first sometimes. Then they get on with their day because really what difference does it make? It's just work. Please understand that I do know there are people who are very offended or unhappy with the idea of politics in the workplace. I read HN. I can see lots of them like to comment here. These people's feelings are important to consider too, and HR professionals do exactly that when thinking about how to implement their initiatives. It's a delicate balance, and whatever they do may upset someone. But trust that they are working in good faith, and they are doing their best to try serve the interests of all employees. That is their job, after all.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

I think you're still missing my point. I didn't mean any religion. I explicitly and purposefully brought up proselytizing religions - as a parallel to the kind of people who push for doing politics at work. Much like many workspaces cater to the regular needs of religious people, many workplaces cater for the diversity requirements for their employees. This is non-controversial, and people generally aren't against it. But there is a reason why most of the same workplaces will frown upon making a show of practicing your own religion at workplace, or constantly bringing it up and pushing your religious views on your co-workers. There's a difference between inclusiveness and converting. The same applies to politics, and to identity politics in particular. > If there really is - as you suggest - an "indifferent majority" who find it outrageously disruptive to learn how to treat their colleagues with respect I really hate this rhetorical trick. It's totally disingenuous. The indifferent majority doesn't "find it outrageously disruptive to learn how to treat their colleagues with respect". They treat their colleagues with respect already. What they find disruptive is the disrespectful colleagues who try to bully them into things by abusing their minority status, or aggressively try to force their involvement in issues they're not interested in. The "practicing politics" of this colleagues is the adult environment of punching someone in the face and then asking, "why are you hitting my fist with your face?". You may not agree with anything I said. But consider at least the possibility that the opponents of politics at workplace, who you try to paint as morally deficient and ignoring basic decency, actually view this the way I described it. That it's true from their point of view. Accepting that will make it much easier for you to understand why they react the way they do.

alisonatwork 7y ago
You seem to be operating under the absolutist assumption that all people who discuss politics at work have some kind of malicious intent to entrap or brainwash their colleagues. That is not the case. All that the OC pointed out is that there are situations at work - and diversity and inclusion programs are one - where the discussion of issues deemed to be "politics" can be in the interests of improving the workplace. Obviously if an employee is disruptive, that is a problem. Your hypothetical preacher is disruptive. Your hypothetical diversity advocate who bullies their colleagues is also disruptive. But both of these are straw people. Bullying is clearly not appropriate at the workplace. That is separate to the issue of discussing politics. I would be very surprised if the "indifferent majority" feels that inclusion programs containing some political discussion is tantamount to workplace bullying. If that were the case, it would be observable in the metrics. At least engagement and likely also productivity would take a hit if the majority of employees felt bullied. I am quite sure HR and People Ops professionals would adjust their programs if they were received that poorly. I think the reality is that the majority of people truly are indifferent. That is, they don't care about diversity and inclusion one way or the other. They do the trainings. They hear that certain groups feel oppressed in society. They stop describing situations as "gay" or "retarded". They let women speak first sometimes. Then they get on with their day because really what difference does it make? It's just work. Please understand that I do know there are people who are very offended or unhappy with the idea of politics in the workplace. I read HN. I can see lots of them like to comment here. These people's feelings are important to consider too, and HR professionals do exactly that when thinking about how to implement their initiatives. It's a delicate balance, and whatever they do may upset someone. But trust that they are working in good faith, and they are doing their best to try serve the interests of all employees. That is their job, after all.