6 ms·

> Evolution has created the rules that one doesn't mix politics with business This 'rule' is a purely artificial construct encouraged to ensure the common empl

> Evolution has created the rules that one doesn't mix politics with business This 'rule' is a purely artificial construct encouraged to ensure the common employees keep their heads down and let those in charge continue screwing over them and/or society. The history of organized labor involves no less than straight murder of labor activists by company owners.

roenxi 7y ago
Not really, the politics rule is more because in a reasonably diverse workforce will have supporters of all sorts of stupid ideas and it is not fruitful to have people arguing about them on company time. There is a lot of tension in labour relations but no-politics-in-the-workplace philosophies cover a lot more than that.
zdragnar 7y ago
There is no good faith argument here that can paint with so broad a brush; organized labor is also not free from extreme acts of violence and extortion.
manfredo 7y ago
Yeah, no. I broadly agree with the what many activists at tech companies are supporting, but think that its deliberate attempts to make the workplace more political are unproductive or backfiring. When it gets to the point that a significant percentage of employees are feigning or exaggerating support for political positions to fit in, you have a problem. And the tech companies I've worked at in the SF Bay Area for the last four years have been in that position.
- rtpg 7y ago
  fighting against the creation of a union is just as a political act as trying to create one (as an example). Saying "oh we should keep the office apolitical by not having a union" is a political act. Saying "oh we shouldn't complain about the kind of customers our emplyoer has" is a political act. Acting in opposition to political acts is in itself a political act. The apolitical thing to do would be to _not intervene in others' political processes_. If mgmt let its employees organize labor actions with the same willingness as a movie night, then they would be acting apolitically.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Perhaps in an non-standard understanding of what is and isn't political. An apolitical office is political in the same sense that secularism is a religious stance. It's not catering to any specific religion: it is equally exclusive of all religions. Similarly, an apolitical office doesn't prevent or directly influence the political activity of workers - it just relegates that political activity to spaces outside the office. > Saying "oh we should keep the office apolitical by not having a union" is a political act. Saying "oh we shouldn't complain about the kind of customers our emplyoer has" is a political act. That isn't keeping politics out of the workplace - it's the exact opposite. That's explicitly bringing politics into the workplace by trying to tell coworkers what views they should have. Curbing this behavior is exactly what keeping politics out of the workplace is about. > Acting in opposition to political acts is in itself a political act. The apolitical thing to do would be to _not intervene in others' political processes_. If mgmt let its employees organize labor actions with the same willingness as a movie night, then they would be acting apolitically. For the third time, Keeping politics out of the workplace does not oppose any view. It's about making clear that the office is not a space for political activity. Yes, the apolitical thing is to not intervene in others' political process. The reality is, bringing politics into the workplace is a very significant intervention in people's political lives. In the politically active offices I've worked in, plenty of employees feigned support for things they didn't support because they felt it was expected of them. Co workers whose views were part of the company majority dominated the conversation, because co-workers with minority viewpoints didn't want to risk repercussions for voicing unpopular views. So if you want a company that does not intervene in others' political lives, keeping politics out of the workplace is the most effective approach.
    - ahelwer 7y ago
      This post was like watching a fish vigorously deny the existence of water. Look, functionally you're defining an "apolitical" office as unquestioning obedience. Which is fine, just own it instead of trying to dress it up.
      - manfredo 7y ago
tanilama 7y ago
The employee disrupt Google itself, not the society. History is history. Comparing Google to murderers are just false. They are not. In fact Google got where it is today, is mainly due to the fact they previously intentionally obfuscated the ownership between management/employees. Apparently, it no longer works for it now. Time to move on. Learn to act like MSFT/IBM or maybe even Amazon.
mkohlmyr 7y ago
Neat. Yes there are legitimate cases in which politics should certainly enter the workplace (legitimate labour disputes definitely being among these). These are disputes that are more or less employees versus employers. But I don't see how anyone can reasonably make the case that (much of) the recent political activism at Google has been an example of defending general workers rights against abuses. It seems more like an attempt to push group politics (the group in question not representing the viewpoint or interests of all employees) onto an institution. As a rule of thumb, if the idea of the opposite side of your stance doing the same thing, with the same tactics, makes you feel uneasy - you might think twice about setting the precedence.
- dmos62 7y ago
  Is not being surveilled not in the interest of "general workers"? That's hard to answer, because what exactly is the worker? All groups and subgroups are divided to some extent; there will not be a conflict without multiple layers of subdivision. I agree that censorship of political discourse is a problem. Or religious, or of any subject. The "let's not talk politics amongst friends" (or at work) line of thought is a form of censorship that is in many ways self-imposed. I think that we're so bent on being right that we become blind to others' incentives, interests and other elements of subjectivity and lose the ability to resolve conflicts. Then the obvious option is to evade situations where we might have conflicts. A culture-wide communication problem. I'd like to see people comfortable discussing anything anytime with anyone.
  - mkohlmyr 7y ago
    I'd love to live in a world where that was the case as well, but I'm not seeing much of that going around at the moment. And yes, I'd agree that in this case it could likely be considered a general workplace issue where most employees would be on the same side against the corporation. I think the original comment was talking more about the recent instances of protests however (don't do business with X, Y, Z because it conflicts with my politics etc).
    - dmos62 7y ago
x220 7y ago
Googlers are debating "entertainment politics", not economic politics. Instead of unionizing, they're criticizing contracts with oil and gas companies, criticizing search engine censorship in China (but just in China; search engine censorship in the United States is apparently fine and dandy), and protesting that every executive doesn't get fired on the spot upon receiving a sexual harassment complaint. They are not discussing the power imbalance between workers and the owners of capital. They are not discussing Google's abuse of private information at large. Just as many Americans watch Fox News or CNN every night and yell at the TV, Googlers are getting upset at tips of the iceberg.
koheripbal 7y ago
Man, this site is turning into Reddit. This is such an opinionated uninformative comment...

roenxi 7y ago

Not really, the politics rule is more because in a reasonably diverse workforce will have supporters of all sorts of stupid ideas and it is not fruitful to have people arguing about them on company time. There is a lot of tension in labour relations but no-politics-in-the-workplace philosophies cover a lot more than that.

zdragnar 7y ago

There is no good faith argument here that can paint with so broad a brush; organized labor is also not free from extreme acts of violence and extortion.

manfredo 7y ago

Yeah, no. I broadly agree with the what many activists at tech companies are supporting, but think that its deliberate attempts to make the workplace more political are unproductive or backfiring. When it gets to the point that a significant percentage of employees are feigning or exaggerating support for political positions to fit in, you have a problem. And the tech companies I've worked at in the SF Bay Area for the last four years have been in that position.

rtpg 7y ago
fighting against the creation of a union is just as a political act as trying to create one (as an example). Saying "oh we should keep the office apolitical by not having a union" is a political act. Saying "oh we shouldn't complain about the kind of customers our emplyoer has" is a political act. Acting in opposition to political acts is in itself a political act. The apolitical thing to do would be to _not intervene in others' political processes_. If mgmt let its employees organize labor actions with the same willingness as a movie night, then they would be acting apolitically.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Perhaps in an non-standard understanding of what is and isn't political. An apolitical office is political in the same sense that secularism is a religious stance. It's not catering to any specific religion: it is equally exclusive of all religions. Similarly, an apolitical office doesn't prevent or directly influence the political activity of workers - it just relegates that political activity to spaces outside the office. > Saying "oh we should keep the office apolitical by not having a union" is a political act. Saying "oh we shouldn't complain about the kind of customers our emplyoer has" is a political act. That isn't keeping politics out of the workplace - it's the exact opposite. That's explicitly bringing politics into the workplace by trying to tell coworkers what views they should have. Curbing this behavior is exactly what keeping politics out of the workplace is about. > Acting in opposition to political acts is in itself a political act. The apolitical thing to do would be to _not intervene in others' political processes_. If mgmt let its employees organize labor actions with the same willingness as a movie night, then they would be acting apolitically. For the third time, Keeping politics out of the workplace does not oppose any view. It's about making clear that the office is not a space for political activity. Yes, the apolitical thing is to not intervene in others' political process. The reality is, bringing politics into the workplace is a very significant intervention in people's political lives. In the politically active offices I've worked in, plenty of employees feigned support for things they didn't support because they felt it was expected of them. Co workers whose views were part of the company majority dominated the conversation, because co-workers with minority viewpoints didn't want to risk repercussions for voicing unpopular views. So if you want a company that does not intervene in others' political lives, keeping politics out of the workplace is the most effective approach.
  - ahelwer 7y ago
    This post was like watching a fish vigorously deny the existence of water. Look, functionally you're defining an "apolitical" office as unquestioning obedience. Which is fine, just own it instead of trying to dress it up.
    - manfredo 7y ago

tanilama 7y ago

The employee disrupt Google itself, not the society. History is history. Comparing Google to murderers are just false. They are not. In fact Google got where it is today, is mainly due to the fact they previously intentionally obfuscated the ownership between management/employees. Apparently, it no longer works for it now. Time to move on. Learn to act like MSFT/IBM or maybe even Amazon.

mkohlmyr 7y ago

Neat. Yes there are legitimate cases in which politics should certainly enter the workplace (legitimate labour disputes definitely being among these). These are disputes that are more or less employees versus employers. But I don't see how anyone can reasonably make the case that (much of) the recent political activism at Google has been an example of defending general workers rights against abuses. It seems more like an attempt to push group politics (the group in question not representing the viewpoint or interests of all employees) onto an institution. As a rule of thumb, if the idea of the opposite side of your stance doing the same thing, with the same tactics, makes you feel uneasy - you might think twice about setting the precedence.

dmos62 7y ago
Is not being surveilled not in the interest of "general workers"? That's hard to answer, because what exactly is the worker? All groups and subgroups are divided to some extent; there will not be a conflict without multiple layers of subdivision. I agree that censorship of political discourse is a problem. Or religious, or of any subject. The "let's not talk politics amongst friends" (or at work) line of thought is a form of censorship that is in many ways self-imposed. I think that we're so bent on being right that we become blind to others' incentives, interests and other elements of subjectivity and lose the ability to resolve conflicts. Then the obvious option is to evade situations where we might have conflicts. A culture-wide communication problem. I'd like to see people comfortable discussing anything anytime with anyone.
- mkohlmyr 7y ago
  I'd love to live in a world where that was the case as well, but I'm not seeing much of that going around at the moment. And yes, I'd agree that in this case it could likely be considered a general workplace issue where most employees would be on the same side against the corporation. I think the original comment was talking more about the recent instances of protests however (don't do business with X, Y, Z because it conflicts with my politics etc).
  - dmos62 7y ago

x220 7y ago

Googlers are debating "entertainment politics", not economic politics. Instead of unionizing, they're criticizing contracts with oil and gas companies, criticizing search engine censorship in China (but just in China; search engine censorship in the United States is apparently fine and dandy), and protesting that every executive doesn't get fired on the spot upon receiving a sexual harassment complaint. They are not discussing the power imbalance between workers and the owners of capital. They are not discussing Google's abuse of private information at large. Just as many Americans watch Fox News or CNN every night and yell at the TV, Googlers are getting upset at tips of the iceberg.

koheripbal 7y ago

Man, this site is turning into Reddit. This is such an opinionated uninformative comment...