7 ms·

With 20 years experience under my belt, it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divis

by aedron 7y ago

With 20 years experience under my belt, it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues. Obviously, this extends even more to the workplace itself bringing these topics up. I'm not aggressive or even obvious about this disposition, I just gently steer clear of violating it. I feel the same should apply to companies, fine if you want to make a stand on some political issue, but don't make a show of it, because it implies that all your employees should agree with your position. People in the world have different opinions on things, we need to be able to work with eachother on shared interests without making every place and occasion a battleground. If not in the workplace, then where? On a somewhat related note, I don't consider my colleagues my friends, or, God forbid, the workplace a 'family'. My relationship to my employer is a professional one, trying to disguise this by intermingling personal feelings can only end in tears, when one day you discover that it was such all along, only you deluded yourself (or let yourself be led) into thinking differently.

2sk21 7y ago
Completely agree - the workplace is not a family and (mostly) not a group of friends.
- ccsnags 7y ago
  Even back in my military days, there was a clear difference between people I had to work with and my military family. Living in close proximity forces people to set boundaries and respect others. Plus, if a political discussion got physical or out of control, remedial training for all parties involved.
stronglikedan 7y ago
> With 20 years experience under my belt, it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues. I, too, old this belief, but it's kind of hard when the "new culture" is overwhelmed with a sense of entitlement to "be heard". Everyone thinks their individual opinions should be able to be shared whenever they feel the need to be validated, and that everyone must hear their opinion in that moment, regardless of how controversial it may be. And if you try to stifle their attempt or even mildly disagree, then you are the bad person. Couth and tactfulness have given way to entitlement and postmodernism in the modern work culture.
- helen___keller 7y ago
  Everything is relative to the discussion and beliefs at hand. If you want to disagree about fried chicken, fine, have your beliefs even if I think you're wrong. If you want to disagree about, say, LGBT rights, then I will probably deem that you are the bad person. That's how strong, deeply held beliefs work. I'm sure if I tried hard I could come up with an example of a belief that would make you consider me a bad person if I stated it as a coworker. What you're describing is just that your values differ greatly from "new culture" values, not some new entitlement among young people.
  - stronglikedan 7y ago
    It's definitely entitlement when your supposed "right to be heard" on non-work-related issues seems more important than the workplace disruption it causes.
    - helen___keller 7y ago
      Well, I can't speak for your experiences because I don't know your experiences. What is "right to be heard" mean? For me it usually means employees speak their concerns with management, and management is receptive enough (ie they care about employee retention) that if something is really bad they hold a Q&A session. Maybe act on it. I'm an empowered, high-demand employee in a high demand industry. If management doesn't want to hear about my concerns, that's fine and they can say so. I'll find another employer in less than a week. Edit: to give a more concrete example, my employer was in talks to write software for client X, a corporation well known for being Bad People™️. A bunch of employees came forward that they didn't want to do business with client X. Management discussed it thoroughly with these employees, hosted public roundtables, etc. I wasn't part of this discussion so I can't say the outcome, but yes the employees who cared demanded a right to be heard, because often that's why we work for progressive employers in the first place.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    I think it's both what you and the parent are saying. People in the younger generation (myself somewhat included in that) do feel extra entitlement toward saying what they want, when they want, in whatever forum they want. But it's a lot harder nowadays to keep one's personal and professional lives completely separate. I'd lean toward considering this trend a good thing; we don't work in a vacuum. Activism absolutely does have a place in a professional setting when so many social and political issues contribute to discrimination in the workplace. At the same time, making judgments about the parent's values is a bit out of line. Some people really do just want to go to the office, put in a full day of work, and go home where their "real" life happens. I personally think that's a limiting attitude, but don't begrudge people their need or desire to go that route.
fulafel 7y ago
A lot of workplace cultures survive and even encourage discussiong differing views without making every place a battleground. And even encourage civil exchange of views between people who hold different views. It's in vogue to use the ideas from the Nonviolent Communication book to make this work better. But those ideas are of course politocal.. as is the debate on whether to allow political discussions. Also it's pretty hard to separate political discussions from work if you're doing something that impacts people's lives. (I'm leaving out jobs where the societal impact is clearly negative, there discouraging discussion might be rational for the employer)
matthewmacleod 7y ago
The problem is, though, that politics is inherently tied up in actions related to the workplace. Let’s say one of your colleagues or managers occasionally makes decisions that would be frowned upon by some people. Maybe you’re recruiting, and they let slip that they passed over a female candidate because they thought she might have a child soon. Or maybe they passed on a gay man because they didn’t think he should be working in a role where he’d interact with children. This is a political act. Deciding to respond to it, or to ignore it, is also a political act. If this culture is widespread, it would seem reasonable to object to it at a company-wise level. It seems infeasible to separate politics from employment in that sense.
- rhodysurf 7y ago
  Those examples are not really political, but they are illegal.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    They are illegal because the politics of the decades before us have decided they should be illegal.
  - bregma 7y ago
    They were commonplace and accepted twenty years ago. They're illegal now because of politics and political activism.
    - username90 7y ago
      Pretty sure they have been illegal for way longer than 20 years, for example the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 and discriminating based on sexual orientation has been illegal since 1992, at least in California. The big political fights we are seeing in USA are not local reality. It is like me being in Sweden saying that we aren't progressive enough since Poland has a lot of conservative views, and that therefore we need to add even more protections for women and minorities in Sweden until they are properly accepted in Poland. If someone told me that I have to be engaged in their rights in Poland or I am a misogynist and homophobic then I'd just sigh and ignore them.
lentil_soup 7y ago
But hiding our views is just avoiding the problem. We should learn to deal with people having different opinions and still be able to collaborate professionally and not turn it into a battleground.
helen___keller 7y ago
> it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues From the company's PoV you're correct. From the employee's PoV I'm not convinced.
- godshatter 7y ago
  I must be old or something. To me, it's a simple question. Is my employer paying me to discuss politics or religion? If no, then I don't see why I should be using their time and their resources to do so.
  - 2sk21 7y ago
    Exactly - I have to work with _everyone_ in the company regardless of their beliefs. Its a lot easier to get my job done if I can remain in blissful ignorance of their possibly strong beliefs.
  - helen___keller 7y ago
    My employer isn't paying me to poop either but I make sure to do that every day ;) To be less glib, the level of acceptable discourse tends to be built into a companies culture. I've never seen a workplace with zero discourse on the outside world, and I doubt it exists. Companies like google clearly push the concept to its breaking point, though.
kelnos 7y ago
The problem is that, for many issues, you can't separate the politics from social issues. Many of these political issues concern aspects of morality. For example, a CEO might not want someone who is anti-LGBT representing their company in any way. On the flip side of that, I wouldn't want to work for a company where the leadership was anti-LGBT. Even if these people are otherwise good at their jobs, a person's morality does matter when deciding who to work with/for. You might make the argument that no one at work should even know if anyone else is anti-LGBT or not, or argue that people should put those cares aside in the interests of a harmonious workplace, but I just don't think that's how (all) humans work. There are practical considerations to this, too: say a trans employee has to deal with an anti-LGBT HR person regarding trans healthcare and the company's health plans. The HR person is going to be uncomfortable about that conversation, and the trans person isn't going to feel like their concerns are being taken seriously, or even feel safe having that conversation in the first place. That's... not okay. > On a somewhat related note, I don't consider my colleagues my friends, or, God forbid, the workplace a 'family'. Just like any other random group of people in the world, some of my colleagues are my friends who I socialize with outside work, and some (most) aren't. (Agreed, though, the whole "company is family" nonsense needs to stop.)
- the_rosentotter 7y ago
  The whole LGBTXYZ discussion is somewhat weird to me. How about letting people's sexual preferences be their own business? I would rather be free from knowing what goes on in people's bedrooms, I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Your example of the HR person who has to make decisions about medical issues obviously falls in a different category, but even in this case discretion could be assumed to be the default.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  Let's look at the symmetrically opposite situation - for example, a CEO might not want someone who is pro-LGBT representing their company in any way. On the flip side of that, some people wouldn't want to work for a company where the leadership was pro-LGBT. What would be the expected reaction in this case? We'd want (or require) those people to keep their desires to themselves and choose their employees/employers professionally without discrimination, right? Thing is, you can't both have your cake and eat it; if we argue that companies should be allowed to act on political/social opinions, then that applies also if you don't like them; and if we argue that it should keep their nose out of what position their employees take on various political/social issues and just focus on their work, then again this will apply to both positions that we like and those we hate. If employers are allowed to fire (or not hire) someone for pushing anti-LGBT agenda, they'd be allowed to fire (or not hire) someone for pushing a pro-LGBT agenda. Either employees have the right to freely express their political positions or they do not - but that right doesn't depend on which of opposing positions they hold.
bliblah 7y ago
Hear hear, I'm under 30 but because the industry I work in isn't really as sexy or brand new as some more CS focused ones I tend to work with people who are older and were raised with the type of expectation that the workplace is a place for working and carry themselves more or less restrained in this regard. I have friends who work in LA and in SF and they constantly bombard me with stories of how employees of all levels (even recent hires) just spew the most extremist political diatribes at all times and some just do it to troll other employees of the different faction. It has gotten so bad that there are several "secret" slack channels for these cliques dedicated to continue gossiping and sharing memes that are pretty distasteful. Whenever I ask about them reporting it to HR they just tell me that HR doesn't really exist and they pretty much exist just to make sure payroll is distributed. Just my 2 cents but I prefer just clocking in and talking about the weather than have to put up with that kind of toxicity.
- bigred100 7y ago
  I work with a few of those guys. I truly wonder why their managers put up with it. I’d immediately fire them.
mcrad 7y ago
Sad that this attitude has become the norm. You're basically saying you can do collaborative work with people over the long run without really knowing one another's values. A vicious cycle and "race to the bottom" in terms of both productivity and innovation in my opinion.
RomanBob 7y ago
>I don't consider my colleagues my friends, Do you allow colleagues to become friends?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by aedron 7y ago

2sk21 7y ago

Completely agree - the workplace is not a family and (mostly) not a group of friends.

ccsnags 7y ago
Even back in my military days, there was a clear difference between people I had to work with and my military family. Living in close proximity forces people to set boundaries and respect others. Plus, if a political discussion got physical or out of control, remedial training for all parties involved.

stronglikedan 7y ago

> With 20 years experience under my belt, it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues. I, too, old this belief, but it's kind of hard when the "new culture" is overwhelmed with a sense of entitlement to "be heard". Everyone thinks their individual opinions should be able to be shared whenever they feel the need to be validated, and that everyone must hear their opinion in that moment, regardless of how controversial it may be. And if you try to stifle their attempt or even mildly disagree, then you are the bad person. Couth and tactfulness have given way to entitlement and postmodernism in the modern work culture.

helen___keller 7y ago
Everything is relative to the discussion and beliefs at hand. If you want to disagree about fried chicken, fine, have your beliefs even if I think you're wrong. If you want to disagree about, say, LGBT rights, then I will probably deem that you are the bad person. That's how strong, deeply held beliefs work. I'm sure if I tried hard I could come up with an example of a belief that would make you consider me a bad person if I stated it as a coworker. What you're describing is just that your values differ greatly from "new culture" values, not some new entitlement among young people.
- stronglikedan 7y ago
  It's definitely entitlement when your supposed "right to be heard" on non-work-related issues seems more important than the workplace disruption it causes.
  - helen___keller 7y ago
    Well, I can't speak for your experiences because I don't know your experiences. What is "right to be heard" mean? For me it usually means employees speak their concerns with management, and management is receptive enough (ie they care about employee retention) that if something is really bad they hold a Q&A session. Maybe act on it. I'm an empowered, high-demand employee in a high demand industry. If management doesn't want to hear about my concerns, that's fine and they can say so. I'll find another employer in less than a week. Edit: to give a more concrete example, my employer was in talks to write software for client X, a corporation well known for being Bad People™️. A bunch of employees came forward that they didn't want to do business with client X. Management discussed it thoroughly with these employees, hosted public roundtables, etc. I wasn't part of this discussion so I can't say the outcome, but yes the employees who cared demanded a right to be heard, because often that's why we work for progressive employers in the first place.
- kelnos 7y ago
  I think it's both what you and the parent are saying. People in the younger generation (myself somewhat included in that) do feel extra entitlement toward saying what they want, when they want, in whatever forum they want. But it's a lot harder nowadays to keep one's personal and professional lives completely separate. I'd lean toward considering this trend a good thing; we don't work in a vacuum. Activism absolutely does have a place in a professional setting when so many social and political issues contribute to discrimination in the workplace. At the same time, making judgments about the parent's values is a bit out of line. Some people really do just want to go to the office, put in a full day of work, and go home where their "real" life happens. I personally think that's a limiting attitude, but don't begrudge people their need or desire to go that route.

fulafel 7y ago

A lot of workplace cultures survive and even encourage discussiong differing views without making every place a battleground. And even encourage civil exchange of views between people who hold different views. It's in vogue to use the ideas from the Nonviolent Communication book to make this work better. But those ideas are of course politocal.. as is the debate on whether to allow political discussions. Also it's pretty hard to separate political discussions from work if you're doing something that impacts people's lives. (I'm leaving out jobs where the societal impact is clearly negative, there discouraging discussion might be rational for the employer)

matthewmacleod 7y ago

The problem is, though, that politics is inherently tied up in actions related to the workplace. Let’s say one of your colleagues or managers occasionally makes decisions that would be frowned upon by some people. Maybe you’re recruiting, and they let slip that they passed over a female candidate because they thought she might have a child soon. Or maybe they passed on a gay man because they didn’t think he should be working in a role where he’d interact with children. This is a political act. Deciding to respond to it, or to ignore it, is also a political act. If this culture is widespread, it would seem reasonable to object to it at a company-wise level. It seems infeasible to separate politics from employment in that sense.

rhodysurf 7y ago
Those examples are not really political, but they are illegal.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  They are illegal because the politics of the decades before us have decided they should be illegal.
- bregma 7y ago
  They were commonplace and accepted twenty years ago. They're illegal now because of politics and political activism.
  - username90 7y ago
    Pretty sure they have been illegal for way longer than 20 years, for example the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 and discriminating based on sexual orientation has been illegal since 1992, at least in California. The big political fights we are seeing in USA are not local reality. It is like me being in Sweden saying that we aren't progressive enough since Poland has a lot of conservative views, and that therefore we need to add even more protections for women and minorities in Sweden until they are properly accepted in Poland. If someone told me that I have to be engaged in their rights in Poland or I am a misogynist and homophobic then I'd just sigh and ignore them.

lentil_soup 7y ago

But hiding our views is just avoiding the problem. We should learn to deal with people having different opinions and still be able to collaborate professionally and not turn it into a battleground.

helen___keller 7y ago

> it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues From the company's PoV you're correct. From the employee's PoV I'm not convinced.

godshatter 7y ago
I must be old or something. To me, it's a simple question. Is my employer paying me to discuss politics or religion? If no, then I don't see why I should be using their time and their resources to do so.
- 2sk21 7y ago
  Exactly - I have to work with _everyone_ in the company regardless of their beliefs. Its a lot easier to get my job done if I can remain in blissful ignorance of their possibly strong beliefs.
- helen___keller 7y ago
  My employer isn't paying me to poop either but I make sure to do that every day ;) To be less glib, the level of acceptable discourse tends to be built into a companies culture. I've never seen a workplace with zero discourse on the outside world, and I doubt it exists. Companies like google clearly push the concept to its breaking point, though.

kelnos 7y ago

The problem is that, for many issues, you can't separate the politics from social issues. Many of these political issues concern aspects of morality. For example, a CEO might not want someone who is anti-LGBT representing their company in any way. On the flip side of that, I wouldn't want to work for a company where the leadership was anti-LGBT. Even if these people are otherwise good at their jobs, a person's morality does matter when deciding who to work with/for. You might make the argument that no one at work should even know if anyone else is anti-LGBT or not, or argue that people should put those cares aside in the interests of a harmonious workplace, but I just don't think that's how (all) humans work. There are practical considerations to this, too: say a trans employee has to deal with an anti-LGBT HR person regarding trans healthcare and the company's health plans. The HR person is going to be uncomfortable about that conversation, and the trans person isn't going to feel like their concerns are being taken seriously, or even feel safe having that conversation in the first place. That's... not okay. > On a somewhat related note, I don't consider my colleagues my friends, or, God forbid, the workplace a 'family'. Just like any other random group of people in the world, some of my colleagues are my friends who I socialize with outside work, and some (most) aren't. (Agreed, though, the whole "company is family" nonsense needs to stop.)

the_rosentotter 7y ago
The whole LGBTXYZ discussion is somewhat weird to me. How about letting people's sexual preferences be their own business? I would rather be free from knowing what goes on in people's bedrooms, I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Your example of the HR person who has to make decisions about medical issues obviously falls in a different category, but even in this case discretion could be assumed to be the default.
PeterisP 7y ago
Let's look at the symmetrically opposite situation - for example, a CEO might not want someone who is pro-LGBT representing their company in any way. On the flip side of that, some people wouldn't want to work for a company where the leadership was pro-LGBT. What would be the expected reaction in this case? We'd want (or require) those people to keep their desires to themselves and choose their employees/employers professionally without discrimination, right? Thing is, you can't both have your cake and eat it; if we argue that companies should be allowed to act on political/social opinions, then that applies also if you don't like them; and if we argue that it should keep their nose out of what position their employees take on various political/social issues and just focus on their work, then again this will apply to both positions that we like and those we hate. If employers are allowed to fire (or not hire) someone for pushing anti-LGBT agenda, they'd be allowed to fire (or not hire) someone for pushing a pro-LGBT agenda. Either employees have the right to freely express their political positions or they do not - but that right doesn't depend on which of opposing positions they hold.

bliblah 7y ago

Hear hear, I'm under 30 but because the industry I work in isn't really as sexy or brand new as some more CS focused ones I tend to work with people who are older and were raised with the type of expectation that the workplace is a place for working and carry themselves more or less restrained in this regard. I have friends who work in LA and in SF and they constantly bombard me with stories of how employees of all levels (even recent hires) just spew the most extremist political diatribes at all times and some just do it to troll other employees of the different faction. It has gotten so bad that there are several "secret" slack channels for these cliques dedicated to continue gossiping and sharing memes that are pretty distasteful. Whenever I ask about them reporting it to HR they just tell me that HR doesn't really exist and they pretty much exist just to make sure payroll is distributed. Just my 2 cents but I prefer just clocking in and talking about the weather than have to put up with that kind of toxicity.

bigred100 7y ago
I work with a few of those guys. I truly wonder why their managers put up with it. I’d immediately fire them.

mcrad 7y ago

Sad that this attitude has become the norm. You're basically saying you can do collaborative work with people over the long run without really knowing one another's values. A vicious cycle and "race to the bottom" in terms of both productivity and innovation in my opinion.

RomanBob 7y ago

>I don't consider my colleagues my friends, Do you allow colleagues to become friends?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]