7 ms·

There's lots of shit i do not talk about at work. This is nothing to do with the political climate of the US in 2020, it's very much to do with the fact that f

There's lots of shit i do not talk about at work. This is nothing to do with the political climate of the US in 2020, it's very much to do with the fact that formative experiences early in my career very strongly influenced the prior that work and personal lives are streams that shall not be crossed, and coworkers are not to be trusted.

giantg2 6y ago
It's not just what you don't say, you're also expected to say certain things. I feel like the system at work compels people to believe certain things if they want to stay employed.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Thank god I work in finance. Nobody expects any ideology out of us beyond understanding that "more money = more better".
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    I'm sure that's been said in every work environment till it happens there.
  - pmb 6y ago
    That's definitely a clear, strong, and powerful ideology. Pretending it is a minimal one is incorrect. More money (for whom? and by what means?) is not always better.
  - npunt 6y ago
    I can totally appreciate the desire for simplicity in work, and having a single objective number is about as simple as you can get. But there's a difference between simplicity in jobs like flipping burgers vs finance, and that's power. If we work in a job that is both powerful AND simple (like many in tech & finance), it's likely many unintended externalities are being created. Externalities, because they affect others, have strong political ramifications. So if you're working in a field with a lot of power, and you're having simple to nonexistent conversation about externalities, there's a good chance you're contributing to the problems you're trying to avoid discussing by virtue of wielding power blindly. Perhaps those externalities would be better solved at their source of the workplace rather than let fester in the public sphere. This is a sort of 'ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' argument for why its important that workplaces engage in these discussions, and why the shareholder value maximization approach is too reductionist for corporate entities of any meaningful size or power.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Maybe there's real discussion going on at the board/C-suite level - which is where the power is anyways. I would not consider the stuff I see at an individual contributor level to be a discussion. If management is involved, then the 'discussion' is more like that of a parent speaking to a child and valid questions tend to be ignored or met with 'answers' that do not address the question at hand.
      - npunt 6y ago
        Agree C-level is where the most easily accessible power resides, but when banded together employees also do have lots of power and can push for things. Hence there's still value of discussion in companies around these ideas.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Unless you're in the minority. I would love to see better defined contacts or unionization.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I work in as a software dev for a financial company. The company does weigh in on political/ideological stuff from the CEO to the managers. Even if that were not the case, silence on some issues could get you in hot water with your coworkers. Most of the stuff they push, I'm not opposed to in general. My opinions tend to be more focused on the libertarian implementation of achieving those things and adhering to rule of law. This tends to be aligned with the outcomes they say they stand for, but it's not the 'right' answer (liberal). And don't even think about telling a joke that could even slightly be misinterpreted or overheard by a 3rd party. A guy from my building got fired for moving a diversity poster because somebody thought the action was offensive.
claudeganon 6y ago
Every discussion of free speech in the US seems to conveniently elide how much control employers have over employees, including the ability to take away their healthcare from them for speech that doesn’t even broach the political. Disagree with your boss too much and good luck paying for your kid’s doctor’s appointments. Cancel culture is tedious moralizing, but mostly a media spectacle meant to drive attention to various figures and platforms. The average worker has more to fear from those who sign their paychecks than anyone else.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  You get to keep your insurance even when you're let go, until you find another job, but you do have to pay out of pocket for it. Probably this expense should be covered by unemployment insurance or something similar.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    The average person has little ability to pay out of pocket for COBRA in the event they lose a job. The pandemic is demonstrating this right now. For a family, you’re looking at at least $2000 a month.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    > Probably this expense should be covered by unemployment insurance or something similar. A better solution is to stop deductions for employer-sponsored healthcare and shift the expense from the employer to the employee with a mandate that old employer health insurance premiums be passed on to employees as wages. That deduction is the largest lever when it comes to the cost of health insurance (short of bad IP policy and regulation of pharma products).
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    That's what average people refer to as "losing your insurance". They don't have enough money to pay for insurance out of pocket, especially after they have lost their job.
kelchm 6y ago
Does it not concern you that a significant portion of those surveyed think it’s okay to fire someone for their (financial) support of a political candidate? You don’t have to talk about it for people to find out — it’s part public record if you are contributing more than $200. Seems insane to me.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  I would strongly support firing my company's CEO if they donated to Trump. And I would not have said that about Romney or McCain. The problem is not "a political candidate" or even "a highly conservative and deeply capitalistic candidate." The problem is that Trump is a fascist, a vicious racist, and the most corrupt president in American history. Supporting Trump doesn't speak to a difference in political philosophy: it's a fundamental deficit in character. How could anyone really say that a CEO who donated to Trump is also a CEO committed to a workplace free of bigotry and discrimination? Frankly, the same argument applies to any employee with hiring/firing responsibilities: they should be ashamed for supporting Trump and carry that black mark with them for the rest of their professional lives.
  - Tycho 6y ago
    What are examples of this fascism and vicious racism? I’m always interested to hear how people arrive at these extreme opinions.
- notJim 6y ago
  Donald Trump said Mexican immigrants are rapists. If my coworker supports Trump, do they agree with this? I'm Mexican, do they think I'm a rapist? I know a friend who is a DREAMer, i.e., they are undocumented. Are they a rapist? How does my coworker's belief that Mexican immigrants are rapists affect their ability to work with other people? Should I have to wonder these things about someone I'm on a project with?
  - iclosem 6y ago
    He said that for sure? That Mexican immigrants are rapists? Or that some of them are rapists?
smoe 6y ago
I keep most not directly work related talk out of work. Not because I think they must not be crossed, or because I'm afraid of someone disagreeing (I'm also fairly far left, so plenty of my views are en vouge at the moment), but because usually there is no time for any nuanced discussions during work hours, so it just ends up being people throwing rehashed phrases at each other while passing by. I'll happely meet a co-worker over lunch/dinner to discuss things more deeply. But since over time the workplaces is inevitably shaped by the society it is in, in my opinion we might as well try figure out ways to deal with broader issues while at work, instead of pretending they are isolated. (I'm not saying I have a good solution of how this would look like.)
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  > I keep most not directly work related talk out of work. Not because I think they must not be crossed, or because I'm afraid of someone disagreeing (I'm also fairly far left, so plenty of my views are en vouge at the moment), but because usually there is no time for any nuanced discussions during work hours, so it just ends up being people throwing rehashed phrases at each other while passing by. I have noted that the 2 options when talking politics at work are that either 1. you'll disagree, or 2. you'll agree, and I'm not sure which option is worse.

giantg2 6y ago

It's not just what you don't say, you're also expected to say certain things. I feel like the system at work compels people to believe certain things if they want to stay employed.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Thank god I work in finance. Nobody expects any ideology out of us beyond understanding that "more money = more better".
- mellosouls 6y ago
  I'm sure that's been said in every work environment till it happens there.
- pmb 6y ago
  That's definitely a clear, strong, and powerful ideology. Pretending it is a minimal one is incorrect. More money (for whom? and by what means?) is not always better.
- npunt 6y ago
  I can totally appreciate the desire for simplicity in work, and having a single objective number is about as simple as you can get. But there's a difference between simplicity in jobs like flipping burgers vs finance, and that's power. If we work in a job that is both powerful AND simple (like many in tech & finance), it's likely many unintended externalities are being created. Externalities, because they affect others, have strong political ramifications. So if you're working in a field with a lot of power, and you're having simple to nonexistent conversation about externalities, there's a good chance you're contributing to the problems you're trying to avoid discussing by virtue of wielding power blindly. Perhaps those externalities would be better solved at their source of the workplace rather than let fester in the public sphere. This is a sort of 'ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' argument for why its important that workplaces engage in these discussions, and why the shareholder value maximization approach is too reductionist for corporate entities of any meaningful size or power.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Maybe there's real discussion going on at the board/C-suite level - which is where the power is anyways. I would not consider the stuff I see at an individual contributor level to be a discussion. If management is involved, then the 'discussion' is more like that of a parent speaking to a child and valid questions tend to be ignored or met with 'answers' that do not address the question at hand.
    - npunt 6y ago
      Agree C-level is where the most easily accessible power resides, but when banded together employees also do have lots of power and can push for things. Hence there's still value of discussion in companies around these ideas.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Unless you're in the minority. I would love to see better defined contacts or unionization.
- giantg2 6y ago
  I work in as a software dev for a financial company. The company does weigh in on political/ideological stuff from the CEO to the managers. Even if that were not the case, silence on some issues could get you in hot water with your coworkers. Most of the stuff they push, I'm not opposed to in general. My opinions tend to be more focused on the libertarian implementation of achieving those things and adhering to rule of law. This tends to be aligned with the outcomes they say they stand for, but it's not the 'right' answer (liberal). And don't even think about telling a joke that could even slightly be misinterpreted or overheard by a 3rd party. A guy from my building got fired for moving a diversity poster because somebody thought the action was offensive.

claudeganon 6y ago

Every discussion of free speech in the US seems to conveniently elide how much control employers have over employees, including the ability to take away their healthcare from them for speech that doesn’t even broach the political. Disagree with your boss too much and good luck paying for your kid’s doctor’s appointments. Cancel culture is tedious moralizing, but mostly a media spectacle meant to drive attention to various figures and platforms. The average worker has more to fear from those who sign their paychecks than anyone else.

chrisco255 6y ago
You get to keep your insurance even when you're let go, until you find another job, but you do have to pay out of pocket for it. Probably this expense should be covered by unemployment insurance or something similar.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  The average person has little ability to pay out of pocket for COBRA in the event they lose a job. The pandemic is demonstrating this right now. For a family, you’re looking at at least $2000 a month.
- thephyber 6y ago
  > Probably this expense should be covered by unemployment insurance or something similar. A better solution is to stop deductions for employer-sponsored healthcare and shift the expense from the employer to the employee with a mandate that old employer health insurance premiums be passed on to employees as wages. That deduction is the largest lever when it comes to the cost of health insurance (short of bad IP policy and regulation of pharma products).
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  That's what average people refer to as "losing your insurance". They don't have enough money to pay for insurance out of pocket, especially after they have lost their job.

kelchm 6y ago

Does it not concern you that a significant portion of those surveyed think it’s okay to fire someone for their (financial) support of a political candidate? You don’t have to talk about it for people to find out — it’s part public record if you are contributing more than $200. Seems insane to me.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
I would strongly support firing my company's CEO if they donated to Trump. And I would not have said that about Romney or McCain. The problem is not "a political candidate" or even "a highly conservative and deeply capitalistic candidate." The problem is that Trump is a fascist, a vicious racist, and the most corrupt president in American history. Supporting Trump doesn't speak to a difference in political philosophy: it's a fundamental deficit in character. How could anyone really say that a CEO who donated to Trump is also a CEO committed to a workplace free of bigotry and discrimination? Frankly, the same argument applies to any employee with hiring/firing responsibilities: they should be ashamed for supporting Trump and carry that black mark with them for the rest of their professional lives.
- Tycho 6y ago
  What are examples of this fascism and vicious racism? I’m always interested to hear how people arrive at these extreme opinions.
notJim 6y ago
Donald Trump said Mexican immigrants are rapists. If my coworker supports Trump, do they agree with this? I'm Mexican, do they think I'm a rapist? I know a friend who is a DREAMer, i.e., they are undocumented. Are they a rapist? How does my coworker's belief that Mexican immigrants are rapists affect their ability to work with other people? Should I have to wonder these things about someone I'm on a project with?
- iclosem 6y ago
  He said that for sure? That Mexican immigrants are rapists? Or that some of them are rapists?

smoe 6y ago

I keep most not directly work related talk out of work. Not because I think they must not be crossed, or because I'm afraid of someone disagreeing (I'm also fairly far left, so plenty of my views are en vouge at the moment), but because usually there is no time for any nuanced discussions during work hours, so it just ends up being people throwing rehashed phrases at each other while passing by. I'll happely meet a co-worker over lunch/dinner to discuss things more deeply. But since over time the workplaces is inevitably shaped by the society it is in, in my opinion we might as well try figure out ways to deal with broader issues while at work, instead of pretending they are isolated. (I'm not saying I have a good solution of how this would look like.)

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
> I keep most not directly work related talk out of work. Not because I think they must not be crossed, or because I'm afraid of someone disagreeing (I'm also fairly far left, so plenty of my views are en vouge at the moment), but because usually there is no time for any nuanced discussions during work hours, so it just ends up being people throwing rehashed phrases at each other while passing by. I have noted that the 2 options when talking politics at work are that either 1. you'll disagree, or 2. you'll agree, and I'm not sure which option is worse.