4 ms·

Reminder this means 38% aren't afraid to share those views. The article mentions specifically in the workplace. For a time, I worked under a VP in a large publi

Reminder this means 38% aren't afraid to share those views. The article mentions specifically in the workplace. For a time, I worked under a VP in a large public software company that wouldn't let anyone under him reimburse alcohol sales on team outings (food was fine; there was no objection to team outings to build rapport, either). It was strange, it stood opposite to company-wide policy of permitting employed-provided alcohol, and it likely had an inconsequential effect on his career, but he did push his personal views on his reporting chain.

happytoexplain 6y ago
Was there a political motivation you suspected? You haven't elaborated. Or do you feel that the decision to not cover alcohol as a work expense is inherently political somehow?
kerng 6y ago
Missing the point here. What does not wanting to reimburse alcohol in this case have to do with politics? Can you maybe share more context? Is the idea because people get drunk and talk politics?
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  As a society, we visited this topic quite some time ago and it was the 18th amendment. It was an incredibly political moment for our country.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    You seem to be expressing some personal sensitivity here. If this person was disparaging people who drink alcohol (or was pushing for making alcohol illegal), you should specify that. All you've said is that they didn't cover it as a work expense - it's a controlled, mind-altering substance, so that's totally non-political given no additional motivations.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
      The organization had an established policy, permitting employer-provided alcohol at work social functions. He pushed a personal view, without the consent of his management, to the maximal extent his role gave him.
      - happytoexplain 6y ago
        >He pushed a personal view, without the consent of his management You should have said this originally. I can understand if this was some crusade he was pursuing, but nobody could infer that from your original post. Also, you should really consider how ironic it is, in a thread about people being afraid to express political opinions, that, when asked how not reimbursing alcohol is political, you responded with a hyperbolic analogy in a sarcastic tone to the effect of "we had this thing called prohibition" (you've since edited that comment, though the tone mostly remains).
        JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
        By stating it "wasn't company policy", I had imagined it was clear it was a personal decision, overriding the rest of the company. I have updated my comment to reflect this.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

happytoexplain 6y ago

Was there a political motivation you suspected? You haven't elaborated. Or do you feel that the decision to not cover alcohol as a work expense is inherently political somehow?

kerng 6y ago

Missing the point here. What does not wanting to reimburse alcohol in this case have to do with politics? Can you maybe share more context? Is the idea because people get drunk and talk politics?

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
As a society, we visited this topic quite some time ago and it was the 18th amendment. It was an incredibly political moment for our country.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  You seem to be expressing some personal sensitivity here. If this person was disparaging people who drink alcohol (or was pushing for making alcohol illegal), you should specify that. All you've said is that they didn't cover it as a work expense - it's a controlled, mind-altering substance, so that's totally non-political given no additional motivations.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
    The organization had an established policy, permitting employer-provided alcohol at work social functions. He pushed a personal view, without the consent of his management, to the maximal extent his role gave him.
    - happytoexplain 6y ago
      >He pushed a personal view, without the consent of his management You should have said this originally. I can understand if this was some crusade he was pursuing, but nobody could infer that from your original post. Also, you should really consider how ironic it is, in a thread about people being afraid to express political opinions, that, when asked how not reimbursing alcohol is political, you responded with a hyperbolic analogy in a sarcastic tone to the effect of "we had this thing called prohibition" (you've since edited that comment, though the tone mostly remains).
      - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
        By stating it "wasn't company policy", I had imagined it was clear it was a personal decision, overriding the rest of the company. I have updated my comment to reflect this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]