9 ms·

Brian Armstrong wants to have it both ways. He wants employees to focus “on the mission”, and not bring societal politics and activism into the workplace. Fair

Brian Armstrong wants to have it both ways. He wants employees to focus “on the mission”, and not bring societal politics and activism into the workplace. Fair enough. For better or for worse, we live in a capitalist system, and companies are not first and foremost social justice organisations. I am not unsympathetic to the problems he is trying to solve. But he also wants to influence politics and laws to benefit his company. Coinbase pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobbyists and lobbying companies around the world to advocate for their position (this is all public information). He seems to believe that you can separate “political decisions that benefit Coinbase” and “political decisions that are irrelevant to Coinbase”, but you can’t. They’re all interconnected. It’s naive to pretend otherwise.

yyy888sss 6y ago
But they are not the same. Every company and organisation will advocate for itself by advertising, lobbying, legal battles etc. Brands will also adopt a LGBT pride/BLM/etc campaign as soon as they think it provides good publicity. The aim of all this is to help the company/org. It's not the same as employees bringing up their social or political views while at work.
- md_ 6y ago
  Companies do not merely advertise or lobby for specific regulations that affect their industry: they spend money to elect specific politicians who take positions on laws that affect that company's employees, in and out of the workplace.
  - howlgarnish 6y ago
    No, companies spend money to elect politicians who will favor them, and the fact that those politicians have to have positions on social issues as well is (for companies) an unavoidable negative. Hobby Lobby type companies with an active social agenda are a tiny minority.
    - md_ 6y ago
      Yes, I think we're saying the same thing. :)
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Ah, so these companies lobby for policies that have no impact on any social issues, like taxes and immigration? They have no effect on my life?
      - username90 6y ago
        Lobbying about taxes and immigration is working as intended since it is just telling politicians what policies would benefit said company. It is important for politicians to know about it when they make policies so they can better consider pro's and con's. However lobbying for for laws such as for/against gay marriage or religious rights is unrelated to their business. Then the company is used to exert some individuals political influence instead of just being a business. Of course politicians are sometimes corrupt and get favors from the companies and then go to do whatever the companies lobbyist tells them to, that is what people usually mean when they mention "lobbying". But lobbying itself isn't inherently a malicious or political act, in its purest form it just conveys information so politicians can make better decisions.
        md_ 6y ago
        Lobbying isn’t an inherently political act?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- ivanbakel 6y ago
  That attitude reifies the company - the company itself is nothing more than the collection of people who work together to drive it. Political stances, even for business purposes, come from the individuals who make up the company leadership, not out of some abstract organisation. In that sense, it's terribly unfair to forbid employees to bring up politics at work. After all, their bosses are doing it: and not only that, their bosses are using their employees' productivity to empower those political views.
  - chii 6y ago
    > their bosses are using their employees' productivity to empower those political views. that's because the bosses (an owner of the company) is paying for it. Presumably, doing so reduces the amount of money the company can make (since employee time is diverted away to an unproductive, but political action). The employee, however, do not have this right, because if they are doing so not under the instruction of the owner of company, they are taking away their productivity that they've sold to the company (for their wage/salary).
  - hackerfromthefu 6y ago
    Proportion is important - bringing politics up occasionally (rarely), peacefully, and in proportion to other topics .. is very different to crusading about it, bullying about it, being emotional and irrational and losing sight of others' perspectives. Those strongly emotional actions are a whole different thing and it's dishonest to use mild language to describe those behaviours as 'bringing it up' and more accurate to call it something such a 'arguing about politics instead of working'. Viewed in that light is it unfair to forbid employees to regularly argue about politics instead of working?
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  This is the textbook definition of "have it both ways" and "hypocrisy"
- bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
  It's not just a matter of publicity — the non-profit / NGO sector is a vector for oligarchical / corporate political influence. Corporate lobbying is a problem. People who can't seem to fathom that political litmus tests among employees are an intensification of that problem are useful idiots for power they claim to object to.
meheleventyone 6y ago
Whilst this is true it's clear that plenty of individuals let alone companies go through life only caring about and acting on issues that directly impact them regardless of the larger scope of impact.
Guthur 6y ago
We do not live in a free market capitalist system, which is blatantly obvious from things like government bailouts of big banks during GFC and huge encroachment of government within areas such as healthcare. And so for better or worse we're actually in some socialist capitalist system. Blaming capitalism for problems that are often rooted in bad government is often just wrong.
Closi 6y ago
As someone who works for a mostly apolitical organization - it depends on the issue. For example, the company refuses to take a stance on: - Brexit (even though it will negatively impact them) - Elections or any vote (even though again, this impacts them) But for example actively campaigns on: - Agricultural issues (It's in the food industry) The company VERY strongly supports LGBT rights and minority rights, and will raise money for charities, but typically this does not transfer into support of individual political policies or parties. The view is effectively that the company has lots of customers, and we shouldn't alienate them if they have opposing views, and that taking a strong political stance outside our industry can look like we are not respecting opposing viewpoints that our customers or competitors may have.
- danpalmer 6y ago
  What's the difference between strongly supporting LGBT rights and strongly supporting remaining in the EU? Both likely affect the company significantly, both are (unfortunately) political issues, both (unfortunately) alienate people. It seems the only distinction here is that Brexit is a closer call in the UK. Is there another way of looking at it?
  - anoncake 6y ago
    One is a human rights issue, the other is not.
    - iuguy 6y ago
      Brexit is absolutely a human rights issue. The leave campaign specifically talked up withdrawing from EU human rights laws and agreements.
      - Closi 6y ago
        That statement alone will divide customers in the U.K. and the advantages/disadvantages of withdrawing from EU human rights agreements are something that reasonable people disagree on. Generally supporting established lgbt rights with no specific link to policy is different - it’s overwhelmingly supported and not even generally classed as a political view anymore (along with “is evil bad?”).
PavleMiha 6y ago
> He seems to believe that you can separate “political decisions that benefit Coinbase” and “political decisions that are irrelevant to Coinbase”, but you can’t. They’re all interconnected. It’s naive to pretend otherwise. I agree that it's hard and maybe impossible to make a hard line that separates the two, but wouldn't you agree that some political decisions are way more specific to Coinbase than others? Specifically the CEO sets out a pretty clear distinction: "If there is a bill introduced around crypto, we may engage here"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nilkn 6y ago
I have to say most companies I’ve worked for have subscribed to the policies in Armstrong’s blog post, and it has worked very well. But these companies were mostly outside the Bay Area. I suspect the Bay Area is extremely nondiverse and homogeneous, and folks there aren’t actually used to having to work with and get along with people who strongly disagree with them on politics. In that kind of monoculture, it’s easy to think that politics can and should be part of work life. In a much more diverse workforce, though, it rarely works well. If Coinbase is going to be remote-first, as they recently announced, the company’s employees are certainly going to encounter a level of diversity they haven’t been exposed to in the Bay Area. This could be preparation for that.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  > I suspect the Bay Area is extremely nondiverse and homogeneous, and folks there aren’t actually used to having to work with and get along with people who strongly disagree with them on politics This is extremely ironic given the hiring practices of Bay Area companies.
  - chrischattin 6y ago
    I think he’s referring to diversity of ideas, not superficial attributes like race/gender/sexual preference/etc. A group of people that look different but all have the same world view is not a diverse group, imo.
  - sharpneli 6y ago
    They’re only superficially diverse, perhaps due to the homogeinity of the Bay Area. Basically the companies only look at skin color and what’s between your legs. As long as you have an American middle class/upper class upbringing or at the minimum had your education in certain American universities. So culturally they are pretty much identical. From this point of view a white, black and asian American middleclass teenagers that have had identical education are wildly different and bring diverse viewpoints. Whereas a French, Italian and a Polish person would be non diverse. Even though the latter group has massively different cultural background compared to the first group.
  - 6y ago
Zenbit_UX 6y ago
He addressed the lobbying for crypto related issues in the plog post, something to the affect that we may engage in political lobbying when it relates strongly to our core mission. That seems fair to me, lobbying for crypto and maybe even internet privacy laws wouldn't seem outside the mission to better his company but publicly declaring support for one candidate or another would. Likewise getting involved in a non-crypto centric mission like BLM would be quite far outside its mandate.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
I disagree that we live in a capitalist system, the lobbying you mention in your post clearly points to that. Companies do what works better for them, which means: - Earn money - Retain employees Political discussions will definitely make some employees feel uncomfortable or unwelcome (unless you have an entirely homogeneous company). This is deeply unfortunate and troubling (I blame education and the media for people incapacity to have a discussions without feeling triggered) but it's today polarised reality. Preventing or discouraging polarising discussions on the private properties of the company sounds like a sensible choice. Political moves from the company will definitely have some trade-offs but have less of an impact on employees. This is not zero (I remember some Google or Amazon employees leaving over their company's political choices) but it's far less common.

yyy888sss 6y ago

But they are not the same. Every company and organisation will advocate for itself by advertising, lobbying, legal battles etc. Brands will also adopt a LGBT pride/BLM/etc campaign as soon as they think it provides good publicity. The aim of all this is to help the company/org. It's not the same as employees bringing up their social or political views while at work.

md_ 6y ago
Companies do not merely advertise or lobby for specific regulations that affect their industry: they spend money to elect specific politicians who take positions on laws that affect that company's employees, in and out of the workplace.
- howlgarnish 6y ago
  No, companies spend money to elect politicians who will favor them, and the fact that those politicians have to have positions on social issues as well is (for companies) an unavoidable negative. Hobby Lobby type companies with an active social agenda are a tiny minority.
  - md_ 6y ago
    Yes, I think we're saying the same thing. :)
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Ah, so these companies lobby for policies that have no impact on any social issues, like taxes and immigration? They have no effect on my life?
    - username90 6y ago
      Lobbying about taxes and immigration is working as intended since it is just telling politicians what policies would benefit said company. It is important for politicians to know about it when they make policies so they can better consider pro's and con's. However lobbying for for laws such as for/against gay marriage or religious rights is unrelated to their business. Then the company is used to exert some individuals political influence instead of just being a business. Of course politicians are sometimes corrupt and get favors from the companies and then go to do whatever the companies lobbyist tells them to, that is what people usually mean when they mention "lobbying". But lobbying itself isn't inherently a malicious or political act, in its purest form it just conveys information so politicians can make better decisions.
      - md_ 6y ago
        Lobbying isn’t an inherently political act?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ivanbakel 6y ago
That attitude reifies the company - the company itself is nothing more than the collection of people who work together to drive it. Political stances, even for business purposes, come from the individuals who make up the company leadership, not out of some abstract organisation. In that sense, it's terribly unfair to forbid employees to bring up politics at work. After all, their bosses are doing it: and not only that, their bosses are using their employees' productivity to empower those political views.
- chii 6y ago
  > their bosses are using their employees' productivity to empower those political views. that's because the bosses (an owner of the company) is paying for it. Presumably, doing so reduces the amount of money the company can make (since employee time is diverted away to an unproductive, but political action). The employee, however, do not have this right, because if they are doing so not under the instruction of the owner of company, they are taking away their productivity that they've sold to the company (for their wage/salary).
- hackerfromthefu 6y ago
  Proportion is important - bringing politics up occasionally (rarely), peacefully, and in proportion to other topics .. is very different to crusading about it, bullying about it, being emotional and irrational and losing sight of others' perspectives. Those strongly emotional actions are a whole different thing and it's dishonest to use mild language to describe those behaviours as 'bringing it up' and more accurate to call it something such a 'arguing about politics instead of working'. Viewed in that light is it unfair to forbid employees to regularly argue about politics instead of working?
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
This is the textbook definition of "have it both ways" and "hypocrisy"
bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
It's not just a matter of publicity — the non-profit / NGO sector is a vector for oligarchical / corporate political influence. Corporate lobbying is a problem. People who can't seem to fathom that political litmus tests among employees are an intensification of that problem are useful idiots for power they claim to object to.

meheleventyone 6y ago

Whilst this is true it's clear that plenty of individuals let alone companies go through life only caring about and acting on issues that directly impact them regardless of the larger scope of impact.

Guthur 6y ago

We do not live in a free market capitalist system, which is blatantly obvious from things like government bailouts of big banks during GFC and huge encroachment of government within areas such as healthcare. And so for better or worse we're actually in some socialist capitalist system. Blaming capitalism for problems that are often rooted in bad government is often just wrong.

Closi 6y ago

As someone who works for a mostly apolitical organization - it depends on the issue. For example, the company refuses to take a stance on: - Brexit (even though it will negatively impact them) - Elections or any vote (even though again, this impacts them) But for example actively campaigns on: - Agricultural issues (It's in the food industry) The company VERY strongly supports LGBT rights and minority rights, and will raise money for charities, but typically this does not transfer into support of individual political policies or parties. The view is effectively that the company has lots of customers, and we shouldn't alienate them if they have opposing views, and that taking a strong political stance outside our industry can look like we are not respecting opposing viewpoints that our customers or competitors may have.

danpalmer 6y ago
What's the difference between strongly supporting LGBT rights and strongly supporting remaining in the EU? Both likely affect the company significantly, both are (unfortunately) political issues, both (unfortunately) alienate people. It seems the only distinction here is that Brexit is a closer call in the UK. Is there another way of looking at it?
- anoncake 6y ago
  One is a human rights issue, the other is not.
  - iuguy 6y ago
    Brexit is absolutely a human rights issue. The leave campaign specifically talked up withdrawing from EU human rights laws and agreements.
    - Closi 6y ago
      That statement alone will divide customers in the U.K. and the advantages/disadvantages of withdrawing from EU human rights agreements are something that reasonable people disagree on. Generally supporting established lgbt rights with no specific link to policy is different - it’s overwhelmingly supported and not even generally classed as a political view anymore (along with “is evil bad?”).

PavleMiha 6y ago

> He seems to believe that you can separate “political decisions that benefit Coinbase” and “political decisions that are irrelevant to Coinbase”, but you can’t. They’re all interconnected. It’s naive to pretend otherwise. I agree that it's hard and maybe impossible to make a hard line that separates the two, but wouldn't you agree that some political decisions are way more specific to Coinbase than others? Specifically the CEO sets out a pretty clear distinction: "If there is a bill introduced around crypto, we may engage here"

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nilkn 6y ago

I have to say most companies I’ve worked for have subscribed to the policies in Armstrong’s blog post, and it has worked very well. But these companies were mostly outside the Bay Area. I suspect the Bay Area is extremely nondiverse and homogeneous, and folks there aren’t actually used to having to work with and get along with people who strongly disagree with them on politics. In that kind of monoculture, it’s easy to think that politics can and should be part of work life. In a much more diverse workforce, though, it rarely works well. If Coinbase is going to be remote-first, as they recently announced, the company’s employees are certainly going to encounter a level of diversity they haven’t been exposed to in the Bay Area. This could be preparation for that.

ZephyrBlu 6y ago
> I suspect the Bay Area is extremely nondiverse and homogeneous, and folks there aren’t actually used to having to work with and get along with people who strongly disagree with them on politics This is extremely ironic given the hiring practices of Bay Area companies.
- chrischattin 6y ago
  I think he’s referring to diversity of ideas, not superficial attributes like race/gender/sexual preference/etc. A group of people that look different but all have the same world view is not a diverse group, imo.
- sharpneli 6y ago
  They’re only superficially diverse, perhaps due to the homogeinity of the Bay Area. Basically the companies only look at skin color and what’s between your legs. As long as you have an American middle class/upper class upbringing or at the minimum had your education in certain American universities. So culturally they are pretty much identical. From this point of view a white, black and asian American middleclass teenagers that have had identical education are wildly different and bring diverse viewpoints. Whereas a French, Italian and a Polish person would be non diverse. Even though the latter group has massively different cultural background compared to the first group.
- 6y ago

Zenbit_UX 6y ago

He addressed the lobbying for crypto related issues in the plog post, something to the affect that we may engage in political lobbying when it relates strongly to our core mission. That seems fair to me, lobbying for crypto and maybe even internet privacy laws wouldn't seem outside the mission to better his company but publicly declaring support for one candidate or another would. Likewise getting involved in a non-crypto centric mission like BLM would be quite far outside its mandate.

jokethrowaway 6y ago

I disagree that we live in a capitalist system, the lobbying you mention in your post clearly points to that. Companies do what works better for them, which means: - Earn money - Retain employees Political discussions will definitely make some employees feel uncomfortable or unwelcome (unless you have an entirely homogeneous company). This is deeply unfortunate and troubling (I blame education and the media for people incapacity to have a discussions without feeling triggered) but it's today polarised reality. Preventing or discouraging polarising discussions on the private properties of the company sounds like a sensible choice. Political moves from the company will definitely have some trade-offs but have less of an impact on employees. This is not zero (I remember some Google or Amazon employees leaving over their company's political choices) but it's far less common.