4 ms·

> "Apolitical" is ... another way of saying, "The way things are is fine". I disagree strongly & think you're dead wrong here. Apolitical in the workplace is s

> "Apolitical" is ... another way of saying, "The way things are is fine". I disagree strongly & think you're dead wrong here. Apolitical in the workplace is saying "we come to work to align on & collaborate in working towards shared goals and those goals are what we should be focused on at work. People who share this goal (coinbase, make money, promote crypto whatever) may vote R, D, or not vote at all. We can all still work together on our shared goal." It means people with different views can work together on stuff they do agree on rather than "I can't work with anyone who doesn't vote the same as me" which is what social-justice-in-the-workplace seems to lead to, for better or worse. It is NOT an endorsement of the status quo, it's a recognition that you and I might both oppose the status quo for completely different reasons that have nothing to do with work.

thundergolfer 6y ago
The work you do together is political. It of course isn’t necessarily directly engaged with USA national politics, but it’s directly engaged in politics. Politics is a very broad and encompassing concept. It isn’t synonymous with some nation’s representative political system.
- gpm 6y ago
  Right, so we can say "we both think that better backup software primarily targeting the enterprise and government market is good for society" (and as you say that is a statement with political ramifications) and still disagree on just about everything else. For instance we don't have to agree on whether or not abortion should be legal, the president should be impeached, taxes should be raised on rich people, or how gun control should be implemented (if at all).
  - thundergolfer 6y ago
    Yes, you can do that. That's how things work in a pluralistic society. The only point being made though is that that "we" it not acting 'outside of politics' or 'avoiding politics' or being apolitical. When I go to work I focus on things to the exclusion of other things. That's fine, but we shouldn't think that on entering the office of my employer corporation I am somehow exiting the political realm. That would be engaging in a blindness to the politics of my employer's business practices, and the politics of my office workplace.
    - totony 6y ago
      Wouldn't your compensation imply that the employer is paying you for your time and expertise so that you further their business? If you disagree with what they're trying to do and management disagrees, then shouldn't you just quit? I'm not sure what politicization of the workplace is intended to lead to. At some point people have to put their differences aside to work on a shared goal. If you disagree with the shared goal then why join in the first place?
      - thundergolfer 6y ago
        > I'm not sure what politicization of the workplace is intended to lead to. Statements like this make me think we're not on the same page here. The workplace is always political. It can not be politicized in the sense of changing from apolitical to political. "Politicized" has to mean then that political conflict has escalated or the political dimension of the workplace has become more visible. In this sense what politicization of the workplace is intended to lead to is political change, that is, a change associated with the decision making in groups, or change in other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. > If you disagree with the shared goal then why join in the first place? Political conflict in the workplace is in the vast majority of cases not like this. When thinking "politics in the workplace", the typical issues are around worker safety, worker compensation and benefits, the status of lgbt employees, or sexism. A little while ago Github employees protested the involvement of their company with the ICE department of the USA government. In that case, could you simply say to the protesting employees, "Well, you must just disagree with the shared goal of the company and so you should quit". I think it's obvious that would be a ridiculous response given the complaints of the employees.
        totony 6y ago
        I mixed up two types of politics in the workplace in my other comment. What I generally understand as "politicization of the workplace" is more around employees talking about issues they care about unrelated to what the company is doing and creating an hostile environment for dissenting views to theirs. If you think an issue unrelated to what you're doing is more important than having a good working environment to work on that shared project, then I still think you should just quit since you're not fulfilling your obligations as an employee. As for the other kind: >A little while ago Github employees protested the involvement of their company with the ICE department of the USA government. In that case, could you simply say to the protesting employees, "Well, you must just disagree with the shared goal of the company and so you should quit". I believe you should tell them exactly that if they voiced their concern to management but they still decided to go forward with the deal. What else are you going to do? Sow a negative/divisive work environment because your political views are more important than the product everyone is working on? Politics are quite diverse, if every employee were to bring in negativity over every deal they disagree on, you wouldn't have collaboration and your product would not exist.

thundergolfer 6y ago

The work you do together is political. It of course isn’t necessarily directly engaged with USA national politics, but it’s directly engaged in politics. Politics is a very broad and encompassing concept. It isn’t synonymous with some nation’s representative political system.

gpm 6y ago
Right, so we can say "we both think that better backup software primarily targeting the enterprise and government market is good for society" (and as you say that is a statement with political ramifications) and still disagree on just about everything else. For instance we don't have to agree on whether or not abortion should be legal, the president should be impeached, taxes should be raised on rich people, or how gun control should be implemented (if at all).
- thundergolfer 6y ago
  Yes, you can do that. That's how things work in a pluralistic society. The only point being made though is that that "we" it not acting 'outside of politics' or 'avoiding politics' or being apolitical. When I go to work I focus on things to the exclusion of other things. That's fine, but we shouldn't think that on entering the office of my employer corporation I am somehow exiting the political realm. That would be engaging in a blindness to the politics of my employer's business practices, and the politics of my office workplace.
  - totony 6y ago
    Wouldn't your compensation imply that the employer is paying you for your time and expertise so that you further their business? If you disagree with what they're trying to do and management disagrees, then shouldn't you just quit? I'm not sure what politicization of the workplace is intended to lead to. At some point people have to put their differences aside to work on a shared goal. If you disagree with the shared goal then why join in the first place?
    - thundergolfer 6y ago
      > I'm not sure what politicization of the workplace is intended to lead to. Statements like this make me think we're not on the same page here. The workplace is always political. It can not be politicized in the sense of changing from apolitical to political. "Politicized" has to mean then that political conflict has escalated or the political dimension of the workplace has become more visible. In this sense what politicization of the workplace is intended to lead to is political change, that is, a change associated with the decision making in groups, or change in other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. > If you disagree with the shared goal then why join in the first place? Political conflict in the workplace is in the vast majority of cases not like this. When thinking "politics in the workplace", the typical issues are around worker safety, worker compensation and benefits, the status of lgbt employees, or sexism. A little while ago Github employees protested the involvement of their company with the ICE department of the USA government. In that case, could you simply say to the protesting employees, "Well, you must just disagree with the shared goal of the company and so you should quit". I think it's obvious that would be a ridiculous response given the complaints of the employees.
      - totony 6y ago
        I mixed up two types of politics in the workplace in my other comment. What I generally understand as "politicization of the workplace" is more around employees talking about issues they care about unrelated to what the company is doing and creating an hostile environment for dissenting views to theirs. If you think an issue unrelated to what you're doing is more important than having a good working environment to work on that shared project, then I still think you should just quit since you're not fulfilling your obligations as an employee. As for the other kind: >A little while ago Github employees protested the involvement of their company with the ICE department of the USA government. In that case, could you simply say to the protesting employees, "Well, you must just disagree with the shared goal of the company and so you should quit". I believe you should tell them exactly that if they voiced their concern to management but they still decided to go forward with the deal. What else are you going to do? Sow a negative/divisive work environment because your political views are more important than the product everyone is working on? Politics are quite diverse, if every employee were to bring in negativity over every deal they disagree on, you wouldn't have collaboration and your product would not exist.