6 ms·

> Workplaces are a neutral environment Oh, that’s good to know. So the workplaces are going to stop contributing to political parties and lobbyists, then? I

by mewse 6y ago

> Workplaces are a neutral environment Oh, that’s good to know. So the workplaces are going to stop contributing to political parties and lobbyists, then? I can expect that any day now? That’s good to know, thanks! Or did you perhaps mean that it’s only the workers that ought to be “neutral” and silent in their politics? Yes, that seems more likely to be what you meant.

colechristensen 6y ago
Less relevant now so much WFH is going around, but I just don't want to be a captive audience to my most politically enthusiastic coworkers. I wouldn't want my employees to have to suffer each other or to have to consider political compatibility on teams. There would be reasons to have political opinions when those were relevant to the work being done or the company's actions, but it's not to much to ask people to keep their irrelevant-to-work politics out of the workplace.
mancerayder 6y ago
Workers have to work with other workers. If workers have to deal with overhearing other workers preaching about Trump or against Trump, against or for one race or another, maybe a gender argument, maybe whether God exists or abortion is naughty - that's a shit environment. We get paid to code or sell or manage, not to hear opinions being spewed across the room. So it is different, despite your snarky comment. A company lobbying doesn't affect your 40, 50 hr work week.
- vore 6y ago
  If my coworkers were harboring opinions being against certain races (i.e. racism) that they simply didn't say out loud, I would certainly feel deeply uncomfortable being in their presence, and that absolutely affects my work week. Telling people to just not talk about it doesn't really make that any better: in fact, it probably makes it worse.
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    Just for clarification of your point: In the scenario you describe, how would you be aware of their racism if they didn't discuss it at work?
    - vore 6y ago
      I wouldn't, and that would be much more insidious if I was some race they weren't particularly fond of.
    - webmaven 6y ago
      > In the scenario you describe, how would you be aware of their racism if they didn't discuss it at work? Well, I suppose if there were no minority employees in that workplace, it would be kind of hard to tell, but otherwise, it often isn't that hard. And if you are in the minority, you almost certainly can tell since, in a thousand tiny subtle ways, you're constantly being told you don't belong.
      - webmaven 6y ago
        Perhaps the minor amount of snark here was uncalled for, but I don't think the downvoting was appropriate. Anyone who thinks racism is only apparent when it is being spoken is plain wrong.
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    If they didn't say it out loud how would you even know, and what does it mean to harbor feelings? You read their diary? Saw it in their eyes? Used your intuition? Aren't you worried you could be wrong if that's the standard, or someone could use that standard against you and be wrong?
- harry8 6y ago
  "Yeah the game was terriffic, huh? Racism, sure, I'm against it." We're banning that from the workplace now? Land of the free!
tossmeout 6y ago
No, workers are supposed to be silent about it AT WORK. They can donate to whichever party they want outside of work. And, presumably, if the company is making political contributions to help it accomplish its goals, I'd imagine workers could discuss that and make suggestions inside work. But when you're just discussing your personal politics, you can do it elsewhere.
- hyperdimension 6y ago
  Not, uh, Brendan Eich, though I suppose...
  - ryanobjc 6y ago
    I was on the fence about the backlash, but ultimately what sealed the deal for me is his response to the situation. As presumed-CEO and leader, he needs to have the confidence of his organization, and also the ability to address controversial difficult topics. He failed on that. He finally did the right thing by stepping down. He would have always carried the weight of the mismanagement of the response to the employee-criticism, and that is what killed him ultimately. A CEO position isn't a reward, it's a service position, and I believe that no one is entitled to it. (Ditto many forms of leadership) So to complain about how unfair it was to him, perhaps we should think about how unfair it was to the employees of the organization who had to deal with situation instead.
    - dkdk8283 6y ago
      Are you sure he stepped down and wasn’t asked to leave due to the immense press coverage?
      - ryanobjc 6y ago
        Only a world where the feelings of the CEO are the most important thing in the entire company does this difference really matter. As CEO your job is (a) leadership and (b) communications. He failed at both, badly. Perhaps he should have reached out to internal resources more (HR, PR, crisis PR, etc), but these are things I expect a CEO to figure out. I'm not teaching a new hire coder what a computer is. Nor am I teaching a CEO about PR and communications!
themacguffinman 6y ago
> Or did you perhaps mean that it’s only the workers that ought to be “neutral” and silent in their politics? Yes, that seems more likely to be what you meant. No, because workers are free to be non-neutral outside the workplace. Workplaces don't contribute to political parties, an environment isn't a donor. And that's the point: the workplace environment should be neutral.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > Workplaces don't contribute to political parties, an environment isn't a donor. And that's the point: the workplace environment should be neutral. Do you think the workplace environment of Uber is neutral on prop 22?
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    Yes. Support for prop 22 is a business decision that doesn't require the hearts and souls of every worker in Uber. I'd be surprised if Uber engineers, PMs, designers, etc - basically everyone other than public-facing leadership and the few involved in crafting Uber's public policy - were required to actively express support for prop 22 in the workplace or anywhere else. The average Uber worker should be perfectly able to go about their workday without diving into a political debate about prop 22.
shadowgovt 6y ago
Basically this. I don't know where the idea has crept in to people's minds that work places are a politically neutral environment, but that's not a principle that holds true in general. Union shops can require their employees who are union members to phone bank for politicians the union favors. Work is highly political and I don't think anybody has ever pretended otherwise. I mean, hell, political campaigns themselves are workplaces too. ;)

by mewse 6y ago

colechristensen 6y ago

Less relevant now so much WFH is going around, but I just don't want to be a captive audience to my most politically enthusiastic coworkers. I wouldn't want my employees to have to suffer each other or to have to consider political compatibility on teams. There would be reasons to have political opinions when those were relevant to the work being done or the company's actions, but it's not to much to ask people to keep their irrelevant-to-work politics out of the workplace.

mancerayder 6y ago

Workers have to work with other workers. If workers have to deal with overhearing other workers preaching about Trump or against Trump, against or for one race or another, maybe a gender argument, maybe whether God exists or abortion is naughty - that's a shit environment. We get paid to code or sell or manage, not to hear opinions being spewed across the room. So it is different, despite your snarky comment. A company lobbying doesn't affect your 40, 50 hr work week.

vore 6y ago
If my coworkers were harboring opinions being against certain races (i.e. racism) that they simply didn't say out loud, I would certainly feel deeply uncomfortable being in their presence, and that absolutely affects my work week. Telling people to just not talk about it doesn't really make that any better: in fact, it probably makes it worse.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  Just for clarification of your point: In the scenario you describe, how would you be aware of their racism if they didn't discuss it at work?
  - vore 6y ago
    I wouldn't, and that would be much more insidious if I was some race they weren't particularly fond of.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > In the scenario you describe, how would you be aware of their racism if they didn't discuss it at work? Well, I suppose if there were no minority employees in that workplace, it would be kind of hard to tell, but otherwise, it often isn't that hard. And if you are in the minority, you almost certainly can tell since, in a thousand tiny subtle ways, you're constantly being told you don't belong.
    - webmaven 6y ago
      Perhaps the minor amount of snark here was uncalled for, but I don't think the downvoting was appropriate. Anyone who thinks racism is only apparent when it is being spoken is plain wrong.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  If they didn't say it out loud how would you even know, and what does it mean to harbor feelings? You read their diary? Saw it in their eyes? Used your intuition? Aren't you worried you could be wrong if that's the standard, or someone could use that standard against you and be wrong?
harry8 6y ago
"Yeah the game was terriffic, huh? Racism, sure, I'm against it." We're banning that from the workplace now? Land of the free!

tossmeout 6y ago

No, workers are supposed to be silent about it AT WORK. They can donate to whichever party they want outside of work. And, presumably, if the company is making political contributions to help it accomplish its goals, I'd imagine workers could discuss that and make suggestions inside work. But when you're just discussing your personal politics, you can do it elsewhere.

hyperdimension 6y ago
Not, uh, Brendan Eich, though I suppose...
- ryanobjc 6y ago
  I was on the fence about the backlash, but ultimately what sealed the deal for me is his response to the situation. As presumed-CEO and leader, he needs to have the confidence of his organization, and also the ability to address controversial difficult topics. He failed on that. He finally did the right thing by stepping down. He would have always carried the weight of the mismanagement of the response to the employee-criticism, and that is what killed him ultimately. A CEO position isn't a reward, it's a service position, and I believe that no one is entitled to it. (Ditto many forms of leadership) So to complain about how unfair it was to him, perhaps we should think about how unfair it was to the employees of the organization who had to deal with situation instead.
  - dkdk8283 6y ago
    Are you sure he stepped down and wasn’t asked to leave due to the immense press coverage?
    - ryanobjc 6y ago
      Only a world where the feelings of the CEO are the most important thing in the entire company does this difference really matter. As CEO your job is (a) leadership and (b) communications. He failed at both, badly. Perhaps he should have reached out to internal resources more (HR, PR, crisis PR, etc), but these are things I expect a CEO to figure out. I'm not teaching a new hire coder what a computer is. Nor am I teaching a CEO about PR and communications!

themacguffinman 6y ago

> Or did you perhaps mean that it’s only the workers that ought to be “neutral” and silent in their politics? Yes, that seems more likely to be what you meant. No, because workers are free to be non-neutral outside the workplace. Workplaces don't contribute to political parties, an environment isn't a donor. And that's the point: the workplace environment should be neutral.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> Workplaces don't contribute to political parties, an environment isn't a donor. And that's the point: the workplace environment should be neutral. Do you think the workplace environment of Uber is neutral on prop 22?
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Yes. Support for prop 22 is a business decision that doesn't require the hearts and souls of every worker in Uber. I'd be surprised if Uber engineers, PMs, designers, etc - basically everyone other than public-facing leadership and the few involved in crafting Uber's public policy - were required to actively express support for prop 22 in the workplace or anywhere else. The average Uber worker should be perfectly able to go about their workday without diving into a political debate about prop 22.

shadowgovt 6y ago

Basically this. I don't know where the idea has crept in to people's minds that work places are a politically neutral environment, but that's not a principle that holds true in general. Union shops can require their employees who are union members to phone bank for politicians the union favors. Work is highly political and I don't think anybody has ever pretended otherwise. I mean, hell, political campaigns themselves are workplaces too. ;)