4 ms·

> Workplaces are a neutral environment. You want activism, do it outside of work. Equal pay regardless of gender is a political question. In the name of "leav

by jlebar 6y ago

> Workplaces are a neutral environment. You want activism, do it outside of work. Equal pay regardless of gender is a political question. In the name of "leaving politics out of work", should we disallow women and nonbinary folks from advocating at work for equal pay? Equal opportunity for people of color is a political question. In the name of "leaving politics out of work", should we disallow people of color from advocating at work for equal opportunity? Accommodation for disability is a political question. Paid time off for pregnancy is a political question. What rights we grant to older employees is a political question. Whether LGBTQ folks can be fired for being out is a political question. The system as I've seen it works pretty great for youngish cishet white men like me. From my perspective, things at my workplace seem quite "neutral". But when I get to know people who are at all different, I find that the workplace is not at all neutral towards them.

MinusGix 6y ago
I would consider those political questions to be directly related to the current workspace, and so allowed to talk about. Most of the time what people refer to is activism (our company should support X, because I think X is the correct political action) when talking about neutral environments, at least from what anecdotal observations of the many times this argument has come up on HN. As well, I wouldn't consider long arguments during work about opinions on {current political topic} to be relevant or even useful. (If you really desire such, then outside work time is prevalent, though you have to be careful of pressuring coworkers into such activities if they don't want to discuss politics at all with work).
- jlebar 6y ago
  OK, and where should we draw the line? If LGBTQ benefits are an acceptable topic, is it acceptable to talk about same-sex marriage? Is it acceptable to advocate for pro-LGBTQ policies more broadly? If not, why not? It's all part of the same thing, no? If H-1B visas are an acceptable topic, is it acceptable to advocate that our company should support the removal of a politician who is anti-immigrant? Again, it's all part of the same thing, no? When I start thinking about it, a lot of these workplace issues are connected to broader issues...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ballenf 6y ago
    I try to frame those issues as "Is this within the bounds of the value I agreed to provide in return for this pay?" If "no", but my moral code demands I speak, then I'm out. Sorting out expectations directly with supervisors or HR also seems advisable where unclear. Valuable employees leaving due to company misses on important social issues is itself a very powerful form of advocacy.
unishark 6y ago
People in the minority when it comes to political views would be better off in a workplace that isn't allowed to discuss politics. Especially if they're getting triggered and trying to shame people, or openly protesting company decisions.
- jlebar 6y ago
  So for example, you're saying that in workplaces where women are in the minority, they are better off in a place where they're not allowed to advocate for their own rights (inside and outside the workplace)? Wouldn't they be better off in a workplace where they could, you know, ask for the things that they think would make them better off?
  - frenchy 6y ago
    unishark's comment was about people with minority viewpoints, not people who are part of a visible minority. For example, a woman might be the only female in a programming team, and therefore a visible minority, but her views on what gender equality means might be shared by most of the rest of the team, meaning tha she does not have a minority viewpoint.
    - jlebar 6y ago
      So you're saying, (WLOG) women who happen to disagree with the prevailing (male) viewpoint are better off in offices which disallow discussion of politics. Because by telling everyone that they can't talk about political issues relevant to women, they don't have to shoulder the burden of the majority disagreeing with them? But...by assumption, the majority disagrees with them? I don't get it. I mean, just hypothetically, suppose some group was discriminated against at work. Women, Black folks, LGBTQ folks, folks with disabilities, whatever. This discrimination is "political", in that Serious Politicians disagree about whether it's right. I hope you don't think this is a stretch. You're saying that in a world where they couldn't advocate for themselves by talking about the issues they face, they'd be better off? If this is about what's best for them, why not let them choose? Do we have to be the gatekeepers of what's good for them or not?
drevil-v2 6y ago
I am a hiring manager who has stood up many teams in my professional career and have performed that role across multiple companies in different industries and vastly varying market caps and I have never seen a pay gap purely based on gender. I have been exposed to hysterical propaganda about the mythical pay gap but never seen in real life and speaking about it with my peer managers neither have they. This emperor has no clothes.
- jlebar 6y ago
  OK, that's your view on the gender pay gap. I disagree, but set that aside for a moment. We were talking about whether it's appropriate to discuss one's opinion on the pay gap -- among other things -- at work, despite its being political. Seems like you're saying it is appropriate? Like, if a woman who reported to you came to you asking for more money to reach parity with a male colleague, I guess you'd say, "I am a hiring manager etc etc and the emperor has no clothes, here's why you make less"? If you think that's OK, then we're in agreement on this point that this is an acceptable topic for work. As someone who has managed people myself, I think it would be highly relevant to my business function to know where my fellow managers stand on this issue.
  - ballenf 6y ago
    FWIW, if I thought any protected class (or even non-protected) was the basis for a lower-than-deserved pay, I would take that to HR and/or file a whistleblower report. You're talking about illegal activity. Casually surveying people's opinions on breaking the law and potentially leaving an incriminating paper trail that could harm the company seems similar the antitrust topic in the article. I'd say discussions of any illegal activity on the company's behalf should be directed toward HR / legal.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  Sorry I don't believe you I have seen that data from some Large UK tech companies and the sex discrimination was very obvious, as well as race, and disability.
macspoofing 6y ago
You're straw manning my position. You can advocate for your rights as provided by existing legal and regulatory policies. If an individual feels they have been harassed or discriminated against, that individual has a right to engage their company to rectify this situation, through mechanisms like filing a grievance with company HR department, or their union (if part of one), or through the legal system. What I'm against is creating a corporate culture that openly biases for or against certain political parties, religious or secular beliefs, or contentious policy or culture issues (like abortion). Keep those things out of the workplace, because those topics elicit emotional responses, and you want to maintain a neutral professional environment. >The system as I've seen it works pretty great for youngish cishet white men like me. I'm glad you had a comfortable life. Don't throw your personal experience on the rest of us. You being 'youngish cishet white man" says nothing about the experience of others with those same immutable characteristics.

by jlebar 6y ago

MinusGix 6y ago

I would consider those political questions to be directly related to the current workspace, and so allowed to talk about. Most of the time what people refer to is activism (our company should support X, because I think X is the correct political action) when talking about neutral environments, at least from what anecdotal observations of the many times this argument has come up on HN. As well, I wouldn't consider long arguments during work about opinions on {current political topic} to be relevant or even useful. (If you really desire such, then outside work time is prevalent, though you have to be careful of pressuring coworkers into such activities if they don't want to discuss politics at all with work).

jlebar 6y ago
OK, and where should we draw the line? If LGBTQ benefits are an acceptable topic, is it acceptable to talk about same-sex marriage? Is it acceptable to advocate for pro-LGBTQ policies more broadly? If not, why not? It's all part of the same thing, no? If H-1B visas are an acceptable topic, is it acceptable to advocate that our company should support the removal of a politician who is anti-immigrant? Again, it's all part of the same thing, no? When I start thinking about it, a lot of these workplace issues are connected to broader issues...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ballenf 6y ago
  I try to frame those issues as "Is this within the bounds of the value I agreed to provide in return for this pay?" If "no", but my moral code demands I speak, then I'm out. Sorting out expectations directly with supervisors or HR also seems advisable where unclear. Valuable employees leaving due to company misses on important social issues is itself a very powerful form of advocacy.

unishark 6y ago

People in the minority when it comes to political views would be better off in a workplace that isn't allowed to discuss politics. Especially if they're getting triggered and trying to shame people, or openly protesting company decisions.

jlebar 6y ago
So for example, you're saying that in workplaces where women are in the minority, they are better off in a place where they're not allowed to advocate for their own rights (inside and outside the workplace)? Wouldn't they be better off in a workplace where they could, you know, ask for the things that they think would make them better off?
- frenchy 6y ago
  unishark's comment was about people with minority viewpoints, not people who are part of a visible minority. For example, a woman might be the only female in a programming team, and therefore a visible minority, but her views on what gender equality means might be shared by most of the rest of the team, meaning tha she does not have a minority viewpoint.
  - jlebar 6y ago
    So you're saying, (WLOG) women who happen to disagree with the prevailing (male) viewpoint are better off in offices which disallow discussion of politics. Because by telling everyone that they can't talk about political issues relevant to women, they don't have to shoulder the burden of the majority disagreeing with them? But...by assumption, the majority disagrees with them? I don't get it. I mean, just hypothetically, suppose some group was discriminated against at work. Women, Black folks, LGBTQ folks, folks with disabilities, whatever. This discrimination is "political", in that Serious Politicians disagree about whether it's right. I hope you don't think this is a stretch. You're saying that in a world where they couldn't advocate for themselves by talking about the issues they face, they'd be better off? If this is about what's best for them, why not let them choose? Do we have to be the gatekeepers of what's good for them or not?

drevil-v2 6y ago

I am a hiring manager who has stood up many teams in my professional career and have performed that role across multiple companies in different industries and vastly varying market caps and I have never seen a pay gap purely based on gender. I have been exposed to hysterical propaganda about the mythical pay gap but never seen in real life and speaking about it with my peer managers neither have they. This emperor has no clothes.

jlebar 6y ago
OK, that's your view on the gender pay gap. I disagree, but set that aside for a moment. We were talking about whether it's appropriate to discuss one's opinion on the pay gap -- among other things -- at work, despite its being political. Seems like you're saying it is appropriate? Like, if a woman who reported to you came to you asking for more money to reach parity with a male colleague, I guess you'd say, "I am a hiring manager etc etc and the emperor has no clothes, here's why you make less"? If you think that's OK, then we're in agreement on this point that this is an acceptable topic for work. As someone who has managed people myself, I think it would be highly relevant to my business function to know where my fellow managers stand on this issue.
- ballenf 6y ago
  FWIW, if I thought any protected class (or even non-protected) was the basis for a lower-than-deserved pay, I would take that to HR and/or file a whistleblower report. You're talking about illegal activity. Casually surveying people's opinions on breaking the law and potentially leaving an incriminating paper trail that could harm the company seems similar the antitrust topic in the article. I'd say discussions of any illegal activity on the company's behalf should be directed toward HR / legal.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
C1sc0cat 6y ago
Sorry I don't believe you I have seen that data from some Large UK tech companies and the sex discrimination was very obvious, as well as race, and disability.

macspoofing 6y ago

You're straw manning my position. You can advocate for your rights as provided by existing legal and regulatory policies. If an individual feels they have been harassed or discriminated against, that individual has a right to engage their company to rectify this situation, through mechanisms like filing a grievance with company HR department, or their union (if part of one), or through the legal system. What I'm against is creating a corporate culture that openly biases for or against certain political parties, religious or secular beliefs, or contentious policy or culture issues (like abortion). Keep those things out of the workplace, because those topics elicit emotional responses, and you want to maintain a neutral professional environment. >The system as I've seen it works pretty great for youngish cishet white men like me. I'm glad you had a comfortable life. Don't throw your personal experience on the rest of us. You being 'youngish cishet white man" says nothing about the experience of others with those same immutable characteristics.