4 ms·
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
by 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 agoOK, 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 agoI 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.