14 ms·

At this point, companies might as well just have an explicit policy of not hiring anyone registered as a Republican. Party affiliation is not a protected class,

At this point, companies might as well just have an explicit policy of not hiring anyone registered as a Republican. Party affiliation is not a protected class, after all.

sneak 6y ago
This feels a bit snarky. There seems to me, looking at all of this US hyperpartisan nonsense as an outsider, to be quite a bit of difference between the frothy Gab/Parler/etc contingent and an average median republican (who I don't really imagine spends a ton of time on niche social media).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cooper12 6y ago
  They're quick to tell on themselves. When Biden condemned white supremacy, a lot of conservative leaders were outraged at the attack against them: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/why-are-conservatives-angry-biden-denounced-white-supremacy.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/why-are-conservative....
  - 1MachineElf 6y ago
    It's because conservatives see rhetoric about "white supremacy" as a weak man argument used against them. They don't believe themselves to be white supremacists. It's kind of like centrist Democrats being annoyed when conservatives call them socialists and communists. To see this as telling on themselves in this context is a bit like McCarthy saying only a communist would deny being a communist.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  She wasn't fired for what she'd posted on those sites, though. She was fired for simply having an account.
gnicholas 6y ago
> Party affiliation is not a protected class, after all. In California, it actually is. https://reason.com/volokh/2020/07/26/laws-protecting-private-employees-speech-and-political-activity-against-employer-retaliation-covering-a-wide-range-of-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2020/07/26/laws-protecting-private...
bentcorner 6y ago
At least in California, you cannot be fired for your political view. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102.&lawCode=LAB https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
- Dirlewanger 6y ago
  Tell that to James Damore.
  - javagram 6y ago
    James Damore’s views (regardless if they are right or wrong) don’t seem to be covered by California laws: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/employers,-politics-and-free-speech-in-california.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/... > California Labor Code section 1101 prohibits employers from implementing any rule, regulation, or policy "forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office" or "controlling or directing or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees." > > California Labor Code section 1102 provides "[n]o employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity." To this end, employers cannot enact policies limiting employees' political activities or affiliations or in essence force employees to follow the employer's political leanings.
  - kofejnik 6y ago
    ... or Brendan Eich
ultrablack 6y ago
Neither was race not so long ago.
mhh__ 6y ago
What percentage of Republicans are the stereotype Parler user? If you were a rabid QAnon nut, why should I hire you? Saying republican is this context is just driving the wedge in too far.
- Proziam 6y ago
  The better question is what percentage of Parler users fit the stereotype? Based on what I've seen and people I know who were active on Gab and Parler I would venture to say it's not nearly as high as people think. The amount of people with truly fringe beliefs is pretty small, even when concentrated.
  - dmix 6y ago
    > The amount of people with truly fringe beliefs is pretty small, even when concentrated. And I'd personally much rather have this small group of people outletting their anger onto the internet instead of IRL. Pushing them further and further into a corner with ever expanding censorship and expecting them to become good tolerant citizens has always seemed like a fools game to me.
    - sofixa 6y ago
      > And I'd personally much rather have this small group of people outletting their anger onto the internet instead of IRL IRL they're limited physically to whoever they can reach; online they can make their hate travel the world ( point in case, there were QAnon related actions in Germany! If the Q people had been purely IRL that would have never happened)
    - Jare 6y ago
      That was the right frame of thinking before "onto the internet" came to mean "with the capability to reach, engage and influence millions of normal people". Also, receiving thousands of threats and being doxed "onto the internet" has very serious consequences IRL.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      That distinction collapsed a long time ago, before the Internet stormed the Capitol.
andrewacove 6y ago
As pointed out below, there are some states where politics are protected. I looked it up because I do plan to use that information in hiring decisions going forward. I wouldn't surprised if I get downvoted for this, but I intend to ask anyone I interview in the future (not currently in a role that involves hiring) if they voted for Trump in 2020. And a yes will be a disqualifying answer on the basis of poor judgement. (It's also a question I will be asking any potential employer I interview with, going forward, for the same reason.) Yes, I will lose some diversity of thought as a result. Yes it means I can't hire employees in California. Yes, there will be potential bad PR. No, I won't feel guilty about it at all. And yes, I will also run it by appropriate lawyers before actually implementing it.
- ThrustVectoring 6y ago
  For what it's worth, as an engineering candidate being asked that question would disqualify the asking company from consideration. I do not want to work at a company that is so politically active that the question is allowed. I would also tell my point of contact exactly why I was withdrawing my candidacy and who was responsible.
  - andrewacove 6y ago
    That’s totally reasonable. And there are companies that have publicly taken positions that align with this. It wasn’t clear in my comment, but I’m not presenting this from a middle management perspective. I wouldn’t arbitrarily be adding new requirements to some employer’s hiring. This is me speaking about how I’ll act for any company I start next (having been a founder and CEO before).
- esja 6y ago
  Something to ponder given the topic of this thread... your comment says very clearly that you're willing to make decisions which impact a company negatively, provided they benefit you emotionally. That's disqualifying for most positions involving hiring or any other management responsibility, and it's connected to your real identity.

At this point, companies might as well just have an explicit policy of not hiring anyone registered as a Republican. Party affiliation is not a protected class, after all.

sneak 6y ago

This feels a bit snarky. There seems to me, looking at all of this US hyperpartisan nonsense as an outsider, to be quite a bit of difference between the frothy Gab/Parler/etc contingent and an average median republican (who I don't really imagine spends a ton of time on niche social media).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cooper12 6y ago
They're quick to tell on themselves. When Biden condemned white supremacy, a lot of conservative leaders were outraged at the attack against them: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/why-are-conservatives-angry-biden-denounced-white-supremacy.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/why-are-conservative....
- 1MachineElf 6y ago
  It's because conservatives see rhetoric about "white supremacy" as a weak man argument used against them. They don't believe themselves to be white supremacists. It's kind of like centrist Democrats being annoyed when conservatives call them socialists and communists. To see this as telling on themselves in this context is a bit like McCarthy saying only a communist would deny being a communist.
breakfastduck 6y ago
She wasn't fired for what she'd posted on those sites, though. She was fired for simply having an account.

gnicholas 6y ago

> Party affiliation is not a protected class, after all. In California, it actually is. https://reason.com/volokh/2020/07/26/laws-protecting-private-employees-speech-and-political-activity-against-employer-retaliation-covering-a-wide-range-of-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2020/07/26/laws-protecting-private...

bentcorner 6y ago

At least in California, you cannot be fired for your political view. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102.&lawCode=LAB https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

Dirlewanger 6y ago
Tell that to James Damore.
- javagram 6y ago
  James Damore’s views (regardless if they are right or wrong) don’t seem to be covered by California laws: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/employers,-politics-and-free-speech-in-california.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/... > California Labor Code section 1101 prohibits employers from implementing any rule, regulation, or policy "forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office" or "controlling or directing or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees." > > California Labor Code section 1102 provides "[n]o employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity." To this end, employers cannot enact policies limiting employees' political activities or affiliations or in essence force employees to follow the employer's political leanings.
- kofejnik 6y ago
  ... or Brendan Eich

ultrablack 6y ago

Neither was race not so long ago.

mhh__ 6y ago

What percentage of Republicans are the stereotype Parler user? If you were a rabid QAnon nut, why should I hire you? Saying republican is this context is just driving the wedge in too far.

Proziam 6y ago
The better question is what percentage of Parler users fit the stereotype? Based on what I've seen and people I know who were active on Gab and Parler I would venture to say it's not nearly as high as people think. The amount of people with truly fringe beliefs is pretty small, even when concentrated.
- dmix 6y ago
  > The amount of people with truly fringe beliefs is pretty small, even when concentrated. And I'd personally much rather have this small group of people outletting their anger onto the internet instead of IRL. Pushing them further and further into a corner with ever expanding censorship and expecting them to become good tolerant citizens has always seemed like a fools game to me.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    > And I'd personally much rather have this small group of people outletting their anger onto the internet instead of IRL IRL they're limited physically to whoever they can reach; online they can make their hate travel the world ( point in case, there were QAnon related actions in Germany! If the Q people had been purely IRL that would have never happened)
  - Jare 6y ago
    That was the right frame of thinking before "onto the internet" came to mean "with the capability to reach, engage and influence millions of normal people". Also, receiving thousands of threats and being doxed "onto the internet" has very serious consequences IRL.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    That distinction collapsed a long time ago, before the Internet stormed the Capitol.

andrewacove 6y ago

As pointed out below, there are some states where politics are protected. I looked it up because I do plan to use that information in hiring decisions going forward. I wouldn't surprised if I get downvoted for this, but I intend to ask anyone I interview in the future (not currently in a role that involves hiring) if they voted for Trump in 2020. And a yes will be a disqualifying answer on the basis of poor judgement. (It's also a question I will be asking any potential employer I interview with, going forward, for the same reason.) Yes, I will lose some diversity of thought as a result. Yes it means I can't hire employees in California. Yes, there will be potential bad PR. No, I won't feel guilty about it at all. And yes, I will also run it by appropriate lawyers before actually implementing it.

ThrustVectoring 6y ago
For what it's worth, as an engineering candidate being asked that question would disqualify the asking company from consideration. I do not want to work at a company that is so politically active that the question is allowed. I would also tell my point of contact exactly why I was withdrawing my candidacy and who was responsible.
- andrewacove 6y ago
  That’s totally reasonable. And there are companies that have publicly taken positions that align with this. It wasn’t clear in my comment, but I’m not presenting this from a middle management perspective. I wouldn’t arbitrarily be adding new requirements to some employer’s hiring. This is me speaking about how I’ll act for any company I start next (having been a founder and CEO before).
esja 6y ago
Something to ponder given the topic of this thread... your comment says very clearly that you're willing to make decisions which impact a company negatively, provided they benefit you emotionally. That's disqualifying for most positions involving hiring or any other management responsibility, and it's connected to your real identity.