7 ms·

Think we'll see a lot more companies coming out with statements like this. Who wants their work slack to look like the worst parts of Twitter and Facebook? Wit

by agd 5y ago

Think we'll see a lot more companies coming out with statements like this. Who wants their work slack to look like the worst parts of Twitter and Facebook? With employees cancelling each other and demanding they recognise various political points? Not me. You can tell there have been a lot of difficult discussions with various employees behind the scenes. It's all a distraction. Work should be about work.

amrangaye 5y ago
I don’t want to make any assumptions about who you are, and this is not an attack on you, but “no politics” isn’t a neutral position - it’s a position to take when you’re OK with the status quo and want people to shut up and just go along, because you’re largely not affected by the things that they are. I speak from experience - in my country our autocratic ex president also had a “no political discussions except the ones I sanction / that benefit me”, and enforced it with brute force, torture, imprisonments, even murder. His rationale was that “there’s a lot of work left to move the country forward - so let’s put politics aside and work together”. This was nonsense, of course - HE still got to talk politics when he wanted, and used that fact to extend his rule. Yes the analogy isn’t perfect and it’s country vs company, but it’s the same underlying logic. The people who made these rules are not going to be affected by them in any way, beyond no longer having to see opinions they disagree with on Slack. Yes you’re right no one wants their work slack to turn into the worst parts of fb and Twitter, but that’s not what we’re talking about here is it? We’re talking about employees being able to discuss current events and how they’re being affected by them, in a world where everything - even mask wearing - can be deemed political. This doesn’t have to happen on the main slack channels, but where’s the harm in letting employees still communicate in separate slack channels that are not mandatory to join and that employees can just ignore if they’re not interested? They have every right to introduce any rules they want - it’s their company and I’m not contesting that. But this is not as simple as oh they’re just trying to make the work culture less toxic, good for them.
- throwaway0xc 5y ago
  >but “no politics” isn’t a neutral position Yes it is, it absolutely is. You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be. >It's a position to take when you’re OK with the status quo and want people to shut up and just go along, because you’re largely not affected by the things that they are. This boils down to the "you're with me, or you're against me" mentality. You can want work to be neutral but still not be happy with the way things are. These things are not mutually exclusive. It's like saying "if you don't believe in gun rights, it's because you hate women and want them to be defenseless." Or "if you support Planned Parenthood, you support the genocide of minority babies." Of course those are nonsense stances. On top of that, maybe the "status quo" is better than what you're suggesting. The tens of millions of lives that perished under Communism would be happier with the "status quo" the way it was before... Alive. >I speak from experience - in my country our autocratic ex president also had a “no political discussions except the ones I sanction / that benefit me”, and enforced it with brute force, torture, imprisonments, even murder. This is exactly what leftists are asking for though. The "no politics at work" literally means no left-wing or right-wing politics, just none at all. >This was nonsense, of course - HE still got to talk politics when he wanted, and used that fact to extend his rule. Yes the analogy isn’t perfect and it’s country vs company, but it’s the same underlying logic. Straight out of the Marxist handbook. >But this is not as simple as oh they’re just trying to make the work culture less toxic, good for them. I think they are, because what's considered the "status quo" is up for debate in 2021. Welcome to the post-fact world. Politics, especially wokeism at work, has become exceedingly toxic, and counterproductive.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Yes it is, it absolutely is. No, its not, it avsolutely is not. > You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be. Limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect the status quo. The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.
    - throwaway0xc 5y ago
      >No, its not, it avsolutely is not. Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral. If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality. QED. >Limiting the scope of activism The scope isn't being limited, you have unlimited scope, but just no activism on company time. >always serves to protect the status quo. Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard. >The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral. It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED.
eddof13 5y ago
Coinbase and Basecamp are now certainly on my shortlist of companies that I would consider working for now, hoping for more like this
- eclat 5y ago
  Has coinbase done this too?
Breza 5y ago
I have a dumb question. How common are political chat rooms at companies? When I read books like Billion Dollar Loser, it sounds like lots of tech companies encourage employees to have semi-public discussions via Slack on company time about things completely unrelated to work. I work for a tech company and I can't imagine my employer doing that.
aaronbrethorst 5y ago
With employees cancelling each other Can you explain what this means without using the word "cancel"?
- agd 5y ago
  I'll assume this question was asked sincerely and in good faith. By cancelling in this context I mean trying to ostrasize those they disagree with. Talking negatively about them, excluding them as much as possible from social and professional activities. Ignoring their advice and opinion at work. Being rude or negative when they do have to engage with them etc. In short, acting without the respect and courtesy we would want colleagues to show each other.
  - dmatech 5y ago
    Where I work, that sort of behavior is classified as "workplace bullying", and I think that's accurate. My concern with political discussions being common is that people will be expected to conform to whatever happens to be dominant in that workplace in order to remain on everyone's good side. I don't know if it would be possible to refrain from participating without being called out, because people will think you're hiding something.
  - a4isms 5y ago
    I dearly wish that when people use the phrase “cancel culture,” they mean exactly what you say here. If they did, it would include trying to “cancel” people who sympathize with white nationalism. But it would also mean people who belittle or demean others because of their gender. Or people who belittle, demean, and bully people with less experience. One of PayPal’s founders once bragged that they declined to hire an engineer because they said they liked to “shoot hoops,” and PayPal was not a company where people liked to “shoot hoops.” All of that would be “cancelling” people too, by your definition, and it’s all just as worthy of discussion.
  - lhnz 5y ago
    That's soft cancellation. Hard cancellation is when you get others to gang up on them and go to HR to try to get them fired. Afterwards, you publicise whatever got them fired offline in the hopes that they become 'radioactive' to employers and so that they and their family fall on hard times. I'm a little confused as to why people don't understand what "cancel" means in this context. Isn't it quite a popular topic nowadays? Is it possible that they're claiming ignorance, because they want to argue against the meaningfulness of the term?
sktrdie 5y ago
So? We are humans. We get distracted by a whole bunch of things that happen to us daily because, well, we're emotional creatures. When you are somewhere most of the day you end up being distracted by many other things than "just work". If you cut the politics then something else will keep our primordial animal minds busy. A place where you have to only "be about work" is impossible to achieve. Even sweatshops in Bangladesh have unions and places where they can talk politics. I would say a healthier choice for them would've been to cut out the people that were bullshitting and causing toxic environment. For sure those exist and should be spotted if they cause negativity at work. Funny thing is that doing this top-down, as they are doing, is literally "cancel culture".
- rajin444 5y ago
  > If you cut the politics then something else will keep our primordial animal minds busy. I think it's fairly easy to make the argument that our minds are especially tuned to tribalism. Not only that, but what comes out of discussions focused on political/social tribalism is especially toxic. It's one thing to have a little banter about football teams, it's another when people are convinced their lives are at stake.
  - beckman466 5y ago
    > it's another when people are convinced their lives are at stake. huh? their lives (and livelihoods) sometimes are at stake...
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > If you cut the politics then something else will keep our primordial animal minds busy. Apples and oranges. Politics triggers people at an entirely different level, to the point that many can't let it go. Basecamp's decisions may not make sense if you've only worked with level-headed coworkers who are capable of disagreeing with each other on politics and still maintaining respect for each other. However, once you've seen what happens to offices where people let their angry political debates from Facebook and Twitter spill over into the office, it makes a lot more sense. Company chat shouldn't look like Twitter flamewars or Facebook rants. Some people can debate things and then check their feelings at the door when it's time to get back to work, but many can't.
mempko 5y ago
Yet politics is one of the few places you can impact your workplace. Most companies in the US are authoritarian and it's in politics you can have some say. Democracy at Work is the next stage of work. The "shut up and work" kind of work is a dead end.
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  1. You start a 'democratic' company 2. You make a controversial decision or series of decisions 3. You lose 'voted out' 4. Turns out your controversial decision would've been [firing a few employees/getting acquired/insert unpopular thing here] to keep the company afloat, and everything goes belly up It's the same reason unions only work in the biggest, most established companies. Everything slows to a crawl otherwise.
  - mempko 5y ago
    Seems Mondragon does just fine. > cooperatives tend to last longer and are less susceptible to perverse incentives and other problems of organizational governance than more traditionally managed organizations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

by agd 5y ago

amrangaye 5y ago

I don’t want to make any assumptions about who you are, and this is not an attack on you, but “no politics” isn’t a neutral position - it’s a position to take when you’re OK with the status quo and want people to shut up and just go along, because you’re largely not affected by the things that they are. I speak from experience - in my country our autocratic ex president also had a “no political discussions except the ones I sanction / that benefit me”, and enforced it with brute force, torture, imprisonments, even murder. His rationale was that “there’s a lot of work left to move the country forward - so let’s put politics aside and work together”. This was nonsense, of course - HE still got to talk politics when he wanted, and used that fact to extend his rule. Yes the analogy isn’t perfect and it’s country vs company, but it’s the same underlying logic. The people who made these rules are not going to be affected by them in any way, beyond no longer having to see opinions they disagree with on Slack. Yes you’re right no one wants their work slack to turn into the worst parts of fb and Twitter, but that’s not what we’re talking about here is it? We’re talking about employees being able to discuss current events and how they’re being affected by them, in a world where everything - even mask wearing - can be deemed political. This doesn’t have to happen on the main slack channels, but where’s the harm in letting employees still communicate in separate slack channels that are not mandatory to join and that employees can just ignore if they’re not interested? They have every right to introduce any rules they want - it’s their company and I’m not contesting that. But this is not as simple as oh they’re just trying to make the work culture less toxic, good for them.

throwaway0xc 5y ago
>but “no politics” isn’t a neutral position Yes it is, it absolutely is. You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be. >It's a position to take when you’re OK with the status quo and want people to shut up and just go along, because you’re largely not affected by the things that they are. This boils down to the "you're with me, or you're against me" mentality. You can want work to be neutral but still not be happy with the way things are. These things are not mutually exclusive. It's like saying "if you don't believe in gun rights, it's because you hate women and want them to be defenseless." Or "if you support Planned Parenthood, you support the genocide of minority babies." Of course those are nonsense stances. On top of that, maybe the "status quo" is better than what you're suggesting. The tens of millions of lives that perished under Communism would be happier with the "status quo" the way it was before... Alive. >I speak from experience - in my country our autocratic ex president also had a “no political discussions except the ones I sanction / that benefit me”, and enforced it with brute force, torture, imprisonments, even murder. This is exactly what leftists are asking for though. The "no politics at work" literally means no left-wing or right-wing politics, just none at all. >This was nonsense, of course - HE still got to talk politics when he wanted, and used that fact to extend his rule. Yes the analogy isn’t perfect and it’s country vs company, but it’s the same underlying logic. Straight out of the Marxist handbook. >But this is not as simple as oh they’re just trying to make the work culture less toxic, good for them. I think they are, because what's considered the "status quo" is up for debate in 2021. Welcome to the post-fact world. Politics, especially wokeism at work, has become exceedingly toxic, and counterproductive.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Yes it is, it absolutely is. No, its not, it avsolutely is not. > You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be. Limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect the status quo. The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.
  - throwaway0xc 5y ago
    >No, its not, it avsolutely is not. Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral. If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality. QED. >Limiting the scope of activism The scope isn't being limited, you have unlimited scope, but just no activism on company time. >always serves to protect the status quo. Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard. >The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral. It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED.

eddof13 5y ago

Coinbase and Basecamp are now certainly on my shortlist of companies that I would consider working for now, hoping for more like this

eclat 5y ago
Has coinbase done this too?

Breza 5y ago

I have a dumb question. How common are political chat rooms at companies? When I read books like Billion Dollar Loser, it sounds like lots of tech companies encourage employees to have semi-public discussions via Slack on company time about things completely unrelated to work. I work for a tech company and I can't imagine my employer doing that.

aaronbrethorst 5y ago

With employees cancelling each other Can you explain what this means without using the word "cancel"?

agd 5y ago
I'll assume this question was asked sincerely and in good faith. By cancelling in this context I mean trying to ostrasize those they disagree with. Talking negatively about them, excluding them as much as possible from social and professional activities. Ignoring their advice and opinion at work. Being rude or negative when they do have to engage with them etc. In short, acting without the respect and courtesy we would want colleagues to show each other.
- dmatech 5y ago
  Where I work, that sort of behavior is classified as "workplace bullying", and I think that's accurate. My concern with political discussions being common is that people will be expected to conform to whatever happens to be dominant in that workplace in order to remain on everyone's good side. I don't know if it would be possible to refrain from participating without being called out, because people will think you're hiding something.
- a4isms 5y ago
  I dearly wish that when people use the phrase “cancel culture,” they mean exactly what you say here. If they did, it would include trying to “cancel” people who sympathize with white nationalism. But it would also mean people who belittle or demean others because of their gender. Or people who belittle, demean, and bully people with less experience. One of PayPal’s founders once bragged that they declined to hire an engineer because they said they liked to “shoot hoops,” and PayPal was not a company where people liked to “shoot hoops.” All of that would be “cancelling” people too, by your definition, and it’s all just as worthy of discussion.
- lhnz 5y ago
  That's soft cancellation. Hard cancellation is when you get others to gang up on them and go to HR to try to get them fired. Afterwards, you publicise whatever got them fired offline in the hopes that they become 'radioactive' to employers and so that they and their family fall on hard times. I'm a little confused as to why people don't understand what "cancel" means in this context. Isn't it quite a popular topic nowadays? Is it possible that they're claiming ignorance, because they want to argue against the meaningfulness of the term?

sktrdie 5y ago

So? We are humans. We get distracted by a whole bunch of things that happen to us daily because, well, we're emotional creatures. When you are somewhere most of the day you end up being distracted by many other things than "just work". If you cut the politics then something else will keep our primordial animal minds busy. A place where you have to only "be about work" is impossible to achieve. Even sweatshops in Bangladesh have unions and places where they can talk politics. I would say a healthier choice for them would've been to cut out the people that were bullshitting and causing toxic environment. For sure those exist and should be spotted if they cause negativity at work. Funny thing is that doing this top-down, as they are doing, is literally "cancel culture".

rajin444 5y ago
> If you cut the politics then something else will keep our primordial animal minds busy. I think it's fairly easy to make the argument that our minds are especially tuned to tribalism. Not only that, but what comes out of discussions focused on political/social tribalism is especially toxic. It's one thing to have a little banter about football teams, it's another when people are convinced their lives are at stake.
- beckman466 5y ago
  > it's another when people are convinced their lives are at stake. huh? their lives (and livelihoods) sometimes are at stake...
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> If you cut the politics then something else will keep our primordial animal minds busy. Apples and oranges. Politics triggers people at an entirely different level, to the point that many can't let it go. Basecamp's decisions may not make sense if you've only worked with level-headed coworkers who are capable of disagreeing with each other on politics and still maintaining respect for each other. However, once you've seen what happens to offices where people let their angry political debates from Facebook and Twitter spill over into the office, it makes a lot more sense. Company chat shouldn't look like Twitter flamewars or Facebook rants. Some people can debate things and then check their feelings at the door when it's time to get back to work, but many can't.

mempko 5y ago

Yet politics is one of the few places you can impact your workplace. Most companies in the US are authoritarian and it's in politics you can have some say. Democracy at Work is the next stage of work. The "shut up and work" kind of work is a dead end.

throwaway3699 5y ago
1. You start a 'democratic' company 2. You make a controversial decision or series of decisions 3. You lose 'voted out' 4. Turns out your controversial decision would've been [firing a few employees/getting acquired/insert unpopular thing here] to keep the company afloat, and everything goes belly up It's the same reason unions only work in the biggest, most established companies. Everything slows to a crawl otherwise.
- mempko 5y ago
  Seems Mondragon does just fine. > cooperatives tend to last longer and are less susceptible to perverse incentives and other problems of organizational governance than more traditionally managed organizations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation