7 ms·

Any employer that abruptly told me I needed to watch what I said at work would lose me, too. I'm not saying I demand the ability to be rude and awful, or go on

• toolz 6y ago
  and neither you nor your employer would be in the wrong. There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting no limits w.r.t. political talk in the workplace but people like myself very much prefer a workplace where I don't have to bite my tongue 24/7 simply because my political views aren't popular in the tech industry.
  • ido 6y ago
    prefer a workplace where I don't have to bite my tongue 24/7 simply because my political views aren't popular It's not that cut and dry; There's a difference between disagreeing about what is the optimal rate of taxes on labor and capital, if marijuana should be legalized, how much public money should be spent on infrastructure and so on vs say if trans people deserve acceptance & healthcare, gay people should be able to marry, women allowed to get abortions, or that ethnic and religious minorities shouldn't have to assimilate the values of the majority group. If the discussion is about the person you are talking to getting to enjoy the same basic rights everyone else does (or even just exist) that's not just any political discussion and it affects them very personally and directly. As they say, "your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
    • nailer 6y ago
      > if trans people deserve acceptance & healthcare, gay people should be able to marry, women allowed to get abortions, or that ethnic and religious minorities shouldn't have to assimilate the values of the majority group. You think this. Others don't. Your values are not universal. If you want to advocate for your positions, arguing on a company slack while being paid to do something else isn't the time.
      • ido 6y ago
        The problem is that some people's mere existence is political. If you're trans, gay, black or muslim (for example) someone arguing against who you are is not a theoretical debate. If a coworker was saying or acting in an anti-semitic way (possibly not even consciously), I would absolutely feel unsafe as a Jew in a company that told me "that's just their beliefs, you don't have to agree with their politics". I would call that out on the company slack & if they continue doing so would expect them to get fired.
        • nailer 6y ago
          You’re confusing innate and non innate qualities. Islam isn’t an innate quality. People can and do leave Islam. Whether transgenderism is an innate quality is up for debate. People certainly can and do stop identifying as a different gender from their sex assigned at birth. In the case of your other example of black and Jewish people: it’s already inappropriate to be racist at work.
    • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I'd encourage you to introspect on this. "Ethnic and religious minorities shouldn't have to assimilate the values of the majority group" is a common position, and one I strongly agree with. But you also seem to be saying that, across a pretty wide range of contentious social issues, everyone needs to assimilate your beliefs and you can't work with anyone who hasn't. Do you see the tension here?
      • ido 6y ago
        When it comes to basic rights (sometimes even the right to exist), yes that is what I'm saying. Homophobia, Transphobia and so on are not better than racism & religious discrimination. This is sometimes hard to see for people who are themselves not part of the "contentious" group (and not always due to malevolence, sometimes it's just hard to sympathize with people who aren't like yourself).
        • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
          It's not about "better than". The problem is that your principles directly conflict. How would you respond, for example, to a devout Muslim with religious objections to gay marriage?
          • ido 6y ago
            I would respond to them in exactly the same way I'd respond to a devout Christian who religiously objects to gay marriage. And I would still not think Islamophobia is justified (just like the existence of homophobic Christians doesn't condemn Christianity & Christians as a whole).
            • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
              But what is the way you'd respond? It doesn't sound like you'd fire them. So it seems like your only option is to say "alright, I don't agree with you about this, but that's fine as long as you understand that you can't go around arguing this at work". Which is a reasonable solution, don't get me wrong. But this kind of solution is what people mean when they talk about limiting politics at work, and these kinds of conflicts are why it's a good idea. In order to work with people who don't share your precise values, there have to be ground rules to minimize conflict.
    • disgrunt 6y ago
      It's not that cut and dry; There's a difference between disagreeing about [issues I don't have strong opinions about] and [issues I do have strong opinions about]. Now scramble those weakly / strongly held opinions for every individual...
• cblconfederate 6y ago
  > I spend more time talking to people I work with than any other set of people. Aren't they a remote company?
  • CydeWeys 6y ago
    It's still full-time employment.
    • cblconfederate 6y ago
      i think we need a social movement about "life exists outside work"
      • CydeWeys 6y ago
        Yeah, but it would be nice if life existed at work too. You spend half your waking hours at work. Even if you have a life outside work, that's an awful lot of time to waste doing something that prohibits having a life at work.
        • mrandish 6y ago
          > prohibits having a life at work. From my perspective that seems like an odd way to think of work. You have a life at work but it necessarily has certain constraints since you've sold your time, attention & best efforts to your employer.
          • CydeWeys 5y ago
            Not many people have the luxury of not needing to work though. And from the employee's POV, you'd obviously want there to be as few constraints as possible that make the job boring/unpleasant.
• oezi 6y ago
  Well, but isn't there a big difference between talking on the company slack which is archived for eternity or do it in your private buddy group. I think most companies wouldn't be very fond of large scale political discussions (which might easy hurt and offend) on company media. But since everybody is flex time/remote anyway that doesn't stop you from it anyway on different media.
  • nikisweeting 6y ago
    Why not just have dedicated opt-in channels for political discussions at work? Thats how the Recurse Center does it and it seems to work well. If you don't want to engage, you don't have to, and political discussions outside of those channels are actively redirected by everyone with a nice reminder to keep those chats in the dedicated channel.
    • tdfx 6y ago
      In my experience, those channels are usually dominated by people with the most extreme views who use it as a place to bully anyone with opposing views. I've worked with a few people who I enjoyed immensely but my perception of them as a person suffered after learning how they conduct their political discourse. I'd prefer to keep that negativity outside of my work interactions.
      • nikisweeting 6y ago
        So don't subscribe to the politics channel? That has not been my experience of these channels in general though. I think it depends greatly on the company culture and the people, code of conduct, and tone set by leadership.
        • tdfx 6y ago
          That's actually exactly what I've done in these situations. You can't lose if you don't play.
        • oezi 6y ago
• tdfx 6y ago
  > Any employer that abruptly told me I needed to watch what I said at work would lose me, too. You don't already feel this way? There's a long list of things that would have you packing your desk if you discussed them at any other company. Society has already decided certain extreme positions are too brand damaging or disruptive to tolerate. This policy seems to reflect that a not-insignificant portion of the population has collectively lost their minds over the past year of isolation and now is looking to pick a fight over things that no one would've blinked at 2-3 years ago. It's destroyed friendships, family ties, and I'm sure a lot of team cohesion at many companies. I think requesting that this discussion takes place outside of company channels is a pretty reasonable reaction.
  • _jal 6y ago
    > It's destroyed [...] a lot of team cohesion at many companies. I have trouble imaging how a response to an apparent social cohesion issue that results in 1/3 of the office immediately walking can be considered a good outcome. It sounds more like a corporate schism to me.
    • tdfx 6y ago
      Well, everyone is the good guy in their own story. While the policy seems reasonable to me, I'm sure they have their own internal justification for why their departure is a reasonable reaction. If there was a cascading series of events that led to this policy announcement that turned them off to working at the company, it's not my place to judge them. On the other hand, if they are quitting simply because they can't engage in inflammatory political rhetoric at work then I certainly hope that I never to have work with any of these people in the future.
  • rodgerd 6y ago
    > There's a long list of things that would have you packing your desk if you discussed them at any other company. Yeah, like pulling extracts of customer names to circulate and make fun of them. That mis-use of customer data, and tinged as it is with racial and xenophobic overtones, would have me sacked for misconduct in no time flat.
• kbenson 6y ago
  > Any employer that abruptly told me I needed to watch what I said at work would lose me, too. That's literally 99.99% of employers. > I'm not saying I demand the ability to be rude and awful, or go on political tirades, or anything even vaguely like that. Based on your initial response, it sounds like that's exactly what you're saying. They have a problem with employees not being able to speak about politics without some of them going on tirades, and some of them accusing others of acting in bad faith, and more assuming those that try to refrain are implicitly agreeing with one stance or another. > Telling me I have to avoid entire categories of normal conversation is itself authoritarian politicization of the workplace, and I'd happily tell him to go fuck himself, too. And you can! And they did! These people were not only there by choice, they were given a very good way out if they didn't like the change. But I also hope none of them that left because they feel the need to proselytize at work don't come work with me. But also, let's consider when the types of interactions being described at this company became "normal conversation". > But I spend more time talking to people I work with than any other set of people. Hopefully primarily about work, at least when working. They aren't paying you to talk about politics. If you're doing it outside work, nobody cares. Basecamp doesn't care either. They made that clear. Just keep it off their company communications. You can even talk politics privately with your friends if you work there, because they aren't going to turn you in (and if they would, then maybe you should consider why and maybe not bother them with stuff like that). Most people aren't hired to speak their inner thoughts to the rest of the company. Most people don't try to. Somehow it's a problem when people are told explicitly what they should have already internalized, please don't.
• baryphonic 6y ago
  I wholeheartedly disagree. I have very different political views from the vast majority of people I work with. 99% of the time, those topics never come up. But if they do, I have to shut my mouth and smile and pretend I find it amusing. To call this woke improv theater I have to do "no fun" would be an understatement. It feels like being gay in the time when that could completely ostracize someone, not to mention send him to jail. But it's even worse because I care about my colleagues. We've worked hard together and produced some pretty amazing things. When I hear them sometimes say things that are frankly ignorant, bad-faith, uncharitable, etc. about their political out-group, I just have to shake my head. Somehow I get through my day at work avoiding discussing much about my beliefs. We chat about our families, recent happenings in our lives, hobbies, trips, interesting articles we saw recently on HN, etc. Turns out none of those things is a terribly political topic. Maybe a small part of me wishes that the tables were turned, and the people I disagree with had to hold their tongues for fear of ostracism when "political" opinions arise. But in reality, I don't want them to feel this way either. I'd rather work at a place that strongly discouraged political chatter and activism using work resources. I'd hope that we could at least get a balance where there enough companies like Basecamp or Coinbase that can meet my needs so that the companies like Google or Spotify can continue to meet yours, and we can sort into the places where we work best.