4 ms·

That is clearly an interpersonal conflict that can be resolved through standard dispute resolution process in an apolitical fashion. If a common ground of mutua

That is clearly an interpersonal conflict that can be resolved through standard dispute resolution process in an apolitical fashion. If a common ground of mutual respect and civility can’t be achieved then the disputing employees can be transferred to different teams.

jakelazaroff 5y ago
How can it be resolved in an apolitical fashion? It is by definition a political dispute. Again, the point is that banning "politics" creates space for the company to say "leave the pronouns at home; engage in social issues on your own time".
- digitaltrees 5y ago
  Apolitical is 1. Mutual respect, 2. Transfer disputing employees to different teams so they are not in continuous dispute.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    1 is not apolitical; it essentially means the misgendering employee needs to acquiesce. 2 is frankly a terrible solution. You're keeping a "missing stair" employee whom you need to carefully ensure doesn't interact with any coworkers they'd misgender. If someone can't respect a coworker, especially after being directly told to, they should be let go.
    - digitaltrees 5y ago
      Mutual respect means one person makes a good faith to respect the preferences and culture of another person. And the other person it patient and forgiving of mistakes and assumes good faith from the counter party. Some cultures have different salutations based on age. Even though the US doesn’t make that distinction it is respectful to adopt it. It isn’t necessary to fire every employee because a dispute is intractable. If an employee makes a good faith effort to adapt but makes innocent mistakes that are very poorly received they may not be at fault.
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        To be clear, I mean a scenario in which an employee refuses to refer to a coworker by their preferred pronouns. There is exactly one way in which that situation can be resolved with mutual respect: the former employee making a good faith effort to not misgender the latter.
        throwawayacc2 5y ago
        My religious beliefs prevent me from accept this frame of reference. My religious beliefs are clear. God made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman. They are not interchangeable. This is my religious belief. Why must it be me who gives up my beliefs to accommodate the other? Why is mutual respect not the other person understanding this is my religion?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - vidarh 5y ago
    In doing so the company would take the political position that standing up to abusive behaviour can end up with the victim being punished by being transferred. Consider if the conflict was over one employee insisting on using racial slurs instead, and the victim being moved rather than the aggressor disciplined. To me a stance like that would make me quit as a matter of principle, and I'd also avoid doing business with a company if I was aware of such a policy.
    - digitaltrees 5y ago
      Being transferred isn’t a punishment. Good point about a racial slur. But invert that. Should I be forced to call some by a racial slur because they are reclaiming the word if it makes me uncomfortable? These are not easy issues. We are talking about the mutual rights of others and the ability to force people to act. A posture of good faith compromise is warranted.
      - vidarh 5y ago
        Being transferred against your wish can very often be felt as punishment, as it can affect your career prospects, and any change forced on you in response to being victimized tends to feel like punishment. If I was being transferred due to a transgression someone else did, I'd consider suing or leaving the company as a matter of principle. The outcome of a policy that involves transferring someone rather than dealing with abuse is you over time get left with those who are fine with maintaining an abusive workplace. If someone is trying to force you to use a slur, they're being abusive. A pronoun is not a slur. But again, being able to even have that discussion about what is and is not acceptable is a political discussion. That Basecamp has now banned. I for one would never consider applying to Basecamp after this because they've made it clear employees can not safely discuss issues that may affect them at work.
        digitaltrees 5y ago
        Intent matters. If my feelings are based on an inaccurate assessment of the intent then my feelings aren’t in line with reality and I can choose to adjust my feelings in light of more accurate facts.

jakelazaroff 5y ago

How can it be resolved in an apolitical fashion? It is by definition a political dispute. Again, the point is that banning "politics" creates space for the company to say "leave the pronouns at home; engage in social issues on your own time".

digitaltrees 5y ago
Apolitical is 1. Mutual respect, 2. Transfer disputing employees to different teams so they are not in continuous dispute.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  1 is not apolitical; it essentially means the misgendering employee needs to acquiesce. 2 is frankly a terrible solution. You're keeping a "missing stair" employee whom you need to carefully ensure doesn't interact with any coworkers they'd misgender. If someone can't respect a coworker, especially after being directly told to, they should be let go.
  - digitaltrees 5y ago
    Mutual respect means one person makes a good faith to respect the preferences and culture of another person. And the other person it patient and forgiving of mistakes and assumes good faith from the counter party. Some cultures have different salutations based on age. Even though the US doesn’t make that distinction it is respectful to adopt it. It isn’t necessary to fire every employee because a dispute is intractable. If an employee makes a good faith effort to adapt but makes innocent mistakes that are very poorly received they may not be at fault.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      To be clear, I mean a scenario in which an employee refuses to refer to a coworker by their preferred pronouns. There is exactly one way in which that situation can be resolved with mutual respect: the former employee making a good faith effort to not misgender the latter.
      - throwawayacc2 5y ago
        My religious beliefs prevent me from accept this frame of reference. My religious beliefs are clear. God made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman. They are not interchangeable. This is my religious belief. Why must it be me who gives up my beliefs to accommodate the other? Why is mutual respect not the other person understanding this is my religion?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- vidarh 5y ago
  In doing so the company would take the political position that standing up to abusive behaviour can end up with the victim being punished by being transferred. Consider if the conflict was over one employee insisting on using racial slurs instead, and the victim being moved rather than the aggressor disciplined. To me a stance like that would make me quit as a matter of principle, and I'd also avoid doing business with a company if I was aware of such a policy.
  - digitaltrees 5y ago
    Being transferred isn’t a punishment. Good point about a racial slur. But invert that. Should I be forced to call some by a racial slur because they are reclaiming the word if it makes me uncomfortable? These are not easy issues. We are talking about the mutual rights of others and the ability to force people to act. A posture of good faith compromise is warranted.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      Being transferred against your wish can very often be felt as punishment, as it can affect your career prospects, and any change forced on you in response to being victimized tends to feel like punishment. If I was being transferred due to a transgression someone else did, I'd consider suing or leaving the company as a matter of principle. The outcome of a policy that involves transferring someone rather than dealing with abuse is you over time get left with those who are fine with maintaining an abusive workplace. If someone is trying to force you to use a slur, they're being abusive. A pronoun is not a slur. But again, being able to even have that discussion about what is and is not acceptable is a political discussion. That Basecamp has now banned. I for one would never consider applying to Basecamp after this because they've made it clear employees can not safely discuss issues that may affect them at work.
      - digitaltrees 5y ago
        Intent matters. If my feelings are based on an inaccurate assessment of the intent then my feelings aren’t in line with reality and I can choose to adjust my feelings in light of more accurate facts.