4 ms·
My argument is that your preferred work policy - "appropriate discussion" is impossible without a lot of implied use of your least favorite policy - being "told
by cool_dude85 5y ago
My argument is that your preferred work policy - "appropriate discussion" is impossible without a lot of implied use of your least favorite policy - being "told what the answer is."
In turn, your second policy - "no political discussion" is practically unworkable. I demonstrate by an example. If you want to make it so your coworker can't wear his swastika, you must allow political discussion:
"This piece of clothing has a certain understood meaning in society, wearing it implies he supports xyz, any claims to the contrary are a fig leaf."
"No, no, I just like the look..."
And we have a political argument on our hands about whether such attire is appropriate.
In short, allowing no political discussion at the workplace is not possible.
As to your own metaphor, it falls flat. Everything is politics. Not everything is sports. It is very possible to go about your day without making any sporting statements, and impossible to not make political statements.
- ALittleLight 5y agoI think there will be ambiguity and good faith discussions and clarifications to settle expectations. I also think that people who insist on it will always be able to split hairs and invent arguments. If the company has a policy that says "No unwanted touching of coworkers" and one employee hovers his hand over coworkers while taunting "I'm not touching you" the problem is not with the guideline. Likewise, if you say "No politics at work" and someone keeps coming up with creative arguments of the form "Technically isn't this politics" then the problem isn't with the guideline either.