This 'article' is very short, and the evidence of 'failing' to run away from politics is dropped in the second last sentence. I think there is a big difference

This 'article' is very short, and the evidence of 'failing' to run away from politics is dropped in the second last sentence. I think there is a big difference between having a discussion about politics at work, and using your workplace as a tool to forward your political agenda. Somewhere in the middle is using company resources as a platform for (not directly work-related) political discussion. Although I dislike the way that most employers take advantage of unequal power distributions with employees, I don't see any real issue with a company saying "our policy is to leave politics for non-work time". At some point as an employee you are actually expected to do things that your employer wants, and if you are doing non-work why should the company pay for it unless it's part of your work agreement? A company transitioning between different policies is a challenging situation, and for a company in the public eye that will almost inevitably generate controversy, but actually "letting the market decide" about this issue seems good. It means that there are companies at various points on the politics-at-work spectrum that employees can choose from.