7 ms·
At almost every company I've worked over the years, I had to go through countless mandatory annual trainings that effectively says expressing opinions on non wo
by devsda 2y ago
At almost every company I've worked over the years, I had to go through countless mandatory annual trainings that effectively says expressing opinions on non work related subjective political topics with coworkers/employer is not advisable, risky and can be grounds for termination in extreme cases.
Either these people genuinely believed there was scope for discussion, or believed their opinion/choice of topic is a PR minefield that their employer wouldn't dare take action or they really wanted to get fired.
I'm not from the US. So, unless I'm missing some cultural context, their actions like political activism at work (unless related to labor issues and laws) are unthinkable atleast in my country.
- reactordev 2y agoThose trainings are mandatory but usually done via an edutech platform that is basically just a QuickTime movie. Ethics, compliance, corporate policy, it’s just a 30 minute video you play while you do something else and then click the obvious multiple choice answers for 100%. Then forget everything in a week. Lately it’s been those 2D animations using canned software and AI voice over because that’s cheaper than actually giving a damn. Animaker I believe.
- asadotzler 2y agoThis was most certainly work related. It was about a Google contract which is 100% related to Google and workers at Google.
- atonse 2y agoBut a company isn’t a democracy. They don’t have a right to protest it. If they as employees refuse to work (what they’re paid to do), then the employer has every right to fire them. They aren’t forming a union or something.
- maxboone 2y agoThis is not universally so, but as far as I can see in the US it is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination
- atonse 2y agoI don’t follow. You’re saying that there are countries where there could be an employee that does all this stuff (refusing to din their day to day job) and potentially politicizes the public image of the company and the company couldn’t fire them? Not talking about fairness or morality. Just legality. These aren’t whistleblowers either.
- lupire 2y agoIt's a stretch to call it work related for the person protesting. If it were, the simple act of not working would be sufficient protest against the opposed work.
- bjourne 2y agoWhat country and what company made you undergo these "countless" training sessions? I suspect you are making stuff up.
- lazide 2y agoit was front and center in every US non-FAANG employee handbook and sexual harassment training I went to.
- devsda 2y agoNo thanks. I'm not really keen on doxxing myself. But hey, if you are an IT employee and haven't had to go through those annoying trainings I'd be surprised and a little jealous.
- bjourne 2y agoWell, if you aren't keen on doxxing yourself you shouldn't use arguments that require the reader to trust you. Internet is full of liars who claim to be everything from astronauts, to law professors, to IT employees who have gone through "countless mandatory annual trainings that effectively says expressing opinions on non work related subjective political topics with coworkers/employer is not advisable". I have not gone through "those annoying trainings" and since you can't offer a single shred of evidence for their existence...
- devsda 2y ago> Internet is full of liars who claim to be everything from astronauts, to law professors, And bitter people too I suppose.
- plokiju 2y agoI'm honestly shocked you're skeptical about this
- bjourne 2y agoBecause I'm very used to well poisoners and their lies. As in this case, the liars can't offer any corroborating evidence and implicitly demands that you should disprove their lies. Which of course is impossible. Eventually, the lies become so entrenched because they aren't questioned that people like you become shocked when others disbelieve them.