Live data from Hacker News

Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

bloomberg.com

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#531
This is pretty strange to me. I've worked in a bunch of very different places, including Intel Corp. and also defense contractors and US government installations, and people generally stayed away from political discussions unless they were around people they already knew were like-minded. The only place I saw political discussion turn really sour was at Intel when we had a contractor who was extremely religious and conservative, and would talk publicly about how homosexuals "offended" him, etc. We ended up not renewing his contract because he was toxic.

At government places, political discussions were generally avoided. The Hatch Act might have something to do with that (it's illegal to campaign for any political candidate at a Federal workplace), but mostly I think people just had good common sense. They did talk a little among themselves in the run-up to the election, but it was in-person, with a buddy, not meant to be a public discussion.

What's really shocking to me here is this revelation that there's actually "global mailing lists" within the company where political talk is happening. This, I cannot imagine ever seeing at any of my prior employers, ever. I honestly can't imagine why any company would tolerate such a use of its equipment this way. It's just a recipe for trouble.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#532
post #77
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do most professional settings go to this extent to police their employees: > creating a team of moderators to monitor conversations on company chat boards

Most professional settings would not have permitted these company chat boards in the first place.

I have worked at a large company that actually did that we had internal newsgroups at BT bt.misc

And even externally the only thing that was verboten was the uk.telecom hierarchy - this was more to not encourage some of the internet kooks.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#533

>I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views. I think this can be quite difficult to do just because of the political views involved. For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. In such a case, I would say that even asking the first individual to tolerate, much…

> I think this can be quite difficult to do just because of the political views involved. For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. In such a case, I would say that even asking the first individual to tolerate, much less respect, the second is itself a form of disrespect.

But if politics are not allowed at work then you wouldn't KNOW what your coworker's opinion is on the subject. That's one of the main points of not discussing politics at work, it's hard enough to get many people in one place to agree on technical things, it's impossible to get them to agree on everything and as every one of us feels strongly about one issue or another sooner or later we'll find things about our coworkers that we strongly oppose and that would make working with them hard.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#534
post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it is what my colleagues and I often do over lunch break. Since it is a break, it is outside of work, right?

Try that argument next time you invent something on a lunch break and want the patent assigned to you :)

I just checked my contract again. If the patent is outside the scope of my work activities, and I don't write up the application while I am at work, I don't see how they could claim it.

But then Americans have these funny "all your intellectual property are belong to us" clauses in work contracts....

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great points. There are plenty of areas to discuss politics, and at work doesn't have to be one of them. I've studiously avoided talking to anybody at work about politics, as it usually only serves to anger people if you don't agree. I've had a successful career of doing that.

That sounds like a fine approach, but unfortunately politics creeps into more and more aspects of life, hardly any topic remains apolitical. Like that quote "you may not be interested in war, but ..."

I think you can accept or be neutral on the assertion that "the personal is political", without it entailing that you actually live in a state of political engagement. After all, the professional ought not be personal.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#536
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the chances he has only been tracking donations made to right-wing groups? :') Edit: very high, it seems https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Apinboard%20PAC

Yeah so far from what I've seen all the big tech companies PAC's give with roughly 50/50 distribution of funds between left and right wing politicians. Whether that is good or bad is up to your own judgement. Personally I stopped donating to my company's PAC because I want more control of who my donations go to, but from what I've seen the corporate PAC's are all pretty well balanced.

50/50 doesn't necessarily mean 50/50. If I give to my preferred candidate and give to an opposing candidate that I think would be easy for my candidate to beat, then I'm not really giving 50/50.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#537

>I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views. I think this can be quite difficult to do just because of the political views involved. For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. In such a case, I would say that even asking the first individual to tolerate, much…

> For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death.

How should a Muslim man respect a gay colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality doesn't deserve a punishment?

Probably neither will respect the other, but they'll have to live with that.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked there for a similar length of time, but more recent (2012 - early 2019). The internal political discourse over that time definitely mirrored the rest of the world: becoming increasingly heated and divisive during 2016 and largely escalating since. On the whole, it felt like it pushed the company in a positive direction --- internal discussions mirroring #metoo led to more visibility of sexual harassment and…

Disclaimer: my comment below is directed at the culture of Google, and following in the train of thought from your comment. It's not directed at your comment or you. Reading this comment just makes me feel baffled. How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world? An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver…

Should people act in ways that disagree with their sense of justice?

Should people be allowed to speak out against things that other people do, but that disagree with their sense of justice?

I don't see how you can call it "arrogant" for people to act in accordance with their moral and ethical standards. We don't have the power to force the world do line up with our personal sense of justice. But we do have the power to make our lives and the lives of those around us more just, according to our own personal interpretation of that concept. Do you really think that striving for justice isn't OK?

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#539
post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try that argument next time you invent something on a lunch break and want the patent assigned to you :)

Try making the argument that the invention was developed purely over the course of lunch

The larger problem is that the IP assignment clauses are way too broad in the US. When I worked at Microsoft I had one that theoretically covered everything I wrote regardless of when, where, or on what devices. As an hourly worker, though, Microsoft was never going to exercise that due to overtime issues.

I rechecked my contract and under the terms of the contract, if it is specific to my work at my employer, they could claim it, but frankly we prefer to release everything that isn't specific to our industry open source anyway, so.....

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#540
post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You live long enough to become a terrible company, bought by one, or go bankrupt.

Traditional doesn't mean terrible. You can use cultural queues from previous versions without taking the toxic parts.

Certainly a 100,000 person company is going to have characteristics that someone who generally prefers a 1,000 or 100 person company may not much like. But not all large companies become "terrible" companies--whatever that means exactly.

As the peer comment notes, there are also companies that remain private and mostly small and march to their own drummer. Of course, those can easily end up in family control spats and the like.

Nothing's perfect but I'm not sure the lesson is everything sucks or dies in the end.

Post reply on HN