Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore • Hacker News Board

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

#611

Post by lacampbell » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:20 PM UTC

TheGRS wrote: post #394

magashna wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it can be to create a neutral environment to get work done, as a professional environment should be. I just want to put in my hours and go home. Keep your politics to yourself.

I think the problem with this view, especially in software development, is that it will pretty soundly continue the current status quo in diversity. We won't get more diversity without some political discussion. If you believe diversity is not a worthy topic of discussion or debate at the workplace, well, therein lies the political divide. Silencing political discussion is then its own form of getting a leg up in tha…

I think the problem with this view, especially in software development, is that it will pretty soundly continue the current status quo in diversity. We won't get more diversity without some political discussion.

What if the opposite happened, and political discussion resulted in people arguing for less diversity?

The status quo might seem pretty appealing at that point.

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

#612

Post by amyjess » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #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 c…

> 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.

I agree. My company has a "no politics" rule spelled out in the employee handbook, and that's worked out really well. At most, some of us will have private, in-person, one-on-one conversations about politics, which is fine because it doesn't drag in anyone who doesn't want to be there.

The off-topic channels on our Slack consist of memes, jokes, and chat about movies and video games, plus the occasional bit of tech news. It's a pretty pleasant place because of the no politics rule.

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

#613

Post by starpilot » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

This is the norm at most companies right? Like Microsoft etc.? Whether de factor or de iuro, politics is usually left at home unless it's personal conversations among close colleagues.

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

#614

Post by fromthestart » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

taurath wrote: post #17

Why shouldn’t employees of the company with the goal of organizing all the worlds information debate politics? Everything is political. Especially information.

Because Google is not a publisher, and selectively choosing how to present information according to the predominant internal politics is unethical without a disclaimer, which currently does not exist, given Google's status as the defacto gateway to information on the internet.

Curating information in such a manner is, ironically, marginalizing the groups who's views are being suppressed. Information should flow freely for people to make their own decisions. This is a dangerous amount of power for an increasingly biased private entity, particularly given certain choice quotes in this article and others regarding googlers' views on the current presidency.

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

#615

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

devy wrote: post #482

einhverfr wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the EU, freedom from discrimination on the basis of political opinion is considered a fundamental right, and is mentioned as such in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Private conversations about politics thus is entirely outside the scope of what the company is allowed to care about. Public comments, for example on global email lists, would be a different topic.

Debating politics all you want outside of work.

Its worth noting my colleagues and I have very different political views when we talk over lunch but I find it very insightful to see different views and we are all on good terms over it all. And I think we do think about eachother's views and we do try to build common ground, so frankly I find it healthy.

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

#616

Post by jcranberry » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #455

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression has not been that the memo is when political discussions turned toxic, but merely the first time it very publicly breached the sacred wall of non-disclosure with the outside world. Prior to that, most everyone seemed content to be upset with each other internally.

And they never punished the woman who leaked that internal memo. I thought that memo was foolish and short-sighted. I don't agree with it. However, it would have been better solved by a manager first asking him "do you really think it's a good idea to post this at work?" and having him tone it down than trying to publicly shame him and get him fired. Google picked the wrong side on that. They should have made an exam…

I'm sure there may have been some of that. But supposedly (IIRC) he didn't just post it at work, he very diligently attempted to increase it's exposure through word of mouth, mailing lists, and speaking at internal events.

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

#617

Post by minikites » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:26 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #20

I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views. That's kinda natural once you reach a certain size and your colleagues may as well be randos on the street. To be fair, that's a learning most businesses stumbled upon decades ago, it's the new generation of "re-invent management" companies that are speedrunning HR policy.

>I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views.

There's a difference between "differing world views" and "I don't think people of your race should be allowed in this country."

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

#618

Post by jcranberry » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:27 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #141

gwbas1c wrote: post #92

Ever since the infamous "diversity memo," (which I disagree with,) I've gotten the impression that political discussions at Google turned toxic. A well run company includes people with diverse political views points. A workplace that's hostile to anyone who leans right or leans left ultimately hurts diversity.

Most of the memo was citations of studies of sex differences. People can either agree with the studies or disagree with the research used (it's totally cool with me if you do disagree with the research), but the idea that someone should be punished for talking about research at a company that extols "data driven decision making" as one of it's principles baffles me.

>Damore cited two studies, three Wikipedia pages, and an article from Quillette, a contrarian online magazine that often covers free speech on campus and alleged links between genetics and IQ.

Quote from the recent WIRED article on Google culture, easily verifiable but I'm too lazy right now. But that's hardly 'most of the memo was citations of studies'.

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

#619

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:28 PM UTC

new2628 wrote: post #436

stcredzero wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a fine approach, but unfortunately politics creeps into more and more aspects of life. Do a historical survey of people who tried to suffuse politics completely through the lives of their followers. For completeness, look also at the actions of religions in the same way. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Politics, movements of any kind which demand the entirety of the lives of their…

I surely enjoy wild associations as much as the next guy, but I meant more pedestrian topics such as: - are you eating meat or are you vegetarian? - do you take a car to work or ride a bike or take public transportation? - do you drink tap water or bottled water? - do you send your kids to private or public school? Now try discussing any of these in depth "without politics".

I will admit to having avoided arguing with one of my colleagues about whether it is irresponsible to have more than one child in the current state of the world (he thinks it is, and I have three kids).

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

#620

Post by kerzol » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 8:29 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #472

SkyBelow wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite difficult, when the example was used in response to the statement "Everything is political." I would even say the contemplation of such a concession would be evidence of the original point as it suggests that we should just accept that everything is political and thus when someone says not everything is political they mean that some things are far less political than others.

Yup, that's my point. Saying "everything is political" might be true, but it misses the point that some things are far less political than others, and almost everyone who says things like "no political conversation" probably means "no highly political conversation".

The question of whether a certain discission have more "politics inside" than another is a very political one, especially when someone tries to have a right opinion (even if the advocated opinion is "let us promote diversity and respect different political opinions) and use it to achieve some goals.