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

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

#981

Post by objectivetruth » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 8:33 PM UTC

squirrelicus wrote: post #970

letmeinhere wrote: post #959

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#bothsides, amiright? On one hand you have the continuation of a 150 year old white supremacist terror movement whose adherents have recently and repeatedly murdered dozens of people solely because of who they are, and on the other you have those scary people with the masks who will throw a milk shake at someone, just because that person is a fascist. It's really too bad that we can't just empower indifferent moderat…

I think you're minimizing the impact of antifa psychos. And I'm no moderate. Antifa is explicitly about violence, racism, and is associated with the Dayton Ohio shooter as well as the recent attacks on the ICE facilities.

>And I'm no moderate.

I agree with you 100% that you are no moderate.

Evidence point #1: You tried to perpetuate the widely-debunked myth that the Dayton nutbag was some sort of leftist terrorist instead of a troubled spree killer who killed his trans sibling and several bystanders.

(For other readers: that was an unfortunately common false attempt to lump in "a killer who incidentally liked Tweets on Twitter" with "the numerous recent killers who DID leave white supremacist manifestos before going on their rampages.")

Evidence point #2: You said "Antifa is explicitly about violence, racism" in the preceding clause. A moderate would have correctly expanded that clause to "Anti-fascists are explicitly about violence against fascists and the racism that white supremacist fascists espouse."

So I can confirm your assertion that you are not a "moderate." I just think it's a bummer you folks have to call yourselves "anti-anti-fascists" because that's SIX whole syllables.

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

#982

Post by jshowa3 » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 8:42 PM UTC

jshowa3 wrote: post #487

oppositelock wrote: post #187

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the majority view, the…

In most states, political discussion in the work place is considered illegal. California has some odd laws though that protect people from this.

Let me make my statement a little bit more clear.

There is no federal law that prevents employer discrimination based on political beliefs. There are some states, specifically California in this case, that prevent employers from discrimination based on political activities and/or affiliations. However, most states prevent employers from controlling political activities outside of work

The First Amendment does not apply to private institutions, only public ones. Private institutions can outright ban political discussion with no repercussions and cannot be liable for termination on the grounds of political beliefs expressed within the workplace sans some states.

So while it isn't "illegal", it can be restricted within private companies.

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

#983

Post by jshowa3 » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 8:46 PM UTC

MFLoon wrote: post #575

jshowa3 wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most states, political discussion in the work place is considered illegal. California has some odd laws though that protect people from this.

I think you're confused. It's definitely not illegal in any state to have informal political discussions with coworkers. Maybe what you're referring to is that it's illegal for employers to tell employees to vote a certain a way or retaliate against them for holding certain political views.

Only in some states is this legally protected. If a private company allows it, then there is no problem.

However, most private companies don't allow political discussion and it's not illegal to control this unless you live in certain states, California being one of them.

Explanation in detail here: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...

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

#984

Post by jshowa3 » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 8:50 PM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #571

jshowa3 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore was fired for his contributions to this conversation". Hardly just.* According to what you said in this post, It was completely just as Damore basically wrote a dissertation about things that were completely unrelated to any work done for any Google product. All that work would've been tantamount to a complete waste of company time and could be grounds for a firing. Google users don't care at all about the pol…

But that isn't one off Google's workplace rules, and evaluation of whether or not someone is being "just" should be partially based on how well they apply their own rules. If I say "this thing is permitted" and then punish someone for doing that thing, it should be unjust in your eyes whether or not you would have said "this thing is permitted."

No. Why do you presume they don't apply their rules correctly? And what makes you think this isn't one of Google's rules? A diversity class usually means diversity in the sense of protected classes, not political opinions.

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

#985

Post by jshowa3 » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 8:53 PM UTC

Izkata wrote: post #978

joshuamorton wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. For a number of reasons, not least of all that such feedback optional, and to be sent to the people who managed the class. So it wasn't an assignment, and sharing it with everyone wasn't the way to handle it.

It wasn't feedback, it was a report on what he got from there so Google could improve its practices. One solicited by Google.

That's what he claims it was. He also posted it on an internally accessible mail list within the company. That's a very odd way to give feedback about a course. Usually you provide feedback directly to whoever is in charge of the course and not let the entirety of the company view it.

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

#986

Post by DangitBobby » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 9:09 PM UTC

jshowa3 wrote: post #984

DangitBobby wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that isn't one off Google's workplace rules, and evaluation of whether or not someone is being "just" should be partially based on how well they apply their own rules. If I say "this thing is permitted" and then punish someone for doing that thing, it should be unjust in your eyes whether or not you would have said "this thing is permitted."

No. Why do you presume they don't apply their rules correctly? And what makes you think this isn't one of Google's rules? A diversity class usually means diversity in the sense of protected classes, not political opinions.

I was responding to

"According to what you said in this post, It was completely just as Damore basically wrote a dissertation about things that were completely unrelated to any work done for any Google product."

My comment was explaining why i disagree with the above. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with Google's policies, past or present.

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

#987

Post by paulddraper » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #948

cm2187 wrote: post #917

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone else took notice that expressing conservative opinions in writing was a fireable offense.

Do you really think that there are no liberal opinions that are fireable? Like if I said all men are rapists, you think that’s a safe thing to say at work? I think people took notice that saying “women earn less money because their genes make them less good at stuff” is a fireable offense. I actually don’t believe conservatism has anything to do with it.

> women earn less money because their genes make them less good at stuff

That's a poor paraphrase.

A more accurate one would be "Women earn less money on average because on average they are less interested in earning due to long-standing innate differences."

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

#988

Post by paulddraper » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #867

paulddraper wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was completely just as Damore basically wrote a dissertation about things that were completely unrelated It was a completely inconsistent. Damore was not fired for debating politically-sensitive HR proposals. Many people were involved in the same conversation, with the same degree of relevance to Google's products. Damore was fired because his proposal was contrary to the majority. --- It's possible to maintain…

If your assertion were true, all people who ever voiced a minority opinion would be fired and that’s clearly not true.

You're right; the criteria was incomplete.

Damore was fired because his proposal was contrary to the majority and it became widespread knowledge.

Were Damore's part of the discussion never leaked, then I assume it would have been a slap on the wrist or just a shrug.

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

#989

Post by scarface74 » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 11:44 AM UTC

jonas21 wrote: post #302

adambyrtek wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really trying to argue that companies which for example use Slack (or a similar service) are "not professional"?

No, I'm arguing that most large, "professional" companies would not have allowed employees to create create chat groups whose sole purpose was to discuss politics or any other non-work-related topic (whether on mailing lists, Slack, or whatever). In doing so, Google was treating its employees more like adults, which is the opposite of what a previous comment in the thread was suggesting.

How did Google “treating employees like adults” work out? The only reason an employer goes to work is to make money. The only reason an employer hires someone is to make them money or to save them money.

Bringing anything else into the workplace is an unnecessary distraction from both the employee’s and employer’s standpoint. I go to work to have money deposited into my account twice a month and go home to spend time with my family and friends. The more time I spend at work spending energy not doing work either I will be less effective or spend more time away from family/friends/hobbies to be effective at work.

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

#990

Post by jimbokun » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 1:43 PM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #950

jimbokun wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So can we please not jump from "this person disagree with me or thinks something about my life choices are immoral" to "this person denies my whole existence"? Yes, there are some people who fall into the latter category. But there are others somewhere in between, and it might be useful to exchange world views and increase mutual understanding, and maybe even change some minds. I think it's ridiculous so many politic…

Being gay is a life choice now? That’s what I mean when I say denying one’s existence. There is clear intent behind those words. I didn’t pick them arbitrarily. That’s a necessary condition for tolerance to become abhorrent. You are either attacking some weird fantasy or you honestly believe that being gay† is a life choice. — † This obviously includes everything heterosexual people are able to do with no one blinkin…

> That’s what I mean when I say denying one’s existence.

No, that would not be "denying your existence". That is hyperbole.