Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#591

Post by anonymoushn »

noelsusman wrote: post #542
ThinkBeat wrote: post #371

One part of the article: This is about a guy who wrote a book on his own time, published it outside of work. Someone did not like some parts of the book and the guy had to quit his job? There is nothing to suggest the man acted improperly at work. I write fictional stories in my spare time (never at work), I enjoy doing it. Some people enjoy reading them (I can't figure out why) It is a sad day for a Democracy when I…

"He wrote some stuff and somebody didn't like it" isn't a good faith description of what actually happened. I also don't know what it has to do with democracy.

It is maybe rude to suppose that perspectives other than your own can only be held disingenuously

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#592

Post by tjpnz »

Sometimes if I have a spare moment and a thought pops into my head I'll put it into a notes app. Sometimes I'll go back and expand these notes to the point where I've essentially got a blog post. I've got dozens of these but I'm just too afraid to post them. It's not that I'm saying anything terribly provocative either, it's mostly about coding and my experiences living in Japan.

Yet there's always going to be a way of weaponizing what I've written against me - no matter how petty or far fetched.

Perhaps I'm not important enough for that to happen. But if that were to change there'll be this massive trove of thing's I've written and people with the time to deep dive through it. And then label me a racist, a misogynist, an ageist, a transphobe or any number of other words which can so swiftly destroy a person yet to make their fuck you money.

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#593

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

solidasparagus wrote: post #460
smegger001 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the one that gets me is adding race to emoji. they all used to be 'Simpsons yellow', a skin tone not found in any ethnic or racial group, and as such not representing or excluding any group but now we have black white and other various skin tones for our happy-faces. WHY? Does black happy face mean something different than white happy face isn't happiness universal? why bring race into something that was simply meant…

When using emojis to convey their emotions, some people prefer their emojis to match what they look like. It's not a big deal - certainly not worth complaining about a feature that makes some people happier. The impact of online avatars on self-perception and outcomes is an interesting topic that's worth looking into (it's not limited to race). But more importantly, why shouldn't a black person be able to use a black…

I agree completely - why not let folks have emojis that more accurately reflect them?

That said, I agree with the GP, who the hell says "I don't approve of unnecessarily gendered emoji"? I mean, fine, then don't use them.

Or other commenters that felt uncomfortable plus-oneing emojis that didn't match their skin tone. Really?? I upvote these things all the time without a second thought because it just means I agree with you, not that we're the same shade. I think it's kind of sad when literally every mundane action, even something as trivial as upvoting someone's comment, can only be seen through the prism of race first and foremost.

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#594

Post by imgabe »

taurath wrote: post #583
imgabe wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd need to convince workers to not believe that someone who says sexist stuff in a book is going to cause a problem for them. No. A million times no. If and when an employee creates a hostile work environment, then the employer may address it by disciplining or firing that employee. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is under any obligation to preemptively address things someone imagines might happen based on their misi…

With how much we know about implicit bias causing so many problems in equity for things like promotions and opportunity in the workplace, having someone publicly espouse explicit bias should come with some consequences. The glass ceiling exists. You’re saying it shouldn’t be based on an out of context fragment, and I agree but often in those situations in context can mean the same thing. Case by case for sure but if…

There's "feeling" you're getting a fair shake, and then there's actually getting a fair shake. If you're going to destroy someone's livelihood, it should be for something they actually do, not for what someone imagines they might hypothetically do.

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#595

Post by refurb »

hn_user82179 wrote: post #509
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is nothing to suggest the man acted improperly at work. We've had this discussion already, but claiming sexist views is going to be a problem for you whether you do it at work or elsewhere because of how laws around hostile work environments and notice work. Particularly, if you go on to actually create a hostile work environment (as one might reasonably suppose you will, having publicly espoused the relevant…

> You'd need to convince workers to not believe that someone who says sexist stuff in a book is going to cause a problem for them. This resonated with me. Anecdotally, I sometimes wonder if small, unpleasant interactions (e.g. getting talked over multiple times in a meeting) have anything to do with my gender (I'm the only woman on my team) or are accidental/benign. I usually assume they're benign because I like my c…

Your statements come across as paranoia and looking for a problem where one likely doesn’t exist.

As a white guy should I examine every interaction to see if there are racial or gender undertones? If my African American boss tells me not to be late, is it because I’m white? Or my female boss says my work is subpar, is it because I’m a man? No, that’s silly without evidence.

And Martinez’s statement was: 1) fiction, 2) satire/humor, 3) taking place in a post-apocalyptic world.

Thus, the only evidence you could garner from his writing is he may judge you as “worthless” if it’s a post-apocalyptic world where he needs you to fight zombies.

Is that a problem when he asks you to fill out an excel after you get your free catered lunch at Apple?

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#596

Post by busterarm »

PeterisP wrote: post #451
0xy wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political beliefs are a protected class in practically every first world country, including the US. If an employee was a member of a fascist party it'd quite literally be illegal to fire them on that basis.

No, political beliefs are a protected class in practically every first world country, but excluding the US; in most states (excluding, IIRC, California - which matters a lot here) it would be legal for a private employer to fire an employee for being a member of the Democrat or Republican party. The key employee anti-discrimination law is the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employers from di…

political affiliation is a protected class in DC though.

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#597

Post by taurath »

imgabe wrote: post #594
taurath wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With how much we know about implicit bias causing so many problems in equity for things like promotions and opportunity in the workplace, having someone publicly espouse explicit bias should come with some consequences. The glass ceiling exists. You’re saying it shouldn’t be based on an out of context fragment, and I agree but often in those situations in context can mean the same thing. Case by case for sure but if…

There's "feeling" you're getting a fair shake, and then there's actually getting a fair shake. If you're going to destroy someone's livelihood, it should be for something they actually do, not for what someone imagines they might hypothetically do.

Turns out those feelings are true more often than not and there are statistics to back it up. Not that ones feelings is enough to ruin someone’s livelihood, but sorry if you’re responsible for people’s career development in 2021 there shouldn’t be any reasonable questions about your being actually biased against groups. It’s against the law even.

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#598

Post by imgabe »

taurath wrote: post #597
imgabe wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's "feeling" you're getting a fair shake, and then there's actually getting a fair shake. If you're going to destroy someone's livelihood, it should be for something they actually do, not for what someone imagines they might hypothetically do.

Turns out those feelings are true more often than not and there are statistics to back it up. Not that ones feelings is enough to ruin someone’s livelihood, but sorry if you’re responsible for people’s career development in 2021 there shouldn’t be any reasonable questions about your being actually biased against groups. It’s against the law even.

Then you should have no trouble finding real evidence in a given specific instance instead of relying on hunches and generalizations.

Re: Woke at Work: Why tech firms are trying to run away from politics and failing

#599

Post by Beldin »

imgabe wrote: post #586
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If and when an employee creates a hostile work environment, then the employer may address it by disciplining or firing that employee. I don't believe this at all, and more importantly, the way you've phrased your second paragraph, I don't think you really believe it all, either. That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee…

> That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired. What do you think a hostile work environment is? How do writings outside of work affect the work environment? The work environment is...things that happen at work. In o…

> never mention their religion at work, that does not create a hostile work environment

"Never mention" is a bit vague/weak. If you wouldn't be able to pick the one colleague proselytising from amongst the others, likely(1) they're not creating a hostile work environment.

E.g., a colleague that never mentions the KKK, but has their memorabilia all over his desk, is dropped off by hooded, white-dress wearing buddies etc., is poisoning the work atmosphere.

(1) excepting weird cases like a colleague intentionally gaslighting others.

Post reply on HN