151–160 of 1001 posts
Or is someone going to have to make the judgement call that Navajo users don't constitute a big enough political block to influence their l10n priorities?
Someone has to make those calls
Technical professions are generally held responsible for what they enable. Biology: researchers can't do anything they want on plants, animals or humans. Medicine: doctors are expected to follow strict guidelines with their patients. Even engineering: implementing a cheating system for diesel tests will (rightfully) get engineers into trouble. But software engineering seem to have a pass on how the things we build is…
Supporting politician X doesn't make person more moral or ethical. Same as believing in god A over god B.
Politics discussions are just tribal wars.
I am glad Dang changed the title as the original one was unnecessarily inflammatory. I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. Purely from a commercial stance, team cohesion has a positive impact on people and product. Why do anything to disturb that? > Such a declaration could run afoul of legal boundaries in some circumstances. Whi…
I am not familiar with companies that encourage discussing politics.
Politics is about how people ought to be organised. I find it strange that this would not be something to discuss in the context of many persons primary organisational structure.
Part of my remuneration is the effect I may have on the world. Positive or negative.
I am glad Dang changed the title as the original one was unnecessarily inflammatory. I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. Purely from a commercial stance, team cohesion has a positive impact on people and product. Why do anything to disturb that? > Such a declaration could run afoul of legal boundaries in some circumstances. Whi…
> I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. Purely from a commercial stance, team cohesion has a positive impact on people and product. Why do anything to disturb that? The health of the democracy is far more important than your company's profit margin. And besides, enforcing silence is still a political move that strongly favours th…
The health of my family is more important than your politics.
However Gitlab is not a utility or regulated as anything remotely close to one.
A company that takes pro-active steps to declare that they will do business without any scruples or ethical concerns is just plain disgusting.
This is a biased article written in an inflammatory style. Also, there is a mistake in the first 5 letters (Gitlab is not "San Francisco based" being remote-only)
GitLab are being hypocritical[1][2]. Let's not pretend the "women in tech" and LGBT movements aren't political. Frankly, I think more women in tech and LGBT representation are probably good things, but GitLab is being profoundly disingenuous with their guidelines. To clarify my point: if you open the gates to the marketplace of ideas, make sure it's an actual marketplace . [1] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2018/10/08…
The argument "if you don't engage in politics then you might be part of the problem", is itself a political argument, therefore it is irrelevant in the context of a no-politics rule.
Banning staff from talking politics at work shouldn't be allowed under the First Amendment.
But the US follows at-will employment, under the more general principle of freedom of association. An employer does't have the same duty to treat its employees "fairly" that the government has to its citizens. Your employer can fire you for pretty much any reason, including differences of opinion, and the First Amendment has nothing to do with that.
The exceptions to this rule are better thought of as exceptions to at-will employment, rather than extensions of First Amendment protection. For instance, you can't fire an employee for discussing wages or working conditions with their co-workers, in the same way that you can't fire someone for being the wrong religion or for reporting illegal behavior.
(If you're saying that the courts should change their interpretation of the First Amendment to include a right to discuss politics at work... well, that would be a major break with precedent, and a huge reach beyond what the text of the amendment says, with wide-ranging ramifications. Instead, some states have passed specific laws that protect workers from discrimination on the basis of political opinion, without needing to invoke the First Amendment.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. There is a middle-ground between "talking about politics" is "encouraged" and "forbidden".
yes but large organisations find the middle ground difficult to cultivate. It requires that people avoid becoming excessively emotionally invested in the discussion; such that disagreements do not negatively impact their working relationships. Small teams with good temperaments are easily capable of this. Large organisations tend to look for more definitive policies that can be easily laid out and enforced.
Mind that this rule even prevents discussing legitimate concerns about customers with your team mates.