Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work • Hacker News Board

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#491

Post by icelancer » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

galaxyLogic wrote: post #370

alkonaut wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely right. Saying “don’t talk politics at work” seems to assume that politics is something that goes on on the outside. A stream of news on divisive topics. In reality, politics happens everywhere and you can’t really avoid talking about it. “Don’t talk about politics not relevant for the workplace” could be reasonable (most poltics is after all not related).

To me this (news not your comment) sounds like a very slippery slope. What happened to freedom of speech? And who is to decide what is "political" what is not? As long as speech is not offensive, I think it should be protected.

>> What happened to freedom of speech?

It still exists. Gitlab does not infringe on your freedom of speech. The government does.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#492

Post by wbronitsky » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

Dobbs wrote: post #395

wbronitsky wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many places and times that people do not want to discuss the politics of the outside world. Examples could include while giving birth, while shopping alone at the grocery store, while sitting alone on a city bus, while performing surgery, while discussing your raise with your boss. Just because someone does not want to discuss something here and now, doesn't invalidate that they have original opinions. Not…

Which toilet (if any) I use is political. Being dressed as myself is a political statement. My right to have documentation that matches me is political. Whether or not I can be fired for being myself is political. So since one side has decided to make my very existence political then I think I have the right to talk about it. If you don’t want me talking about it at work then convince the GOP to stop trying to take a…

This reply is an example of exactly why people don't want to discuss things like this at work. People rarely want to have such a combative discussion with our coworkers, especially when framed as an all-or-nothing, very high stakes conversation.

If these issues, such as where you use the toilet, what you wear to work, what documentation you are provided, are relevant to your work-place, I would suggest that they are not "political" topics, but instead workplace topics and could, and should, be broached. However, I don't know GitLab's stance on this.

That being said, I do agree with you that all of these things are political, as well as who is causing the issues. However, your coworkers might not, and there might be very good reasons to continue to work with such people.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#493

Post by izacus » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #147

vowelless wrote: post #18

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 think even Google actually encouraged people to discuss politics at work. They never did when I was there. It was more a side-effect of decentralising the power to create forums. Anyone could create discussion lists there without asking permission, this was highly useful for coordination, making it easy to spin up new projects and avoiding siloing of information into people's private mail accounts. The flip s…

> This is a very far cry from the modern Google where arguing maybe girls find geeky stuff boring gets you fired, where they manipulate ML models to believe the world is some intersectional 'utopia' as part of social engineering programmes, where employees spend huge amounts of time erasing gendered pronouns from source code comments.

Huh? Can you link some substantiations to these claims, it seems way bizarre?

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#494

Post by Brakenshire » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

jtms wrote: post #286

anm89 wrote: post #129

I personally think this is awesome. I don't wan't some git hosting startup to be the arbiter of morality for society. The engineers, designers, and PMs shouldn't have an outsized voice in society because they have a specialized useful skillset and ended up on a successful product. If these users are breaking laws, then put them out of business via the courts and sieze the assets (the repos in this case) via legal mea…

I would advocate for Joe Rogan, he is a voice of openness and willingness to talk about things rather than just shutting down conversations because you might not agree. He is also a great listener. The world needs more people like Rogan.

What he does is allow someone to explain their beliefs, but he makes no real effort to establish evidence to support or oppose that.

It’s actually perfectl content for the internet especially for the really out-there interviewees, because people inside the relevant filter bubble can watch and feel their beliefs are being validated, and someone outside can watch and be entertained by a freak show. Each person can watch the same content and be entertained for their own purposes. I’m not sure how healthy it is for society though.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#495

Post by ggreer » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

earthscienceman wrote: post #252

jedberg wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a wealthy white male, I couldn't agree more. For people like me, politics is a choice. But as my female friends of color often remind me, politics is not a choice for them.

Which actually really boils down to what the word "white male privilege" really means. If you think politics is annoying, then it's because you're privileged enough for it to not matter. ^^^ privileged white male

I've worked at a company that heavily encouraged discussion of politics at work, and it was a nightmare. The things management sponsored (at the request of employees) included:

- A women-only Slack channel.

- Women-only events, such as a free screening of Wonder Woman. The men at the company were expected to work during that time.

- An "ally skills workshop"[1], which attempted to indoctrinate us with an explicitly racist and sexist ideology.

- A Diversity Council that had the explicit goal of increasing the number of non-white non-men in engineering. One time when I was invited to a meeting of the council, I said that their goal should be to eliminate bias in the hiring process (such as by blinding resumes, replacing phone screens with text-only mediums, etc). I was taken aside and chastised for my statements.

If I had actually said my opinions, I have no doubt I would have been fired for my beliefs. If that's what happens when people are encouraged to bring their politics to work (especially in SF), I will gladly take the "no politics" option.

1. Slides from the workshop: https://files.frameshiftconsulting.com/Ally%20Skills%20Works...

Edit: the slides have been updated since I last saw them. The slides presented to me were closer to this version from 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20170911021528/https://files.fra... Though even that version is more toned down than what I saw.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#496

Post by SkyBelow » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

XPKBandMaidCzun wrote: post #371

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #168

Without trying to be inflammatory in any manner, I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. If you disagree I’m happy to discuss this viewpoint rather than being downvoted to oblivion. Lots of issues are deemed “political”, but imagine you fall into one of the marginalized groups: — lgbt: Don’t discuss the possibility about being fired for your sexuality becau…

> I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. Having a discussion is hard. While you come to this well-intended, participants bring their own life experiences and hardships. They may not agree on the starting point of the conversation: How is "marginalized' and "privileged" is defined? Some may not take that perspective on the above issues, and people with thes…

>Casting a group as marginalized draws broad strokes about others, because who isn't marginalized? How could someone know how someone else feels or what they have faced in life? If you don't like having your hardship belittled, why potentially do the same thing to others? We all have feelings and their own unique stories.

Let me give you a real world example.

In the US, the average white person goes to a better funded school than the average minority. That is a form of privilege. I personally am white, but went to a majority black school that is extremely underfunded and around an 80% below poverty level. I (and all others attending my school) missed out on numerous opportunities that other schools provided.

But when people see me, they immediately stereotype me as having gone to a better funded school. This is an assumption they make about me based on my race, and which some use against me (thinking me privileged in relation to school system).

When applying to college, many colleges use race to assume a level of hardship and then adjust admission standards based on hardship. Someone who goes to a very underfunded school won't score as high on the SAT as they would have if they had gone to a better school. Yet because of my race, the assumption is made that such reasoning does not apply to me.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#497

Post by dmode » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #415

madrox wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Refusing to serve a customer when you disagree with that customer's goal is pretty far from being a "moral arbiter for society." This sounds really good until someone refuses to bake a wedding cake for a couple because they're gay. The supreme court ruled in favor of the baker. You're advocating for a world where that's ok. Is that the world you want to live in?

I think these bakers suck, but I do agree with the Supreme Court. A private business should be allowed to refuse to serve customers for whatever reason they choose. The only exception should be legal monopolies; they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, because there are otherwise no other options.

What about refusing to serve black people ? This was literally the premise of civil rights.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#498

Post by ergothus » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #183

ergothus wrote: post #115

I have a pet theory that we (that is, the culture I'm familiar with, so I don't really know how widespread it is, but at least the white U.S.) have spent too long saying "don't discuss politics, sex, religion, and politics". We literally have no practice handling differences regarding the very items people are passionate about. The answer isn't to get into massive drama-filled flame wars, nor to drive people with min…

> We literally have no practice handling differences regarding the very items people are passionate about. Looking at it from the employer side, that passion is precisely why these policies are being enacted. Were I employing someone, I'm required to not have a hostile work environment, which includes certain jokes (because people may be offended), and now includes politics (because people may be offended), and peopl…

IANAL, but I don't think a hostile work environment means "no one ever says something that is offensive", but rather an environment where that is normal and accepted. If we learn how to be more adult in our conversations, which includes:

* Trying not to offend

* Being open to accepting that we have

* Try not to repeat

* Accepting that others will make mistakes and can change their ways

...then we're not hostile. (But again, IANAL)

Given that being "non-political" is inherently not possible (see above posts regarding the inevitability of political issues affecting the workplace to enter the workplace), the above points may be hard, but are the more plausible option.

That doesn't mean ALL politics has to enter the office, but firing anyone that doesn't "check their politics at the door" just won't work.

And regardless of office rules, we as society need to learn these skills SOMEWHERE, because we've made it a social rule not to discuss these topics anywhere people might disagree. We're coming up on a few holidays, and I expect the "can't we just have a peaceful dinner and not discuss these stressful topics" to start making the annual rounds.

It's not regulations, it's society, and society isn't going away so we need to adjust it.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#499

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 10:11 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #381

big_chungus wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you please clarify what you mean by, "Because if you genuinely belief people want try to identify who is and isn't racist in a "conforming" way then you're delusional?" Here's the problem: at least in SV, you're going to be restricted to a sub-set of very narrow beliefs which are acceptable to express. I may hold a personal belief that, say, trans-sexuality is not a "real thing" or ought not to be treated with…

> Do you honestly believe I'd be able to express that in such an environment, as much as someone who believes it is "a thing"? Should you be able to comfortably express that to your trans co-worker, no matter how uncomfortable that makes them? That's why this is not a symmetrical issue.

Whether one gets uncomfortable hearing a statement isn't good evidence for whether that statement is correct or wrong.

This asymmetry of feelings is actually an argument in favor of not talking about some topics at work, unless all involved parties voluntarily agree to it. A less controversial but essentially equivalent example would be religion. It's widely recognized that you shouldn't spend time at work trying to invalidate your co-worker's religious views (or lack of them), unless they specifically ask you to. This applies to everything people build their identities around.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#500

Post by dangthecoward » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 10:11 PM UTC

secretdark wrote: post #38

What I find most amazing is less the politics aspect and more the moral/ethical issue. For a company to have an explicit stated policy of _actively_ never taking into account the moral/ethical impact of their work is just... astounding. It is difficult to imagine a more inhuman and bloodless statement.

It really is just shocking.

We know what kind of person the CEO is and it's not good. Not a person i would ever want to associate with.