Live data from Hacker News

Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

businessinsider.com

61–70 of 297 posts

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#61
post #8

As it should be. Politics at work makes for untenable working conditions. Large enough companies will tend to have people deeply on both sides of the political spectrum. Encouraging or even allowing discussion on hot political issues is a recipe for disaster. It can ruin what we’re otherwise perfectly good working relationships.

Would you feel similar if the reinstated law was something like racial segregation?

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#62

The learned oblivion in this discussion is very disheartening: every person saying to “leave politics at home” should understand that our basic boundaries around personal and working time came from long and protracted political battles over the powers of our employers. Those battles were fought because people complained, loudly at their workplaces, and won their colleagues over. Abortion is not the labor movement, bu…

Reproductive rights are workers' rights, only workers will need to worry about the consequences of abortion bans. Others can afford the freedom to do what they want with their bodies.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's venting. It's bonding with coworkers who also feel their world is collapsing. Hard to focus on work, talk about the preso when, for example, people are storming our Capitol.

Venting doesn't work: https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/venting-makes-you-feel-... . HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30601594 .

It sure works for me.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. At the same time, I think we're sadly coming to terms with the reality that our voices don't matter in the political arena anymore. If anything, I think social media has created the illusion that being loud and angry online is an effective replacement for actual strikes, protests, etc. We can tweet angrily all day long, but those in power are going to continue doing what they do because they know we're just…

I absolutely agree, and I think this nicely summarizes why political discussion at work is more important than ever: it amounts to real discussions between human beings with emotional and professional ties, not flame wars between angry Tweeters. I don’t agree with my coworkers on everything. But when they talk about politics I listen , and try my best to engage in a cogent discussion. Maintaining a culture of politic…

Meta isn't banning discussion of politics in groups of employees. It's banning discussion in open channels.

If you want to listen to employees talk pro-life / pro-choice, join the groups for that and do so. Keeping Roe v. Wade discussion out of the equivalent of Slack #general or All-Hands email list seems more than reasonable.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#65
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Policy affects daily life. A stable daily life leads to a productive worker. Wanting stable work but not doing anything to support the workers life is the biggest most capitalistic thing too. Heartless and inhumane

The company doesn't have the power to change politics like that, so there is no point in getting the company involved or pick sides. The only neutral solution is to ban political discussions in the workplace, same as it should be in schools. Any other way leads to a psychologically unsafe environment to work at, which definitely doesn't lead to a stable daily life and thus a productive worker.

You're saying Meta doesn't have the power to change politics? Where have you been since 2016.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#66

The learned oblivion in this discussion is very disheartening: every person saying to “leave politics at home” should understand that our basic boundaries around personal and working time came from long and protracted political battles over the powers of our employers. Those battles were fought because people complained, loudly at their workplaces, and won their colleagues over. Abortion is not the labor movement, bu…

You're right, I should be using my work environment to agitate for repealing all the ridiculous and unjust gun laws we have and the shitty bill congress just passed. It's more important that we win colleagues over to protecting our rights. Not that I will do this, but when I see people talk about things like this, they usually do not feel the same if I suggest what I might do. I think the abortion laws in my state ne…

You shouldn’t “agitate” for anything political at work, unless you mean that in a humorous way (I sometimes do!)

Instead, you should put your best self forward and treat your political positions as a humanizing element. It’s been my experience that extremely healthy workplace discussions can occur when people start from a place of human respect, not agreement (indeed, it seems like agreeing parties eventually find something to disagree over, no matter how trivial.)

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#67
post #24

Tricky. Politics/societal/economic/etc issues such as this one are very important to be discussed. However, companies are a place for work. Talking to co-workers can be quite fulfilling and exciting when conversing about engineering, marketing, or other work related subjects you are passionate about. However, anytime politics, etc are brought up I (for one) leave the conversation feeling in a worse state of mind than…

I'm not sorry for taking the opposite opinion, and its strictly for the reason that: these megacorps will, at the drop of a hat, spend millions in donations and lobbying for whatever causes their executives believe furthers the goals of the business [1]. "We the executives" are allowed to talk about it, and pay for what we believe is right, but "you the line workers", shut up, if you don't like it go work somewhere e…

> I'm not sorry for taking the opposite opinion, and its strictly for the reason that: these megacorps will, at the drop of a hat, spend millions in donations and lobbying for whatever causes their executives believe furthers the goals of the business [1].

How would this apply in small businesses or businesses that don't engage in lobbying?

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#68

The learned oblivion in this discussion is very disheartening: every person saying to “leave politics at home” should understand that our basic boundaries around personal and working time came from long and protracted political battles over the powers of our employers. Those battles were fought because people complained, loudly at their workplaces, and won their colleagues over. Abortion is not the labor movement, bu…

Leave politics at home is the same as saying capitalism above all else.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#69

Tricky. Politics/societal/economic/etc issues such as this one are very important to be discussed. However, companies are a place for work. Talking to co-workers can be quite fulfilling and exciting when conversing about engineering, marketing, or other work related subjects you are passionate about. However, anytime politics, etc are brought up I (for one) leave the conversation feeling in a worse state of mind than…

Companies proudly proclaim that employees should bring their ‘whole selves’ to work. They sponsor resource groups for parents, women, minorities, gay/lesbian/trans, Christian/Muslim/Jewish, and vet employees. But when employees want to actually talk about the issues rather than watch ‘empowering’ motivational speakers, then bringing your whole self to work is suddenly a distraction. They can’t have it both ways.

Just as importantly they are very toxic to a set of political viewpoints. In some industries (O&G) that is liberal ones. In some industries (tech) that is conservative ones. In some industries (finance) that is most things outside centrist (Romney Republican, Manchin Democrat).

When the "activist" types push politics into workplaces they are not doing it so they can talk about what they feel. They are doing it so they can find the people who disagree and damage their careers. Maybe I am cynical here but I have seen careers be seriously damaged this way.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely agree, and I think this nicely summarizes why political discussion at work is more important than ever: it amounts to real discussions between human beings with emotional and professional ties, not flame wars between angry Tweeters. I don’t agree with my coworkers on everything. But when they talk about politics I listen , and try my best to engage in a cogent discussion. Maintaining a culture of politic…

Meta isn't banning discussion of politics in groups of employees. It's banning discussion in open channels. If you want to listen to employees talk pro-life / pro-choice, join the groups for that and do so. Keeping Roe v. Wade discussion out of the equivalent of Slack #general or All-Hands email list seems more than reasonable.

The article itself concerns online discussion spaces, but what constitutes an “open channel”? Should employees expect to be reprimanded or potentially punished for talking about abortion rights in a company hallway, because an uninvolved coworker might happen to walk by?

The baseline position here (“don’t create political distractions in large channels”) is reasonable on face value. But I have difficultly believing that it’s not pretextual, and that the real goal isn’t to generally chill political discussion between colleagues.

Post reply on HN