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

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

#731

Post by scatters » Sat, May 22, 2021, 9:58 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #691

sudosysgen wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Your labour and are not owed because they got lucky, they are owed because that is what you are exchanging with the lord for the privilege to work this land" "Your labour and skills are not owed because they got lucky, they are owed because that is what you are exchanging with the owner to pay back your debt and earn your freedom" You can use that logic to justify any oppression as long as you frame it in the langua…

> It's not a choice. You have a (metaphorical) pistol to your head to engage with the system as it is, die, or be killed. This is ridiculous. In the US people constantly quit to start small businesses, work for other businesses, or just not work at all. There is zero threat of violence if you choose not to work. Additionally, there is no concept of debt slavery at all outside of the military (which is probably the mo…

> If I grow some cucumbers in my garden, who have I stolen them from?

The cucumbers aren't stolen, but the land is. Ultimately almost all private property in land was dispossesed of common ownership or previous inhabitants. Not that you need to feel guilty about it, but you do need to pay your taxes.

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

#732

Post by Barrin92 » Sat, May 22, 2021, 10:02 AM UTC

motohagiography wrote: post #152

Boards should have more apprehension about their companies being exploited as political platforms by employees. It's as though there is a bargain where in exchange for boards tolerating staff radicalization, these employee groups cheerfully overlook the dystopian, totalitarian surveillance infrastructure, environmental devastation, and political corruption machines they seem to have zero problem building and managing…

>All I can recommend is, don't let yourself be bullied.

well the shareholders are always free to write the software that earns them their money themselves then.

Completely aside whether I agree with the rest of your post, this isn't about people being bullied, it's simply about tech workers exercising their very considerable bargaining power to pursue their goals which have transcended earning a paycheck, which is their right.

This is the free market everyone in tech loves, negotiating for political leverage is just a higher form of compensation Turns out tech firms love disruption, except when their own work model gets disrupted

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

#733

Post by caspper69 » Sat, May 22, 2021, 10:03 AM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #560

ramblerman wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your sentiment that we are more than replacable robots. But I think for a long time 'a whole person' referred to your character, your hobbies, your family, your quirks. And politics was a small, and usually private part of that. We are in a time now where politics is tribal and has usurped a huge part of people's identities. To the point they see the other tribe as the devil merely by association. And I…

> But I think for a long time 'a whole person' referred to your character, your hobbies, your family, your quirks. And politics was a small, and usually private part of that. Is it possible that you’re referring to a time when large classes of people had little to no voice in politics or representation in government?

No, he's referring to a time when people weren't antagonistic and tribal at work, just like he said.

From the tone of your comment, you seem incredulous that such a time actually existed. It did.

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

#734

Post by gnicholas » Sat, May 22, 2021, 10:05 AM UTC

foota wrote: post #332

MattGaiser wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be in some places like California. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/harassment/political-reta...

Interesting, I didn't know that! I wonder whether restricting the expression of only political topics at work infringes on this.

My understanding is that it would not infringe, so long as it is a party-agnostic policy.

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

#735

Post by caspper69 » Sat, May 22, 2021, 10:10 AM UTC

catgary wrote: post #503

jckahn wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s fair, but if a character in said movie was making brazenly anti-Semitic views (for instance) I think it would be reasonable to share that it made you uncomfortable and have a discussion about it at some reasonable time shortly thereafter.

Yeah, once I was watching the Ottoman Lieutenant with my wife and parents - I turned it off because the film seemed to be denying the Armenian genocide.

You must be fun at parties.

In my day, we had to constantly pick and choose our battles so we didn't come across as assholes.

I guess going the opposite direction and airing every single tiny grievance to any person who will listen eliminates that minor inconvenience; everyone gets offended.

But on the plus side you don't get offended anymore, and that's all that matters nowadays anyway.

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

#736

Post by gsk22 » Sat, May 22, 2021, 10:11 AM UTC

nearbuy wrote: post #671

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…

> But what if the employee had been in the KKK, and had argued for white supremacy, and that other races were lazy and poor workers? Would you still think an employer would be out of bounds for firing that employee? I'm going to go in a different direction here and say maybe we shouldn't fire former KKK members if they aren't causing problems at work. Look, these people need to eat. Either they work somewhere, or the…

If you are a former KKK member who truly wishes to renounce your former beliefs and reform, you should be aware of what an uphill battle it will be to rejoin normal society after espousing such abhorrent hateful beliefs. You have to be aware that some people will never be able to forgive you for that, and that you will lose social and financial opportunities based on your past actions.

As someone who participates in the hiring process, and who works with a large contingent of non-white people, I could not justify hiring a former KKK member unless they showed serious, ongoing efforts to rectify their past. For the same reason I would never hire a former Auschwitz guard if I worked with many Jewish people.

Actions have consequences, and allying yourself with a racist organization has lifelong repercussions.

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

#737

Post by swiley » Sat, May 22, 2021, 10:14 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #374

eric4smith wrote: post #7

People are human. But work is work. The canonical point of a workplace is to come together to fulfill the aims of the entrepreneurs. The personal aims of the workers are fulfilled best outside of work. Just stop to think about it logically for a minute... is the workplace the best place to circulate a petition condemning something that has nothing to do with work? The workplace necessarily is going to bring together…

> The canonical point of a workplace is to come together to fulfill the aims of the entrepreneurs. I disagree. The notion that humans turn into employer-owned production machinery for 8 hours a day is one very particular way to conceptualize work. But it ignores both the individual as a whole person and the society that contains and enables the workplace to function. To me, even as a former and perhaps future entrepr…

I'd totally agree if we were still required to be in the office.

With WFH though you can actually more or less pick who you're spending those 8 hours with, in that case maybe keep the politics among the people you're physically around.

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

#738

Post by jacksonkmarley » Sat, May 22, 2021, 10:16 AM UTC

This 'article' is very short, and the evidence of 'failing' to run away from politics is dropped in the second last sentence.

I think there is a big difference between having a discussion about politics at work, and using your workplace as a tool to forward your political agenda. Somewhere in the middle is using company resources as a platform for (not directly work-related) political discussion.

Although I dislike the way that most employers take advantage of unequal power distributions with employees, I don't see any real issue with a company saying "our policy is to leave politics for non-work time". At some point as an employee you are actually expected to do things that your employer wants, and if you are doing non-work why should the company pay for it unless it's part of your work agreement?

A company transitioning between different policies is a challenging situation, and for a company in the public eye that will almost inevitably generate controversy, but actually "letting the market decide" about this issue seems good. It means that there are companies at various points on the politics-at-work spectrum that employees can choose from.

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

#739

Post by swiley » Sat, May 22, 2021, 10:19 AM UTC

mattnewton wrote: post #345

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…

I don’t think everyone interpreted “Simpsons yellow” as race-less. Certainly the show didn’t - On the show, Homer identifies as a white male IIRC, and some characters (like Apu) are not yellow. You have to pick some skin tone for the default; just floating features would be off putting. Believing that the pan-white default of “simpsons yellow” is raceless because you feel represented in it excludes that others might…

This is why I've always preferred the unifont interpretation of emojis: just monochrome graphics that get rendered with the same color as the surrounding text.

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

#740

Post by louwrentius » Sat, May 22, 2021, 10:21 AM UTC

sjaak wrote: post #678

I just listened to a conversation where Sam Harris paints a bleak picture after having spoken with leaders in tech. Sam Harris (SH): I was recently at a meeting of very connected people in tech and media. I won't name anyone but they are people who are or were running some of the biggest companies. These are people with massive influence and are on the same page with everything we've said here. But when told that the…

That’s funny, if you deliberately say the actual N-word instead of using ‘N-word’, even in the described context, I actually can see why you would fire somebody.

Because I can’t see a valid reason why you would actually say that very laden word out loud in almost any context.