Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#791

Post by mancerayder » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:11 PM UTC

FussyZeus wrote: post #488

magashna wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it can be to create a neutral environment to get work done, as a professional environment should be. I just want to put in my hours and go home. Keep your politics to yourself.

Except by virtue of being neutral/centrist/apolitical, you are in fact still making a political statement in favor of the status quo. I’m not commenting on Google allowing or disallowing. I don’t really care and to be honest, if my workplace has a discussion board internally I’d probably not talk politics on it anyway. What I will say though is I think it’s interesting that google found it appropriate to allow it whe…

He didn't say he had neutral views, he said he wanted a neutral work environment.

The attempt to guilt people into rolling around in the mud, or perhaps 'resistance' as you call it, is exactly the mentality that's ruining political conversation for everyone else.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#792

Post by memmcgee » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:11 PM UTC

Genuinely don't know if HN is as reactionary as this comment sections makes it seem or if we're just getting astroturfed by the usual suspects.

I can't be the only one who sees this as a significant crackdown on employee freedoms and an attempt to silence dissent.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#793

Post by ChuckMcM » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:13 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #750

ChuckMcM wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good example :-) The 'hard' solution is to teach people to communicate about topics on which they disagree. An easier solution would be to have employee moderators. A combination of providing communication classes and moderators with a dose of involuntary enrollment might be a middle ground. For a long time Google generated hundreds of thousands of dollars per employee in revenue which they have been banking for the…

Mediation and coaching are certainly great ideas for non-traditional approaches, although I feel that’s beyond the scope of a company given how resource intensive this is. Beside, you won’t get the Dalai Lama with all the tools at his avail to accept the mainstream Chinese point of view. That said I wouldn’t mind if a company tried this approach out of curiosity to see how it works out.

> although I feel that’s beyond the scope of a company given how resource intensive this is.

That's the thing, Google banks multiple BILLION dollars in free cash every quarter. Lets say you build a 'company within the company' and give it a budget of $100M a YEAR. That is a pretty sizable enterprise for what is funded out of about 1% of the cash that would otherwise just sit around in 'cash and cash equivalents'.

One might think that an executive management team might say, "Hmm, if we spend 1% of our free cash flow on improving the communications of all of our employees, what effect will that have on their productivity?" Will they be "more productive" or "less productive" ? They already have the null hypothesis results to compare to.

To make a comparison, a more "traditional" company might consider starting up a private bus service to move their employees from their homes to work and back again was too resource intensive. And yet that is exactly what Google did.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#794

Post by lagadu » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:15 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #320

nailer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the memo was citations of studies of sex differences. People can either agree with the studies or disagree with the research used (it's totally cool with me if you do disagree with the research), but the idea that someone should be punished for talking about research at a company that extols "data driven decision making" as one of it's principles baffles me.

It was not just a lit review. It drew conclusions from the synthesis of the citations and advocated for specific policy changes within Google. That was the part that pissed people off. Lots of people don't believe that the studies support the conclusions that he drew.

People observe data points, draw conclusions and then expose them to other people. This is a good thing, this is how we start talking about things, by exposing our conclusions to the outside and refining them based on that. Not liking someone's conclusions doesn't give them the right to silence them.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#795

Post by foolrush » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:15 PM UTC

t34543 wrote: post #767

oppositelock wrote: post #187

I worked at Google for quite a while, 2005-2013, and even then, the internal political discussion was pretty toxic, but a lot smaller in scope since there are far fewer people. There were definitely groups meant for discussing politics, and loudmouths like me willingly participated in those - however, it was very uncivil. There was a majority view in the company, and if anyone didn't agree with the majority view, the…

Discussing politics at work is a huge liability. With the recent surge of outrage culture I’m not willing to put my job on the line to prove a point. I engage in discussion, but only online and anonymously.

Your ability to create the ontology of “What is political” versus “What is not political” classification is one of privilege.

“Food isn’t political” is only “not political” for someone who is well fed and not concerned about where their next meal is coming from.

Everything is political.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#796

Post by sequoia » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:20 PM UTC

Diederich wrote: post #484

sequoia wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's more important to talk about than your immortal soul? The problem is when I think those not saved by Jesus will burn for eternity and you think religious people are the bane of advanced civilization, and there's no way to reconcile these views, this is a problem . It doesn't matter how fervently you or I hold our beliefs, discussing them is only going to lead to discord. Does this mean you and I cannot work to…

> It doesn't matter how fervently you or I hold our beliefs, discussing them is only going to lead to discord. In one of the companies I have worked, I participated in exactly the discussion you mentioned, on many occasions, and no discord was created. All involved remained friendly and effective co-workers. To my knowledge, this freedom of discussion was widespread.

Fair point. Personally, I'm also comfortable disagreeing with people strongly & still being friendly. Unfortunately this trait is not widespread. If you don't think so, I would ask why you think "Don't talk about politics or religion [at work, at the dinner table etc.]" has been such a common maxim for so long? (In case you're not from North America: this is a commonly understood practice in North America.)

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#797

Post by ci5er » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:22 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #775

ci5er wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the detailed and sincere response. I apologize upfront for not knowing who Mike Savage is, but it is my understanding that Limbaugh (who I don't listen to, so I could be wrong) is a guy that rudely declares that we should enforce border policies as written into regulations written by Congress? That may not be true, but if it is, is that wrong-headed? Edit: I have many loving/giving Muslim friends, and with…

> it is my understanding that Limbaugh is a guy that rudely declares that we should enforce border policies as written into regulations written by Congress? I'm somewhat conflicted in my thinking on border enforcement, and I do think it should, in general, exist, but that's far from the core and the tone of his argument, I think. He also declares that Mexicans in general are lazy (regardless of the legality of their…

Anyone that thinks Mexicans are lazy have never worked beside them.

But, one size does not fit all. My anecdotes to that effect are surely not data.

But my friends of Mexican descent (Americans) don't like uncontrolled migration because of the (perceived?) downward pressure on wages for unskilled labor.

EDIT: That last point was also anecdotal. My gut feel (intuition) is largely driven by my experience. I do not claim that this experience is global or globally correct.

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#798

Post by iamleppert » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:22 PM UTC

It's about time Google cracked the whip on this entitled engineers! Maybe they would shut down less products if employees were actually at their posts and kept their noses clean! As an employee of a company, YOU are the one who needs to just show up and do your job without complaints or causing a disruption in the work place!

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#799

Post by iNate2000 » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:23 PM UTC

einhverfr wrote: post #703

nickstinemates wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In urban California, among software developers, you are likely to have one or two political views represented at most, and these represent a small racial and class-based cross-section of urban California. I would argue that these are the only ones allowed.

In what sense allowed?

Allowed by the echo chambers

Re: Google Doesn’t Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore

#800

Post by wbronitsky » Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:23 PM UTC

lagadu wrote: post #788

JaRail wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He offended a broad class of people. Women shouldn't have to pick and choose who they feel comfortable working with around the office. Or worse, be forced to work with that guy. Once he expressed views like that, his fate was sealed. You don't punish the victims.

"Victims" of someone expressing opinions they disagree with? Oh the horror!

I don't know why I'm responding to the most flippant comment here, but I think your argument, however poorly stated, is worth countering.

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership." - James Damore

I don't think the preceding quote is an "opinion they disagree with" as much as it is pseudo-intellectualism covering up outright hate. This is stated as a fact, not cited and not backed up. It asserts that women are not fit to work at Google, and implies that the women he works with are incompetent because of biology. If your coworker asserted that you were biologically inferior at your job, I think you would take drastic measures as well.