|
|
|
|
|
by tallgiraffe
2102 days ago
|
|
Free speech advocates should be celebrating this decision, rather than trying to portray it as something evil. "Employees shouldn’t have to confront social issues in their day-to-day work unless they want to." - What part of that is bad? Regardless of your opinions, your ability to do great work should be separated from your ability to have social/political arguments. Much like you shouldn't force anyone at work to be Vegan, because you are, or to avoid Gluten, because you do, you also should not insist that employees participate in discussions that are otherwise none of their interests. Making sure that employees can ignore the social noise and continue to do their job is a net positive - better for the employer, and better for the employee. |
|
>"Employees shouldn’t have to confront social issues in their day-to-day work unless they want to." - What part of that is bad?
>Regardless of your opinions, your ability to do great work should be separated from your ability to have social/political arguments.
That seems to be ignoring that the discussion these employees were wanting to have was about the societal impacts of their work, not some abstract discussion about societal issues - I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to be exposed to a discussion on the societal impacts of their work.
Especially when the impacts are as extreme as murder (Kenosha), genocide (Myanmar), or furthering conspiracy theories (Qanon)