[CarelessExpert]

> why are people discussing politics at work?

Probably because the work these companies do is frequently political.

Let's be clear: What Coinbase is saying is, we the founders, who set the company's mission, and are doing so with a clear political view (rooted in libertarianism and so forth), are allowed to use the company to further our political ends.

But the staff? Sorry, you have no voice.

Maybe that's fine. The clear message to staff is: you are either onboard with our mission, or you can leave.

But let's not pretend companies and workplaces are apolitical. That's, at best, deeply naive.

Frankly, I wonder how much of what we're seeing now is due to the destruction of unionized labour, which were organizations explicitly designed to channel the political views of employees into collective action. Absent those structures, a) you get this bizarre perception that the workplace is apolitical (it's not), and b) staff no longer have a path whereby their views and values can be channeled and expressed.

[JauntyHatAngle]

You're absolutely right, and I'm disappointed that you've been voted down to negative. At the very least this is a well worded argument worth looking at.

Politics, as much as we all hate it, is engaged with everywhere in business.

Choosing to be apolitical is effectively a form of political engagement, usually resulting in a vote for the status quo and/or the pursuit of money eschewing engagement in difficult questions in society.

This can be argued about whether it is moral or not, or even if a company has much of a choice in the matter (There are many entrenched companies that do "immoral" political things that are near impossible not to engage with as a business), and this is not unique to coinbase, but it's not somehow withdrawing from judgement on morality when you say you are "apolitical", and you still should be judged on your politics and lack of engagement in society.

Let's not be naive here, any larger company, even the most "apolitical" company still has large influence, uses services, and makes decisions that are politically charged.

That said, it's not all one direction where all political activism within a company is great, but eschewing all politics is not doing so at all.

[notSupplied]

The employees have a voice: as private citizens. The workplace is not a democratic community, and the employees are not its constituency. It a place where employer-employee come together to complete a mission that both sides consent to, otherwise they separate. Of course, mission is a negotiable term just like compensation and benefits, an employee is free to ask "in addition to pay you must also dedicate the company's resources and attention to my preferred causes", and the employer is free to decline. Coinbase is simply make it clear that changing their mission is not a price they are willing to pay, so please look elsewhere.

I think this brings clarity to the work relationship, as "the power to direct the political mission of the company" had been previously an unstated, unnegotiated axis of the terms of employment. People are now learning that this need to be crystal clear upfront.

[smooth_remmy]

There's a group you forgot to consider: the investors.

What do the investors think? They are free to usurp the founders if they feel that Coinbase is not paying proper homage to social justice.

[CarelessExpert]

Certainly true, though to me that only reinforces my point.

Investors invest in companies based on their perception of the value of a company, and that perception is of course coloured by political views.

Heck, we have an entire financial movement called Socially Responsible Investing, something which is nakedly political and a clear acknowledgement that politics cannot be, and has never been, divorced from business.

I find it infinitely more strange to think that workplaces can be apolitical at all. Choosing to work for Palantir or Coinbase or The Gates Foundation or Amazon is (in part) a political decision. It may not be a conscious or intentional political decision, but it's a political decision nonetheless.

How could anyone think otherwise?

[chillwaves]

Movement to support the investor class is just another angle of politics. People forget this, since they are such a dominant wing in western society.

[TheColorYellow]

> Let's be clear: What Coinbase is saying is, we the founders, who set the company's mission, and are doing so with a clear political view (rooted in libertarianism and so forth), are allowed to use the company to further our political ends.

One hundred percent this. There is a reason Coinbase is one of the few companies to take a stance like this.

The company's foundational value is literally based on the notion of state-free finance. They have no incentive to do anything to allow their company to be steered into engaging with conventional politics. In fact, they benefit from taking strong stances that maintain the status quo if the status quo furthers their own mission.

So, yeah, Coinbase is indeed very mission oriented.

[vyhd]

This is literally the only take I've read in this entire comment thread that has a firm grasp on the entire picture. Thanks for that.