[_o0rc]

As pointed out below, there are some states where politics are protected. I looked it up because I do plan to use that information in hiring decisions going forward.

I wouldn't surprised if I get downvoted for this, but I intend to ask anyone I interview in the future (not currently in a role that involves hiring) if they voted for Trump in 2020. And a yes will be a disqualifying answer on the basis of poor judgement. (It's also a question I will be asking any potential employer I interview with, going forward, for the same reason.)

Yes, I will lose some diversity of thought as a result. Yes it means I can't hire employees in California. Yes, there will be potential bad PR. No, I won't feel guilty about it at all. And yes, I will also run it by appropriate lawyers before actually implementing it.

[esja]

Something to ponder given the topic of this thread... your comment says very clearly that you're willing to make decisions which impact a company negatively, provided they benefit you emotionally. That's disqualifying for most positions involving hiring or any other management responsibility, and it's connected to your real identity.

[LarvaFX]

"Impact a company negatively" is your opinion as much as the reversal seems to be the opinion of the parent commentor.

[esja]

It’s not an opinion, it’s basic logic and arithmetic. Shrinking the hiring pool by eliminating both Trump voters and also the non-Trump voters who don’t like the implications of the question. That’s a very large negative and is based on math, not opinion.

[_o0rc]

I'm not sure that I share the assumptions here about the distribution of talent throughout the American voting population, in particular given that the venn diagram of the tech hiring pool and the American voting population is not a circle.

[esja]

Make a list of the distinct demographic categories in your hiring pool, ordered by size. You may be surprised. Depending on location and role, “Trump Voter and offended non-Trump Voter” could easily be second only to “Male non-Trump voter”, i.e. ahead of “Female non-Trump voter”. In many places it would certainly be the largest distinct demographic. That should give you pause.

Unless you define “tech hiring pool” as “recent college grads living in the Bay Area”. But even there the numbers are material.

[_o0rc]

It may not have been clear from my comment, but it’s not an emotional benefit for me. And I don’t agree that it’s necessarily a net negative for the company. There are a lot of factors that impact a company’s overall performance.

[esja]

If it’s not an emotional benefit, what are your rational grounds for this? You propose to exclude tens of millions of people because you believe their vote proves they have poor judgement. Yet you are displaying poor judgment by making this proposal.

[ThrustVectoring]

For what it's worth, as an engineering candidate being asked that question would disqualify the asking company from consideration. I do not want to work at a company that is so politically active that the question is allowed. I would also tell my point of contact exactly why I was withdrawing my candidacy and who was responsible.

[_o0rc]

That’s totally reasonable. And there are companies that have publicly taken positions that align with this.

It wasn’t clear in my comment, but I’m not presenting this from a middle management perspective. I wouldn’t arbitrarily be adding new requirements to some employer’s hiring. This is me speaking about how I’ll act for any company I start next (having been a founder and CEO before).

[gnicholas]

> It's also a question I will be asking any potential employer I interview with, going forward, for the same reason.

This would be a very strange question to be asked of an interviewer.

> Yes it means I can't hire employees in California

Per the article I linked to up-thread, it's not just CA:

California, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia, Seattle, Ann Arbor, and Madison.

Maybe you don't care about some of those locations, but CA, CO, and Seattle seem like pretty important ones in the tech world.

[_o0rc]

It would be a strange question, depending on the scenario. You can imagine I probably don’t anticipate being in interviews where I’m asking that of somebody who isn’t the primary executive. (In other words, I wouldn’t want to work under someone whose judgement I don’t trust, and this would be a dealbreaker on judgement.)

You’re correct that it rules out some important locations in tech, and I do think geography will continue to matter to a degree.

I think there’s also some appeal to a company that has strong, publicly stated principles that can benefit recruiting, but it remains to be seen. But when I consider potential future ventures, these are things I’ve considered and intend to apply.

[gnicholas]

IMO it would show exceedingly bad judgment to ask someone how they voted in an interview. I wouldn’t categorically refuse to hire such a person, but it would be a strike against.

[_o0rc]

I understand that perspective, but it doesn't affect my position. I'm free to choose who I work for, and I wouldn't choose to work for someone who found the question disqualifying. I get to define my own utility function.

[gnicholas]

Sure, you're free to choose your employer however you wish, and there are plenty of tech companies whose executives didn't vote for Trump.

But you may find that many executives — including those who did not vote for Trump — are not interested in hiring people who believe they are entitled to know how their colleagues/bosses voted.

[_o0rc]

Sure, I won't argue that. But it's another useful filter for me.

[giantDinosaur]

The reason the secret ballot is even a thing is exactly because of people like you. Thank goodness you aren't in a role that involves hiring given such politicisation of the hiring process. I sincerely hope you never get such a position again.

[zo1]

You should probably put that on your job-listing ads!

Also, how do you plan on phrasing the question? And if you're not fully within the power to "disqualify" the candidate, what other steps are you planning on taking to prevent them from being hired by your employer? Have you discussed it yet with your employer's HR department yet?

[_o0rc]

Ha, yes, the intent is that it would be an open and stated part of the hiring process. There's no reason to surprise people with the question. I'd rather let candidates self-select them out, as much for this question as for any other mis-alignments.

I did a poor job in my first comment of explaining my role relative to hiring. I'm speaking from a position of having been a founder and CEO, and likely being one again. The question about how this would play it with HR is understood, but isn't applicable to me personally. I believe (as I suspect you do) that in most organizations, this would be a hard thing to instill retroactively or individually and would meet lots of resistance, unless it were a very philosophically aligned company.

[DenisM]

Would you consider listing this preference on your linked-in profile then? It's the same deal as a job ad.

[_o0rc]

If I were looking for work, I would consider it.

[goatcode]

I'd genuinely recommend just letting such things be a permanent fixture of your profile. It would save you a lot of headaches and wasted time dealing with people who'd ultimately not want to interact with you, and likewise with whom you'd not want to interact.