[arcturus17]

You’re free to discuss politics outside of the workplace to your heart’s content, gather with other activists and even found your own political organization in your free time. You’re also free to quit your job and devote yourself entirely to, you know, politics. So I don’t buy any of your argument.

[otachack]

I totally get your argument but how do we address issues where there's implicit bias being applied to our work? AKA mostly white, males programming in potentially biased features.

Work is not a politically/religiously clean room environment whether we like it or not.

[icelancer]

>> AKA mostly white, males programming in potentially biased features.

Compared to the US population, white people are significantly underrepresented [0] in US software development jobs and overrepresented by Asians. "Most" is technically true at > 50% but it is hardly reflective of US racial demographics.

sources:

https://www.zippia.com/software-engineer-jobs/demographics/

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

[0]: as are black and hispanic people

[secondcoming]

Your data has no place here

[nathanielks]

That's a distinction without a difference as white people still make up the majority.

[LunaSea]

So you're against equal representation?

[claudiawerner]

>Work is not a politically/religiously clean room environment whether we like it or not.

This is exactly true; I really don't understand the opposite point of view (and I'm happy if anyone can enlighten me; I'm happy for good-faith discussion). It's not hard for anyone to admit that our society, the very organization of people along economic, class, race, and gender lines is 'biased' in some way, that the equality of the law does not reflect in how people are treated. Why do people think that the door to the lobby of your workplace is like a magical portal into another dimension, where these influences/biases/perceptions no longer hold any sway?

I understand that this argument can be extended - for instance, we might say that the public/private distinction is just as arbitrary, but we have good reasons to respect, say, sexual autonomy in the private realm. Do we have similarly good reasons, speaking in terms of what a well-meaning person in society might be concerned about for why 'politics' (speaking broadly as issues from 'the outside' that manifest within the company and issues of the company itself) should enjoy a similar distinction?

We spend one third of our adult lives at work. Much of that time is spent on interacting with others in some way. Should that really be closed off to 'politics'? Is man a political animal (Aristotle's words, not mine!) or not?

[karaterobot]

There is absolutely a political aspect to work. It is entirely relevant to discuss it. It is also entirely legitimate for an employer to say "talk about politics after the whistle blows, I am paying money for your attention right now."

Work is a third of your life, but it's the third of your life that is about doing what somebody else wants you to do in exchange for funding the other two thirds. That's not true for everybody, but it's a rule of thumb.

The other week I moved houses. I hired some movers who charged by the hour. If, instead of moving my furniture, they'd stood around talking about politics, and said "how can you tell us to get back to work instead of talking politics, when labor is an inherently political subject!" I would have been angry. Most people would, I think.

[Sebb767]

The big problem with this discussion is that it is inherently very divisive. Should the nation invade a "malicious" regime to "free" the people or wait for them to find their own way, even if it might lead to more suffering? Is Islam or Atheism the right way? There is no good answer but there are very strong opinions. Discussing those at work will lead to infighting and disagreements between coworkers, as well as a lot of time spent (or, from a company-profit-perspective, wasted) on political activism. Especially since the people with these strong opinions a very happy to annoy you to help their cause or attack you for "standing by and letting it happen". This is bad for everyone involved.

That being said, there's no clear no line, I agree with you. Some political issues are related to the work place - unions come to mind - and those should not be excluded. Disallowing those is probably illegal in most places anyway and Basecamp, by the way, did explicitly exclude issues which are related to work.

But I think the general idea is that yes, you should keep politics (and religion) separated from work, as far as possible. That does not mean that you can not talk about it on your lunch break or after work or that you're not allowed to unionize. But you should not make your coworker uncomfortable because she/he likes guns and you think only maniacs do so.

[LegitShady]

>We spend one third of our adult lives at work. Much of that time is spent on interacting with others in some way. Should that really be closed off to 'politics'? Is man a political animal (Aristotle's words, not mine!) or not?

It's exactly because everyone else must spend time with other people at work that they should keep their politics out of it - their right to work without being harassed for political causes is greater than someone's wish to discuss it at work. That's not why people were hired for the job, its not related to the job, leave it at home.

[claudiawerner]

I am of course very much against harassment at work - I wouldn't want anyone to be the subject of relentless political statements - however, not all (and I daresay not most) political discussion is harassment. I tried to address the idea of "not relevant to the job" by highlighting that these things are relevant to "the job" where "the job" is a facet of both our society and our life - it is not separate from it, nor is "the job" a special realm immune from political influences. "The job" is political, to the extent where economic, gender, racial, sexual, etc. relations are already political on 'the outside'.

The main point of my comment is that saying politics is "not related to the job" is both ahistorical and incorrect, very much in the same way that ethical concerns relating to building bomb is just as "related to the job" as what material the bomb's shell ought to be made of.

Let's take a step back; are ethical concerns part of "the job"? Why or why not?

[LegitShady]

>I tried to address the idea of "not relevant to the job" by highlighting that these things are relevant to "the job" where "the job" is a facet of both our society and our life

Yes, you pulled a word game to justify your position from the outset and are restating it. I disagree. Just because you consider it important to every part of your life, doesn't mean you need to bring it up in your job. It's not an overriding thing for everyone else who doesn't share your level of alarmism and the outlook that economic, gender, racial, sexual issues define every part of your existence. I'm at work - I don't want to care about any of your racial, sexual, etc issues. I will treat you professionally and I want you to do the same.

>The main point of my comment is that saying politics is "not related to the job" is both ahistorical and incorrect, very much in the same way that ethical concerns relating to building bomb is just as "related to the job" as what material the bomb's shell ought to be made of.

Then find a different job. Maybe with an NGO who shares your causes.

>Let's take a step back; are ethical concerns part of "the job"? Why or why not?

Ethical concerns are part of my profession, but they don't define my life and my ethical concerns don't define other people's ethical or professional concerns.

Just treat people professionally and don't bring identity politics into the workplace.

[imgabe]

"We could increase our potential audience by X% and our revenue by Y% by changing feature XYZ to a way that this group does not find so off-putting"

All companies want as many customers as possible. It would not be hard to make a case for something that would create more customers.

[kbenson]

Talk to other employees about it outside work and/or using personal accounts?

Or talk to management (this is not a moratorium on bringing up what employees see as issues with management, this is obviously about communications between employees which is tangentially work related at best.

It doesn't need to be a clean room, but a lot of people have been treating it like the equivalent of a polling place/church (more the former, I think most businesses and employees still know enough to avoid the latter unless they are explicit about it). I don't need to know your political leanings at work, I don't need to know your religious beliefs, and for the same reason I don't need to know your sexual orientation, preferences or kinks. You can make it obvious to me, and I don't care, but work is not the appropriate place for a discussion of any of those things unless the discussion is management or HR telling you that a) none of that matters for your job so you shouldn't care about other people's details with respect to that, b) to stop if you're making it an issue with people, and c) if you don't like that, take a hike. The only other case is when you're telling them someone else won't follow those rules.

[xxxxxxx12]

> how do we address issues where there's implicit bias being applied to our work?

my experience is that most workplaces and social spaces I'm in are systemically liberal, "reality has a liberal bias" abounds

[totony]

>I totally get your argument but how do we address issues where there's implicit bias being applied to our work?

What kind of implicit bias do you mean?