[jollybean]

What 'brand of politics' is it to suggest that politics shouldn't be a major factor at work.

Also, to your OP's point ... I think it's reductionist to suggest that 'companies are an exchange for labour' - this is too much.

Almost all educated workers derive some meaning and dignity from their work beyond salary or benefits.

So 'what we work on matters'.

That said, even if we work on 'some new currency that can help the world' it may still mean that whether or not the company should fly the BLM flag is a bit of a political matter.

[zarkov99]

I very much doubt educated workers, and I assume you really mean tech workers, derive much more than money and prestige from their incredibly well paid but for the most amoral jobs. Big tech life is saturated with hypocrisy. Most workers just play along, virtue signaling like the rest, and keep cashing the RSU's hoping to one day have enough cash to be able to buy back their independence of thought.

[taurath]

> What 'brand of politics' is it to suggest that politics shouldn't be a major factor at work.

Let’s apply this to say the stereotypical 50s “Mad Men” office, gender gap and everything. To be political in that time and say hey women shouldnt just be secretaries and stay at home parents wouldn’t fly, it’s political. That’s what I think is meant by “a no politics rule means acceptance of status quo”. That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of people happy with the status quo, or who think it’s fair and equitable as is.

Not that the ones being “political” are necessarily correct completely or in part right now, but there were plenty who liked the status quo just fine back then too.