First Coinbase, now Basecamp: Should workplaces ban political talk on internal corporate platforms? Project management software maker Basecamp has come under fire for banning its employees from having “societal and political discussions” using their work accounts. The Chicago-based outfit announced a number of changes to its workplace on Monday, including getting rid of peer-performance reviews, disbanding all committees, …
Where I work we self moderate for the most part. We're all aware that everyone has different views, so we don't let things get to the unplesant stage. If a discussion is getting people angry then they will just say "look, let's agree to differ and leave it there" or something similar. Not a bad system as no one is having to tell us to shut up and we're also not clawing each others throats out on whether Brexit was a good thing or not.
I worked in an office in central Belfast in the 80s, mostly fairly young staff with a good educational background. The political/religious makeup of the office was pretty close to that of the province as a whole. We tended to avoid local political subjects in large groups at coffee break time because they were sensitive (and there were two guys that we just knew would get steamed up) but we frequently discussed wider political, and religious subjects. The conversations were usually tolerant and light-hearted, and most people know when to draw a line and change the subject. I like to think we all learned something about other cultures & backgrounds, and it never stopped us all heading for a beer together on a Friday after work.
At most of the companies I've worked at it has been either a written or unwritten rule that politics is taboo.
You can have you own opinions and follow whichever party you want, CDU, FDP, SPD, Grüne, Linke AfD etc. But you don't discuss it at work it has nothing to do with your job, so keep it for your social circle.
Certainly all company communication tools are for business purposes only.
On the racial split in Scottish football ( for those who don't know, Glasgow Rangers are protestant, Glasgow Celtic are catholic ), I recently found out that there's a tradition in Scotland of the Celtic team all bending down into a a huddle before the game.
Hatred of "the other side" means that ex-Rangers players will refuse to do this even if playing in England.
You'll see a whole team in the English Premier League bending down in a huddle before a match, with one Scottish bloke standing straight.
Bizarre.
> Fried also said that controversial discussions are a “major distraction” and aren’t “healthy.”
That's a troubling statement right there. Difficult discussions aren't healthy? Real discussion is something that is sorely lacking in modern times, particularly in modern times.
The reason for it is that many people these days don't seem to be mature enough to realise that other people might disagree with their views for very valid reasons and are not sure how to handle that difference. The default social media response is to silence and dehumanise those with which you disagree, to call them fascists, racists or whatever *-ist they think might stick. It's why we have such polarised politics now, nobody really wants to listen to different perspectives.
What we need is *more* discussion of the productive kind and less of the "you're a fascist arsehole" kind.
I had a colleague like that, we were mates, it only got worse after, like everything else, Brexit, but since we were a bit closer I could afford myself to quickly shut him up or steer the subject away more rudely than others in the room would feel appropriate.
He's pro leave as some relatives of his in some iberian village who will be losing their property there so I no longer have to do the above.
I had this come up entirely unexpected when interviewing someone. On paper and until then, I was happy with this character and this candidate was heading for the shortlist.
That is, until said candidate started giving a personal take on politics (let's just say that calling it a tad off-centre would be understating things).
Here's a rule: your interview isn't done until you have physically and/or electronically left the meeting. In addition, especially in companies dealing with very sensitive issues they will watch for anything that could be abused as leverage against the company and its reputation like a hawk.
Yes, we have such bans in place, and during induction days it is explained why as well. A sensibly motivated restriction is far easier followed than one that is just imposed, that's just human nature.
This.
So much.
You are allowed a personal opinion, though. And you can (depending on what your work is) be a member of a party.
And I think it is a healthy thing for everybody to think about and adapt to it.
I do discuss politics at work with some people I am friends with, and we do disagree quite a bit, but we keep the discussion civilised. And neither is it visible company wide nor outside of the company.
What is a problem here is that it seems they are trying to use this to shut up people complaining about xenophobic attitudes among colleagues.
Nobody is being shut up.
They can still formally raise concerns with their managers/HR.
They can still discuss things in-person.
They can still use messaging systems other than their official/employer-supplied one.
I've worked for a company that had no restrictions on the internal email system (apart from "nothing illegal"). The amount of useless crap that ended up in everyone's inbox was incredible. Some people didn't even have a personal email account outside the company and were upset when leaving that they could not take all their emails with them.
This is exactly how things should be.
Why should the company get dragged through the mud of their employees personal opinions.
Today's Left Wing have become yesterday's Right Wing and they are terrible people. With their Silence is Violence leitmotif they are accusing everyone who does not stand with their opinions as a Right Wing Bigot...
This is simply physiological violence. And it is very easy to understand why companies do not want to become embroiled.
Small hint: perhaps the second question should include: "There is no rule, company hasn't said anything at all about it at all". Small companies, like my employer, often don't even experience this sort of problem, as everything is informal and friendly; the nearest I could get was that nobody ever does it. Of course in the unlikely event that anyone did, that could change :)
... it might depend on the topic, and the context. Much Brexit discussion might have been generally off-topic in a university, for example; unless it was about (e.g.) the pro's, cons, and tradeoffs of Brexit and research funding; no doubt there might be businesses where some Brexity politics was business-relevant, but not all. Which leaves you next to a vast grey area as relevant discussion merges into related issues, and further into irrelevant ones. Where do you - or rather how can you - draw a line? It sees to me that a "no politics at all" rule could easily be used as a way of shutting down discussion on managerially disliked but nevertheless relevant issues.
People should, instead, have these conversations with co-workers using private channels, whether that’s over other messaging apps like Signal and WhatsApp, or through a personal Basecamp account.
Or perhaps in person, over a beer or a coffee? My Czech colleagues are always happy to chat about the political issues of the day, but only in person, never by mail or slack. We're adult enough to avoid aggressive posturing, and I certainly think we all learn a lot even if we disagree on solutions. I find it amusing (and a little sad) that most of my US colleagues, on the other hand, flatly refuse to discuss politics, even at the generic "can you explain about..." level, and religion/culture is only discussed reluctantly. There was one exception, someone that I knew was involved outside work with the Democrat campaign when Obama was running. I knew him well enough to ask (over dinner outside the office) if he thought the USA was ready for a black president, we had a most interesting discussion. He was genuinely pleased that a European would take an interest.
I agree that using work social media apps for it isn't a good idea, it's far too easy for that sort of basic text-only discussion to lead to misunderstandings. The posts also tend to hang around long after the fine nuances of the issue are lost.
The posts also tend to hang around long after the fine nuances of the issue are lost.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is well worth remembering. Today's gutter press and hate groups (collectively best referred to as "the outrage brigade") literally seem to survive on taking things entirely out of context.
Both can be rather contentious topics in any social environment. Depending on who is involved the conversation could get rather heated face-to-face and will escalate faster online in most cases. Often all it does create a wedge between people who often need to work together. By keeping certain topics out of the work place you are less likely create unnecessary friction. The fact too many do not have wisdom to tread on these topics very carefully is a problem.
“It has become common for Silicon Valley companies to engage in a wide variety of social activism, even those unrelated to what the company does, and there are certainly employees who really want this in the company they work for,” CEO Brian Armstrong, said last year.
If you want this in the company you work for, go work for Green Peace, PETA or any other activist company. You are at work to work, not to spin politics and spout your virtuous opinion. The lack of work ethic and maturity in the work place (at least here in the US) these days is staggering.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
