Google Doesn't Want Staff Debating Politics at Work Anymore (bloomberg.com) 301
Google posted new internal rules that discourage employees from debating politics, a shift away from the internet giant's famously open culture. From a report: The new "community guidelines" tell employees not to have "disruptive" conversations and warn workers that they'll be held responsible for whatever they say at the office. The company is also building a tool to let employees flag problematic posts and creating a team of moderators to monitor conversations, a Google spokeswoman said. "While sharing information and ideas with colleagues helps build community, disrupting the workday to have a raging debate over politics or the latest news story does not," the new policy states. "Our primary responsibility is to do the work we've each been hired to do." Google has long encouraged employees to question each other and push back against managers when they think they're making the wrong decision. Google's founders point to the open culture as instrumental to the success they've had revolutionizing the tech landscape over the last two decades.
Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a practical matter, you can expect five to six hours of productivity in an eight-hour day. The remaining time is often wasted elsewhere.
Is that 5-6 "Productive" hours including meetings? Last job, I spent 2+ hours every day in meetings.
Morning Market, project meetings, group meetings, project management meetings, cross training meetings, management update meetings...
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is Morning Market and why the hell didn't you burn that place to the ground?
A Kaizen process:
http://theleanthinker.com/2009... [theleanthinker.com]
It was supposed to be a "shortish" meeting every morning to discuss ongoing issues/problems within a workgroup. I was in 2 different work groups for the crap I supported, and it was a worldwide meeting with 20+ phone participants in one group, 7 around a table for the other.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is Morning Market and why the hell didn't you burn that place to the ground?
A Kaizen process:
http://theleanthinker.com/2009... [theleanthinker.com]
It was supposed to be a "shortish" meeting every morning to discuss ongoing issues/problems within a workgroup. I was in 2 different work groups for the crap I supported, and it was a worldwide meeting with 20+ phone participants in one group, 7 around a table for the other.
Interesting that "Barb" from that site reports solving an average of 10 non-trivial problems every day, or 2000 a year. Sounds completely believable, amirite? I'm trying to imagine your situation with at least 27 people solving much of anything, unless one or two people make the decisions and it gets rubber stamped by everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
As a practical matter, you can expect five to six hours of productivity in an eight-hour day. The remaining time is often wasted elsewhere.
Peter Gibbons [wikipedia.org] might disagree about the number of productive hours...
Well, I generally come in at least fifteen minutes late, ah, I use the side door - that way Lumbergh can't see me, heh - after that I sorta space out for an hour. ... Yeah, I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch too, I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't you suppose to work when you are at work?
I think many people they have hired believe Social Justice is their work.
What is surprising is that Google has allowed it to get to this point. It is amazing that they have just now figured out that there is more than one opinion, and if the League of Infinite Genders and the Misandry Society are encouraged to post as they see fit, there just might be some folks that have a different opinion that probably has nothing to do with their productivity. And it is unrealistic to think that only one opinion will be allowed. That seldom results in a stable situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Google wants the best people. Whatever the best people want, Google has to offer it or they will just go somewhere else.
This is precisely why Google are having to change course. Qualified capable people are looking at Google's culture and deciding to work somewhere they'll be appreciated, not attacked for their skin colour, gender or refusal to condemn someone for having different politics.
Re: (Score:3)
Google wants the best people. Whatever the best people want, Google has to offer it or they will just go somewhere else.
If they want social justice, Google better give them social justice.
I speak from experience. I've quit because of a bad work environment and gone somewhere more progressive, where we did really great, innovative work.
Okay, A couple things here. Glad you got out of a toxic environment. But I can't say that the toxicity was based on people not being progressive. Or conservative.
I've worked with conservatives who were wonderful people, and Liberals who were among the most hate filled, intolerant, and toxic people I've ever had the pleasure of getting away from. And the reverse is true. There are some nasty conservatives out there.
So I pretty much reject your conjecture.
Now back to Google. Google embarked upon an in
Re: (Score:3)
However office banter is actually an important part of the work environment. Especially in areas where employees are expected for creative or deeply analytical thinking. Normally when I see someone with their nose to the grindstone on a tough assignment, (vs just a lot busy work) that usually means they are stuck and trying to use ideas that didn't work before over and over again. Trying to get them distracted, talking about something else, will often break their train of thought on this endless loop.
That
Re: (Score:2)
Normally when I see someone with their nose to the grindstone on a tough assignment... Trying to get them distracted, talking about something else, ...
Oh, this makes a GREAT coworker. Deliberately trying to distract someone from a deep-thought process solving a tough problem is not productive or helpful. Someone gets into the problem, is sorting the details into a logical picture, and in walks jellomizer ranting about how that Aussie batsman was deliberately hit by an English bowler and is out for a test match. No thanks.
All this currently does is get people angry with each other and needlessly distrustful of that person, especially in areas where political preferences doesn't necessarily apply.
The words you are looking for are "toxic workplace" or "hostile workplace". The normal SJW belief that they should promote their ideas b
Re:Work? (Score:4, Funny)
Aren't you suppose to work when you are at work?
Google employees are apparently spoiled, but perhaps rightfully so. They had to work hard to get there, solving difficult problems like how to divide up bars of gold to pay for things, how to jump out of a blender if you were shrunk really small and how many golf balls can fit into a school bus. They've dedicated their lives to helping advertisers annoy people and developing beta software that eventually gets cancelled. Naturally, Google would prefer employees spend their work time on actual work, that they're getting paid to do, rather than complain about the company they don't have to work for.
Re: (Score:3)
Aren't you suppose to work when you are at work?
Not if you're a politician.
It is funny that some act as if being politically correct isn't just for politicians. When you're not a politician, and you're walking the ever-thinning line of political correctness, it sure does make you look and sound like a wanna-be politician.
So Google, shame on you for buying into this war of political correctness. Why are you worried what your employees are talking about? If it doesn't have anything to do with their job, then tell them to leave, or get back to work. Jesus Christ. But nnoooo... you have acted politically to set the stage for a controlled environment, free of political speech. How ...sadly normal. It shows that you wish to be the politician that they talk about.
Nonsense. As tempting to think that all of those old assholes are stupid, there is wisdom in the adage of not discussing religion or politics in companies that are neither in religion or politics.
The problem is when companies like Google start promoting Social Justice. The problem is once you go down that road, you eventually realiize that there is simply no situation that results in the Social Justice Warriors entering a state of satisfaction. This same situation exists when pandering to crypto-conserva
Re: (Score:3)
Political parties are not logically consistent, that's not how they were designed or intended. Political parties are coalitions of people with different goals who say, "I'll vote for yours if you vote for mine." Dont expect them to be logical or uniform.
And there is a certain logic to people coming together to work through issues.
My comment on far left and far right being illogical is based on their outlook.
Some examples are the far right demanding that at the moment of conception, a fertilized egg is a human, while being happy to force a woman to have a child, yet abandoning care at birth, then happily killing the result if it offends. Note that logic demands that an egg or a sperm are living things, therefore if humanness is the metric, both are ju
Re:Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was just a matter of being polite, then that's what it would be called; politeness. But it goes beyond that. It's placing offense a person's subjective view (vs objective view) very high priority.
Take the Healthy at every Size movement. Body positivity is a good thing! A person is not lesser just because they're fat. But when you get into the real of HAES, where losing weight is seen as submitting to the "male gaze" and "patriarchy", where thin people are mocked (mostly to make the HAES people feel better about themselves), you're into some real shit. Even when you point out the very real issues that come with being morbidly obese, well, that's fat-shaming.
Don't pretend it's merely about being polite. It's not. Sometimes there are things that need to be said, or things that are facts, but it's not politically correct. It's the distortion of reality, and that's why so many people have an issue with political correctness.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Is this a thing? This sounds like a completely made up story from inside somebody's head. Granted, I don't do social media, but I've never read or heard about angry fat people mocking thin people. Never.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, it's very much a thing. I know two people (real-life) that are into it deep. They hate people talking about losing weight, or feeling good about losing weight (they consider it fat-shaming). I'm happy you haven't run into these types of people; your life is better for it.
Sounds like a good policy (Score:4, Insightful)
+1 No politics or religion
Re:Sounds like a good policy (Score:5, Insightful)
It does sound like good policy on its surface, but it is ultimately bad for personal and societal well being. A better policy would be one where employees are trained how to listen to people's views, especially opposing views, non-judgmentally, then go on with their day. Banning controversial topics in the workplace does long term societal damage.
Re: Sounds like a good policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that any different from hearing your opinion on the best movie/car/place to live/whatever?
Discussing politics among friends and coworkers should be normal in a democratic society.
Re: Sounds like a good policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it bad for personal AND societal well being if you don't get to talk politics at work?
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of people spend a LOT of time with co-workers and since we have a 40 hour average work week that can end up being the largest share of your social interactions in a given week. If you are completely restricted from talking about larger societal issues it basically ingrains in your mind to not talk about them most of the time, therefore degrading that type of talk outside of work as well.
The less people talk about important issues, the less educated they are on those issues leading to a lo
Re: (Score:2)
>people spend a LOT of time with co-workers
What better way to sabotage that productive time you spend with co-workers than bitterly arguing whether Trump is a racist or not. God forbid, your co-worker disagrees with the approved Twitter Mob opinion that is promoted by Google and friends. #resist.
>The less people talk about important issues, the less educated they are on those issues
It is the individuals responsibility to be informed citizens. Not the companies. Not your co-workers. Not anyone else. Th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A better policy would be one where employees are trained how to listen to people's views, especially opposing views, non-judgmentally, then go on with their day.
This is deeply incompatible with SJW culture that is pervasive in SV, where views like 'speech=violence' are mainstream. Google can't fix that, at least not without moving HQ to Texas, so they are doing the next best thing - insisting that employees keep these activities off the clock.
Re:Sounds like a good policy (Score:5, Funny)
NO...PLEASE don't do that and infect TX any more than it already is being infected from CA type thinking.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, although the rest of us of the masses who take issue with the racist and sexist agenda pushed under a thin veil of countering the same by the SJW movement should not be dismissed so readily.
Race and gender are protected classes it is wrong to hinder or promote or make any decision that isn't related to reproduction on the basis of skin color including pink or junk including external.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-judgmental, ladies and gentlemen!
Re:Sounds like a good policy (Score:5, Insightful)
That isn't a judgement. Those are factual descriptions. Promoting policies which draw distinctions in letter or practice based on race is racist, promoting policies which do the same with regard to gender is sexist. That isn't really disputed and is objective.
What is disputed is whether being racist and sexist is justified to correct under representation and/or disparities with a correlation to historical racism/sexism.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Let make one thing clear - I am not with you.
Re:Sounds like a good policy (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't confuse progressive with SJW/regressive left. Here's a handy list to show the differences between the two:
A progressive wants to improve life for all, usually with a focus based on class. A regressive wants to mainly focus on those ranked higher on the "regressive stack" (based on things like skin color and sexuality); if something is detrimental to someone lower on the regressive stack, but it benefits someone higher on the regressive stack, then it's okay ("the ends justifies the means").
A progressive tries their best to be "color blind" (as in, all people should be treated the same, everyone should have the same opportunities). A regressive believes that things like skin color and sexuality are more important than values or content of character.
A regressive will place those higher on the regressive stack on pedestals; you cannot joke or criticize these people, but you can joke, criticize, or wish death upon those lower on the regressive stack.
A regressive thinks in black-and-white terms with little nuance. You are either 100% with their cause, or you are 100% against. There is typically very little middle ground in their mind (basically, extremism).
A progressive uses "privilege" to make people think about their position (i.e. "You (male/female) never have to think about which bathroom you have to go into. Other people would like to feel that way too."). A regressive uses "privilege" to shame and guilt, much like bad religious institutions or cults. "Check your privilege!" is rarely used to educated by a regressive, it's used to shame, ridicule, and devalue the opinion of a person based on immutable characteristics.
A regressive is fine with segregated spaces, but only for those higher on the regressive stack (such as black-only college dorms); anyone lower must 100% not have any space only for their group.
A progressive might respect culture but understands it can be fluid and not everyone celebrates all aspects of cultures the same (especially in melting pots such as the US). A regressive believes cultural appropriation is everywhere and that there is an inherent "cultural copyright" that only members of said culture can participate or allow others to participate in (while being uneducated about the origins of certain things, such as dreadlocks, or believing that only Mexicans can wear sombreros).
A progressive believes that even though people have done bad things in the past (or even present), blame is not to be put upon those that are part of those groups that did not take action in those things. A regressive believes in original sin (particularly for those lower on the regressive stack) and that blame and responsibility should be shared across generations and groups (though generally only among the majority).
A progressive believes that, even if what one says is terrible and disgusting, people have the right to express their views. Bad ideas should be exposed so that they can be critiqued and shown why they are bad. A regressive believes that anything they deem bad should be suppressed at all costs; violence and censorship are perfectly fine to use ("no bad tactics, only bad targets").
A progressive seeks allies; the progressive and the ally may not agree on all things at all times, but will generally share a base set of values. The ally is an individual and is respected as such. A regressive seeks servants, under the guise of seeking allies; servants are not allowed to question anything the regressive says or does, and must always defer/be quiet/give up things or spaces to those higher on the regressive stack.
Re:Sounds like a good policy (Score:5, Insightful)
It does sound like good policy on its surface, but it is ultimately bad for personal and societal well being. A better policy would be one where employees are trained how to listen to people's views, especially opposing views, non-judgmentally, then go on with their day. Banning controversial topics in the workplace does long term societal damage.
I disagree. I come to work to work and get a paycheck. I'm not there to make friends or listen to people's personal views on politics or religion. Don't force me to listen to someone's thoughts on abortion, taxes, tariffs, etc because I don't care, don't want to know, and at best it simply wastes my time which I could be using to do actual work so I can head home on time.
Re:Sounds like a good policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Most political issues are small things with strong emotional attachments cultivated by politicians to keep us divided and distracted from the real issues where most of us have common ground.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"A better policy would be one where employees are trained how to listen to people's views, especially opposing views, non-judgmentally, then go on with their day."
Only if that training successfully resulted in the same and since that sort of training is universally given and has never been successful I'm not holding my breath.
"Banning controversial topics in the workplace does long term societal damage."
That is a pretty epic leap. It reduces discrimination on the basis of politics and religion which is good
Re: (Score:3)
Only bad if all you do is work (Score:2)
It does sound like good policy on its surface, but it is ultimately bad for personal and societal well being.
That would be true if all you ever did was literally spend 100% of your time at work. If you could never talk about anything, it probably would be bad to bottle stuff up.
But the point is to separate a time for work and a time for discussing other things. You can see co-workers over lunch and talk about stuff there. You can see friends outside of work and talk with them, or any time at home...
Leave
Re: (Score:3)
"That would be true if all you ever did was literally spend 100% of your time at work. If you could never talk about anything, it probably would be bad to bottle stuff up."
I think that's part of the problem...most Google employees are spending way more time at work than most other people do. All the tech companies are like this...you get a fully catered existence with every convenience imaginable, in exchange for incredibly long hours. I doubt many of these employees get away from their co-workers for any m
Re: (Score:3)
"All the tech companies are like this..."
Not all, really just the CA ones.
Re: Sounds like a good policy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A better policy would be one where employees are trained how to listen to people's views,
Is this a view related to the work we are doing? If yes, then I will listen. Maybe even to politics as it affects our industry. But if it's proselytizing about your religion, you can just f*k off. Sorry, but my company isn't providing the evangelicals paid time to bring Jesus into everyone's lives. And if you complain that it's your religious duty to do so, we'll just have security escort you to the door.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe even to politics as it affects our industry.
That's the loophole that has led to the deterioration of /. and creation of many hostile environments in many places. "This affects us in some way, therefore we have to discuss it here" is the standard excuse for why this is no longer true News For Nerds, or why the breakroom becomes a soapbox for social justice, or whatever. "Everyone is concerned about [this subject], so we have to discuss it here even if this is a forum for [something completely different]." One example is discussion of more gun control
Re: (Score:3)
Nope...
People should have learned these skills LONG before they were adults hitting the workforce.
This should have been started in childhood by parents, and then in schools and ESPECIALLY in college, where rather than suppress and protect from controversial speech, they learn to listen and deal with opposing opinions.
Having safe spaces, etc...h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll pass.
I don't want to "learn to listen", I want to "do my job".
Hold whatever views or opinions you want, just don't bring them into the workplace.
Banning controversial topics in the workplace does long term societal damage.
Unfortunately, not banning them seems to lead to some very tense, fractious workplaces and polarization among employees. I agree it shouldn't be that way, but here we are.
Please leave politics and religion at home and just let me get on with my work.
Re: (Score:2)
It does sound like good policy on its surface, but it is ultimately bad for personal and societal well being. A better policy would be one where employees are trained how to listen to people's views, especially opposing views, non-judgmentally, then go on with their day. Banning controversial topics in the workplace does long term societal damage.
Oh God. Let's all get together and have a group discussion about abortion, and about how all men are rapists. But be cool, and embrace the ideas of that KKK member because you've been trained to be an accepting employee.
I simply wouldn't work there, because your idea of a trained workplace is political indoctrination in itself .
No politics, no religion, unless your job is politics or religion.
Re: (Score:2)
... A better policy would be one where employees are trained how to listen to people's views, especially opposing views, non-judgmentally ...
Sure:
<sarc>
...
- The Earth is flat!
- How about the gyro experiment?
- The gyro was broken
- How about the satellites etc?
- It's fake
- How about the pictures of Earth from space?
- Well, the pictures do show Earth as a disk, don't they?
- Wind turbines are causing cancer! ...
- Hmm,
</sarc>
Disclaimer: I didn't make up any of the above.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It does sound like good policy on its surface, but it is ultimately bad for personal and societal well being. A better policy would be one where employees are trained how to listen to people's views, especially opposing views, non-judgmentally, then go on with their day. Banning controversial topics in the workplace does long term societal damage.
If you don't want your opinion judged, don't offer it.
Re:Sounds like a good policy (Score:5, Insightful)
This just seems like a response to curb the whining of the petulant children that can’t behave themselves. It probably won’t work and will just make Google feel like an even less enjoyable place to work now that big brother is casting his gaze inward. The reporting system for “problematic” posts will just be abused by those with the biggest chips on their shoulder and people trying to act like regular folk wind up getting punished.
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had points.
I wonder what the average age of a Google employee is.
That right there is the reason this is even happening.
People who grew up with an exaggerated ego thanks to social media and smart phones.
Re: (Score:2)
This just seems like a response to curb the whining of the petulant children that can’t behave themselves.
Or, it's a response to people who literally can't imagine that anyone rational can have an opinion that differs than theirs. This can happen, I suspect, when people spend too much time in a political bubble, without spending much time having their viewpoints challenged.
Re: (Score:3)
I have discussions about both with co-workers all the time and no one has a problem. Maybe that’s because we all realize how to behave like adults and that we can all respect each other’s differences in opinions.
Wow - so if you hire a person who gets spun up about political topics - do you fire them?
Firing a person for their political beliefs is about as political as you can get, and would you get rid of the best employee in your company for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Firing a person for their political beliefs is about as political as you can get, and would you get rid of the best employee in your company for that?
Firing a person for being disruptive even after being given a warning to not be disruptive happens pretty commonly in bussines, and should. It's not political at all, it's about efficiency; it's only "political" to the person being disruptive because they apparently can't see they're the ones fucking up.
I am seriously thinking there's not a single person in this thread that has ever had a job anywhere given the stupidity of some of these comments.
Re: (Score:3)
+1 No politics or religion
Exactly. Keep that shit out of the workplace and we'll all be happier.
Have whatever views or opinions that you want but don't subject me to them at work, even if I agree with them 100%.
Re:Sounds like a good policy (Score:4, Insightful)
+1 No politics or religion
It won't play out that way, Instead, it will be a case of "the politics is settled". Anyone who voices any opinion that differs from the most progressive possible view is now "starting a disruptive conversation about politics."
It's just the next step down the path that humanity has walked far too many times before. There will be no questioning the received wisdom. The next step will be punishing people who do not take sufficient initiative in furthering the required beliefs. Watch for it, as Google or elsewhere (e.g., hearing at your review that "we didn't see you at the Pride Parade, and that's making some of your team mates uncomfortable").
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sounds like a good policy (Score:2)
Unfortunately this policy will have no effect on Slashdot, where "Google is a bunch of fairies!" will continue being the go-to edgy Google remark.
I see no problem with that (Score:5, Interesting)
I was fine with it. Prefer it, even.
Re: (Score:3)
no stickers
No stickers at all [ssl-images-amazon.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
So, same as now? (Score:5, Insightful)
"...warn workers that they'll be held responsible for whatever they say at the office. The company is also building a tool to let employees flag problematic posts"
Who defines "problematic"?
What are the odds that liberal points of view will be flagged with equal weight as conservative points of view?
The best option is to do what everyone else is doing: do work at work, do politics on personal time.
Re: (Score:2)
"...warn workers that they'll be held responsible for whatever they say at the office. The company is also building a tool to let employees flag problematic posts"
Who defines "problematic"? What are the odds that liberal points of view will be flagged with equal weight as conservative points of view?
The best option is to do what everyone else is doing: do work at work, do politics on personal time.
I'm a liberal, and I agree with your point on this.
Re: (Score:3)
If they were honest about it, then yes, I agree.
Problem here is that Google publicly claims to be unbiased, and claims to run open impartial forums of communication. Given the corporate culture, and long history of having liberal biases in how they moderate & filter content, Google should be regulated as a PAC.
They're trying to have it both ways- be politically active and enforcing an agenda, yet have the public image of impartiality.
This is most workplaces (Score:2)
Politics and religion are off-topic in most places I've been.. the only place I remember politics were openly talked about was the usaf, and even then only as a mechanic. Once I went into meteorology, such things were best left unsaid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Few things are more annoying than people who complain about SJWs and people label people as them. SJWs are the new boogeyman.
You forgot to add misogynist or racist.
And by the way Sparky, you just expressed first order Prejudice there. You summarily reject arguments based on an initialization.
Rather bigoted ain'tya?
Re: (Score:2)
Prejudice is holding preconceived opinions that are not based on reason or actual experience.
Judging people based on their behavior isn't prejudice, it's judging them based on actual actual experience.
Learn the difference and stop misusing the term.
Go woke, go broke (Score:2)
To Liberal ? ! (Score:4, Insightful)
from the article
A handful of conservative employees have been accused of using internal systems to harass co-workers they deem too liberal.
To liberal?
For years now employees have been complaining about *conservative* voices getting the witch hunt treatment. If you don't go along with all of the intersexual feminism BS you're treated like you're a nazi-pedofile. The funny thing about this is that is has nothing to do with keeping politics out of an environment that doesn't need it. It's about Googles employees getting upset at Googles AI helping the police state or the Chinese police state.
At google, if your politics are the right kind of politics, it's fine to be an asshole to people who disagree. But if you interfere with Googles supply of money, you're out of line.
Re: (Score:2)
from the article A handful of conservative employees have been accused of using internal systems to harass co-workers they deem too liberal.
To liberal? For years now employees have been complaining about *conservative* voices getting the witch hunt treatment. If you don't go along with all of the intersexual feminism BS you're treated like you're a nazi-pedofile. The funny thing about this is that is has nothing to do with keeping politics out of an environment that doesn't need it. It's about Googles employees getting upset at Googles AI helping the police state or the Chinese police state.
At google, if your politics are the right kind of politics, it's fine to be an asshole to people who disagree. But if you interfere with Googles supply of money, you're out of line.
Remember, at this point, disagreeing with a person is considered harassment. https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak... [reddit.com]
https://www.bustle.com/article... [bustle.com]
There ya go. Modern day Harassment. I have no idea how things can get done, when if you are discussing something with an person, and they can simply get you in trouble with a "Your disagreeing with me is harassment" .
Interesting historical parallels (Score:2)
this is good! (Score:4, Insightful)
well, from the stories that i've read, google may *say* it has an "open" policy: the reality is that staff are afraid to talk openly, for fear of retribution. this new "policy" simply reflects the reality, that "open debates" are *officially* not to be tolerated. now at least staff (and new hires) will not be confused or misled.
Management is showing employees their place (Score:2)
What did those activist google employee think, that a US corporation is some kind of democracy now?
This is so simple it's complicated, for some (Score:2)
This is indeed simple. If you can't get along, go somewhere else and work. Period. It fundamentally doesn't matter why. You're not 'fitting in'.
It's not about your beliefs, it's about your behavior. If you are disruptive, you're not worth the pay, or shouldn't be. Mind you, if others are making your work hell, and it's based on beliefs, you might have a discrimination case. That's law, and I'm not qualified to advise on that.
One of my clients asked me, when the Internet was young, to track user behavior. Th
This is a good policy (Score:3)
I know Google is a little different from run of the mill workplaces. It's basically an extension of college life into work life...most people working there are younger and memories of school are fresh. Therefore, most of them haven't been exposed to the snake pit that is office gossip/politics, and are a little more open about talking about work-inappropriate subjects. It doesn't help that all these tech companies have an "all inclusive" feel to them, and people are encouraged to become "one of the family."
It's never a good idea to discuss religion, politics or a whole host of other topics in the workplace. It gives you too many labels...I know I wouldn't want to be known as the crazy leftist or the ultra-conservative malcontent...and believe me, there are plenty of people in workplaces with not a whole lot to do, and tons of time to spread gossip.
Google is just being smart -- they know that people talking out of turn can be perceived as speaking for the company if their internal communications leak out, and they want to do what they can to avoid the antitrust investigations that are coming. It wouldn't help them if their employees are seen as being capable of influencing public opinion in an outsized way.
Another strike? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't imagine the endlessly ingrieved pink-hair cry bully set is going to put up with this.
Sadly necessary (Score:2)
Translated (Score:5, Insightful)
"Look you guys. We all hate Trump and Republicans, but somehow some of them snuck into the 98000 employees we have. So you guys have to stop saying shit out loud that gets us in trouble. We're still going to prioritize stuff like working for the Chinese (instead of that nasty, violent US Defense department!), preventing Trump getting re-elected 2020, deplatforming conservative voices - you just have to trust us. AND STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS STUFF IN WAYS THAT CAN BE LEAKED."
-yours in feminist power
The Management
(only in an administrative function, to be sure, and not to suggest that anyone is denigrated by the suggestion of a hierarchy whatsoever)
It's simple (Score:3)
It's simple- I don't discuss politics at work. It almost never leads to any positive outcome.
Just leave your politics at home, along with your religion. I don't want to hear about either of them at work.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they'll shift their activism offsite. (Score:3)
God, how much must it suck to work at Google now? (Score:2)
Too vague (Score:2)
Sounds like this is going to be, Don't say anything that goes against popular opinion, or anything that disagrees with the left, but it's too vague to know what will get you in trouble until after the fact.
OK, any lawyers up in here? (Score:4, Interesting)
I really would like to hear a lawyer's views on the legality of this memo.
I know, for example, that it is illegal (at least in some states) to forbid workers from discussing workplace conditions, or to forbid them from discussing collective bargaining actions. By extension, you would think it would be illegal to prevent them from discussing political issues that are relevant to workplace conditions or to collective bargaining (e.g., the recent Supreme Court decision regarding opt-out of union dues, or the appointment of a new Labor Secretary).
There may be other legal objections to the memo, as well. IANAL.
Anyone with a law degree care to comment?
Inherent politics (Score:2)
So much of what Google does nowadays, between collaborations with the government is inherently political, managing content, and the nature of the search algorithm, is inherently political or has political implications. So, broadly interpreted, this rule might prevent talking about the very work Googlers are there to do. Related, what about Google employees attempting to unionize? Such talk is inherently political, which means this rule, if used to threaten or intimidate employees talking about unions, could
What's good for the goose (Score:4, Insightful)
If Google doesn't want politics at work, I wonder if Corporate Google will refrain from making any campaign donations going forward.
One of the reasons I am not a part of, nor support my local union where I work ( Right to Work State ) is because they like to take a big chunk of money and give it to Team Democrat every time an election rolls around. If I don't support the Candidates myself, why on Earth would I want to, indirectly, contribute to their campaigns ?
Reining in old hippies and millennials... (Score:2)
Life and work are inseparable for most people.... (Score:2)
Google is getting this wrong as are so many other companies. People are not robots, and each one has an opinion.
For most people, life is work, work is life. They are inseparable. Talking politics is human because humans have feelings and opinions. When any entity that has so much control over so many people's lives begins to control their thoughts and speech, you have created an incubator for socialism. Don't think. Don't speak. Don't try. Here is your healthcare. Here is your money. We'll
Out of curiosity... (Score:2)
Has anyone, at any time, ever found it to be a wise idea to discuss politics at work? I can't possibly see that ending well; someone is going to disagree with you, and you have no idea who that "someone" might turn out to be.
Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:3)
Two topics should be avoided at work as plague: discussing politics and discussing religion.
People tend to have very strong and very diverse opinion on both subjects and discussing them could easily lead to undesirable hostility.
Google shoved their foot into that mouth with Damore fiasco so far that it stuck out of their asses, forming some kind of shitty Klein bottle.
It's good that they learned.
Re:so just to clarify.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
alternative translation: "do your work while at work, if you dont like the work then leave"
unfortunately, we've seen that some of that work being demanded is of a questionable ethical nature. what google is saying is, "do what we order you to do, without question, without hesitation".
Re: so just to clarify.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
alternative translation: "do your work while at work, if you dont like the work then leave"
unfortunately, we've seen that some of that work being demanded is of a questionable ethical nature. what google is saying is, "do what we order you to do, without question, without hesitation".
Define ethics first. Because you are now going down a rabbit hole of definitions.
You are in a rabbit hole already. Your unquestioned orders performed without question or hesitation remark betrays that fact.
After you define ethics, we'll play "find the ethical business" game. You aren't going to find any while traversing the rabbit hole.