That's really the crux of the issue. I agree that people should probably leave most of their personal beliefs at home... unless it's something that directly related to what the company is doing. So Google employees are supposed to just shut up or leave?
>Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another.
But even then there's a difference; NFL players aren't protesting the actions of the NFL. If Google employees were using their position to push some agenda the company did not agree with and had nothing to do with then I'd agree.
It's certainly within Google's rights to take a "shut up and work" position, but I don't imagine it will work out well for them in the long run.
NFL players aren't protesting the actions of the NFL.
Oh yes, they absolutely are.
Miami Dolphin's player Kenny Stills directly protested his team owner's involvement and affiliation with a charity donating funds to the Trump administration.
Seattle Seahawks player Earl Thomas, in addition to protesting criminal justice inequalities, directly protested his team and how the league was, at the time, addressing and handling player safety, right before he himself got injured and gave his coach the finger while being carted off the field. He has since been traded.
Well, yeah... of course there are instances of that. None of those are examples represent "social change". When you talk about protests in the NFL in the context of this thread, anyone who doesn't live under a rock is going to think of taking a knee during the anthem.
C'mon, helmet disputes? In what way is that relevant to your quote here?
>Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another.
I don't know what to tell you, then, if you really don't think two players putting their careers on the line, 1 by directly challenging and publicly calling out the organization that pays his salary for their relationship to the sitting President isn't political.
You claimed players weren't protesting the actions of the NFL.
I gave you three examples of it. Two of them squarely political, one over connections to the president, the other over criminal justice reform.
Please stop moving the goalposts.
None of those are examples represent "social change".
I'd argue the recent attention the league has been placing on player safety and the conversations emerging about brain injuries in sports represents a pretty important social change.
Are you arguing just to argue?
No and I'd appreciate a better characterization of my viewpoints on the topic, than a reductionist accusation of arguing for sport simply in the presence of your apparent disagreement. We can disagree how valuable these topics are to a larger political dynamic, but I'm not going to engage if this is how you choose to label my opposing viewpoint.
We're talking about speaking out on political/social issues at work.
My position is that I'm fine with it (and I think Google should support it to some extent) assuming that it is relevant to the actions of the employer or working conditions.
You bring up the NFL. The exact quote is
>Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another.
Obviously people are going to assume you're talking about what began with Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the anthem.
I point out how that is different because it does not directly relate to the NFL.
You then bring up three examples of 'protests' (because they're not even protests, they're internal disputes):
>Kenny Stills and Trump donations
Agreed, this is relevant.
>Antonio Brown and helmet guideline policies.
We're talking about helmets now and this is somehow a "social issue" (It's not. Really, it's not.)
>Seattle Seahawks player Michael Bennett, in addition to protesting criminal justice inequalities, directly protested his team and how the league was, at the time, addressing and handling player safety
Those two things have nothing to do with each other. One is relevant, one is not.
Honestly at this point I think you're either confused or a troll.
So not only are you taking statements and removing them from the necessary context to understand WHY I drew the comparison I did, you’re continuing to launch personal attacks in place of forming a more cogent disagreement.
Wow you went through quite a few edits before the reply link popped up for me.
I didn't take anything out of context. The entire reply was
>So Google employees are supposed to just shut up or leave?
>An important question, I think. It would seem some think they should, and some probably think they should do both.
>Brings to mind the attitude of "shutup and play ball" when sports athletes try to use their platforms for some aspect of social change or another.
>An attitude I find personally disheartening, but I'll stop there because these discussions never end well.
That changes exactly... nothing. You're impossible to talk to. The funny thing is, I don't even think we fundamentally disagree on anything material here.
The bit you had about your prediction of how "this wouldn't end well" is a "prophecy" as you put it, but one of the self fulfilling types. Have a good one.
1. use designated/official channels to report such issues (ex. talk to their manager or their HR representative or even bring it up at TGIF)
2. if #1 fails they have a choice: continue working or walk away. Nobody is forcing them to work for a company that doesn't listen to them for issues they deeply care about (presumably)
A company is not a democracy. There should of course be plenty of channels to get feedback up the chain but the decision is ultimately that of those hired to make such decisions, not of software engineers hired to do something else entirely.
Agreed, but it's Google's approach that's up for discussion here, not whether or not they have the right to shut down such discussion. I don't think a company who shits down reasonable debate is going to do well over the long term.
You can have proper workshops/apps/meetings to discuss these things and gather input from all employees in a way that doesn't disturb the regular day-to-day work.
The problem is that discussing politics at any time in your workplace to people that have opposite views and/or don't want to discuss politics at that time is counterproductive.
I think I can agree in the affirmative with the first sentence, not so much the second one, with the context of my original comment in mind. If your company is demonstrably involved in issues that affect global, heck or even local politics, speaking to those affairs is an imperative.
Whether or not people enter those conversations with the intent on solving problems and actually discussing in earnest is where things get weird, admittedly.
The most political most Googlers work gets is what to call variable names. We decided to not use master/slave, so we are A-OK now!
But seriously, I know a few roles have immense influence over peoples lives, but most of us just try to efficiently plumb data we don't see between black boxes we don't understand.
Just because you can't see where the data you're plumbing touches the world doesn't mean it doesn't have impact.
I work on one of the edges of those engineering efforts. On one side I see first hand how detached engineers at Google are from the things they build and on the other I see people's lives being defined by using those products / services. That impact is real and I think it's at a level that very few googlers respect because they're not lucky enough to be on an outside edge like me.
For profit companies should not choose sides. Google's only discussion of politics in the workplace should be on how to make their systems be as unbiased as possible.
The problem with statements like this is that not choosing sides is exactly as political as choosing sides. There is no such thing as ignoring politics — it's an essential part of the human experience, so any organization must grapple with it.
People who think everything is political are usually authoritarians. They believe in order for progress to be made, you have to force or coerce people into doing the right thing.
