I'm sure everyone who has to earn a living to support their family will appreciate this move. Nothing is worse than politics at work, where you may lose your paycheck if you don't align with the correct factions.
While everyone does have to earn a living and it's fair to think that's very important, if you believe your employer is doing something wrong and yet don't either speak up or look for a new job you're effectively condoning your employers actions. That isn't particularly admirable and your peers would be right to tell you as much.
There is only a very limited number of hills that most people are willing to die on. So saying that they're condoning something doesn't actually tell us all that much, it means that they're tolerating something that they might find disagreeable, even deeply disagreeable. One can also say North Korean citizens are condoning their government, do we think badly of them for it?
I may disagree passionately with what my employer is doing, but I also understand I may be wrong and they may be right. Or they may be wrong in some things, but still better than 90% of other employers. Or I may disagree with what they say, but wholeheartedly agree with what they do. And so on so forth.
"Nothing is worse than politics at work, where you may lose your paycheck if you don't align with the correct factions."
I should bring up in this light that its still legal to fire people for being gay in much of the USA and there's a current supreme court case coming up to determine federally if discrimination on the basis of orientation or gender identity is covered under current antidiscrimination law. In that case you're at risk for losing your paycheck if you aren't born the correct orientation and are found out.
Right, people should advocate for whatever politics they want... just not at work. The issue you identify is a government one, not an individual workplace one. Even something like that is too much burden to put on your fellow co-workers to have to advocate for or pick a side.
"Even something like that is too much burden to put on your fellow co-workers to have to advocate for or pick a side."
The manager has to pick a side- they can choose to fire an LGBTQ person for being LGBTQ or not. A co-worker can choose to treat a co-worker differently if they happen to be LGBTQ. An employee who is married and gay may need to choose to leave off their wedding ring and to not allow their spouse to enter healthcare with them, because they cannot risk their jobs by being found out by HR as a homosexual.
That's an odd thing for Linus to say. I read a lot of Peanuts comic books in my youth, and it seemed to me that Linus could never stop blabbing relentlessly about the Great Pumpkin.
America has become very polarized over just the past decade. We say we want diversity, but that doesn't include that one fundie Christian person who reads his or her Bible at lunch and believes that homosexuality is wrong, but still wants to be friends with and accept everyone. We want diversity of people, but not diversity of ideas or ideology.
People are afraid to talk about anything remotely controversial today, because it could result in a call for them to be fired or resign. We've seen it in academia and I feel like we're going to see it more in industry. One opinion stated on a blog or social media will be enough for others to dig up every hint of anything someone has ever posted that could be seen as negative and outright calls to have them leave.
There's almost a point system in call-out culture; a subconscious social credit system among those who participate. The Coddling of the American Mind is a great book that talks about this growth in the academic space. It's made professors afraid to talk about difficult topics with their students.
Pretty much. If the religious fundie really did want to be friends with everyone they would not personally attack the people they want to be friends with. I don't see why it should be required that anyone put up with this hate when they have plenty of other decent people to be friends with.
I would normally consider that part of the human condition, not a problem that a company needs to solve. Trying to minimize the negative impact of it (like they are doing) seems about all they can do.
I do think that Americans in general tend to be oversensitive when it comes to politics, and this mindset bleeds into the workplace. And I say this as an American. I've heard that discussing things like politics isn't as big a deal in say Europe or Israel.
Personally I wish the discussion of things like politics wasn't considered taboo because I think it makes for a more boring work environment, but I'm also the type who loves to debate with people who have opposing viewpoints and don't get offended easily. Unfortunately American culture has moved in the opposite direction revolving around appeasing to the most sensitive "victim".
During a recent company outing, I talked about politics with like four other people. Sure, it can be a bit awkward and you kind of have to think about what you're saying, but it wasn't exactly unusual.
It probably helps that we, like many other European countries, have more parties than just two, so you're not always in an us vs. them situation like in the US of A.
Europeans in general just seem to be more open to political discussion. When traveling I've heard many Europeans tell me that Americans tend to be very sensitive when it comes to politics, and I've found that to often be the case in my experience as well.
I'm well aware I'm in a very privileged position, but I've tried to make a very strong effort throughout my career to live below my means. Maybe I'm pessimistic about losing my job or my company going under, but the freeing thing is if I'm unhappy for whatever reason I have options for leaving.
I try hard not to assume or expect this from others, but I very strongly encourage it.
I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to add here. I have to do all of those things, I'm in that privileged position partly because I've made it a long term priority at the expense of other things. I don't fault people who aren't in my position, but I encourage them to do the same.
The reason was never politics, but being beholden to a job because of disagreements with your boss, the work you're assigned, or being beholden to specific benefits like health insurance. I see so many people who are miserable because they're forced to do things they don't want. They're not even properly compensated because they can't say no.
> I try hard not to assume or expect this from others, but I very strongly encourage it.
While I personally agree with you that living below your means and having a safety buffer to tell your workplace to fuck off is a great idea. I think it doesn't take most people's reality into account. You and I can do that because we make enough money that "living below our means" is a possibility. For the vast majority of people, that's not an option.
Perhaps I just worded it poorly. I encourage people to make the long-term decision to live below their means so they're not put in that kind of a position. I'm sympathetic to their short-term position and very supportive of changing their long-term position.
Because they were not living below their means like the comment said. Either because they make only just enough money to survive or they spend it on luxurys
Do they really? It seems that most people have enough money that they can afford expensive phones regularly and to drive cars. They amount of luxury people consider the bare minimum to survive is quite high now.
If wage labor, “work,” is the condition of surviving in society, how could it avoid being political? Who is included in it, privileged by it, how it is organized, etc all have serious consequences that determine, again, one’s, baseline survival.
