Hacker News Reader

Comment by zeronine | Hacker News Reader

better keep my mouth shut then, can't have the productivity police issuing me a conversation penalty or i might end up in the stop-being-human prison

View on HN

>can't have the productivity police issuing me a conversation penalty or i might end up in the stop-being-human prison

Alright, it's clear that you're against this, but what's the argument for allowing this? In other words, why should the company tolerate using its channels as a soapbox to advance your political agendas, especially if it's a drain on productivity? I want to shitpost on company time/equipment/networks as much as the other guy, but let's not pretend it's some sort of right, or that being denied the ability to do that is some sort of moral tragedy.

In the past, the power to set policy was in the hands of the few aristocrats, whose full time job was to discuss and fight over policy, while the lay people worked their fields. We fought hard to take that power from them.

Now a company asks its employees to forgo that power and liberty. Why did we take the power of policy from the aristocrats in the first place? We can of course go back to shut up, work the field peasant model and let them enjoy discussing policy for us while we produce goods.

What comes first? Your employer or your rights?

> In the past, the power to set policy was in the hands of the few aristocrats, whose full time job was to discuss and fight over policy, while the lay people worked their fields.

I don't think the French, for example, applied guillotines to solve the problem of "aristocrats talking too much policy."

You're at work doing a job, you aren't getting paid to converse about non work matters. If working at say Coinbase or any other apolitical tech company isn't your cup of tea, then there are plenty of politically charged places you can work instead that also need software engineers such as the CTO office of the President, Defense tech, think tanks, Congressional offices, Twitter, Planned Parenthood, PETA, and any other activist group really. It depends on what you're looking for. I can certainly understand why some companies may wish to be politically neutral, as choosing sides can be bad for business and against shareholder interests.

If I'm at work doing a job, then I'm paid to get the job done. And how I manage my time and what I'm allowed to think or discuss are my concern.

There is no such monster as "politically neutral." That is synonymous with "supporting the status quo," which is a political stance. It's the trolley problem - not deciding is still opting into a bad option.

It's not the trolley problem. There are plenty of avenues for political activism /outside/ the workplace. Adults should be capable of not conflating the workplace with their entire existence. The only acceptable activism is unionization, understood as narrowly focused on workplace issues.

For a sample size of one, while I am very guilty of having many politically charged conversations with coworkers, I have always kept them physically /outside/ the workplace. At work we confine conversations strictly about business and customers.

With healthcare tied to employment I don't think this issue can be considered strictly unrelated to work.

Working for an employer is selling your time and effort to them.

During the time that the employer is purchasing from you, your duty is to your employer, fulfilling their legal requests.

If you don't fulfill this duty, they will no longer have a desire to buy your time.

It's really not any more complicated than that.

Fortunately the reverse also works*: if the employer doesn't follow the rules the employees agreed on, they will no longer want to sell their time.

*but less often because it's harder for employees to coordinate

Funny how HN is chock full of diehard libertarian free speech absolutists, but if you've got a job, check your personhood at the door.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com