Yeah, no. I broadly agree with the what many activists at tech companies are supporting, but think that its deliberate attempts to make the workplace more political are unproductive or backfiring. When it gets to the point that a significant percentage of employees are feigning or exaggerating support for political positions to fit in, you have a problem. And the tech companies I've worked at in the SF Bay Area for the last four years have been in that position.
fighting against the creation of a union is just as a political act as trying to create one (as an example).
Saying "oh we should keep the office apolitical by not having a union" is a political act. Saying "oh we shouldn't complain about the kind of customers our emplyoer has" is a political act.
Acting in opposition to political acts is in itself a political act. The apolitical thing to do would be to _not intervene in others' political processes_. If mgmt let its employees organize labor actions with the same willingness as a movie night, then they would be acting apolitically.
Perhaps in an non-standard understanding of what is and isn't political. An apolitical office is political in the same sense that secularism is a religious stance. It's not catering to any specific religion: it is equally exclusive of all religions. Similarly, an apolitical office doesn't prevent or directly influence the political activity of workers - it just relegates that political activity to spaces outside the office.
> Saying "oh we should keep the office apolitical by not having a union" is a political act. Saying "oh we shouldn't complain about the kind of customers our emplyoer has" is a political act.
That isn't keeping politics out of the workplace - it's the exact opposite. That's explicitly bringing politics into the workplace by trying to tell coworkers what views they should have. Curbing this behavior is exactly what keeping politics out of the workplace is about.
> Acting in opposition to political acts is in itself a political act. The apolitical thing to do would be to _not intervene in others' political processes_. If mgmt let its employees organize labor actions with the same willingness as a movie night, then they would be acting apolitically.
For the third time, Keeping politics out of the workplace does not oppose any view. It's about making clear that the office is not a space for political activity. Yes, the apolitical thing is to not intervene in others' political process.
The reality is, bringing politics into the workplace is a very significant intervention in people's political lives. In the politically active offices I've worked in, plenty of employees feigned support for things they didn't support because they felt it was expected of them. Co workers whose views were part of the company majority dominated the conversation, because co-workers with minority viewpoints didn't want to risk repercussions for voicing unpopular views.
So if you want a company that does not intervene in others' political lives, keeping politics out of the workplace is the most effective approach.
Perhaps in an non-standard understanding of what is and isn't sexual. An asexual office is sexual in the same sense that secularism is a religious stance. It's not catering to any specific religion: it is equally exclusive of all religions. Similarly, an asexual office doesn't prevent or directly influence the sexual activity of workers - it just relegates that sexual activity to spaces outside the office.
> Saying "oh we should keep the office asexual by not having a relationship" is a sexual act. Saying "oh we shouldn't complain about the kind of customers our emplyoer has" is a sexual act.
That isn't keeping sex out of the workplace - it's the exact opposite. That's explicitly bringing sex into the workplace by trying to tell coworkers what preferences they should have. Curbing this behavior is exactly what keeping sex out of the workplace is about.
> Acting in opposition to sexual acts is in itself a sexual act. The asexual thing to do would be to _not intervene in others' sexual engagements_. If mgmt let its employees organize relationships with the same willingness as a movie night, then they would be acting asexually.
For the third time, Keeping sex out of the workplace does not oppose any preference. It's about making clear that the office is not a space for sexual activity. Yes, the asexual thing is to not intervene in others' sexual relationships.
The reality is, bringing sex into the workplace is a very significant intervention in people's sexual lives. In the sexually active offices I've worked in, plenty of employees feigned support for things they didn't support because they felt it was expected of them. Co workers whose preferences were part of the company majority dominated the conversation, because co-workers with minority preferences didn't want to risk repercussions for voicing unpopular preferences.
So if you want a company that does not intervene in others' sexual lives, keeping sex out of the workplace is the most effective approach.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. An asexual office is indeed one where sex is kept out of the office. Nobody really bothers to call their office "asexual" because almost all offices are asexual.
If an office instituted a policy where sex was allowed in the office, and now you have co workers having sex in the cubicle next door and making sexual advances towards you, then that absolutely is intervening in employees' sexual lives.
Politics is power management. There is no such thing as apolitical, in the same way as there's no such thing as anti-power. In the sea, all fish are water managers: in society, all people are power managers. In terms of politics, there's only how much power you have, how actively you use it, and how ignorant you are. When someone identifies as apolitical, she just means she's submissive.
> Perhaps in an non-standard understanding of what is and isn't political.
"Politics is a set of activities associated with the governance of a country or an area. It involves making decisions that apply to group of members" - Wikipedia
> An apolitical office is political in the same sense that secularism is a religious stance.
This sentence doesn't make any sense as Secularism is a political concept and not a "religious stance".
An office can never be an apolitical entity, given that it involves the organisation of people and decision making about their activities, AND that office necessarily interacts with wider society which is unavoidably a political area.
When you think about it, it's really quite baffling that people can think they can spend almost 30% of their waking life within some system that is devoid of political relevance. Life is political. Society is political. What you do in your work and career is one of the most politically impactful parts of a persons life.
To be generous, treating the workplace as devoid of politics is just support of the status-quo.
Not sure whether I should belabour this point...
> Yes, the apolitical thing is to not intervene in others' political process.
Given that many people are socialists and want to live in a society where say, Education, is a public good and managed by public institutions, then simply maintaining private educational institutions is intervening in the "political process" of others.
> "Politics is a set of activities associated with the governance of a country or an area. It involves making decisions that apply to group of members" - Wikipedia
And thus, an office in which this "set of activities" is not permitted is an apolitical office.
> An office can never be an apolitical entity, given that it involves the organisation of people and decision making about their activities, AND that office necessarily interacts with wider society which is unavoidably a political area.
I think you're failing to distinguish between an apolitical office, and the company being an "apolitical entity". A company of any significant size is going to end up interacting with politicians. But this does not mean that its offices cannot be apolitical spaces. I do not know why you seem to insist that this is the case. All that is necessary for an office to be an apolitical space is to make political activity off limits in the office.
> When you think about it, it's really quite baffling that people can think they can spend almost 30% of their waking life within some system that is devoid of political relevance. Life is political. Society is political. What you do in your work and career is one of the most politically impactful parts of a persons life.
Life and society are indeed political. Sure, some people may want to bring politics into the 30% of their lives that they spend in the office. But plenty of other people are happier when a company has employees use the 70% that is spent outside of the office.
> To be generous, treating the workplace as devoid of politics is just support of the status-quo.
For the fourth time, absence of a political view is not the support of any view. This is a toxic "you're with us or you're against us" mentality and it's exactly this kind of thing that people are sick of hearing from their co-workers.
> Given that many people are socialists and want to live in a society where say, Education, is a public good and managed by public institutions, then simply maintaining private educational institutions is intervening in the "political process" of others.
And in an apolitical office they are free to organize activism to push politicians towards achieving those ends - during the 70% of the time they spend outside of work.
Maintaining an apolitical office is not an endorsement of the status quo or any other viewpoint. It prevents people who want to change the status quo from bringing their politics into the office, but also prevents those people who want to defend the status quo. The only thing is does is it makes people carry out their political activity in a space other than the office.
> but also prevents those people who want to defend the status quo.
You don't have to defend the status quo, if no one is allowed to challenge it. In other words your ideal office is set in favor of the status quo. And a century ago, would likely not have hired women or blacks. Since that would have been "political".
Thing is, I'm actually in favor of this. Most companies should probably stick to avoiding politics as good as possible and give their employees freedom to do whatever they want outside of work. At the same time, "X employee does [bad thing]" headlines make this damn hard, and thus the company will have to distance itself from what such employees do... worst case by terminating the relationship.
Long story short, having a highly divided society will lead to a lot of pain. No way around it. Finding ways to work against those divisions before they get even worse, even if that means conflict, seem more important than to just bury one's head in the sand.
You are erroneous in your belief that bringing politics into the workplace is a means to work against division. Quite the opposite. When politics are brought into the workplace, political discussion is monopolized by people with power (be it explicit authority, or social influence) and exclude people whose politics are opposed to them. Politics, by nature, tends to divide people which is precisely why companies that want to avoid a divided workforce don't allow politics in their workplace.
> And thus, an office in which this "set of activities" is not permitted is an apolitical office.
Organization of people involves power dynamics. Maybe you can make an argument that something like holocracy generates an apolitical environment, though I think that doesn't hold up experimentally.
Management deciding whether or not to increase vacation days is a political act. Employees deciding whether they want to stand together in negotations with management or handle stuff individually is a political decision. Hell, trying to push for more/less meetings in day to day work is a political act.
It's pretty hard to have any sort of organization without the political aspect coming into play immediately.
> Management deciding whether or not to increase vacation days is a political act.
No, it's a company policy. There is a contingent of people who believe everything is a political act, and perhaps you are among them. But know that this view is not as widely held as you might think.
> Employees deciding whether they want to stand together in negotations with management or handle stuff individually is a political
Interestingly, unions actually try to argue that they are not political. That is the cornerstone of their arguments as to why union dues are not compelled speech.
> Hell, trying to push for more/less meetings in day to day work is a political act.
Again, not for the overwhelming majority of people who consider this an apolitical change.
Yes, if you believe everything is political then everything in the workplace is political. But most people don't subscribe to this view.
Your argument boils down to "most people agree with me". Can you substantiate that claim? Even if you could, that doesn't make the popular claim right, but your don't even have a proof that most people agree with you, sot you?
Go around and ask your co-workers, "would you you consider a push by management to have fewer meeting a political act?". I sampled my co-workers and none of them considered it political.
This works both ways: what data do you have that workers consider adjustments to things like meetings political acts?
> This works both ways: what data do you have that workers consider adjustments to things like meetings political acts?
Well no, you made an unsubstantiated claim. I'm just noting it was unsubstantiated. Given when I work, I suspect a survey of my co-workers would reach a different conclusion than you would.
As for why it might be political: encouraging certain working styles is political, is it not? Pushing people to work independently as opposed to collaboratively is a highly political choice.
I'm not sure where you're seeing "unquestioned obedience".
Employees can go support the politicians, or hold rallies for whatever cause they choose on their own time.
An apolitical office is one where political activity isn't held in the office. That's it. I'm really not sure what is confusing about this.
Again, an apolitical office does not entail unquestioned obedience - the notion that it does is your own fabrication.
I've worked in apolitical offices before, and people do feel comfortable to question business decision and technical choices. In fact, I'd say people were more comfortable in questioning those decisions than in political offices, because in political offices people are loath to be perceived as political enemies.
