> limit conversations to work topics only. That's an awful work environment.
Ok, maybe it's because I'm older (but not a boomer), but I don't think that's an awful work environment.
I use dinner party rules on social media and at the workplace. That means I avoid talking about politics, religion, etc. It's not because I'm afraid of being outed for my views or anything, it's because I look at work as work, and not a place to socialize or broadcast my views.
I'm 100% aligned with you on this. The problem is that many people, especially younger millennials, don't follow these social rules. Aside from it being exhausting to listen to them preach their political beliefs at work, you can also be "outed" just by not agreeing with them vocally enough. I've had friends have to leave teams because of this dynamic.
It’s funny, my experience has been the exact opposite. Conservative boomer and older-gen-x employees where I work are very outspoken, loudly rehashing Fox News talking points in the cafeteria, seemingly projecting their voices as loudly as possible to try to get a rise from everyone else. I don’t know if they feel “safe” because they are nearer to retirement and have pensions (which have since been phased out and none of us younger folks have them) or what, but the younger workers keep their heads down and don’t tend to chat about politics.
I've definitely experienced the loud and completely socially-unaware older conservatives as well, but generally not at work. Is your career in danger if you disagree with these people? That danger is where it goes from an undesirable work environment to one that is genuinely bad for society.
If so, that seems like the same dynamic, just with a different hegemony. It's a horrible pattern for a workplace regardless of which view is the orthodoxy.
I'm an older millennial and I don't bring my "whole self" to work. Work is for work, I'm not there to share my beliefs or values with my colleagues. It's really not a terrible way to operate, and I think it's often foolish to "show your hand" at work as it can give people ammunition against you.
That won't protect you. When your employer is actively signalling and funding support for particular groups or political positions, failure to join in is taken as a political action, and you might get attacked by co-workers for being anti-group or anti-position.
I don't know what one needs to be protected from. If your coworkers are harasssing you for not being political, that's usually the point where you escalate the issue. If that doesn't get you anywhere, that's a signal to leave (and by leave, I mean by not announcing it to the world with a "Why I left X" blog post).
Maybe I'm lucky, in my 25+ years of working, I haven't had to deal with that level of unprofessional behaviour (but I've also generally avoided working with startups and "interactive" agencies for the past 10+ years).
Counter-point: the "silence is violence", and the "being silent is being complicit" are somewhat popular suppositions. You can find public posts chiding people with those words for not being politically active enough.
Generally speaking, I treat coworkers "like a customer". I try to be respectful, polite and professional. My work can speak for itself. If that's not enough, then so be it, because I don't have time for other people's bs.
FWIW, I see those chiding posts in my FB feed, and I don't put any stock in them. Most of the people in my feeds post them in lieu of being genuinely active, as though the act of posting is an act in itself. That's their right and choice, and it's my right and choice to ignore them.
Ok, maybe it's because I'm older (but not a boomer), but I don't think that's an awful work environment.
I use dinner party rules on social media and at the workplace. That means I avoid talking about politics, religion, etc. It's not because I'm afraid of being outed for my views or anything, it's because I look at work as work, and not a place to socialize or broadcast my views.