Sure, the company provides services that help others comply with regulations and thus favors those regulations. Just like any other corporation that prefers regulations that help drive it's business.
Our workplace is still neutral though, and we don't discuss politics. To be extra clear: Whether you're for or against privacy regulations is not relevant. Whether the law is changing and will increase our revenues is relevant. See the difference?
I see that you think there's a difference. But you've admitted that politics is a topic you discuss. In fact, lots of companies spend money to actively make said laws bend in their favor.
The difference is less straightforward than you make it out to be.
Since you consider everything to be political, then everything is politics and there is no discussion without it. It's a tautological inevitability.
However there is a difference in that we don't discuss personal opinions on politics. We talk about changes, and whether those changes are good for the business. That's a pretty clear line that you seem to be refusing to accept even though our team understands it perfectly.
> Since you consider everything to be political, then everything is politics and there is no discussion without it. It's a tautological inevitability.
but that's kind of the point. Pretty much any human discussion (or interaction for that matter) _can_ be viewed through a political lens by someone.
Thus by declaring to forbid political discussion, you are just declaring a blanket right to ban any discussions that inconvenience you by judging them political.
No, we don't constantly live with theoretical extremes in our day to day life and can operate without political discussion, like our company and many others do.
And yes, corporations can set the rules of the workplace they maintain. It is not about "inconvenience" but to avoid chaos and improve productivity. You are free to do as you wish outside of the workplace, including choosing a company that lets you say whatever you want. I applaud and encourage this freedom on both sides.
Corporations may be people to you but their rules are written by actual humans, using their existing political biases. And it usually the people at the top choosing them
You might think that a discussion you are having is not political because for you it's "common sense", "obvious" and "surely everyone reasonable agree" but that's not forcibly the case.
If an employee says a thing you don't agree with, for you it is a political statement and you shut it as such.
If you make a political statement an employee don't agree with they shut up and don't contradict you because they don't want to lose their job.
I never said this. What does this have to do with anything?
> "If an employee says a thing you don't agree with, for you it is a political statement and you shut it as such."
No. Disagreement on something doesn't not mean that it's political. Most reasonable people can easily figure out the difference: Talking about weather or our tech stack is not political. Talking about immigration policy is. So we discuss the former without the latter, just like millions of other people in many companies. It's not difficult.
> "If you make a political statement"
I don't. That's what no political discussion means and it applies to everyone. Why do you assume people can't follow their own rules?
Overall, if you don't like the rules of the workplace then leave. That's the whole point of this policy and exit package. You're not entitled to stay and discuss whatever you want, and thinking that you can is a very privileged expectation.
> I never said this. What does this have to do with anything?
You said "Corporations can set rules" and I wanted to punctuate the point that theses rules don't come from the nether.
> I don't. That's what no political discussion means and it applies to everyone. Why do you assume people can't follow their own rules?
I meant no insult to your character. The point is you think everyone agree with your list on what is political is political or not and I don't.
To give examples:
You might say "I arrived late again, I wish they would build a new highway" and I'm thinking it's political because really they should build more subway
I might say "I have a cat it's nice, I recommend it to everyone" and you might think it's political because you think cats are decimating the bird wild life and should be banned"
> Talking about weather
Not the example I would have used in your place with climate change...
> or our tech stack
Open source/ closed source is a political debate for example. But they are also some who dismiss technologies based on their country of origin.
So again you might think you follow the rule because for you it's not a political statement but for me it might be and inversely.
None of those examples are political in so far as to be a problem. Reasonable people understand this. Maybe that's the major issue: the boundary of reasonable is being pushed to the extremes by those who are unwilling to accept anything else.
Again, why do you keep making this personal? It doesn't matter if it's a problem for me or not, if it's not relevant to the business then you don't discuss it. If a topic seems risky then you don't discuss it. This is fine for the vast majority of people and companies; because they're reasonable people working in inclusive and neutral companies.
Those who can't be reasonable and insist on irrelevant politics in the workplace should should leave. That's quite literally what this policy and exit package is for. I don't see the problem. In fact those creating such a problem with it are precisely those who the policy is referring to and they should find another employer more suited for them.
If people aren't proselyting their views on how the country should be run then it is apolitical. This is the norm. You must be very damaged if you think this is impossible.
I don't think "everything" is meant to be taken so /literally/.
It is your personal opinion on privacy that led to the founding of the company. It is most likely your employees' personal opinions that made them choose to work at your company vs Google or FB's ad divisions.
But let's discuss a more relevant political topic. Your name, manigandham, implies you are of Asian origin. The /political/ immigration laws determine your/parents' existence in the USA. If the company you/they worked for was serving/assisting organisations that would invalidate your legal residence, would you not be concerned? Or would you help the project succeed & accept your fate once ICE came knocking?
And yet we don't discuss opinions in the workplace. I don't see why that is so difficult to understand.
I caution against making this personal because it's a poor argument and unproductive. But since you asked: I was born in India, legally immigrated to the USA, and am now a naturalized US citizen. I have never feared ICE or any part of the US Government, and fully support legal immigration, strong borders, and proper law enforcement. Corporations do not affect my citizenship or residence, that's a matter of state and law. If I didn't like what a company was doing, I would simply not work for them. None of this requires discussing my political opinions at work.
Speech and action are not the same, and nobody is forcing you to work anywhere you don't want to. If you don't like the rules of limited discussion or anything else the company does, then leave. This Coinbase policy is specifically designed to give you a very comfortable exit. What's the problem?
This is a very personal topic, for the people that are being "political".
Claiming you no longer care about this, after becoming a naturalized citizen, is a prime example of the "I have mine" philosophy. You would not be able to quit a company while on an immigrant visa, to protest your company's problematic workings. This is not a fair view, and you know that.
1) The topic is political discussions at work. You made this thread personal by asking about my background instead of arguing the merits. What issues others are personally affected by has nothing to do with this.
2) What do you know about what I care about or my philosophy? I said I support strong borders and law enforcement. This does not stop others from becoming citizens, nor do I have any responsibility to anyone else.
3) You choose the company you work for, and you can always quit. That doesn't mean there are no consequences but that's life, and life isn't fair.
You're conflating several topics with random tangents and have attempted to personally attack me with assumptions, strawman scenarios and mischaracterizations. Nothing you've said is a reason to break the rules of the workplace and discuss whatever you want, especially when you have the alternative of leaving (and the company is offering a generous package to do so). The entitlement that you stay employed and yet break the rules and create disturbance is the very epitome of the privilege you claim exists in those that choose to actually follow those rules. This is precisely the attitude that this company (and many others) are trying to avoid. I'll end this thread here as there's nothing more to discuss.
