Hacker News Reader

Comment by zettatron | Hacker News Reader

As a biracial and transgender individual working for a startup: I would prefer (and am appreciative of my company's ability to) not discussing these things at work to begin with.

I can't imagine why on Earth anyone would want to bring such a personal topic into the workplace. As a matter of fact, it kind of disturbs the integrity of a professional environment to have these kinds of discussions during working hours anyway.

For the record, I have never felt discriminated against or left-out, or anything other than being another member of my team in a meaningful way.

I think focusing on these kinds of sensitivities can pull a sense of mistrust and underhandedness to the team. I'm not going to invalidate his feelings on the issue, because we are all allowed to feel how we feel; but I would caution anyone in engaging those feelings at work for the benefit of all parties involved.

View on HN

I honestly don't understand your comment.

It's pretty clear that the author is bringing these issues up precisely because other employees at Google did not heed the advice you give: "“Over the last 5 years I’ve heard co-workers spew hateful words about immigrants, boast unabashedly about gentrifying neighborhoods, mockingly imitate people who speak different languages, reject candidates of color without evidence because of ‘fit’ and so much more,”"

In other words, there were many Googlers who did in fact discuss these issues at work.

Sure, it's nice to say, "I would prefer...", but honestly, we would all prefer things to be different than they are. But they're not.

And this is where I really don't understand your comment. Your comment seems to totally ignore the very issue that is explicitly mentioned sub-headline of the article: Apparently, some people at Google not only felt free to discuss these issues in the work place, they did so in a profoundly unprofessional manner thereby creating a hostile workplace.

So stating that "I would prefer...not discussing these things..." doesn't really address the issue that these things were in fact discussed.

That's sort of like saying, "I would really prefer it if my code always worked the way I wanted it to..."

or.."I'd really prefer not to procrastinate so much on HN..."

Don't we all? Alas, that's not the world we live in. The crux of life is what do we do when things happen that we prefer would not happen?

Controversial issues were discussed at work, the author of the memo highlighted the problem and gave solutions, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't, but I think it's important to move beyond just stating our preferences.

I think what they're saying is none of those issues should ever come up at work.

Most companies its understood that talking about that stuff leads to a meeting with HR, I also imagine the conversations about police brutality is why they were so silent, because people are afraid to discuss it without saying something that's likely to offend or know its a highly sensitive topic.

I agree work should be neutral ground, at least if you want to keep non-hostile.

All of that is subjective. Every single person will have a different interpretation and clearly the colleagues were fine with it. Without knowing what was actually said, there's no objective measure of whether anything even crosses the professional line or if it was this person just finding it personally disagreeable (which seems likely given the rest of the note).

There needs to be some pushback on how far people expect others to constantly read their mind and cater to their level of offense and sensitivity. Otherwise workplaces and society itself will start to grind to a halt.

Agreed. With these stories, I tend to think the safest takeaway is "The narrator clearly felt XYZ" rather than "X1, Y2 and Z3 strictly happened"

> Sure, it's nice to say, "I would prefer...", but honestly, we would all prefer things to be different than they are. But they're not.

I think it's important to note the role that Google plays in breeding this culture. I've worked in fintech for years and have yet to hear a single coworker talk about politics, race, or gender. It's a good policy and SV is just slowly beginning to find out what the reasons for it are.

I grew up in a mostly black county, and attended predominantly black schools my entire childhood. Something that the typical person on HN doesn't understand is how implicitly absurd, and accidentally racist, it is to view the comments of an individual black person to be representative of black people in general.

We do this all the time, but would never accept a random white person to claim they represent all white people.

Al Sharpton knows nothing about the lives of black people where I grew up. He's never been there. My friends growing up were deeply resentful of his constant claim to be "the voice of black America." He's a New Yorker, through and through. And yet the media elites act as if he was an elected representative of black America.

This Google employee is no different. How does he get to speak for all black Googlers? Who elected him? How many black employees at Google think he's correct, vs. paranoid and overly sensitive?

Show me an actual survey, and I'll open up on this. But this is anecdotal bullshit, just like the placating white hosts on news channels signaling their virtue by picking up the phone and bringing Sharpton on since they don't know normal, non-celebrity black people.

This is an article written by one person expressing their experiences. They aren't claiming to represent all black employees. You've created a straw man with your non-sequitur Sharpton comments.

The Googler didn’t claim to represent everyone. That part and the rest of your comment are arguing against things no one is against.

He might not be, but everyone else is treating it like it is.

It's kind of weird that you brought up "Al Sharpton". I've never heard anyone from the black community in the modern era cite All Sharpton, nor speak about him as "King of Black Folks".

Seems like the Googler just expressed their own experience. You might be implicitly falling for the point you are trying to make?

>I can't imagine why on Earth anyone would want to bring such a personal topic into the workplace. As a matter of fact, it kind of disturbs the integrity of a professional environment to have these kinds of discussions during working hours anyway

A lot of times, it isn't their choice. I'm glad that you have never felt discriminated against, but just because that's your experience, doesn't mean everyone else's experiences are the same.

Most of my friends are members of the LGBT community, though I am not. I know for them, they want nothing else than to just be who they are, do their work, and go home at the end of the day. But they have been denied that over and over again because they have been forced to work with assholes.

Yeah, society is becoming more accepting, and that's great. I think that makes the negative experiences even worse.

And I'm sympathetic to your friends' struggles, but I don't think it helps them to establish a norm that you must always talk about social issues of the day at work. Sometimes people will be having a welcoming discussion about the most recent antidiscrimination law, and sometimes they'll be having an incredibly non-welcoming discussion about Jessica Yaniv.

> forced to work with assholes.

Is that so? Where is this slavery taking place exactly?

It takes a particularly simplistic view of the world to have a response like this.

For many in the tech world, getting a new job is straight forward, but that is not the norm. It is stressful. It might require moving to a new location. it might require taking a pay cut.

There are many reasons someone might want to stay in a crappy job. One might be it's the only job they can find in their current location (especially outside of tech hubs), and they are tied to their current location for reasons of family or other obligations.

I have a friend who is staying in a shitty job because one of the perks of the job is reduced college tuition for her son, and that's more important to her than being happy at work.

You are a privileged person if you have never experienced something like that. I hope you never do. But please don't assume just because you haven't that no one else has either.

You are not forced to work with assholes. Period.

> There are many reasons someone might want to stay in a crappy job.

Many reasons for choosing (or preferring) to stay, I never denied that.

> I have a friend who is staying in a shitty job because one of the perks of the job is reduced college tuition for her son, and that's more important to her than being happy at work.

A choice has been made here. The choice to STAY, and NOT LEAVE. It does not magically make it forced when it was a voluntary decision. Your friend preferred to stay in the shitty job because she valued reduced college tuition for her son more than she did not want to do the job. You said this yourself: "that's more important to her than being happy at work.". Exactly! Where is the "force" here? All I see is preferences and values.

Given an unrelated choice, they have unchosen and unwanted consequences of having to deal with an asshole. Play word games all you want, but the average person understands the meaning here.

They do not want to deal with the asshole. That's what is meant here. Not an analysis of all the history and choices that led to them to this moment in their life. This is not difficult to understand.

I don't know what point you're trying to make. That they should care for their son less so that their life is a little easier? Because that is what it's sounding like. Or maybe you're just being a pedantic asshole yourself.

Thank you for calling me an asshole, but this was not necessary.

> That they should care for their son less so that their life is a little easier?

Definitely not. I am not sure how you could conclude that given my posts about choice and preferences. I do not care which choice they make, but they made one over another because they valued that over the other. There is no force here whatsoever, it is all about preferences. If you value your job more (for whatever reasons, e.g. so you can feed your kids) than you dislike assholes, you stay. Some people would rather switch jobs than remain with assholes. Some people would tolerate it. Some people are too lazy to take it to their superiors (or just do not care enough). Of course the list is non-exhaustive, but the point is that neither of them are forced to stay and work with assholes. That is my point, that ultimately you are not really forced to work with assholes. You are free to leave the workplace. You are free to switch. You are free to attempt to resolve the issue. Depending on your workplace, you may be free to join another group. Again, this list is non-exhaustive, too, and to make my point it does not matter. Maybe you could read my other comments on the subject, but in no way am I suggesting what you think I am suggesting. Let me regurgitate, my point is: no one is holding a gun to your head and forces you to work with assholes.

Please re-read this one:

> A choice has been made here. The choice to STAY, and NOT LEAVE. It does not magically make it forced when it was a voluntary decision. Your friend preferred to stay in the shitty job because she valued reduced college tuition for her son more than she did not want to do the job. You said this yourself: "that's more important to her than being happy at work.". Exactly! Where is the "force" here? All I see is preferences and values.

I am not trying to suggest a choice for her, why would I decide for her? I am not trying to decide for her. I am simply making an observation regarding her values, and they are fine! But is she forced to do what she does? No! She made a voluntary decision. There are no mysterious forces.

How about you tell me regarding your example where or what the force is, then we can continue it from there. However, it is going to be difficult, because even you yourself said this: "that's more important to her than being happy at work.". It is exactly what I meant. No one forced her. She made a choice based on her values and preferences. Do you disagree?

Are you really equating someone choosing to remain at a job where they work with assholes to slavery?

Not everyone has the economic freedom or mobility to simply leave a job. Jobs and orgs change over time, so you can go to work one day and find out the new lead for your team is an asshole.

It happens every day to people who don't have the option to leave their job whether it's in an Amazon warehouse, or the top level engineering roles at a FANG company.

It's not even close to being comparable to slavery, but it is still being forced to work with assholes because the leadership team isn't doing a good job of removing assholes from the work environment.

What? Everyone has the option to leave, otherwise it is involuntary and IS slavery... if you are making the choice to stay, then it is not forced at all. There is always another option besides making the choice to stay. You are actually not forced to stay.

> Are you really equating someone choosing to remain at a job where they work with assholes to slavery?

No. If you are not allowed to leave, then it is slavery. Look at carefully what you have just said: choosing, indeed, that makes it voluntary, you are NOT FORCED to stay, you CHOSE to stay because of your preferences and whatnot.

Also a reminder: we were talking about "working with assholes", do not come up with scenarios where your future hypothetical individual will have ZERO opportunities, skills, etc. :)

Your statement is true if your standards are high.

There is no escape from assholes at any company of even medium size. From the narcissistic architect, to the arrogant sales rep, to the ignorant vegan. It's part of any society.

The problem is, people have been coddled so much and isolated from it to the point that they're unable to cope with it when they experience it. More people need to spend more time pushing themselves into uncomfortable positions instead of averting them. Don't let a temper get the best of you and stay rational. It makes you emotionally/mentally stronger.

I think it's the opposite. Sex, politics, and religion used to be verboten in any professional context. There's good reason for that: you're going to have to get along with people who believe different things than you do, and the best way to do that is to focus on your work instead of your beliefs.

Google created a culture where employees are supposed to personally identify with their beliefs and now they're paying the price.

I've been in professional workplaces for about 25 years now. Early in my career, I was even in a few offices where I was the only male. You'd be surprised how raunchy office conversation can get when a mostly female office forgets you're there. I've also worked in nearly all male environments and it was similar. IMHO it's not nearly as bad today, people are just more sensitive from my own experience.

The problem is the inability to stay calm and interact with people of differing views.

edit: I find it interesting, I started working in the early 90's at a time when a lot of office environments were shifting mindsets. When smoking/drinking at work was starting to become widely unacceptable, when social interactions between men and women were starting to be widely discouraged. I think a lot of things are better, and a lot of things are worse. But it was never as "professional" as some people seem to think.

I think one of the major issues, is that if I say "I'm just not into identity politics" the person will be knocking at HR's door in precisely 5 seconds and HR will be scheduling re-education for later in that day.

You cannot just be here to do work these days. You have to be an activist who happens to do work for about an hour per week, but the rest of your day better be spent expressing the approved opinions, genuflecting at the correct people, and consuming the designed propaganda. These companies don't have employees, they have activists who they are too afraid to fire.

Yes, dealing with assholes is an important life skill, and it takes time to learn.

I don't see how that relates to my point. They have to be dealt with one way or another, I don't think we should just accept their presence as inescapable. Assholes should be confronted, not tolerated as inevitable.

I'm not saying don't confront them... but that policies aren't necessarily the answer. The answer is actual engagement from a rational perspective.

Yes LGBT people should dispassionately discuss with homophobic and transphobic folks by rationally engaging them in the marketplace of ideas.

"You know, you think my sexuality is an abomination that should not exist and I will go to hell, but have you ever considered that - hear me out - this could not be the case? Do you have any data to back this up? Aren't you falling into an ad hominem fallacy?"

"Ah right, you have correctly pointed out a gaping hole in my otherwise excellent deductive reasoning. I hereby bow to your argument and am not homophobic anymore."

And once again, the power of rational debate shines through and through.

> The problem is, people have been coddled so much and isolated from it to the point that they're unable to cope with it when they experience it. More people need to spend more time pushing themselves into uncomfortable positions instead of averting them.

I promise you that when LGBT people encounter bigotry at work, the problem is not that they've never been discriminated against before and need more discrimination to toughen them up.

My company held an optional meeting / fireside chat to discuss being LGBT in the workplace, as part of the office's Pride celebration. Compared to my old company --which never even acknowledged Pride occurred-- it was kind of nice to have an hour to reflect on that. Otherwise, personal topics like this never come up. I think it's okay if it's a group of people who choose to opt-in for a discussion for 1 hour once a year. Then you're not "forcing" coworkers who don't want to be there to listen, or worry about sewing mistrust, as you have mentioned, which is a valid concern. You don't want people worried about preemptively stepping on your toes to the point where it could impact you professionally.

>I think it's okay if it's a group of people who choose to opt-in for a discussion for 1 hour once a year. Then you're not "forcing" coworkers who don't want to be there to listen, or worry about sewing mistrust, as you have mentioned, which is a valid concern.

Yeah, but what happens when someone never shows up for things like this? Do people start getting suspicious that they're anti-LGBT? That's my worry whenever a workplace starts trying to bring non-work-related stuff into the workplace like this.

I have a hard enough time with companies that want to have "team lunches" or dinners. Even though they're really optional (or "optional"), if you never show up for them, it makes you look like you're "not part of the team". It's inevitable with any workplace social activities: if you're the one guy who never attends, it makes you stand out. What if your company/team likes to go to happy hours regularly, and you don't drink and hate bars? Again, it makes you look like a black sheep.

Honestly, I'd prefer it if employers stopped trying to act like my family and just stuck to getting work done, and letting me go home ASAP so I can do things I prefer and eat food I prefer. (With those team meals, they always pick restaurants I hate.)

> Yeah, but what happens when someone never shows up for things like this? Do people start getting suspicious that they're anti-LGBT?

There was no expectation for everyone to show up. The meeting space wouldn't even have facilitated it. It would be unreasonable for there to have been an expectation for that reason alone.

Nobody's going to think your anti-LGBT unless you make comments at work disparaging LGBT people. You don't have to be proactively pro-LGBT in the workplace to be not "against it".

Isn't it exactly what the author of the memo is saying though? People at his work had nothing to say about police brutality against black people, so of course they were racist and supporting it.

Nobody talks about the Stonewall riots at work, or how gays couldn't marry nationwide until years ago, but I don't assume they're anti-LGBT for failure to discuss these things.

Sitting here in Seattle working for a tech company where we have a Stonewall riot poster in every kitchen...

> Isn't it exactly what the author of the memo is saying though?

No, it doesn't seem that way to me.

> People at his work had nothing to say about police brutality against black people, so of course they were racist and supporting it.

No, I think he's saying that them having something to say about every news item imaginable except the one that resonated with him in that way (well, other than their dismissal of the protest) was alienating and distancing independent of what motivated it.

Maybe I misunderstood the article and the memo, but it felt very much like it was saying, “I have to deal with racists at work, like that time no one supported a political issue that I care a lot about”. Maybe it was more the article’s editorializing rather than the memo itself that gave this interpretation.

when you have a widely disseminated open invitation to particular social-issue oriented things, the lack of involvement or attendance is visible and the door is open for people to wonder about it.

if you combine a situation of "i feel this group is suffering and we need to pursue remedies asap" with "this person appears disinterested [from lack of attendance] in discussing the issues facing said group" you can get to places of suspicion and worse. that is, if you feel a group is suffering and it appears someone just doesn't [seem to] care, it's natural to wonder if they're not exactly on the nominally-friendly side of the issue.

this isn't weird or unusual, just ordinary social dynamics.

That would imply that if 85% of the office didn't attend the meeting, 85% of the office is anti-LGBT. I'd find that incredibly hard to believe. When people are super opposed to things en masse, they don't hide it.

we're not exactly talking about logical syllogisms. there is no specific implications; just an understanding of how people interact.

what if someone's whole team regularly attends these meetings, but that single someone never goes? even if they've never said anything, it doesn't seem unrealistic for at least some of the other teammates to wonder why.

how you get from wondering to suspicions really depends on a person's assumptions, philosophies, politics, etc.

One of my previous companies had "kids day" during which employees could bring their kids, there were random activities set up for them (craft, coloring books, etc) and everybody could volunteer to hang out with them.

I never attended, and after maybe half a dozen of sessions during which I kept doing, you know, work, my coworkers started assuming and asking me if I hated kids... And I have 2!

Wow, that's weird. How did they treat people who didn't have kids? Were they seen as kid-haters too if they didn't volunteer?

Nothing new under the Sun. The viewpoint that any effort to be sociable with co-workers is a pretense is 100% valid and deserves to be respected.

Honestly this sounds horrible to me, work is a place for work. I don't care if you're gay, straight or otherwise, keep your personal lives personal.

Forcing employees to have a pow-wow about their feelings on ANY issue would have me updating my CV ASAP.

How does an optional event force you to pow-wow about your feelings?

peer pressure, perceptions of how others will view yourno participation etc.

Maintaining a professional distance while in the workplace makes sense by itself, but it's inconsistent with the "bring your whole self to work" policy that the author cites.

Google somewhat prides itself on it's 'open culture'[0] and I'd say that this is not only well known, but is a point of pride in it's hiring process and a recruitment tool. The ethos of talking about anything and everything is celebrated and encouraged.

To then have an 'open' culture in every respect except with racial issues (broadly defined here) as indicated by the memo's author, does not square.

Sure, the OP here may agrue that a work first culture is better (and I agree to a certain extent), but that does not fit within Google's culture.

The memo's author is correct to point out the mis-match, and in the open culture of Google should be celebrated for doing so.

If they do get flak for it from higher-ups, then I think it is fair to state that the open culture of Google is de facto dead and Googlers should adjust.

Happily for HNers, this means that the FAANGs are on the way out and their 'moats' may start to develop holes that can be exploited by start-ups. Look out for the greybeards sooner than later as the elves start to leave middle earth, so to speak.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-culture-of-transparen...

I think most people are freer than they believe to bring themself to work.

Even at companies in rural areas, people can generally be somewhat "weird" or "alternative" and still be accepted at work if they don't make their personality a weapon to annoy people with.

>As a matter of fact, it kind of disturbs the integrity of a professional environment to have these kinds of discussions during working hours anyway.

I don't see it possible to not reference these issues indirectly. For example, how many times do coworkers discuss children. If one is unable to have children, due to either medical issues or identity, their relationship to the topic is inherently impacted and they have a hard time avoiding the topic. They can sometimes punt by mentioning adopting or not wanting kids, but this still forces the individual to think about the topic even if they can hide it from whomever they are interacting with.

Is this a big deal? I would say that differs between people impacted based on their personal situations.

You literally want to spend nearly half of your awake time with people you have no social interaction with? I'm not saying all topics are appropriate for the workplace... but there has to be some wiggle room.

As a straight white male working for a former startup: I agree wholeheartedly. Even when (maybe that should be especially when) you are supposedly encouraged by the company to do so.

Discussing politics, race, sexuality, or religion at work only ever leads to discomfort or hurt feelings on someone's part, even if they are superficially identical to you.

Hell, even someone being vehemently anti-Trump at work makes me super uncomfortable, even when I feel similarly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com