"You’ve heard that rule about never discussing politics at work? That’s so last election. These days, you would think that political talk was a job requirement. A survey at the start of the primary season by Office Team, a staffing agency based in Menlo Park, Calif., found that 67 percent of the 522 workers polled thought it was just fine to discuss politics in the office.
" . . .
"So, if the old way (say nothing political) is outdated, and the new way (say anything) may be offensive, what are the rules?
"A few are legal, experts say. An employer may not pressure his employers to support, donate to or work for a particular candidate. Freedom of speech does not apply to a slogan-spouting worker whose boss asks him to avoid office political talk — as long as he is asking the same of other employees.
The rest is common sense. Jamie and Maren Showkeir, consultants specializing in workplace culture, and the authors of the book “Authentic Conversations: Moving from Manipulation to Truth and Commitment,” have some tips on what to avoid when engaging in political conversation in the office: don’t assume your co-workers share your political views and opinions; don’t abuse your power or position, avoid making politics personal; discuss rather than debate; and try to find common ground.
When political talk at work goes well, it can be everything conversation is supposed to be — an exchange of ideas that can result in illuminating moments for both parties. Anthony Commisso, who runs a formalwear shop in Latham, N.Y., had such an exchange with his newest employee, who is still a college student. Mr. Commisso said he tended to keep his opinions to himself in front of his customers, but his new employee was less reticent, and started sharing her political thoughts with a prospective bride and groom who were in the store to rent a tuxedo.
“Obama was too inexperienced and McCain had been around for so long he’ll know how to get it done,” Mr. Commisso recalled her saying.
Instead of lecturing her on keeping quiet in front of the customers, he joined the conversation. He reminded the young woman that while the man who had the job before her was, at 49, more experienced, and she was barely into her 20s, he “didn’t last a year” in the position, and here she was, practically running the shop. They have discussed — but not argued about — politics many times since then.
That is how it should be done, quietly and politely. So go off and play nicely. And remember to vote, or you don’t get to come into work on Nov. 5 and complain about who won."
From Talking Politics in the Office, By Lisa Belkin, New York Times, October 2, 2008, at p. E2. Consulted by jeanne in print, then online on October 2, 2008.
Lisa Belkin's article offers in the first paragraph quoted here some statistics to validate the changing norms. Habermas must be as happy as I am that patterns of discourse are beginning to reflect something more substantive than the weather and who's dating or not dating whom. But would you believe that I came across this article this morning in the Thursday Styles Section? This is way more than styles, folks. If we don't start talking seriously about this stuff, I'm tempted to say we're going to deserve what the "criminals" on Wall Street are doing to us.
Yeah, several commentators are referring to the Wall Street debacle as "criminal." And with good reason. In the law, we consider that being negligent (Not knowing what's really going on in your markets is negligence, when that's your job.) without consideration for the harm it can do others to whom you have a duty (like the fiduciary duty to protect the financial interests of another) is a crime.
If the guys whose job it was to protect and advise us financially misread the markets, doesn't that suggst that reading the markets isn't as simple as it's cracked up to be? Does that excuse them from asserting with confidence and arrogance that "they know"? - consider the arrogance of knowledge here - and what does that suggest for the tremendous recent push to take social security private? meaning that we could have lost our whole investment if we bet wrong or were advised by a "financial specialist" who bet wrong. What does this tell us about where risk belongs, and about who should be allowed to bet on our futures.
No, I don't have the answers. Would that I did. But, wow, do I have lots of questions. Hope you do, too. Especially, now that it's OK to talk about it all. Oh, and please don't forget about the humility of knowledge. Respect the Other. No one really knows who's going to have the next big brainstorm, as Einstein did about relativity. Einstein flunked math when he was in school. You can't necessarily tell who's brainstorm will pay off.
A Justice Site
jeannecurran@habermas.org
