Agreed. This is "feelings over professionalism." If you're so uncontrollably emotional that you can't help but waste company time, take a sick day. But I think the problem is that they're not uncontrollable, rather they're very in control and are enacting a performance for their audience. Thus they need an audience.

As a non-American I'm so glad I don't work in an country where politics seems to create such hysteria in the workplace. I know Trump was a big unexpected shock to many but come on... crying executives, I mean what the hell

Mind you, America is a vast and diverse place; California/Silicon Valley/Google are at an extreme end of the spectrum, and they also get a disproportionate amount of attention. Rest assured, much of America is saner.

I see what you're getting at, but "saner" is biased language.

Cali/SV/Google all lean one way because they've been benefiting from the way things have been going. The thought that large swaths of the country have been experiencing a declining quality of life just doesn't register to them. That doesn't make them "insane," just uninformed.

It's definitely figurative language and I understand that it's charged, but I don't think it's "biased" in any sense of the term that might illegitimate my opinion. I don't think "uninformed" accurately conveys the phenomena we're seeing in our country, particularly since much similar ignorance flows out of institutions that ostensibly know better--notably the academy and media.

>"As a non-American I'm so glad I don't work in an country where politics seems to create such hysteria in the workplace."

Your America bashing is completely uncalled for and unwarranted.

It's pretty sad that you don't realize that executives getting on stage and crying in front of employees the day after an election is a complete aberration. This was was not and is not commonplace.

I'm an American and I can say without hesitation that in most of the companies I've worked for, executive leadership has been uncomfortably political on both sides of the aisle. Even from the non-partisan side, I worked for a company where the owner decided it was now required that you vote. He didn't care what party you were registered or who you voted for, but if you didn't vote it would be brought up in a review.

And as someone who quite frequently rolls his eyes at the inevitable "As a European.." comments on every American politics or healthcare article posted on HN, I didn't see the GP as America bashing at all.

That's why I've avoided small business like the plague. That's an extreme position -- even political hacks aren't usually that political in their appointed positions!

> Your [...] you

That's unduly personal, and therefore uncivil, regardless of how wrong someone else is. Unfortunately this kind of thing appears frequently in your comment history. Would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when commenting here?

I'm confused, my use of possessive pronouns is uncivil? I've read the guidelines, specifically the "In Comments" section. I'm failing to see where my comment runs afoul of the guidelines. It's not snark, its not something you wouldn't say face to face etc. Can you you elaborate?

Not the pronoun itself, of course, but when you use it to make negative insinuations about the person you're talking to, that's unduly personal and crosses into incivility. You did it twice above. Other examples in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15472109. Please don't do this.

This is most certainly not American bashing, only a nod to the extent that political partisanship has infiltrated American culture.

Stating "I'm so glad I don't work in an country where X", strikes me as a little stronger than a "nod."

More especially so when "X" is a second-hand anecdote and that second-hand anecdote stems from a company that is in no way representative of the average American work place.