Google's culture is uniquely subservient to politics. The organization's mission is very clearly secondary to the employee's personal activism.

"Politics-free" also means "the ethical choice is what the higher-ups define", which would be difficult for me to stomach for its own set of reasons.

I regularly see elaborate arguments that non-political speech is impossible therefore employees must be allowed to talk politics at work. They're very tiresome, because ordinary people can see they're just not true. Non political workplaces are possible and desirable. Employees should ban political discussion, starting with this tedious everything-is-politics stuff.

It also seems so counter-productive for a company that basically controls large parts of the web traffic to become so politicized. What was Larry, Sergey and Eric thinking?

Edit: Seems like I can't create new posts - I'm being rate limited. Editing this comment instead as a workaround.

I think Google's stated mission ("to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful") relies on the staff being politically neutral.

That's the thing about values -- if you won't stand up for them when there's a cost, what good are they?

Pretty sure they could, at least early on. Come on, they had absolute power over company strategy. The most important people (their smartest developers, like Jeff Dean etc, by all accounts, didn't care much about stuff like this.)

> or felt that tamping down on employee discussion would cost more than it would benefit?

No-one apart from you is calling this tampering.

> Or maybe they've realized that Google cannot be neutral

Or maybe all of this bias is accidental because all they cared about was freedom, and while the two founders were away jetskiing, the company grew in a very particular political direction?

Maybe early on in Google. But to influence thousands of highly opinionated people, all with their own opinions, without negative side effects, is really difficult. Did you mean early on in the employees' efforts, or early in Google?

> No-one apart from you is calling this tampering.

Sorry for the confusion -- I mean "tamping" -- that any topdown attempt to force neutrality on employees when they are agitating for not-neutrality would have negative costs. (tampering is a different word, but it's an understandable mis-communication... darn English!)

> Or maybe all of this bias is accidental...

You could be 100% correct. I have no idea, it's a viable option. My point was to answer your original question of "what could they be thinking".

My objective was just to propose a few ideas about what they could be thinking. I 100% don't know, but I think what I said could fit the limited information we have.

I think you maybe don't get the whole "don't be political at work" thing.

How is your access to a gender neutral restroom or shower facility? Do you have a quiet place to pray multiple times per day? If you need a place to breastfeed (not a restroom), is that something available? What about dilating post gender reassignment surgery? Does your workplace offer the same benefits to same sex partners? Do you have to take a badge photo, if so, what name gets used? Can you wear head coverings in your badge photo? Have you ever heard expressions like, "Let's see what's under the kimono" in a business meeting? How is wheelchair access to your site? Can I operate all the machines you use if I am blind?

All of these are 'political' issues that most people are blind to.

Why do you feel it's required to take some stand (including whatever the majority default is) on free speech, gun rights, immigration quotas, abortion restrictions, tax laws, states' rights, welfare benefits, etc. in the workplace?

Or company policies?

"Employees here should have benefit X" or "I should get paid Y" or "Z should be promoted" aren't really political in the usual sense (it's office politics, sure).

"The government should on pain of imprisonment require everyone to X" or "political candidate Y should be elected" is politics. And creates unnecessary division in the workplace.

Religion and politics.

Both super important. Both better discussed outside the workplace.

“Politics” is absolutely a core part of the workplace where it starts to affect your rights, those of your colleagues, and the actions your employer takes in support or opposition of these.

I see no reason why you must discuss your political opinions with everyone else when they have no bearing on the work or job responsibility. It's neither obvious nor valid to me, and seems completely unprofessional.

I'd love to know how you figured that one out.

> “Politics” is absolutely a core part of the workplace where it starts to affect your rights

I am only slightly exaggerating when I say that all politics affects your rights.

Again, like religion, super important. But for a variety of reasons, the workplace makes a poor forum.

Should you not advocate for that internally?

Let's say you are an ally for someone who needs an affordance like a gender neutral facility, should you not speak up on their behalf?

HR can handle this easily by following the law and drafting appropriate policies. It does not need a big battle with an "ally" at all. That's what leaving politics out of the workplace means. An individual's issues should be left to the individual.

How is your access to a gender neutral restroom or shower facility? Do you have a quiet place to pray multiple times per day? If you need a place to breastfeed (not a restroom), is that something available? What about dilating post gender reassignment surgery? Does your workplace offer the same benefits to same sex partners? Do you have to take a badge photo, if so, what name gets used? Can you wear head coverings in your badge photo? Have you ever heard expressions like, "Let's see what's under the kimono" in a business meeting? How is wheelchair access to your site? Can I operate all the machines you use if I am blind (can I navigate to facilities? Use all the machines in the breakroom? etc.)?

Put that in the idea box all you want.

QED.

Policies follow the law first. If there are specific requirements then, like I said, that's up to the individual to discuss. These issues are not the concern of everyone else.

No company is forced to do anything beyond the law just as the individual is not forced to work for the company. If the issue is with the law then it should be changed through the appropriate avenues, not hashed out in the workplace.

Or are you talking about the washroom down the hall? That's just your typical company policy.

Quod non erat demonstandum

If you don't want to use the mens or womens, then just use the restroom with the wheelchair picture on the door. There's your gender neutral facility right there. Solved.

B. My workplace does require people to work after sundown on Friday. Orthodox Jews don't work there.

This isn't necessarily a religious thing though.

I also don't expect a vegan to work as a BBQ taste tester. AFAIK veganism per se isn't a religion.