I agree with almost all of this, and I thank you for another thought-provoking and well-argued opinion piece to enliven a hot, sweaty, cloudy Málaga Sunday. 😀
I struggle with the idea that a business can provide material support to a genocide on Gaza, but then wriggle around international law (BTW, genocide *is* illegal) because domestic law is controlled by pusillanimous creatures deaf to any entreaty beyond "ka-ching!" Were I to work for such a company, I would feel entitled to speak up against that. I would not feel entitled to occupy offices, and if my protest had no result, I would be free to resign. 🤷🏻♂️
I struggle even more with the DEI point. DEI initiatives address discriminatory practices that we *know* harm business outcomes. The objections of the current US regime to DEI are founded on pure racism and spite. "The business of business is business" is one thing, but a business being punished for NOT capitulating to racism and spite does not deserve to be blamed for having somehow exceeded its business remit. We argue for business neutrality in the face of out-and-out fascism at our peril. 🙂
Garret, you make some excellent points. I am aware that the connection between business, politics, and ethical behaviour is complex. The questions that are raised are not easily answered. I struggle with some of them myself. The little pieces I put out there are written to get people thinking, not to provide easy answers. I wish I had easy answers, but I do not.
While I generally agree with your argument, what about those workplace meetings, particuarly during election campaigns, where workers are gathered together to provide an audience for a national politician to make a speech, not for the benefit of the employees, but for the media and the voters?
It is perfectly reasonable for a politician to visit a workplace to genuinely better understand the company, its workforce, and the issues they face, but that doesn't have to be done as a publicity stunt.
What's arguably even worse is for public sector employees, such as NHS staff, having to participate in these publicity stunts.
I've no objection to the local MP, and occasionally a minister, being asked to attend some event or other where their presence helps gain publicity for the organisation. However the visit should be for the benefit of the organisation, not the politician.
Yes, I agree with you. It is completely impossible to divorce workplaces from politics, and politicians will always use workplaces for "political stunts". But these tend to be "done and gone" events that last a few hours. My piece is about ongoing employee political activism about external political issues, which I believe to be corrosive of good workplace relations. As I make clear, I have no problem at all with activism to further better workplace conditions.
I agree with almost all of this, and I thank you for another thought-provoking and well-argued opinion piece to enliven a hot, sweaty, cloudy Málaga Sunday. 😀
I struggle with the idea that a business can provide material support to a genocide on Gaza, but then wriggle around international law (BTW, genocide *is* illegal) because domestic law is controlled by pusillanimous creatures deaf to any entreaty beyond "ka-ching!" Were I to work for such a company, I would feel entitled to speak up against that. I would not feel entitled to occupy offices, and if my protest had no result, I would be free to resign. 🤷🏻♂️
I struggle even more with the DEI point. DEI initiatives address discriminatory practices that we *know* harm business outcomes. The objections of the current US regime to DEI are founded on pure racism and spite. "The business of business is business" is one thing, but a business being punished for NOT capitulating to racism and spite does not deserve to be blamed for having somehow exceeded its business remit. We argue for business neutrality in the face of out-and-out fascism at our peril. 🙂
Garret, you make some excellent points. I am aware that the connection between business, politics, and ethical behaviour is complex. The questions that are raised are not easily answered. I struggle with some of them myself. The little pieces I put out there are written to get people thinking, not to provide easy answers. I wish I had easy answers, but I do not.
While I generally agree with your argument, what about those workplace meetings, particuarly during election campaigns, where workers are gathered together to provide an audience for a national politician to make a speech, not for the benefit of the employees, but for the media and the voters?
It is perfectly reasonable for a politician to visit a workplace to genuinely better understand the company, its workforce, and the issues they face, but that doesn't have to be done as a publicity stunt.
What's arguably even worse is for public sector employees, such as NHS staff, having to participate in these publicity stunts.
I've no objection to the local MP, and occasionally a minister, being asked to attend some event or other where their presence helps gain publicity for the organisation. However the visit should be for the benefit of the organisation, not the politician.
Yes, I agree with you. It is completely impossible to divorce workplaces from politics, and politicians will always use workplaces for "political stunts". But these tend to be "done and gone" events that last a few hours. My piece is about ongoing employee political activism about external political issues, which I believe to be corrosive of good workplace relations. As I make clear, I have no problem at all with activism to further better workplace conditions.