I’m torn on this one: I think people can compartmentalize different parts of themselves, whether it’s politics, professional work, friendships, or family.
I have obviously a pretty long track record of demonizing Trump voters, and I guess that’s my own compartmentalization at work: a part of me wishes I could throw all Trump supporters into a reeducation camp and brainwash them. In reality, it probably wouldn’t turn out so well.
And in reality, when I deal with people I suspect might be Trump supporters, I try to avoid the topic because I know the conversation will probably get ugly quickly, on both sides, although I have to say, I’ve had some interesting and surprisingly civil barstool conversations with people who’ve told me they unapologetically supported Trump and would do so again. And almost to a man, I had a hard time squaring the personality I was talking to and enjoying the company of, with their voting preferences.
My policy generally is, don’t ask, don’t tell. I won’t ask if you’re a Trump-tard, but Trump-tard doesn’t need to advertise that shit either.
He’s only open about it because I’m also Jewish so he assumes I share his beliefs. It’s like White racists assuming I’m also one of them because of my skin color. In fact, I don’t share the beliefs of either group.
I don’t hire the accountant for his personal beliefs, I hire him for his accounting abilities.
If he was stridently and publicly advertising his beliefs that would be a different story.
Nope. One does not have to be consistent to “both sides” when both sides are not the same.
While Bernie Sanders may anger some people, he has not attempted a coup of the United States, thrown children in cages or responsible for 200,000+ deaths. He is not corrupt in business, and is actually trying to do what’s best for the US, even if you disagree with him.
There is no reason to think that a Bernie supporter’s judgement is challenged, that their critical thinking doesn’t work, or that they have horrible moral failings. I don’t have to worry that they might be a bigot who will discriminate against someone, or support utter corruption. And I definitely don’t have to be concerned they may support an authoritarian overthrowing the US government or committing sedition. That they’ll show up chanting “blood and soil.”
Now, I know that “red states” will try to retaliate. But that doesn’t mean I have to support them doing so.
I continue to argue that Trump supporters are a different thing that what we used to consider politics. Trump is an enemy of the US in the same way Osama Bin Laden is–and yes, those who supported him would be a valid reason not to hire them as well.
As we said we would never stop saying in 2016: Trump is not normal. Supporting Trump is not the same as being a conservative or Republican. The worst case scenario is that they are full on traitors to the US and the best is that they are bad with critical thinking and easily convinced by conspiracy theories and social pressure.
We saw the damage they can do when so many joined Trump in his anti-mask nonsense. Even if it was just out of ignorance, that ignorance killed so many people.
Show me Bernie’s death count, and we’ll talk equivalencies.
While I take your point, and largely agree with you …
At my last job a friend of mine had done very well at our Initial Public Offering. A few months later he started dating a lady from Europe. He eventually took a job in her country to see where things might go with her.
A few months later he came back. The lady was a social worker and what some would call a SJW.
My friend complained that the lady was extremely enthusiastic about all the good my friend could do with his money.
My friend ended the relationship. I won’t soon forget his comment: “I’m a dot-com, not a dot-org.”
If you buy the caricature of Bernie, you might be hesitant to hire one of his most ardent supporters for your business because you may be concerned that they’ll think of all the ‘good’ your revenue could do, rather than how to make you profitable or bring value to your shareholders.
Maybe I’m exaggerating the situation for effect, but it seemed like lots more fun than just blindly agreeing with you
So basically he objected to her trying to see him as a moral person who might see how he has been advantaged by societal structures and give something back in return to those who are disadvantaged by them.
She’s better off without him.
And, I would argue that all profit-centered entities need to have their attention turned to what they can do to make the world around them better. We focus way too much on “shareholder value.” We created the corporate system to benefit society. Profit is just an incentive; it’s not the point.
No it doesn’t. It shows that that person votes in a way you disapprove of. Could I refuse to hire the religious folks who believe in supernatural and superstitious nonsense? That actually demonstrates a lack of rational thought. Oddly enough, or perhaps it isn’t actually odd because it helps mitigate violence, society sort of insists and tries to enforce religious tolerance.
If I’m interviewing someone and ask the question, “Who won the 2020 presidential election?” and get any answer other than “Joe Biden”, I would certainly look askance at that person’s critical thinking skills and ability to rationally assess data.
Right. One critical difference is that generally Trump supporters must get their news and analysis from only within the bubble. Because a lot of the MAGA platform is based on repeating misinformation; the “stolen election” just being the latest example.
Whereas a Bernie supporter, or indeed, a supporter of the majority of politicians in the developed world, can read various news and analysis sources because they don’t need to deny reality. I am a Bernie supporter and I probably read more right than left-leaning sources.
I’ll stick with what I said though; I’m fine with working with a private whatever-supporter.
Put it this way: several times in my career I’ve been shocked by hearing something dumb a colleague believed. But the reason it was shocking was because they were good at their jobs. People have blind spots.
I’m not a lawyer, and certainly not an employment lawyer, but I’d bet that asking questions like this, which are clearly intended to elicit answers revealing a prospective employee’s political leanings, would be asking for a lawsuit.
Maybe I’m wrong. Any employment lawyers here want to weigh in?
It is a factual question with a factual answer. Answering correctly does not reveal anything about a candidate’s political leanings. Answering it incorrectly says a lot about that person’s ability to separate emotional investment from rational assessment.
I think it’s not outside the realm of possibility that I got denied a job because I’m a Trump hater.
I make no secret of my dislike for the guy on social media. Further, my Facebook and Twitter accounts are Public, so you, Joe Hiring Guy, or anyone else can see anything I post or have posted.
Anyway, I went for a second interview for a job, AFTER the background checks and other pre-employment stuff had been conducted. The guy wore an NRA jacket. Sure enough, a week later I got the call from HR: the position had been filled.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he looked me up on Facebook, saw my anti-Trump posts, and decided to pass.
You might run into trouble if the question has a disparate impact against a protected class. Trump’s supporters were mostly white, so using this question to eliminate candidates may disproportionately impact white candidates in a way that could lead to the EEOC coming down on them.
Um… I know a number of people who Republicans and who voted for Trump who nonetheless are rational enough to reply “Joe Biden” to that question. They may spit after saying it, but they are sufficiently in touch with reality to answer correctly even if they don’t like the outcome.
So although I am not a lawyer I’m not sure that qualifies as a “test of political leanings”. Still wouldn’t like to get sued over it, either.
If they spout religious nonsense, unprompted, at the job interview? Sure. I wouldn’t hire them.
If their resume said, under “other interests”, “volunteer Sunday school teacher at the XYZ fundamentalist Church”? That’s not a plus, but I wouldn’t exclude that candidate, like I would the guy who tried to witness during the interview. And I have worked with people with a variety of strongly-held religious beliefs that I don’t share, and we’ve had perfectly good professional relationships.
I don’t care if an employee parties with friends on the weekend, either, but if a prospective employee’s Facebook page is covered with photos of them drunk and stoned, and that’s what they choose to show to strangers, I might take a pass.
Good fences make good neighbors. So does discretion in the workplace. I mean, sometimes you become friends with a co-worker and things get more personal. But you shouldn’t need to be friends to work together.
You know, I wouldn’t take the job if you asked me that. I’m DELIGHTED that Biden won, but I don’t want to work in a politicized environment, and that question would be a giant red flag to me.
All of the responses I have read are quite fair. I hasten to add that this is just a hypothetical, and it is, in my mind, unfortunate that something as factually obvious as the winner of the 2020 election has become a political question, and thus must be avoided.
I would lump 2020 election deniers into the same group a 9-11 truthers and Holocaust deniers, in that they exhibit difficulty in rational assessment of established facts. “Who won the 2020 election?” should be no more of a political question than “Who won the Superbowl?”, but here we are.
I wonder, though, how many years will need to pass before it isn’t a political question. Is “Who won the 2008 presidential election?” a political question?
So, probably not appropriate in a job interview. I do find it weird that this question is actually political. These are not normal times.
That’s very reasonable. I just have an issue with what should be valid beliefs or even disagreeable opinions leading to ostracism or exile. I believe in freedom of association but I also believe people should be able to work and engage in education and commerce regardless of their beliefs.
Right, but we’re not talking about potentially valid believes or even disagreeable opinions. We’re talking about supporting Trump. I’m sure everyone has a line they would draw. “No KKK members in my workplace,” for example. The debate is just about where to draw it. Personally, I’d draw it pretty far out: Trump supporters, KKK, Nazi party members, and vegans.
