Taboo Chatter

"If you are thinking of starting a blog--work related or not--ask first. There are likely opinions about

For that is the true genius of America--that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what

Any organization that restricts political conversation is missing the point. We are a Republic, in which it is our duty to participate and be informed about politics, otherwise we might as well roll over kiss our freedoms goodbye. Let the people participate in this, our great political experiment, do not be affraid to be a voice in the wilderness. What next, other political and civic restrictions, shall we not let the employeed serve on a jury or be part of the PTA? Let us, as Americans help freedom ring loud. Work is a third of our lives, at least. We should worry less about the discussion, and more about keeping our staffs and organizaitons in full support and participation in our communities. I know organizations ask employees to support what they consider "favorable" legislation, then why can not these same employees discuss the people who will make those decissions?

In briefs filed with the state Supreme Court, the attorney for a former employee says his client's free speech rights were trampled and that the employee didn't violate specific human rights. During your break time at work it may be misguiding to micro manage the fine lines of daily harmless discussions regarding for instance, news topics, political canidates, or recipes. Maybe an advocate for employees is necessary to review found or unfounded concerns, prehaps. A manager has numerous skill sets, tools, and options to keep people focused besides the nuaances of fine line interpretative political conversations during lunch.

It strikes me that discussing political ideology openly is the antidote to the arrogance of power and exactly the sort of thing some politicians fear.  But should ideological discussions happen at work?  And is this a step to suppressing other topics?

It's one thing to define acceptable dress and behavior.  Wearing lab coats and arriving to work on time are reasonable, non-discriminatory policies.  But dictating topics of conversation seems to come uncomfortably close to telling us what we can or can't think.  An employer needs to make the intent of the policy clear.

An employer is responsible for creating a work environment that gets the job done, and it's easy to imagine how certain topics can be distracting or offensive.  It's also reasonable for patients to have an expectation to be treated in a neutral environment free from posters, slogans, buttons, and other propoganda.  A "banned topic" policy may or may not be the best way to get this done.

A more effective approach, for instance, might be to define the work environment in positive terms.  I agree that moderation and respect are important.

"hot topics" can be discussed among adults that have control of their emotions.  How else to discover anothers "soul" than by subjects that require thought and discourse.  Or all we all just parroting what we have heard or been fed from the media?

While emotionally charged opinions regarding politics are prevalent in this pre-election period, there are several other topics which should be discussed in moderation as well.  One's sex life, sordid details about family matters, and endless gossip are a few of them.  Respect for each other and the work environment should be the guiding factor when discussing politics or any other subject.

Politics, religion, morals and ethics are all extremely personal to me and I choose to share my views and thoughts with a select few in, what I consider, the proper setting.  If a discussion makes you uncomfortable walk away, if that is not possible, ask them to change the subject.  I don't think that an employer should dicatate what is proper discussion subjects but I can certainly understand their willingness and desire to do so.