adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

What Really Happens When You Bring Politics To The Job Search And Office – Forbes

Published

 on


The United States is weeks away from its 2020 presidential election. Animosity, anger, apprehension and anxiety are at an all-time fever pitch. The nation is divided into two warring factions and there is just no escape from all of the political fodder. Cable news, papers, social media and dinner conversations invariably turn toward the political hot topic of the day—accompanied by acrimony and arguments.

It’s even pervaded the office. While good-natured trash-talk about how poorly your co-worker’s football team fared on Sunday was accepted behavior, politics wasn’t a freely discussed topic of conversation. Things have dramatically changed and now talk about politics and social causes have become commonplace at work.  

Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Silicon Valley-based cryptocurrency exchange and broker Coinbase, told his employees that he won’t stand for politics and the championing of social issues at the office. Armstrong bluntly said that he’d gladly offer severance packages to employees who aren’t comfortable with the new corporate policy of “political neutrality” in the workplace. The chief executive wrote in a letter to employees, “Life is too short to work at a company that you aren’t excited about. Hopefully, this package helps create a win-win outcome for those who choose to opt out.” About 60 Coinbase employees have accepted a buyout offer after Armstrong announced the controversial new policy curbing political activism inside the company.

Tech giants Facebook and Google had to enact policies and procedures to deal with heated conversations on their respective internal message boards.

Job seekers seem comfortable putting their political activities on their résumés and LinkedIn profiles. As a recruiter, I couldn’t care less about someone’s politics. I just want to place someone. The same may not hold true for a hiring manager, human resources professional or senior management.  

Job hunters have the right to campaign and vote for whomever they desire, but you must recognize the reality that at least half of the people you’ll interview with won’t share your political views. Of that half, a good percentage probably despise your candidate. You are taking a big risk of alienating people when you promote your political preferences. This even encompasses seemingly harmless activities, such as volunteering and knocking on doors for the reelection of President Donald Trump or to get out the vote for former Vice President Joe Biden. 

No matter how important the race is to you, it’s not worth blowing up your chances of getting a new job or promotion by alienating people. Admittedly, this is a sad commentary on our current toxic climate that people will automatically form negative opinions about you based on your political preferences. The “cancel culture” is real and many prominent professionals have lost their jobs and livelihoods over it.  

Potential hiring managers and those involved with the interview process will formulate stereotypes about you if you favor a certain candidate or politician. It’s not just Democrat versus Republican. You may be a Democrat, but not left leaning enough. You may be too centrist for a staunch, right-wing Republican. 

There is a time and place for everything. While seeking a new job or striving toward a promotion, the risks are far greater than the reward. You could luck out and meet with a hiring manager who shares your views, but it doesn’t mean they’ll hire you. Your prospective supervisor may fear that others in the office believe you’re playing favorites and it could reflect poorly on their judgement. 

Job seekers and workers have to be careful of their social media presence. Hiring managers and recruiters search Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn and other sites to conduct due diligence on a candidate before making a hiring decision. If a job seeker posts mean-spirited, angry and foul-language-laced comments and photos that could possibly be construed as suggesting violence against their political adversary, it will be viewed with disdain and disgust.  

Even if someone heartily agrees with your politics, the person may feel uncomfortable with your lack of discretion and self-control. No one wants to hire a person who could turn into a liability and potential human resources issue. They’ll question whether your politics or job is more important. They’ll worry that you’ll post on Twitter and Facebook during working hours and start arguments with co-workers that don’t share your ideologies. Again, both sides—the people agreeing with your political stance and those who don’t share your views—will not feel comfortable hiring someone who would rather preach their politics than do the work that they are getting paid to do.

This advice isn’t just for those on the job hunt. Managers, co-workers and human resources professionals may curiously check out your social media postings and make snap judgments about you. They may strongly disagree with your political stance and formulate a negative perception, which results in direct consequences. A manager with an alternative opinion may pass you up for a promotion, raise or bonus, as they feel some animosity against you. You might never know why this happened since the offended persons never brought the matter up to you directly. You’ll be going through your daily activities unaware of the rancor held against you by the professionals who have control over your future at the company.

It’s the American way to be passionate about politics and fight for your preferred political party. Sadly, in this day and age, it’s a poor decision to bring this fervor into the interview process and workplace. You’ll only set yourself up for failure. Save the political arguments for the dinner table or when you’re out with friends. You could also low-key continue doing what you’re doing under the radar that can’t be detected at work. 

When interviewing or advancing your career, focus on winning over the hiring managers, decision makers and bosses—based on your skills, background, academic achievements, personality, hard work and dedication—not on who you campaigned and voted for.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

News

Trudeau, French president Macron meet in Ottawa as trade deal challenges continue

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – French President Emmanuel Macron is in Canada for a brief visit to Ottawa and Montreal.

Macron arrived last night from New York and had an informal dinner at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s home at Rideau Cottage.

The two are having a formal meeting on Parliament Hill this morning before travelling to Montreal, where Macron will visit Quebec dignitaries and see the Port of Montreal.

The visit comes as both leaders face a rise in populist movements and discontent that has challenged each country’s policies on climate change and immigration.

It also follows a March vote by France’s senate to reject the European Union’s trade deal with Canada, against Macron’s wishes.

Macron last visited Canada in 2018 for a meeting of the G7 leaders.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 26, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

N.B. election debate: Higgs defends major tax cut promise as services struggle

Published

 on

 

MONCTON, N.B. – New Brunswick’s Liberal leader challenged her Progressive Conservative opponent on Wednesday night to explain how his plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes will help fund a health system struggling to care for a growing population.

Susan Holt, the Liberal Opposition leader trying to deny Blaine Higgs a third term in office, said his promise to cut the harmonized sales tax by two percentage points — to 13 per cent — is irresponsible and risks pushing the province toward privatized health care.

“The premier has made the single most expensive campaign commitment of anyone on this stage … more expensive than the entire platform that a Holt government is going to put forward,” she told the leaders debate in Moncton, N.B., hosted by CBC.

When fully implemented, the tax cut will cost $450 million a year, a number Holt said will put services at risk, especially health care, at a time when tens of thousands of residents are without a family doctor — and the province’s population is growing rapidly, mostly by immigration.

And she took aim at Higgs’s claim that his tax cuts reflect the reality that “people can spend money better than government.”

Holt said, “to hear him say that New Brunswickers are better at spending their money themselves — sounds a lot to me like he thinks we’re moving into private health care.”

Higgs said Holt’s suggestion that his policies were leading to private health care is baseless — “no foundation whatsoever.”

The government, he said, is spending $1 billion more a year on health care than it was five years ago. “But there would be those who say ‘spend more money on health care and it will get better.’ And I say we need to find a way to do health care better.”

He said his government will find innovative ways to bring health services to citizens, such as expending the scope of practice of nurses and pharmacists.

Green Party Leader David Coon, meanwhile, said his party would end the centralization and privatization of the health system, promising to grant more autonomy to regional hospitals.

“We have a state of emergency in our health care system. It is Code Orange. Everyone has to get on deck. And it’s going to require a generational investment to fix our health-care system” said Coon, whose party has promised to spend $380 million a year on health care.

“That’s the money that Mr. Higgs wants to eliminate from an HST cut,” the Green leader said.

The debate marks a key milestone in the provincial election campaign, which started last Thursday and will end with a provincewide vote on Oct. 21. But there wasn’t that much actual debating Wednesday night — the format precluded leaders from challenging each other. In fact, one of the moderators said at the start of the evening, “there will be no open debate.”

Instead, viewers were offered a series of quasi speeches by leaders, peppered with retorts to each other’s statements. Among the issues they discussed were safe injection sites and changes to the province’s policy on sexual orientation and gender identity in schools.

New Brunswick has one safe injection site in Moncton, and in response to a moderator’s question about whether a Liberal government would open more, Holt said she was not aware of any applications for others. “But what we do need is real treatment for people who are struggling,” she said.

Coon said his government would “never” prohibit the use of a safe injection site, adding that substance use was a symptom of trauma.

Higgs, meanwhile, said his party will not open any new sites and will review the mission and results of the one that exists.

A highly contentious issue in the province is a requirement by the Higgs government that teachers get permission of parents before they can use the preferred names and pronouns of students under 16. Higgs said this policy respects “parents rights,” while his critics say it discriminates against trans youth.

During the debate, a moderator mentioned an anti-abortion group called the Campaign Life Coalition, which has mailed about 160,000 flyers claiming “gender ideology” was being taught in schools and that it was leading to “surgical mutilation.”

Higgs said that while he has no connection to the group, those flyers are protected by free speech. “I find it really shocking that the discussion around parents and their involvement with their minor age children is such a debate,” he said.

The Green and Liberal leaders said there is a severe shortage of teachers, who are now being accused of abusing children by activist groups. Holt said it was disappointing that Higgs refused to condemn the flyers; Coon also criticized the Tory leader for not speaking out against the “vile pamphlets.”

“Mr. Higgs seems to be quite comfortable with these pamphlets circulating,” Coon said. “He hasn’t condemned them as we have, and he should if he thinks they’re a problem. … There are big challenges in the education system, and Mr. Higgs has gone looking for problems where they don’t exist. He’s not a problem solver. He’s a problem creator.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 25, 2024.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Liberal government survives non-confidence vote, as Bloc sets deadline

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – The minority Liberal government survived a non-confidence vote in the House of Commons on Wednesday, but if the prime minister wants to avoid an election before Christmas the Bloc Québécois said he will have to meet its demands by the end of next month.

Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet and his caucus joined the Liberals and NDP in voting down the Conservative motion of non-confidence but said earlier in the day that the Liberals have until Oct. 29 to pass two Bloc bills or he’ll start talking to other parties about toppling the government.

One bill increases the old age security pension for seniors and the other seeks to protect Canada’s supply management system during international trade negotiations.

“What we are proposing is good for retired persons in Quebec, but also in Canada. It’s good for milk and eggs and poultry (producers) in Quebec, but also in Canada. So that’s good for everybody,” Blanchet said at a news conference Wednesday.

The Liberals haven’t said how they will respond to the Bloc’s demands. Liberal House leader Karina Gould said she doesn’t negotiate in public, but that she is always negotiating with parties behind the scenes.

Her party didn’t have to negotiate much to get through the first confidence test since the NDP backed out of the supply-and-confidence deal earlier this month.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre introduced a motion declaring non-confidence in the government and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, but it failed Wednesday by a count of 211-120.

Poilievre’s own caucus voted for it, as did two independents, but all other MPs voted no.

If the non-confidence motion had passed it would have defeated the government and very likely triggered an immediate election campaign.

“I think today is a good day for Canadians because parliamentarians, except for the Conservative Party of Canada, are committed to getting to work,” Gould told reporters after the vote.

This is not the final test for the Liberals, though. A Liberal motion to support the government’s changes to capital gains taxes was scheduled to be voted on Wednesday evening, and is considered a confidence matter because it is related to the budget. The NDP is expected to support the government on that vote.

The Conservatives have also promised there will be confidence motions to come, and already put the House of Commons on notice that two such votes are coming. The party has another chance to introduce a motion Thursday.

The House has been riddled with tension and name-calling since it resumed following the summer break, behaviour that continued in question period on Wednesday.

Trudeau accused a Conservative MP of making homophobic remarks after someone shouted a comment about Trudeau and Canada’s consul general in New York, Tom Clark, being in a bathtub together.

“Standing up to bullies requires standing up to their crap sometimes,” Trudeau said, leading to an uproar.

He ultimately withdrew the word at the request of the Speaker, admitting it was unparliamentary language, but expressed his anger over the comment he said came from a Conservative.

After question period, NDP MP Blake Desjarlais asked the Speaker to review the tapes and come back with a ruling on the alleged homophobic remark.

How long this will go on is an open question after the Bloc’s declaration on Wednesday. The party is looking to capitalize on its new-found power to make gains for its voters in Quebec.

It wants the government to help it pass Bill C-319, which would increase old-age security payments by 10 per cent for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 and raise the exemption of employment income used to determine guaranteed income supplement payments from $5,000 to $6,500.

The Liberals, who increased old-age security for seniors aged 75 and older in 2022, voted against that bill during second reading. It is now under consideration at a House of Commons committee. A costing note done for the House suggests the move would cost in excess of $3 billion a year.

The other bill the Bloc wants passed is C-282, which would limit the government’s ability to make concessions on products protected by supply management during trade negotiations. The bill passed the House of Commons with support from the Liberals, NDP and about half the Conservatives caucus. It is under consideration at a Senate committee.

NDP House leader Alexandre Boulerice said both bills will have the support of his party.

“We agree with the fact that we should help seniors in our country that are struggling with the increased cost of living,” he said Wednesday.

“We are strong supporters of the supply management for many, many years.”

Blanchet said if the government agrees to its demands, the Liberals will avoid an election before the end of the year.

However, he emphasized that his party will not blindly support the government’s agenda even if the Liberals agree to the Bloc’s conditions.

“We will not ever support any motion or vote that would go against who we are — and who we are is well known,” Blanchet said, noting that his party will vote against motions and bills that the Bloc perceives to be against the interests of Quebec.

“So the government has to remain pretty careful.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 25, 2024.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending