With the launch of the U.K.s first HR support consultancy specifically dedicated to removing political activism from small to medium employers, there is a slow realisation in the employment world that the politicisation of the workplace may not have been such a good idea after all. U.K. Government studies and independent research by the Free Speech Union has highlighted the negative impact on employees and employers and on the U.K. economy through the deployment of poorly designed and implemented Equality Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) training.
Last month, Google’s leadership finally lost patience with activist employees as it fired over 50 individuals for breaching a tranche of internal policies.
To cut a long story short, 28 activists occupied Google’s executive floors and the offices of individual executives and refused to move. Their ‘sit in’ was to demand that Google scrap its business with the State of Israel. “Google, Google, you can’t hide! We charge you with genocide!” was the call this time. It was all caught on camera and you can easily find examples of this. The response was immediate and decisive: arrest and sacking.
Now to those paying attention, this was entirely predictable. For some time now the worm has been turning in the workplace as employers and businesses realise that their previous policy of indulging in politics has backfired. Years of permitting and encouraging political activism in the workplace has resulted in an increasingly vocal, radical and demanding cadre of employees disrupting core business functions, intimidating other workers and creating adverse publicity for the business.
The irony of 20-somethings, most of whom attended top universities, on Silicon Valley six figure starting salaries accusing every man and his dog of being privileged is beginning to dawn on their employers as ‘not a good look’ with customers, many of whom are genuinely struggling to make ends meet and have little or no patience with this hyper-privileged conduct.
The open politicisation of the workplace has been creeping in over the last 20 years. The politics around the climate debate was the earliest sign of this as the carbon market emerged and companies fell over themselves to sign up to green policies. What made this different from previous corporate initiatives was that HR used the mechanisms designed to improve employee workplace performance to encourage employees to drive green initiatives. Employees who took active roles in local green issues were lauded internally, for the first time rewarding employees for activities not directly related to sales, production or other income-producing activity.
This opened the gate for every political activist movement to rapidly spread their ideologies through the workplace. So we have seen MeToo, Covid mandates, BLM, gender self-ID and so on, all pushed through HR departments under the guise of ‘social responsibility’. Around 2010 we started to see a new role being pushed, that of the ‘ally’. No longer enough to tacitly accept that your employer sponsored Pride events etc., employees were encouraged and then trained to become allies – activists directly endorsing and promoting the ideology of the day. It was entirely predictable to anyone with the most rudimentary critical thinking skills that this would end in conflict and persecution of employees who for whatever reason disagreed with the ideology, and get employers into a phenomenal mess where they end up breaching anti-discrimination laws.
Yet, board directors, especially in the USA, decided to openly pick a side in elections and announce that they would not only donate but effectively put their businesses at the disposal of their preferred party. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 was a catalyst, with the leak of the 2016 video of Google’s top brass reassuring upset employees after the Trump victory being used by Republicans to demonstrate bias in social media. The new partisan policies as well as the almost universal anti-Trump stance of the mainstream media put the tech and media industries at direct odds with many of their customers. This is simply not a sustainable position. As Disney and other activist boards are finding out, eventually investors want a return on their money and their patience with companies that take highly politicised positions which inflame their customers is running out.
Unusually for Silicon Valley, there was one CEO who stood up against this. An article in the Free Press looks back to when Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong issued a statement through his blog in September 2020, shortly after the George Floyd protests. At a time when literally almost every employer of size across the West was releasing statements in support of BLM, Armstrong realised that this would set a precedent that would come back to hurt companies. His statement is worth reading in the original.
In essence the core of the statement is that at Coinbase they don’t:
- Debate causes or political candidates internally that are unrelated to work
- Expect the company to represent our personal beliefs externally
- Assume negative intent, or not have each other’s back
- Take on activism outside the core mission of our work
Brian realised that whilst well intentioned, adopting political positions on various social issues has “the potential to destroy a lot of value at most companies, both by being a distraction and by creating internal division”.
Of course, back in 2020 the reaction was again predictable. Former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo said:
Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution.
Twitter’s co-founder Jack Dorsey stated that by not “acknowledging” the “related societal issues” faced by Coinbase’s customers, the company and its leader were “leading people behind”. (Incidentally, the Free Press reached out to Costolo for a comment on its article but he couldn’t be reached.)
Tech entrepreneur Aaron White tweeted that the statement was “isolationist fantasy” and that Armstrong’s apolitical stance was “effectively guaranteeing” that the CEO would land on the wrong side of history on “absolutely every issue”.
To an actual historian, White and the other tech companies’ statements are indicative of the precocity of the tech leaders of the time. These individuals had become very powerful very quickly and were well educated in one way but dismally educated in others. Dorsey’s interview with Joe Rogan is an interesting example of this. It only appears to dawn on Dorsey after censoring content on Twitter that society needs freedom of speech to function. It’s a shame he had missed his history classes. Dorsey seemed at the time to think that this was groundbreaking stuff, that such a philosophical conclusion hadn’t been done and dusted 200 years ago.
As we learned, once again, from China’s Cultural Revolution, the politicisation of everything, the division of society into ‘oppressors’ and ‘oppressed’, into the assumed ‘powerful’ and the ‘vulnerable’, has devastating outcomes, be they the mass persecutions of innocents in their millions, manmade famine as a consequence of societal mania, or debilitating internal conflicts that have undermined Google and other companies in their core missions.
Armstrong has been proven right. The idea that everything can be reduced to political struggle is incredibly damaging on human relationships; in environments that absolutely rely on functional collaboration between humans to meet a mutual goal it is devastating.
Now it is one thing for a company like Google to realise its errors; its survival isn’t at stake, it can roll with the punches. But we have seen big blue chips like Anheuser Busch pay the price at the tills for its decision to use its top selling beer Bud Lite, as a vehicle for pushing gender self-ID politics. The problem for smaller companies can be devastating.
It’s leading to a workplace environment where in several small businesses I have spoken to they no longer hire anyone under 35 because they have been burned by the expectation of some young employees that work is an opportunity for activism and their personal political beliefs take precedence over those of others. One business I spoke to recently told me that they were about to have to fight an employment tribunal because they refused to give an employee a month off to organise her local Pride parade last year. This is desperately unfair to young people who do want to just get on with their lives, but it is an increasing problem in the workplace.
An Employment Tribunal is an existential issue for small businesses. Yes, insurers may pick up the tab, but the stress, damage to the day job due to the time involved and the personal allegations that a business owner is somehow morally lacking are deeply disrupting and hurtful to those who find themselves in this situation.
The politicisation of the British workplace has been almost as rapid as that of the American. Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) policies are driven through corporate procurement – want to sell toothpaste to a chemist chain? Well you’d better have an ESG policy and the Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity policies that underpin it. Whilst it appears that most corporate HR departments are fully invested in this and certainly the CIPD – the institution that trains and qualifies HR professionals – is almost completely on board with the politicisation of the workplace, there are signs of a thaw. Last month I spoke with a very senior independent HR specialist who told me that five years ago her clients were HR Directors, but now her clients are CEOs and the request is usually along the lines of: “We’re losing the staff, we are losing engagement, we are losing Employment Tribunals, I need you to find out what the hell is going wrong with our HR department and to fix it.” And of course, what is going wrong is that HR has relegated its role of supporting the business in its core activities behind that of being a vehicle for social justice. It is immensely significant that this is dawning on investors and business leaders.
However, as we have already discussed, the consequences for small businesses are potentially existential, driving division, undermining workplace relationships and trust between colleagues. This is why Fair Job U.K. has been launched, an initiative that gives smaller businesses and employers the ability to tap into HR support that returns the employer to a stable workplace by removing political activism from the workplace and realigning the employer’s obligations to Employment Law and the Equality Act. The premise of Fair Job U.K. is almost entirely that stated by Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong in 2020: the politicisation of every aspect of life must stop and the politicisation of the workplace is a zero sum game which will produce a result directly opposite to the ideas of diversity and inclusion by creating an orthodoxy and excluding those who disagree with it. Fair Job U.K. helps employers navigate this and protects small businesses and employers from politically motivated attacks on the company and staff.
In light of Google’s actions, the Free Press article goes on to describe the sigh of relief across Silicon Valley that this action draws the line in the sand. Sundar Pichai, Google CEO wrote in a note to staff:
This is a business, and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform, or to fight over disruptive issues or debate politics. This is too important a moment as a company for us to be distracted.
Brian Armstrong has gone from pariah to prophet, he has been vindicated.
The U.K.’s businesses must follow suit and remove political activism from the workplace.
C.J. Strachan is the pseudonym of a concerned Scot who worked for 30 years as a Human Resources executive in some of the U.K.’s leading organisations. Subscribe to his Substack. He is a founder of Fair Job, an accreditation and support service for small businesses to help them navigate the minefields of EDI and HR.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
What pandemic is this of which they speak?
Not sure…. But there were excess deaths during the timeframe of Spring 2020.
The excess deaths in 2020 (there were a fair number according to a UK actuary I’m acquainted with) occurred during lockdown… Make of that what you will.
My reading of what happened is that there was a bad flu season. All cause mortality at 2008 levels. Probably made worse by lockdowns and related nonsense. Nothing exceptional.
This is from an actuary. He was very specific about the timeframe that the excess deaths occurred in. Doesn’t contradict what you say about all cause mortality, adds nuance & extra detail.
Indeed; thanks. Sadly we will never know the full truth of what happened as the evidence was deliberately muddied.
The Government deliberately put in place measures that were bound to result in excess deaths: it scared/shamed people out of attending A & E, told people with covid to bugger off and only come back if they thought they were about to die, after which it put them on ventilators to ensure they did, and it euthanased thousands with Midozalam.
This issue is being ignored until politicians can figure out a way to avoid being blamed by it, and pin the blame on others.
Following the science doesn’t work any more; nor does get vaccinated.
Indeed. What has changed that could reasonably be blamed (assuming you think the “excess” large enough to warrant an explanation beyond normal fluctuation in mortality)? Three things spring to mind: 1) The “vaccines” are killing people 2) Lockdown after effects are killing people 3) Covid is killing people. Government would certainly be to blame for the first two, and admitting (3) is the case would make them and the “vaccines” look useless.
All 3 things are true, I also see that Kevin McKernan is reporting that his analysis of Pfizer mRNA material is showing that it contains DNA with the Simian Virus 40 sequence within it, SV40 being a known cause of accelerated cancers of all sorts.
There are people involved in this execrable business who should be locked up and left to rot.
Indeed these things are not mutually exclusive.
It’s the SV40 promoter sequence that’s being used, rather than the carcinogenic SV40 virus. The promoter is a region of the (DNA) plasmid that the RNA polymerase can latch onto to start generating mRNA.
Right, I did read that, but be aware that there is some concern that the promoter sequence can end up transferring to the host cells and that there is no reason for any DNA to be in the mRNA concoction.
Locked up? That’s far too expensive there’s only one solution.
‘Experts’. Flock off. They know nothing. No one blaming the only major new variable – the stabbinations. 150 K dead post the major stab programs and as this article says 67 K dead (likely undercounted) from April 22 to April 23….yet no one will look at pharma poisons. LDs: 30 K dead durng and after due to no access etc ? Midazolam: 30 K murdered during March to May 2020 ? Stabs 150 K dead? So we have 200 K dead from policies vs 20K dead from Rona and only from Rona (not from fake tests, handwaving). And the deaths will continue – cancers etc. + infertility….
Experts have puzzled over the cause of the post-pandemic rise, which has been largely attributed to heart problems or diabetes.
What could it be?
Well, some things are just a mystery. Like is the universe infinite, or is their an afterlife, things like that.
For the newbies, this is sarcasm.
News just in: the fully jabbed and triple boosted elephant in the room has just died suddenly.
Nothing to do with the injectable biotoxins then? The ones that the entire population, including children were cajoled, coerced, manipulated, terrified, gaslighted and forced on pain of job termination to have by lying self serving charlatans like Matt Hancock and his colleagues in government and other government advisors.
This supports my oft stated view that what is occurring is a premeditated depopulation agenda.
We know about the spike protein and LNPs but the discovery of DNA contamination in 100% of the vials checked by Kevin McKernon and his team is another aspect of concern. It also just proves how the manufacturing process of this toxic sludge is not being checked and regulated. Kevin’s articles are very technical and go way over my head so this is a nice, accessible to all explainer about what plasmids are and the hazards to health they pose. There is just no possible way that the manufacturers don’t know it’s in there. I don’t subscribe to cock-up theory at this stage;
”This DNA contamination poses multiple risks to human health relating to the integration of foreign genes into the human genome, with potential for inflammatory processes, development of cancer and transmission of the genes to offspring leading to inter-generational harms.
It must be asked if this DNA contamination is intentional on the part of the pharmaceutical companies, who appear to be disregarding all basic principles of safe manufacture at the risk to public health on a mass scale. Pfizer’s recent acquisition of Seagen, a cancer drug developer, could suggest prior knowledge.
Plans by WHO and their various corporate partners for an additional 500 vaccines, almost exclusively using this unregulated, dangerous mRNA platform, must be efficiently and permanently cancelled. The ‘exceptional return on investment‘ corrupting public health requires a firm and permanent removal of corporate influence from research and policy. A return to rigorous and ethical science is needed urgently.”
https://nzdsos.com/2023/05/19/dna-contamination-mrna-vaccines/
This is just so puzzling. What could possibly be causing the massive increase in heart related issues and deaths? Hmmmm I just can’t figure it out. *Cough* mRNA gene therapy *Cough*
I will say it loud and clear…this is the biggest medical scandal of all time. It is democide. A deliberate culling of the population. Despicable.
The biggest medical scandal of recent times, with the previous title-holder being that mid-European nation who allowed evil medical practices under the guise of public health. It was around 90 years ago and the world was so aghast when it came out, this led to the Nuremberg declaration.
To paraphrase AB while just barely avoiding Godwin’s Law
It sure is that. And to the doubters who are in denial that this is deliberate culling of the population I’ll say this; if it isn’t then why aren’t TPTB doing anything about it? But nope, on with the show. Well into year 3 of the plan now and with more mRNA jabs to look forward to..
There will be no Nuremberg 2 trials. The key reason is that traditionally such trials can be held only by the victors, who currently are Lockdowners. I suspect some of them are praying for a new pretext to declare a pandemic. Perhaps a few are reaching for a shredder which can outsmart ePuzzler yet not leave a carbon footprint! In the meantime there will doubtless be various whitewash reports, or even a couple of scapegoats.
Is Sadiq Khan COVID ‘vaccine’ injured?
He apparently suffered a suspected mild heart attack during COP 26
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-heart-attack-cop26-glasgow-book-release-breathe-b1082730.html
The dates were 31st October 2021 to 12th November 2021.
On the 29th October 2021 he was reported to have received a COVID ‘vaccine’.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-covid-booster-vaccine-jab-mayor-b963226.html
It looks as though he was injected at least a couple more times since then. Very brave.
I would use a different word, I can’t see Khan being brave at all.
Yes, sorry I was mocking him because of this: –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_ePtdseRzM
I guess to be brave you need to knowingly put yourself in danger.
So he had a Covid booster and Flu vaccine on 29th October 2021 and then had a heart attack while giving a speech on 10th November 2021.
Thanks for pinning down the date of his suspected heart attack. He probably sought treatment at this place: –
https://rumble.com/v24thiy-the-kaufman-institute-for-coincidence.html
Hey, the Elephant in the room is caused by the mRNA jabs you wilfully blind idiots –
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
And if our friendly phantom down ticker wants to refute this, game on.
But you’d better know a thing or two about the immune system and genetic engineering sunshine.
No..there can’t be any excess deaths…BBC says it’s misinformation and they’ve just launched BBC Verify so everyone reporting this is wrong….. (honest!)
Gosh, let me think what might be causing or at the very least adding to the excess mortality we’re seeing in Australia, NZ, Canada, America and the EU countries ….. as well as the UK.
Since they all have different health systems and experience of Covid, surely there must be another common factor which needs to be investigated.
That’s a toughie ….. what could it possibly be?
I know it’s a difficult one. HELLO I’M HERE!!!!!💉💉💉💉💉