According to new research by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), there has been an uptick in the number of complaints about politically biased treatment in the workplace.&nbsp;

The number has doubled since before the pandemic, with about a quarter of US employees saying that they have experienced this biased treatment because of their political affiliations, says the report.&nbsp;

According to the report, the kind of treatment that the employees have mentioned is either preferential dealings or undue negative actions on the basis of their political opinions. In 2019, this number was at 12% and this time around at least a quarter of US employees say they have experienced this type of bias. Researchers collected data from over 500 American employees.&nbsp;

The report also shows that at least 30% of managers said that they would be hesitant to hire someone who has disclosed extremely conservative beliefs, on the other hand, at least 20% said the same for a person who held extremely liberal beliefs.&nbsp; 
 
ALSO WATCH:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/democrats-focus-on-abortion-rights-ahead-of-us-midterms-522310">Democrats focus on abortion rights ahead of US midterms</a>

From the 2020 presidential elections to the Covid-19 pandemic workplace safety guidelines, vaccine mandates, and nationwide protests around racial injustice and abortion laws, the country has been divided on&nbsp;many issues. Therefore, companies have been forced to deal with how this complicated political discourse should be discussed in the workplace.&nbsp;

SHRM president and chief executive officer, Johnny Taylor Jr. said in the report, “In today’s climate, people are saying, ‘I can’t work with you if you don’t share my views…It’s a problem HR professionals and business leaders cannot ignore.” 
 
ALSO READ:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-donors-and-the-republican-party-have-paid-millions-for-trumps-legal-troubles-says-report-519374">US: Donors and the Republican party have paid millions for Trump’s legal troubles, claims report</a>

The report noted that only 8% of companies have communicated the guidelines to employees regarding such discussions at work. The data was collected from 1,500 human resources professionals, said a report by Bloomberg. Notably, research also found that most executives have become more politically polarised and Republican over the past decade.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

According to new research by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), there has been an uptick in the number of complaints about politically biased treatment in the workplace.

According to new research by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), there has been an uptick in the number of complaints about politically biased treatment in the workplace. The number has doubled since before the pandemic, with about a quarter of US employees saying that they have experienced this biased treatment because of their political affiliations, says the report. According to the report, the kind of treatment that the employees have mentioned is either preferential dealings or undue negative actions on the basis of their political opinions. In 2019, this number was at 12% and this time around at least a quarter of US employees say they have experienced this type of bias. Researchers collected data from over 500 American employees. The report also shows that at least 30% of managers said that they would be hesitant to hire someone who has disclosed extremely conservative beliefs, on the other hand, at least 20% said the same for a person who held extremely liberal beliefs. ALSO WATCH: Democrats focus on abortion rights ahead of US midterms From the 2020 presidential elections to the Covid-19 pandemic workplace safety guidelines, vaccine mandates, and nationwide protests around racial injustice and abortion laws, the country has been divided on many issues. Therefore, companies have been forced to deal with how this complicated political discourse should be discussed in the workplace. SHRM president and chief executive officer, Johnny Taylor Jr. said in the report, “In today’s climate, people are saying, ‘I can’t work with you if you don’t share my views…It’s a problem HR professionals and business leaders cannot ignore.” ALSO READ: US: Donors and the Republican party have paid millions for Trump’s legal troubles, claims report The report noted that only 8% of companies have communicated the guidelines to employees regarding such discussions at work. The data was collected from 1,500 human resources professionals, said a report by Bloomberg. Notably, research also found that most executives have become more politically polarised and Republican over the past decade.

US: Politically biased treatment at workplace rising ahead of midterms, says report

Why do Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi continue to pulverise each other with trivialities, sarcasm and cherry picked facts. Is it temporary or does it represents a permanent shift in the way politicians, mainstream and social media would behave with each other? In my opinion, it is a new reality of Indian political life, and it needs to be altered before it does deep and permanent damage to India&rsquo;s democratic discourse. It creates a culture to out-talk the adversary rather than engage in a dialogue, which is the most important pillar of democracy. Nations cannot turn their backs upon new technologies, but must be aware of the potential it holds to change the institution for which it is being imagined to help.

The new technology indeed liberates opinion from few and transfers it to everyone who can afford a 3G connection. It has expanded the pool of opinion makers, both geographically and class-wise. The very act has stolen the thunder from corporately structured mainstream media. It also makes mainstream media look compromised as talk on the social media is open to issue of corporate political nexus.The reduction of message to lowest common denominator, coupled with furious and repetitive messaging, makes technology&nbsp;used&nbsp;less for&nbsp;debate and more about putting down a rival on any trivial issue it can find. &nbsp;

So the larger question is how&nbsp;this aggressive messaging-politics will affect India. In the West it galvanised stereotypes masquerading as facts creating a minority complex within the majority. The results were on the expected line. The liberal opinion was rendered ineffective as it was criticised from the vantage point of political outsider. The accusation, whether grounded in fact or not, creates enough doubt in people to either extend or withdraw support on major issues. It solidifies the support constituency and hardens the opinion, rather than making it open to new ideas. It was best evident when Hillary Clinton lost the election&nbsp;because,&nbsp;only days before voters went to the polls,&nbsp;the FBI chief announced that the&nbsp;agency would open up a new investigation into her email scandal; the suggestion of the case re-opening confirmed her guilt&nbsp;for&nbsp;people who had been&nbsp;barraged with negative email messaging for months. Their&nbsp;minds were already so made up that&nbsp;the fact that&nbsp;she was eventually cleared of all wrongdoing, again, made no impact on their opinion.

Will this happen in India or not is a different story, but it renders certain institutional interactions compromised. The worst brunt of the redefined relationship between Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi because of technologically-enabled constant messaging was taken by the Parliament. Despite repeated offer of talks, both sides remained firm on their position and didn&rsquo;t budge as constant messaging solidified the views of supporters, reducing political elbow room for any compromise. So instead of genuine dialogue, the political discourse has reduced itself to out-talk the other. The process of out-talk, which was limited to assembly and national elections, has extended itself to normal discourse which relies on conversation. The out-talk might have immediate benefits, like management of opinion, but it creates an unhealthy political discourse.

Robust democracies rest&nbsp;on structured and unstructured discussions in every space available. Technology should be used to&nbsp;enable this, but to expect it&nbsp;to act as a wise&nbsp;enabler would be to fool oneself;&nbsp;technology is inherently amoral. The moral rim sprouts from the cultural bed unique to the country where the democracy rests. If India wants to walk a different path, especially from the West--which for the&nbsp;past 50 years&nbsp;has&nbsp;been exporting different phobias, ranging from socialism to an absence of liberty in West Asia and now Islam--it needs to do more. Indian political actors must re-learn the art of conversation and not score partisan points&nbsp;by out-talking each other.

A conversation is a journey in itself, and to out-talk is to walk on a path where the end has been imagined and consumed even before the first syllable has been uttered. &nbsp;

(WION)

Technology has reduced India's political discourse to out-talking opponents, rather than meaningful dialogue. Hopefully, this can change

Why do Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi continue to pulverise each other with trivialities, sarcasm and cherry picked facts. Is it temporary or does it represents a permanent shift in the way politicians, mainstream and social media would behave with each other? In my opinion, it is a new reality of Indian political life, and it needs to be altered before it does deep and permanent damage to India’s democratic discourse. It creates a culture to out-talk the adversary rather than engage in a dialogue, which is the most important pillar of democracy. Nations cannot turn their backs upon new technologies, but must be aware of the potential it holds to change the institution for which it is being imagined to help. The new technology indeed liberates opinion from few and transfers it to everyone who can afford a 3G connection. It has expanded the pool of opinion makers, both geographically and class-wise. The very act has stolen the thunder from corporately structured mainstream media. It also makes mainstream media look compromised as talk on the social media is open to issue of corporate political nexus.The reduction of message to lowest common denominator, coupled with furious and repetitive messaging, makes technology used less for debate and more about putting down a rival on any trivial issue it can find. So the larger question is how this aggressive messaging-politics will affect India. In the West it galvanised stereotypes masquerading as facts creating a minority complex within the majority. The results were on the expected line. The liberal opinion was rendered ineffective as it was criticised from the vantage point of political outsider. The accusation, whether grounded in fact or not, creates enough doubt in people to either extend or withdraw support on major issues. It solidifies the support constituency and hardens the opinion, rather than making it open to new ideas. It was best evident when Hillary Clinton lost the election because, only days before voters went to the polls, the FBI chief announced that the agency would open up a new investigation into her email scandal; the suggestion of the case re-opening confirmed her guilt for people who had been barraged with negative email messaging for months. Their minds were already so made up that the fact that she was eventually cleared of all wrongdoing, again, made no impact on their opinion. Will this happen in India or not is a different story, but it renders certain institutional interactions compromised. The worst brunt of the redefined relationship between Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi because of technologically-enabled constant messaging was taken by the Parliament. Despite repeated offer of talks, both sides remained firm on their position and didn’t budge as constant messaging solidified the views of supporters, reducing political elbow room for any compromise. So instead of genuine dialogue, the political discourse has reduced itself to out-talk the other. The process of out-talk, which was limited to assembly and national elections, has extended itself to normal discourse which relies on conversation. The out-talk might have immediate benefits, like management of opinion, but it creates an unhealthy political discourse. Robust democracies rest on structured and unstructured discussions in every space available. Technology should be used to enable this, but to expect it to act as a wise enabler would be to fool oneself; technology is inherently amoral. The moral rim sprouts from the cultural bed unique to the country where the democracy rests. If India wants to walk a different path, especially from the West--which for the past 50 years has been exporting different phobias, ranging from socialism to an absence of liberty in West Asia and now Islam--it needs to do more. Indian political actors must re-learn the art of conversation and not score partisan points by out-talking each other. A conversation is a journey in itself, and to out-talk is to walk on a path where the end has been imagined and consumed even before the first syllable has been uttered. (WION)

Facts or no facts : Let?s out-talk the other guy

political-discourse

Political Discourse, News on Political Discourse, stories on Political Discourse, articles on Political Discourse, Political Discourse stories at Wion, Political Discourse news, Political Discourse latest news