Right but surely there’s a level of professionalism expected when discussing colleagues.
I’m rather surprised this isn’t the case. Is it because on this occasion the staff were “agreeing” with the company/the “right” way of thinking? Would an opposing view, or other controversial topic (falling short of a crime of course) be just as welcome and encouraged?
I have to admit I doubt this myself.
The article says he was not a Monzo employee, not that he wasn’t a customer. Happy to be corrected as I’ve just checked again. Unless you have some inside information he may well be a customer.
Oh I may have completely misunderstood here. If the guy isn’t a Monzo employee then it does change things a little bit.
I still wouldn’t, personally, just out of professionalism, but it’s slightly different if this isn’t colleagues on colleagues.
Indeed. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
ETA as have just noticed a quote posted previously:
The man at the centre of the Monzo row told The Telegraph: “It’s absolutely appalling that Monzo staff have taken my details without my knowledge, posted them on Slack and attacked me for holding perfectly lawful views.
So it’s OK for him to attack Monzo staff for holding perfectly lawful views, but not vice versa? That’s some mental gymnastics he’s doing there.
If monzo replied with information then they felt the data fell under GDPR, as much as you may like or not like the person’s views it doesn’t change the law.
It’s only really a story if you agree with the person on LinkedIn, I’m sure there’s an off topic channel bashing half the government by name and saying which nearby food places were good or bad and mentioned staff there by name.
If only there was some sort of website called like… payremovewall.com? wallremovepay.com? some website called something like that where you could just copy the article in and read it for free.
And that is why I am happy to be both a customer and shareholder of Monzo
Stand up for what matters
That’s kinda how the article concluded too, but I don’t feel the Monzo staff attacked them in return.
At the end of the day they called them a ‘horrible Terf’. It seems just and very restrained of them (especially in private) to be honest. It’s not how I would have described them.
It wasn’t even that though as it was about company policy
I think the problem I have with it is how professional Monzo are by having an internal slack channel to complain about people, even if it is a personal board.
If in my school, we all had a social slack channel focusing on a parent because of their views, naming their employer and stereotyping that too. It would simply be unprofessional, even if the views were accurate descriptions.
So they should have talked about his shabby opinions even more openly?
I wouldn’t either. It’s not work related and I am a bit surprised to see that level of conversation on a work platform. Everyone knows what you write at work can be requested via a GDPR request, and mainly they had no need to be discussing him.
I don’t really see anything they said was wrong though, and this man’s faux outrage about people discussing a public article he posted (after he submitted a GDPR request so he clearly knew he’d get a story out of it) is just a small man having a little tantrum that not everyone agrees with him.
This. The person’s views aren’t right but it is completely inprofessional for this to happen on an internal slack channel and in most jobs, you would be called out for doing so by management, and quite rightfully to.
It opens the doors to people attacking others for whatever view they disagree with. Yes, transphobia is bad, but someone might feel as strongly against people who voted for the SNP. Does this mean someone should then be able to complain about those who voted for the SNP in an internal channel? Where do you draw the line? What views are right to complain about?
I may have worded this terribly so hopefully you understand me (and I’m also not saying transphobia is the same as voting for the SNP, I’m just trying to show examples of viewpoints people may argue about).
Views that are legal, like any other space, I suppose?
What is on and off limits in any other conversation?
I don’t really understand why you’d be airing those views on a work platform in all honesty. I guess if that sort of culture works for Monzo that’s fine, there’s no rule I guess, but I don’t think it sounds like a work culture I’d enjoy.
I understand an open dialogue about inclusivity is very much part of a work though, but this wasn’t really that.
I do hope what the telegraph said about encouraging people to state their pronouns was wrong because that’s really quite isolating to a lot of trans people and I’d hope Monzo would do better than that, but as it was in the Telegraph I am not really taking it seriously.
Like any other humans, I’m sure they want to talk to each other. And with an incredibly remote friendly/remote-first business, it would make sense that chatting on Slack is the norm.
You see, that’s what calls are for 
So it’s not unprofessional if you do it secretly / it’s not recorded? 
Because everybody who works, talks about their customers, or interactions, clients or vendors. Everybody.
Same.
I really think it wouldn’t be the same if it were flipped around - the Monzo staff being the “Terfs” about a customer/someone online.
It’s just fine because this time the opinions being expressed are the sanctioned ones.