Back in the super early days of Monzo, I vividly remember the first time I had a support chat with a well known person whose work and views I found absolutely repugnant and offensive.
I gritted my teeth and responded just like I would have with anyone else.
Did I mention it on Slack, or in a small DM chat with my team? I don’t remember. It’s possible, in a small talk kind of way. But whether I did or not, my personal feelings about that person had nothing to do with the task at hand.
And that’s the key point here. People are always going to have opinions, but most of the time, it has no relevance or bearing on the way that person is treated as a customer. A world in which staff are discouraged from sharing opinions on their primary communication tool sounds like a very dull one to me. I’ve certainly seen opinions shared that I disagreed with, and likely shared ones that others have disagreed with. But unless there’s a suggestion that that should impact the way business is conducted, I don’t see an issue.
I think this misses the point of how modern tools like Slack work. In every company I’ve been in, there’s work related channels and non work related channels. Mostly pretty inoffensive stuff, like #cats or #movies. But also often resource groups, like #asians or #lgbtq.
This is a totally normal part of workplace culture. Because we are social, communicative, connected, multi-faceted human beings who like to get to know one another.
Suggesting that such tools only be used for direct work based communication sounds like a dystopian nightmare to me.
Then you don’t have to join or participate in those channels. Just like as a vegan, I wouldn’t go and search out and join a channel about cooking meat. But that hypothetical channel existing in any given workplace doesn’t offend me, and I wouldn’t claim that it shouldn’t exist.
I get that Simon, however most companies have policies about what can be discussed, and usually they have a clause that covers anything that could cause the company to be seen in a bad public light is not to be discussed. Quite a few of us on here are investors, and I’d love to see an ROI on that one day, so my point is that don’t let the use of internal tools cause issues for the business, especially when internal comms tools are subject to FOI requests.
I think it is, and I don’t really understand or buy into to the logic that it’s not, so could you perhaps explain why it’s no defence?
As for why I think it is, is pretty succinct and simple. It removes the link between the individual and the employer. Without it, there’s no association with the company, and without association, there’s no headline.
Where the discussions take place is really the only thing that matters in my view. Nothing else is really relevant.
It’s for a similar reason that most companies don’t allow you to identify yourself as a an employee on social media, because doing so makes you a representative of them. That’s why the Apple tiktoker that made the news last year got fired.
Another consideration is it appears only left wing politics is allowed to be discussed on the Monzo Slack (happy to be corrected). Try talking about ending illegal immigration, deporting criminals, having safe spaces for women or celebrating election wins for conservative parties and I imagine you would be in for a bad time. Imagine how alienating it is for conservative Monzo employees that have to listen to everyone else’s views all day but can’t share their own in fear of reprisals
If Monzo staff and the Monzo community could try and avoid involving themselves in the culture wars and just do their jobs/try and make Monzo better that would be great thanks.
These views may be normalised among younger staff but they don’t reflect well on what is, ultimately, a capitalist undertaking.
The Conservatives and Labour have very little between them in terms of policy, the difference between marginal tax rates, the way they treat immigration, real differences in funding of the NHS are marginal and reflect slight differences in policy rather than a difference between good and evil.
I, for one, am looking forward to a successful IPO one day. Activist employees and their apologists on here would do well to find another outlet for their radical politics. They are currently causing reputational damage. HR would typically get involved in most organisations.
I haven’t worked in a bank for almost 4 years. All I can tell you is it wasn’t my experience during my tenure, for much of which I at least had access to, if not always directly participating in pretty high level decision making.
But typically, a narrative will form regardless of the truth. Like the people who insisted that because I worked at Twitter I must have been directly involved in banning Trump
Not really. I’ll bet investors don’t really care so long as they can see a return on their investment. And we don’t know the size of that activity.
I don’t disagree, but a lot of companies I’ve worked for over the years have definitely had guidance. I guess part due to concerns of leakage, part concerns around inadvertently allowing hate speech (I am not suggesting Monzo is) to happen.
So for me a good level of debate and opinions should absolutely be allowed, but within a level of reasonability. Workplace tools are not Twitter, it’s used in a professional context.
So saying “I quite like Labour” should be fine, saying “ACAB” maybe not appropriate and not one for slack etc.
What I mean is that if there’s a general staff chat group, and if there’s a member of staff in the group who disagrees strongly enough to the extent that they want to leak the contents of the chat to the media, then it makes no difference if the chat is on official work systems or set up as a social group outside of work. With the same people involved, the same vulnerability exists in both spaces.
Using a social group outside of work is a defence against SARs, but not whistleblowers.
