my team doesn’t want to work for a client whose politics they disagree with

by Alison Green on March 3, 2025

A reader writes:

I just read your post about an intern refusing assignments due to political beliefs. I am finding myself in the same position but with multiple direct reports who have been part of my team for years. We share enough with each other personally to know we are on the same side politically. However, a large chunk of our work is for those on the opposite side, and what these clients are sharing on social media (through the official organization’s pages) is pretty horrifying. My direct reports are so upset that they don’t want to be associated with this client, but unfortunately it’s part of their job requirement to work with them on a project.

What’s a good way of explaining to them that they need to separate their personal beliefs from the work? While in my gut, I also feel like a sellout? We’ve always known many of our projects are for those we may not agree with on certain issues, but this political divide has never really affected our work like with the current administration. I also feel like this is just the beginning.

I don’t think it’s a given that people do need to separate their personal beliefs from work! Maybe they do in order to work for your particular firm, but it’s not a given that they need to do it in general.

First and foremost, though, I think you’ve got to get clear on where you stand on this. Is this work you’re willing to do or does it cross personal ethical lines for you? And if it does cross those lines for you, what options are you willing to employ? Would you push back with your employer about taking on this particular work at all? Ask for more internal discussion about what your company will and won’t support? Say that your team won’t be responsible for doing it? Are you willing to leave the job over it? If you’re not willing to leave over it this once, what about if it continues and becomes more objectionable?

You say you’re feeling like a sell-out, and that’s a sign to make sure you’ve thought through where your own lines are and when you’ll need to act on them.

You might have already thought it this through and landed on “I don’t like it but I’m not willing to be draw a line in the sand over it” / “I think I’d be fired if I refuse and I’m not going to risk that” … but I can’t completely tell from your letter how much you’ve hashed it through yet and seriously considered other paths. So please do that thinking — even if not for now, then because it sounds like you think it might get worse down the road, and you want to know where your lines are.

Don’t just leap to “we have to do it because we were assigned it.” Sometimes there’s no room for pushback, but sometimes there is. And sometimes multiple people speaking up is what creates that room.

But assuming you’ve thought it through and this is work you plan to do, then the best thing you can do is to be up-front with your team about that reality: “I understand you disagree with this client. So do I. I’ve talked with (upper managers) about it in-depth, and the company is committed to moving forward with the project. I’ve also asked about ways to get the work done without asking employees with personal objections to be the ones carrying it out, and it’s been made clear to me there’s no wiggle room. (Obviously this needs to be true if you’re saying it, which is another reason to explore this internally if you haven’t already.) I absolutely understand if that means the job isn’t right for you under these circumstances, and I fully support you in looking elsewhere if that’s what you conclude.”

Also, if you expect some people will feel strongly enough about this that they’re likely to leave over it if it remains a requirement, that’s a discussion you should be having with your own manager ahead of time, too. It’s possible your management won’t care, or that the work is so inherent to what the company does that there’s no practical way to avoid it. It’s also possible that there are ways to let people opt out, who knows. But it’s a conversation you might have a responsibility to have.

You may also like:
{ 301 comments }

{ 301 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Yup*

    How many times, as a freelancer, have I had to choose between personal values and paying bills. Sometimes I sucked it up, other times I was financially able to say no or the moral line was just too strong to cross. There are no easy answers if people’s jobs literally depend on it, but if you can say no, and the client’s values are really not good, then for the welfare of your team, say thanks but no thanks.

    Reply ↓
    1. sagewhiz*

      Agreed! As a fulltime indie there’ve been times when I’ve had to choose between food on the table and my ethical position. Not once did I ever regret opting for the latter. I sleep well, and rice & beans are darned cheap.

      Reply ↓
    2. Justcuz*

      There are industries in my line of work that pay really well, but that I refuse to work for due to my own personal beliefs (defense). I appreciate it too if a company I am considering working for lets me know if they do business in this sector as well. I agree that OP has to speak with upper-management and get the line firmly drawn from them and what that means employee-wise. Then she needs to let her employees know what that stance is so they are able to make informed decisions about what is next for them. I think any employer who interacts or serves politically-affiliated companies needs to be upfront about wiggle room, or lack thereof, with any existing or potential candidates. This is an important aspect of their business.

      Reply ↓
    3. Jasmine Clark*

      I’m a freelancer too, and one reason I chose freelancing is that I wanted to have the ability to choose which clients I work with. I don’t work with clients whose values I disagree with!

      Reply ↓
    4. Weaponized Pumpkin*

      I spent a few years at an ad agency that has/had a kind of conscientious objector clause where employees could opt out of a client that they fundamentally disagreed with. Which sounds great! Then I found out there was an exception for the company’s biggest client — a tobacco conglomerate. So many employees refused to be on that account that they couldn’t staff it, but also didn’t want to give up the profit so they rescinded the clause for that client. Such bullshit. If that many of your people don’t want to be on that account, you should seriously reconsider that account.

      Reply ↓
  2. Just Hanging On*

    As Alison said, your company really does need to decide where they land on this – as a team lead, I’m not sure how high up you are in the organization, but I would definitely get more information from the higher ups on where the organization stands and what they want you to do in situations like this before you tell your team to just to do the work.

    I know in this climate we’re prone to think “well, the company obviously wants me to just do it”, but the political landscape is changing so rapidly and there are going to be consequences on the other side for those engaging with this rhetoric as a business. If your company does fall on the side of “just do the work”, that’s a decision they get to make, but they deserve to know how their employees feel before they make that decision, because Alison’s right – people will also be deciding where they want to work based on the type of work they’re required to do.

    Reply ↓
    1. Artemesia*

      For me it would depend on the type of work. If it is installing AC in the office of people doing evil; maybe. If it is doing their payroll or building their patio or selling them insurance; maybe.

      If it is work to help them recruit people to their evil, disseminate their morally bankrupt point of view to others, rebrand Nazis? Yeah no. IG Farben was not just doing business when it provided the Zyclon B to the Nazis.

      Reply ↓
      1. Meow*

        On the other hand, if you could get everyone in town to refuse to fix the AC for the Bad Guys, that might be a pretty effective protest.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sweet 'N Low*

          I think these kinds of things are a really effective way to push back. These people care about their money and their businesses more than anything else. If as many people as possible can find little, tiny ways to make it harder for them to make money or run their business, it’ll eventually have an impact. HVAC company refuses to fix their AC? Now one of their employees has to spend extra time finding another company. Manufacturer refuses to sell them a part their need to repair their essential equipment? Now their equipment is down longer while they find another place to get the part. The little things will eventually pile up and while I’m sure they won’t be ruinous, they will at least cause problems.

          Reply ↓
        2. Anon for this*

          This. There are some companies (imo, insurance companies) whose existence is reprehensible, but if their IT services don’t work properly, the people who are actually hurt are their customers, who don’t really have a choice in the matter. And there are other companies that if they were to have a massive data breach and leak customer data everywhere, I really would not care.

          Reply ↓
      2. Jessica*

        Exactly. If this is a PR or marketing firm, I think employees are absolutely within their rights to say “We won’t work on this project.”

        Assuming you applied for and got a job at a normal marketing firm, you have a right to expect your job won’t be “doing propaganda for white supremacists/TERFs/etc.”

        Reply ↓
        1. AnonForThis*

          I really wish that were the case. If I objected to working with TERFs I could be sued for ‘discriminating’ against their ‘gender critical beliefs’. I’d likely resign over it though.

          Reply ↓
    2. MigraineMonth*

      Particularly if the LW or their team are ready to quit over this issue, it could change the company’s decision on whether or not to take on the work.

      Reply ↓
    3. sometimeswhy*

      Entirely likely that the higher ups have already considered and dismissed this as a concern but, regardless of how invisible their work usually is–the printer who prints advertisements, the manufacturer who fabricates the custom bolts used on the equipment, the coder who writes the software for the entry/exit systems–it is increasingly likely that it will become public as people look for more and more levers to push on.

      The company and anyone with visible ties to it are one viral Glass Door review, or anonymous staffer’s social media post, or clever journo’s public records request (if the work has any tie to any government work at all) from having the business tied forever to the things that the staffers are objecting to.

      I don’t know how much institutional cache the LW has but passing this up and up and up so the powers that be can be clear about their intention or ambivalence feels like an important thing so people can make choices about how much they are willing to or need to swallow.

      Reply ↓
  3. Apex Mountain*

    If this company is already your client, presumably they’re paying you and someone will have to do the work.

    Just like with the intern and the museum tour, I’d say to LW it’s not their job to decide who the company should work with or not. There may be a way to get your team or some of the employees off this client, but you also may have to just suck it up if that can’t happen

    Reply ↓
    1. AVP*

      It’s not always true, but depends on the company size and the way the company markets themselves.

      I’ve pushed back on projects both successfully and unsuccessfully at branding/content/production companies. The trick is to look at how the company and the lead creative sell themselves, and note if there’s any discrepancies there.

      So for ex — if your company’s website says it’s a “Full on MAGA MAHA aligned company!!!” and you get in a project for, idk, selling vaccines to trad moms, it’s easy to point out to the principals that it may be work now, but it will lead to losing work later, and they sometimes do rethink it. [I am making up these projects for anonymity.]

      I’ve also been able to push back on parts of projects that didn’t align with personal values, and my boss got a freelancer to do them, because the cost of replacing my team was way higher than getting a freelancer to take 1/3 of one project. It honestly depends and this stuff can be more flexible than people think, if you’re in creative or strategy work.

      Reply ↓
    2. bamcheeks*

      I’d say to LW it’s not their job to decide who the company should work with or not.

      I don’t know how you can say with such decisiveness that it’s not their job! I mean, it may not be, but equally, it might be: we don’t know what level of responsibility or autonomy LW has. It is almost certain someone’s job: outside of certain statutory duties, most organisations have the ability to decide which customers or clients they wish to serve, and it is not the case that just because you have no agency just because someone wants to give you money for goods or a service.

      Reply ↓
      1. Kivrin*

        Exactly. I am a partner in a small firm and if our junior people said “i’m really uncomfortable with the stance Client X is taking on trans rights” (or whatever,” I listen and talk about it with my partners.

        Reply ↓
        1. Apex Mountain*

          Yes, as a partner you have that standing – I don’t think the same is true for LW’s employees

          Reply ↓
          2. LinuxSystemsGuy*

            But Kivrin as a partner would never know the team had a problem with doing some specific work of no one ever spoke up to say so. I think what everyone is trying to say here is that LW might not have the ability to change the company’s direction, but they do have the ability to make their unhappiness and the unhappiness of their team known.

            That might not matter. Maybe higher ups agree with the client’s position, maybe the firm is in no position to turn away work, maybe a lot of things. But also maybe speaking up might change things. Again, maybe the contract is already signed and we have to do this particular thing, but we’ll be more careful in the future. Maybe we can just not do this thing at all. We don’t know, but LW could try.

            Maybe. Honestly even that is unclear. If LW is a frontline supervisor for a huge multinational, they probably don’t have much sway, but one of two or three supervisors in a 15-20 person company might have more.

            Reply ↓
    3. MigraineMonth*

      No, there’s pretty much never a point where you “just have to suck it up” and do work against your conscience. It’s always a choice.

      I’m not saying it’s an easy or consequence-free choice, but LW and/or their team can decide this is the line they won’t cross and quit their jobs.

      Reply ↓
      1. NothingIsLittle*

        I don’t think that’s what Apex is trying to say. The implied context of that statement is, “if you want to keep your job.” So, if the decision whether the company works with this client is not yours to make, and you wish to continue working for your company, then you will need to make peace with your objections.

        Reply ↓
  4. JSC*

    “It’s part of the job” is in the same vein as “I’m just following orders.”

    Yes, sometimes you consciously decide to follow orders you don’t agree with. Sometimes you are coerced into it. But just saying it without thinking about it past that is not a noble or ethical position.

    Reply ↓
    1. A. Lab Rabbit*

      It’s situational, but yeah I completely agree. Mopping floors is just part of the job if you’re working in a restaurant, and if you don’t like it, you just suck it up and do it. But that’s a far cry from being asked to operate the orphan-crushing machine. You have to decide where that line is for yourself.

      Reply ↓
        1. Shift Work*

          Oomph, that analogy hits close to home working in healthcare right now. It feels like every day is spent trying to mop that blood as the machine just gains momentum…

          Reply ↓
    2. K12 Ed*

      Try being a science teacher in the buckle of the Bible Belt. I’m told to teach “intelligent design” along with evolution. I can’t refuse to do that because I’m a single mom with four kids and need to keep them fed, but…I’m just following orders here.

      Reply ↓
      1. YetAnotherAnalyst*

        Firstly, thank you for the work you’re doing. I guarantee you’re making a huge difference for some of the kids you’re teaching.

        Second, just the way that you present material, even if you don’t have much say about the curriculum, can have a huge impact on how kids take it in. I can vividly remember the difference between things my teachers were contractually obligated to teach us and things that they believed were important things to understand.

        Reply ↓
      2. andy*

        There are people who don’t have a choice … and many more who do have a choice.

        I have seen it in tech – people who genuinely don’t have issue find a new job claiming they don’t have a choice but to do . While a building street over have same skilled people doing completely ethical work for slightly less salary.

        If you look at the history, it is all the same. People having choices and choosing to do unethical for an advantage.

        Reply ↓
    3. Dinwar*

      ““It’s part of the job” is in the same vein as “I’m just following orders.””

      It depends. A lot.

      I do a lot of environmental compliance work, for example. Some of this is for companies that, as someone with a background in paleoclimatology, I don’t consider the best options for humanity. I’ve studied the data related to the correlation between sea level change and CO2 concentration, so building coal-fired power plants isn’t something I consider fantastic. That said, it’s part of the job to contribute to the environmental compliance portion of the signing and licensing. It’s not great, but you suck it up and do it. This is a case where yes, it’s not ideal, but our contributions can meaningfully reduce the amount of “bad” that occurs from it.

      In contrast, I’d refuse a project where I was asked to contribute to DOGE in any way. It’s an organization that exists entirely to cause chaos and disorder, rather than contributing anything meaningful, and is engaging in harassment campaigns against federal workers. It’s absolutely political–and contributing to it contributes to the destruction of our country and of people’s lives merely to advance the agenda of a billionaire and Trump. That’s NOT part of the job.

      I remember a story a while back about the KKK participating in the “Adopt a Highway” program–where they’d put a sign saying that the highway was being maintained by whatever organization. The KKK followed the rules, and was allowed to adopt a section of the highway, because the people involved were not allowed to say no. Fortunately racist morons are too lazy to put in any actual work, so they failed to live up to their obligations and got the sign taken down pretty quickly. Which ended up being rather worse press than not adopting the highway in the first place, so it ended up being a victory.

      Reply ↓
      1. Anonymosity*

        I work for a large multinational company that has offices in the Middle East. Anyone who works on the Saudi Arabia team projects has to be vetted first. I am not on them, and I’ve informed my manager that I won’t be due to the MBS-sanctioned murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the kingdom’s record of human rights abuses. The company has no operations in Russia.

        Nor will I work on anything with a direct line to Trump. I neglected to add Musk, but I think that goes without saying. I don’t consider U.S. government-aligned projects such as infrastructure in the same category, since administrations can change (fingers crossed). Although I’d rather not start a job hunt, I can’t in good conscience put my effort toward the benefit of these individuals. Fortunately, there is plenty of non-objectionable work to keep me busy.

        Reply ↓
      2. Claire*

        This happened in Missouri and while the state legally had to allow the KKK to adopt the highway, they decided to rename that stretch of highway after Rosa Parks.

        Reply ↓
      3. Phony Genius*

        In my city, the adopt-a-highway program only requires you pay an annual fee for the highway crews to do the work. The only way to have the sign removed is to stop paying the fee. I know of a couple of questionable religious organizations that have participated, but nothing quite on the KKK-level.

        Reply ↓
  5. Elsewise*

    Someone in one of the open threads a few weeks ago posed a really good suggestion of sitting down and writing out what lines you’re not willing to cross in your work. It was geared towards federal employees, but I think it could be a really good exercise for a lot of us, especially the LW.

    Reply ↓
    2. Sometimes I Wonder*

      Great advice! It’s easier to think these things through in advance than when you’re on the spot, being asked to make an instant decision.

      Reply ↓
    3. bamcheeks*

      And alongside this, think seriously about what refusing would look like, including things like alternative career plans. your family budget and long term goals. It is a lot easier to choose courage if you have gamed out what that would look like than if you’re trying to do it under pressure.

      Reply ↓
        1. fed-adjacent*

          Yes, the position I personally have gotten to is “I do have the economic privilege and freedom to speak out in a way that some of my colleagues do not because they have kids and a mortgage”— how I most effectively use that privilege within the current apocalypse is still a question I’m trying to work out.

          Reply ↓
    4. Pop-up book from hell*

      I think this is excellent advice! Know how far you’re willing to go before you have to decide in the moment.

      “They ask something small of you. A thing you would prefer not to do, but is not so terrible. You think you are working your way up, but in fact they are changing you. Moulding you into what they think you should be, one compromise at a time.” – The Will of the Many

      Reply ↓
  6. WorkerJawn*

    I think an important piece missing is if the work the LW’s team/company does furthers those politics they disagree with. My cousin works in web development and asked to be moved off an account where the client wanted help putting anti-gay things online and furthering their homophobic message.

    Reply ↓
    1. MK*

      I agree that this makes a difference. Is OP’s company a caterer who is asked to supply food for this client’s meetings, or a publicity firm expected to promote their work?

      Reply ↓
    2. Snow Globe*

      I was thinking this as well. Your example is one end of the spectrum. At the other end might be a company that installs HVAC in office buildings – they might not like the client, but they aren’t directly involved in the objectionable work the company is doing.

      Reply ↓
      1. bamcheeks*

        I get this logic, but I think it’s important to recognise that many of the most important and influential labour rights and political disputes were won because technical and blue collar workers organising and saying nope. Meaningful resistance happens at every level, and if the orphan crushing machine manufacturers have to go and find a more expensive it less convenient HVAC installer, or other HVAC installers start showing solidarity, thats a massive win.

        Reply ↓
      2. RC*

        I don’t know that it’s that different though— if the actions are objectionable then don’t we need to boycott the whole machine? As someone above stated, if everyone in town refused to fix their HVAC, that might throw a wrench in their directly-hate speech activities. Plus, at some level is doing business with them is essentially (or can feel like, anyway) taking dirty/evil money. Maybe above these employees’ pay grade, but doesn’t mean they have to be comfortable with it. If they can’t use evil money even for HVAC, then there is less incentive to earn the evil money, right?

        Figuring out your own lines is good advice, because I don’t think this is the same for everyone. (I canceled WaPo and also Prime last week because of recent events, speaking of escalating crossing of lines… now if only I could figure out how to quit Google.)

        Reply ↓
        1. MigraineMonth*

          I think this is where strategic leadership is really important. There are many possible strategies, but the most effective ones (total boycott, general strike, etc) are extremely disruptive and expensive and the effectiveness of the others depends on the context and coordination.

          One HVAC company refusing to work with Evil Org will not hamstring Evil Org. Every local HVAC company refusing to work with Evil Org would cause inconvenience–or maybe it would switch to WFH.

          In the end, individual action–while important for our own consciences–isn’t going to be what challenges Evil Org.

          Reply ↓
  7. mskyle*

    For OPs reports, if they decide they can’t afford to quit over these clients, maybe some simple sabotage is in order? A lot of stuff from the WWII-era CIA Simple Sabotage manual can still work in a modern office environment –
    ‘“Misunderstand” orders. Ask endless questions or engage in long correspondence about such orders. Quibble over them when you can.’
    ‘Do everything possible to delay the delivery of orders. Even though parts of an order may be ready beforehand, don’t deliver it until it is completely ready.’
    ‘Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.’
    ‘Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.’
    ‘Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.’

    Reply ↓
    1. Pam Schrute-Beesley*

      Should you purposely sabotage your employer while still expecting to cash a cheque from them every Friday?

      Reply ↓
      1. A. Lab Rabbit*

        How good would you feel cashing that check if you know you earned it by helping that client be more evil?

        Reply ↓
        1. Pam Schrute-Beesley*

          Bad. But quitting a job because you are taking a moral stance is very different than active sabotage.

          Reply ↓
          1. A. Lab Rabbit*

            Well, there is a certain group in power right now who are very actively doing their best to sabotage everything, so I don’t think throwing a little sabotage in their general direction every now and then is a such a bad thing.

            Reply ↓
      3. Scott*

        I would say that would be part of evaluating your own personal boundaries regarding the client’s politics and your employer’s response to any pushback on providing the services

        Reply ↓
      4. Beth*

        If your goal is to block projects that you think are wrong, yes, this is what you do. You risk bad performance reviews and potentially losing your job, so you don’t do this if you mostly support the company and want to keep working there long-term. But if you find that your employer has changed direction significantly and you seriously morally oppose their new goals–you think it’s making the world a worse place, you think it’s evil, you feel a responsibility to prevent it from happening to the best of your ability–sabotaging that new direction is a material way to make an impact, for as long as you last there.

        Reply ↓
        1. Caramel & Cheddar*

          Thank you. I’ve seen this sabotage advice given to folks in the federal service too, because this is exactly the point of sabotage: to slow down and disrupt things you think are unjust in hopes of eliminating or at least reducing the harm. Maybe it’s taking too long to put together a list, or “accidentally” losing every fourth page of a 100 page document print out, etc. There are lots of small things you can do that will have a domino effect on the broader project.

          Reply ↓
        2. AMH*

          Yes, it’s a form of protest and it’s a risk to reputation and livelihood, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth considering (it’s obviously so dependent on so many factors, but it’s not automatically bad advice).

          Reply ↓
      5. SK*

        Thank you. Right?! One is not forced to stay at a company. If I saw employees performing these actions, I’d have them on a 90 day plan. Only a poor manager will let malicious compliance or active delay tactics/sabotage occur for too long.

        Reply ↓
        1. MigraineMonth*

          If someone working for you has chosen sabotage, they have decided the project (and the company working on the project) is immoral enough that it needs to be slowed down or stopped even at the cost of their own livelihood and reputation.

          Once someone has decided their job is a cost they’re willing to pay, I don’t think a 90-day PIP is going to dissuade them.

          Reply ↓
        2. Ex-Teacher*

          Perhaps it is good for any resistance that there are lots of bad managers out there.

          Also, if the manager is also opposed to or resisting such actions, they could easily just forget to document such malicious compliance, or understate the actions. Managers can also be opposed to the actions of the company, and depending on how evil it is then they may also want to resist/sabotage.

          Even as a manager, one has a choice whether to just follow orders when evil is being done. They also have the choice to resist.

          Reply ↓
          1. Dasein9 (he/him)*

            And if done subtly enough, it could just come across to decision-makers as “This client always seems so difficult to work with!” and maybe, just maybe, they decide it’s not worth it.

            Reply ↓
        3. NothingIsLittle*

          The context of this statement is that they “can’t afford to quit over these clients.” As in, they are forced, by circumstance, to stay at a company. Presumably, the individual in question is trying to balance “this work is morally objectionable” with not starving their family

          Reply ↓
      1. Box of Rain*

        Exactly what I was thinking. If I’m wanting to be OFF a project or account, why would I spend any more time than is absolutely necessary working on it or with the terrible people involved?

        Reply ↓
        1. YetAnotherAnalyst*

          Well, in the original use case, it’s something like: you’re living in Nazi-occupied territory, you’re working at a munitions factory, and your goal is not just to not work for Nazis, but to actively work against them, while hopefully surviving the war. Quitting doesn’t do nearly as much damage as being an active impediment does.

          Whether or not the US is in a situation, or is sliding into a situation, with similar moral imperatives may well be an open question at this point.

          Reply ↓
          1. Cmdrshprd*

            “Quitting doesn’t do nearly as much damage as being an active impediment does.”

            I don’t know that it is that similar. During war time people didn’t really have the option to quit, they could refuse to work and likely be killed.

            Slowing down the work versus quitting, I actually think that quitting would do more damage, slow the project down even more. Unless they are in an industry that can hire really fast, and has lots of good candidates, hiring someone, training them, having them get up to speed is a +6 month long process.

            If you have decided that you can’t afford to quit, I would think working as fast as you can to be done with the project is the better option, project expected to take 4 weeks, work to get it done in 3, versus dragging it out for 5 or 6 weeks, seems like the better option. Like ripping of the bandaid instead of trying to slowly take it off.

            Reply ↓
            1. MigraineMonth*

              I think you’re underestimating the power of sabotage. Maybe it takes 6 months to get a new hire completely up to speed, but it might take 3 *years* to get the project done if those working on the project don’t want it to get done. If civil servants, dock workers and railroad engineers could do it under Nazi rule, I’m betting office workers can do it under threat of a bad performance review.

              Reply ↓
            2. Chairman of the Bored*

              Just shuffling a work order or invoice etc to the bottom of the pile a few times can jam things up for *weeks* while looking completely innocuous.

              Reply ↓
            3. YetAnotherAnalyst*

              Here’s a more modern-day example, then – you’re a computer programmer tasked with building a machine learning product that will be used in an illegal, immoral way, and which will result in hundreds (maybe thousands) of deaths. If you quit, your team will be on mandatory overtime for a few months until they replace you. If you can train the model on terrible data, write terrible documentation, and slow-roll every step of the development process, you may be able to scuttle the project entirely.

              Reply ↓
              1. RC*

                I feel like the retconning that happened in Rogue One (such a timely movie for 2016) is a good example of this as well.

                Reply ↓
      2. bamcheeks*

        Yes? It’s legit to decide that you can’t afford to resist authoritarianism: most people can’t, most of the time, in most authoritarian regimes, whcih is why they flourish and endure. But resisting authoritarianism has ALWAYS come with costs. There isn’t a version of moral courage which comes with no downsides or negative consequences. If there was it wouldn’t be courage!

        Reply ↓
        1. UKDancer*

          This so much. People hate to admit it but most people comply, collaborate and keep their heads down. Resistance hurts and is hard.

          So if you look at any occupied or authoritarian regime you find a lot of people going along with it. Simply because they don’t want to pay the price of resistance.

          Reply ↓
          1. Kivrin*

            This is exactly it. I am getting a fair bit of “I would cancel amazon but they have the best shipping prices.” Um, standing up isn’t supposed to be painless?

            Reply ↓
            1. bamcheeks*

              I feel like we have too many narratives about moral heroes which are framed to show very clearly defined decisions, with very clear moral outcomes, where the positive impacts are always known (because it’s a historical account), and I feel like lots of people (especially from broadly privileged groups) expect moral courage to look and feel like that.

              When really, the majority of the time, it feels kinda shit: you will be second guessing yourself, you will feel like you are shirking responsibilities; you will lose opportunities, power, prestige and probably financial, political and social capital; you will feel like it’s having no impact, or perhaps the wrong impact; you will be wondering whether you played your cards too early and should have held on to the capital you had so you could make a more impactful decision at another time; you will regret the impacts might also affect people you love or who you are responsible for in another way; to have meaningful impact, you will probably have to spend your free time enagaged in union or other political actions, building coalition and partnerships, sometimes with people you feel very morally or socially ambivalent about outside of the thing you agree on. You will probably lose the respect of people you respect, and you will be criticised, and you’ll maybe have to keep sorting through the criticism to see what’s crappy critique coming from your opponents and what’s valuable critique from people you want to be allies.

              In short, there will nearly always be a great reason NOT to stand up for something. And it is so, so valid and normal to decide the price is too high! Most people do. But be realistic that that’s the decision you’re making: don’t kid yourself that you will be that morally courageous person when the perfect, beautiful, risk-free opportunity comes along!

              Reply ↓
              1. Bike Walk Bake Books*

                What a fantastic response. Thank you for providing clarity about the lack of clarity in complex times–it’s a wakeup.

                Reply ↓
            2. Good Lord Ratty*

              I’ve noticed a lot of that. I don’t actually think it is that difficult for most people to stop using (or even just minimize their use of!) products or platforms like Amazon, Meta, TikTok, etc. I no longer use Facebook or Instagram, at all. I switched my email from Google to Proton.* I can’t get rid of Whatsapp entirely because much of my family abroad relies on it, but my friend group has switched to Signal. I deleted Twitter when Musk bought it. I avoid Amazon as much as possible. I avoid Loblaws/No Frills/Shoppers as much as possible.

              I’m fortunate to live in a major city and have enough disposable income that I can support smaller retailers a little more often. I have friends who rely on IG as a promotional tool for their art. I get that some people live in places where there aren’t options other than Walmart or No Frills. But for those of us for whom these “sacrifices” are minor, we really have no excuse not to reduce our reliance on them. In the big scheme, this is nothing.

              *I now know there may be issues with Proton as well and I’m doing research about what to switch to/if I should switch.

              Reply ↓
        2. Roland*

          Excellenly stated.

          Everyone here is free to comply; but “non-compliance is hard” doesn’t change the result of complying. You decide what you’re willing to risk.

          Reply ↓
    3. Fshface*

      This sounds like an excellent way to act if you are at a company where you don’t see a future for yourself.

      If you’re being employed to build the orphan-crushing machine, sure, do this and sacrifice your work reputation for the good of the world.

      If you’re employed to balance the books for a company who are posting on social media that they support orphan-crushing machines, this does nobody any good and makes you look petty, difficult, or incompetent to your actual employer.

      Reply ↓
    4. Antilles*

      No, they don’t. Those are strategies that sound like they’d be effective but actually aren’t.
      -Intentionally “misunderstanding” orders usually just makes you look like an idiot and/or bad at your job.
      -“Delay the delivery” doesn’t actually affect the other side, unless you’re actively missing deadlines (which makes you look bad). Clients might like getting stuff early, but getting it exactly on deadline is usually perfectly acceptable.
      -The irrelevant issues and re-opening meetings is solved by a PM knowing how to run a meeting effectively and being willing to table items. It also makes you That Guy around the office who everybody hates.
      -Haggling over precise wordings usually doesn’t matter in an office environment. There are occasional documents where the wording needs to be exact, but for most office communications and minutes, it’s more about conveying the concept clearly enough rather than perfectly.

      Reply ↓
      1. juliebulie*

        To be fair, plenty of workplaces described on this website are too dysfunctional for any of these things to get in the way of a good saboteur.

        Reply ↓
        1. Antilles*

          But if your company is already super dysfunctional, would your sabotage even affect things?
          Especially since most readers are likely not working in critical industries where your sabotage is going to actually wreck anything relevant. At most, you might annoy the client, but they’ll find a way to muddle through, just like they would if you were genuinely incompetent rather than pretending to be incompetent.

          Reply ↓
      2. Pocket Mouse*

        Delay the delivery until the deadline: the damaging thing doesn’t get extra days in use, and people have more time to bolster resistance against it.

        Re-opening items for discussion: maybe the PM is on board with throwing this sand in the gears and plays along.

        Haggling over precise wording: this could have, for example, delayed removal of information from government websites. “We will need to put a banner at the top of the page to describe why it’s removed… or maybe it should be in the body of the page where people will be looking for it… it’s not accurate to say X when the reality is Y, and we have a duty to communicate Z…”

        It’s all handfuls of sand, but enough sand and you get a dune, and dunes are pretty hard for a lot of cars to traverse.

        Reply ↓
        1. Antilles*

          I guess I’m coming at this from a private industry perspective where the client usually has another option to replace you if you’re really gumming things up. Maybe it’s a pain to do so, maybe it’s annoying, maybe your competitor isn’t quite as good, but there’s another option.

          Reply ↓
          1. Pocket Mouse*

            So let them feel that pain and annoyance and have to settle for an inferior provider? In the meantime, forcing them to shift their capacity to deal with the sand rather than hone their damaging product seems…worthwhile. Delaying delivery until the deadline is perhaps extra applicable in private industries.

            Reply ↓
          2. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

            But replacing you is work. It probably delays the timeline. And while they’re doing what they need to do to replace you, that’s time they’re not spending on other awful things. The idea is death by 1000 papercuts. Each one isn’t that big a problem, but when combined, it can be huge.

            Reply ↓
      3. HB*

        I think some people hit on this up above, but sabotage only makes sense when you’re debating between a moral imperative to disengage by quitting or moral imperative to disrupt. In the latter instance, it quite frankly doesn’t matter if you look like an idiot or if people in the office hate you because being *bad* at your job is the entire point.

        Reply ↓
      4. Beth*

        It’s true that well-run workplaces have ways to handle poor performance. But it’s also true that a lot of employers don’t handle issues well–we see that all the time here!

        If you don’t want to be a saboteur, that’s legit. Most people don’t–either they don’t object strongly enough to the work they’re being asked to do, or they can’t afford to expose themselves to the consequences of getting caught at it, or they look at their circumstances and decide that they’d have more of an impact by quitting outright. But sometimes, a well-placed person deciding that they’re going to take every chance they have to insist on bureaucratic red tape being followed, misinterpret arguably-blurry project requirements, delay meetings, forget follow-ups, etc. can have an outsized impact, if they think it’s worth the risk.

        Reply ↓
      5. Really?*

        I work in a client-facing role at a company that sells workflow-supporting tools to other companies, and every so often we get a customer escalation that comes down to “Person X wanted to purchase from vendor X but was overruled, so now they’re sabotaging”. X questions every implementation decision until they get what they want–and then they change what they want and start again. They skip every training, then complain the product is impossible to figure out. Every minor bug becomes “your product is unreliable, we can’t trust it”. Every tiny update becomes “You keep changing everything on me, I can’t use this.” They refuse to do any work in the system, then claim the lack of adoption shows that we can’t deliver on ROI.

        Sometimes this person gets fired. But more often than not, in my experience, one key end user refusing to buy in means that we lose the client–even if the rest of their team loves us, even if no other vendor offers all the features they need, even when they already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on our product. It’s not the most common thing, but my team sees it at least a couple times a year. Based on that, I think it’s hard to claim that sabotage never works.

        Reply ↓
      6. L.H. Puttgrass*

        I mean, those instructions for sabotage are maybe just the word “irrelevant” away from being any given day for me as a lawyer.

        Reply ↓
    5. Apex Mountain*

      I get the “malicious compliance” angle, but doing this seems like it would just show the LW to be incompetent without shedding any light on what you’re upset about

      Reply ↓
      1. MigraineMonth*

        Protest and sabotage are two different (probably mutually exclusive) strategies. If you want to bring attention to an issue and try to change hearts/minds, protest is the way to go. Make noise, let everyone know what you’re upset about and what you’re willing to sacrifice (your job?) to make your voice heard.

        Saboteurs are quiet. They’re friendly and eager and take on lots of responsibilities, but things always seem to fall through the cracks. They’re really sorry about that, and they’ll get right on fixing it, but they need this sign-off in triplicate. Wonderful, now you wanted all these installed backwards, right? No? Oh dear, it looks like this needs to be sent back to redesign, but they’re *so sorry*, and obviously this has nothing to do with politics, they’re just trying to help.

        Reply ↓
        1. Roland*

          This exactly. The organization doesn’t sound like it needs any light being shed on it; they post theie views openly.

          Reply ↓
        2. Apex Mountain*

          I don’t know…if I was your boss and found out you were intentionally sabotaging things I’d be pretty upset even if I was on your side with the politics. If I was your boss and just thought you were clueless and incompetent, I’m not sure that’s any better

          Reply ↓
          1. MigraineMonth*

            Sabotage is more morally gray than most forms of civil disobedience/non-violent protest, since it usually requires a significant amount of deception. It is often less risky than open defiance (where losing your job is certain), but it may well damage to your professional reputation (wow, I thought Paul was good at project management, but Evil Project has been a total mess!) and possibly lose your job.

            Before choosing sabotage/slow-walking/malicious compliance, you should know what you’re willing and not willing to pay, and you should evaluate whether your action is likely to be effective.

            Reply ↓
            1. Apex Mountain*

              I’d also want to make sure that I wasn’t unintentionally hurting others such as colleagues who work on the project who might be affected.

              Reply ↓
        3. Elizabeth West*

          There are some really good examples of this on M*A*S*H. Radar especially was a master at undermining processes to get the unit what it needed.

          Of course, you can do that in the opposite direction as well.

          Reply ↓
          1. Apex Mountain*

            Yes good call there – I recently saw the “Adam’s Ribs” episode where there was alot of chicanery in getting ribs delivered

            Reply ↓
  8. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

    Depending on the industry, this may be something that people should think about before they start. If you work in crisis PR, advertising, many types of law, etc, then you are a hired gun. Period. And you ought to know where your red lines are in advance.

    Granted people’s beliefs change over time. But if I was going to work in one of those fields, I would have asked a lot of questions about the clients during interviews, and I’d have a “hills to die on” list drawn up on day 1.

    If OP’s situation isn’t something that is inherently fraught with moral conundrums, then I think Alison’s advice of digging into this further with management and then deciding what the options for OP’s staff are, is probably the only way to go.

    Reply ↓
    1. AVP*

      I agree on the “hills to die on” list. I work in one of these fields and have really taken aback by certain employers, to be honest. I worked for a company that was very clearly branded and marketed one way, but then quietly took on projects for the complete opposite side of the line, and didn’t tell people that in the hiring phase. Some of those we were able to get out of, but it was really important to choose the battles, because if you said absolutely not to one client, you didn’t know if the next one might be worse.

      I’ve also interviewed for jobs where it was made clear that the firm would work for absolutely anyone and agreeing to that is part of the job. That, I have no problem with, it’s in the job description!

      Reply ↓
  9. Marie*

    My honest opinion is that if you are employed by an organization you need to do your job professionally and well. Period. Politics, race, sex, color etc.

    If it was someone who was actively committing crimes I might feel differently, say a suspected killer where you would feel your life was in danger. But otherwise, just do your job.

    Reply ↓
    2. dulcinea47*

      really, you only think about the legal repercussions and have no morals at all? That’s how we get nazis.

      Reply ↓
    3. FrivYeti*

      Fundamentally, a number of people quite accurately feel that the current American administration *is* actively committing crimes, and has already murdered quite a large number of people in only two months. Aiding and abetting mass murder is not something that everyone is comfortable with, and aiding and abetting people who loudly call for mass murder is not a lot more comfortable.

      On a more personal level, it could be as simple as “the client that I am currently working for keeps telling me that I should be deported to a foreign country and tortured for the rest of my life because he doesn’t know that I’m one of his targets”. I’m not going to be comfortable working for someone like that. Or maybe he’s saying that the medication that I need to survive should be illegal and I should be put in a concentration camp for using it.

      The USA is far, far past the point of politics not causing harm.

      Reply ↓
      1. account*

        “Has already murdered quite a large number of people in two months”— what? Obviously we have soldiers in many places, some engaged in active combat, but if you are opposed to that (as I am), that is not a two-month-old problem.

        Reply ↓
        1. A Teacher*

          plane accidents after firing and putting down the FAA; measles outbreaks; pulling funding from USAID and practically shutting it down in very vulnerable areas; cancelling meetings to establish a flu vaccine for next year, etc… This administration has a lot of blood on it’s hands for such a short tenure.

          Reply ↓
        2. FrivYeti*

          The Trump administration’s sudden and illegal dismantling of USAID, without giving a chance for the affected programs to find other funding or slowly wind down operations, has already caused 15,000 deaths in just over a month.

          Fifteen. Thousand. Deaths.

          Reply ↓
    6. Box of Rain*

      But the political party I assume the OP is wanting to stop working with… ARE actively committing crimes.

      Reply ↓
      1. Smh*

        I mean that’s a slippery slope and if your convictions are so great, then you should actively be seeking out the political views of everyone you encounter in any situation people you work for, people you work with, people your kids go to school with., Businesses you frequent restaurants you eat at who delivers your mail

        Reply ↓
        1. Link*

          Exactly. I’m interested to know how people would feel if physicians refused to treat people of different political beliefs, or the ambulance driver won’t stop at the house because they have a political sign out front of a party they don’t support.

          Reply ↓
            1. Finucan*

              Yup. I knew someone who couldn’t get mail at their house because of their religion and surname. They addressed it with the post office repeatedly. This would have been about 20 years ago.

              Reply ↓
            3. Tea Monk*

              Nod. i live in the South. Folks are constantly acting like they can’t do their job because of religion. ” Oh I can’t use the standard of care on that woman/ trans kid/ kid with mental illness “, I need to do something totally else instead

              Reply ↓
          2. AVP*

            And luckily there are federal laws and guidances around a lot of these edge cases you bring up.

            But if you work in something like PR or nonprofits or sales, it’s actually fine to say no and find a company that fits your values, you’ll do much better at work for the fact that you don’t hate yourself.

            Reply ↓
            1. Elizabeth West*

              And luckily there are federal laws and guidances around a lot of these edge cases you bring up.

              Not for long, if some people have their way.

              Reply ↓
          3. Green Beans*

            That’s different, though. A physician or ambulance driver is providing healthcare as needed to a person, not furthering that person’s work. And the healthcare system does struggle with this – many physicians struggle with treating incarcarated criminals, for example, especially if they are convicted of a particularly heinous crimes. Beyond that, there’s loads of evidence of systemic -isms in the medical community. It’s well documented that women and Black patients have their pain taken less seriously, for example. And women and people of color were often not represented in clinical trials (this was being addressed recently, though the current administration is trying to stop those efforts), which means that a lot of incorrect assumptions were used to develop standardized treatments/recommendations for them.

            Part of providing healthcare is agreeing that the moral imperative is to improve the patient’s health as much as possible, and that everyone deserves treatment. That is not true for marketing campaigns, non-government-provided legal advice, graphic design, etc., etc…. especially when the work done directly furthers the group or person’s mission/beliefs, instead of their personal health.

            Reply ↓
          4. MissElizaTudor*

            Depends on what the “different political beliefs” are and how much the person being denied treatment does to further those beliefs. Your example of just “different beliefs” without action or “supports a different party”, no I’m not okay with it.

            A doctor refusing to treat a concentration camp guard during WWII? Absolutely fine with it. Refusing to treat an ICE agent who makes a living kidnapping people and throwing them in cages? Go for it! Someone who thinks cannabis should be illegal and works for the DEA, but doesn’t make a living directly ruining people’s lives? I’m on the fence. Someone who thinks abortion should be illegal but doesn’t do anything to make that happen beyond voting? No.

            Reply ↓
          5. HannahS*

            That’s really not the same thing at all. As a physician, I took an oath to help people, regardless of their identity or beliefs. The entire idea of only providing care to people you like or agree with is–or at least, should be–antithetical to the whole values system of our profession. But provision of service isn’t an ethical stance in most other professions. Accountants and PR managers and janitors and software developers and nannies are entitled to choose their clients. Unless they’re engaging in illegal discrimination, there’s no ethical issue with them saying, “I refuse to labour for you because I disagree with your political views.”

            Reply ↓
            1. UKDancer*

              Yeah I really wouldn’t want a doctor who didnt believe it was their job to treat everyone regardless of their views. I’d worry about their ethics and understanding of the hippocratic oath. I mean its a fundamental principle of the NHS that everyone is entitled to the same level of treatment and that’s something I value highly.

              Other professions are different obviously.

              Reply ↓
            2. Nightengale*

              Yes and also right now my patients are at very real risk of harm from the government, regardless of their parents’ politics (I’m a pediatrician, very few of my patients are eligible to vote.)

              Statistically based on where I work, probably about half my patient families voted on each side in the last election. Although interestingly the only ones who have brought up anything to me are the ones who are afraid of what is going on, like if their kids’ medication is going to be made illegal or if special education will be defunded.

              So I will care for your kid regardless of whether you voted against their ongoing access to a free appropriate public education and appropriate medical care. Simultaneously I intend to keep fighting for those things. Also I am listed as an LGBTQIA+ champion on our hospital website so queer patients and families know they have landed in an affirming space. If that makes other families feel less affirmed. . . I am OK with that.

              Reply ↓
            3. Whose the boss?*

              What about the bakery that refused to make a cake for the same sex couple? Are they also entitled to choose their clients? This has been litigated.

              Reply ↓
              1. Ask a Manager* Post author

                Federal anti-discrimination law prevents discrimination based on specific protected categories: race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, etc. It does not extend beyond that, and it definitely does not say “you must provide service to anyone regardless of their behavior.”

                Reply ↓
              2. Irish Teacher.*

                I think there is a difference between refusing to work for somebody based on an innate characteristic such as being gay or trans or a particular nationality and refusing to work for somebody because of their behaviour.

                Reply ↓
              3. HannahS*

                What about them? They were engaging in illegal discrimination. Are we not in agreement that this is a bad thing?

                Reply ↓
          6. LaurCha*

            Pay attention. This is already happening. Pharmacies refuse meds to women that may or may not be prescribed to terminate a pregnancy. Ask a chronic pain patient how they are treated when trying to fill their opiate prescriptions. An electrician in North Carolina after the floods posted that he repaired houses with liberal signs last. You can bet he wasn’t the only one. LBGTQ+ people are denied care frequently.

            Reply ↓
          7. AnonForThis*

            …

            EMTs have left LGBTQ people to die in the street. Women are dying due to the abortion ban. Pharmacists are refusing to prescribe all sorts of medications on religious pretexts, from birth control to arthritis meds. Why on earth do you think we’re all so angry?

            Reply ↓
        3. YetAnotherAnalyst*

          Friend, you better believe I am paying very, very close attention to the publicly expressed political views of all those people and more.

          Reply ↓
        4. Box of Rain*

          I… am seeking out the human rights views of everyone I encounter on a less-than-casual basis, even at work and especially for nearly every penny I spend. I honestly have a hard time believing that many of are not right now.

          And for the person who asked about medical providers–I have ABSOLUTELY changed providers due to differing views on human rights and “politics.” I don’t want anyone touching my body that thinks what is happening now is okay.

          Reply ↓
          1. Clisby*

            Did you actually quiz them on this? Because if I were one of those providers I’d have told you to eff off and it was none of your business. On the other hand, if they were spouting off their political beliefs during your appointment, I’d absolutely fire them.

            Reply ↓
            1. Bromaa*

              There are a lot of ways to find these things out other than “actually quizzing them”, as you would know if this was a regular issue for you. As a marginalized person, I can tell you I pretty much never have to get to the point of asking directly, and I’ve been doing kind of screening of people for twenty years.

              Reply ↓
            2. Bee*

              I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask your doctor about their stance on vaccines or abortion in order to decide whether you trust them to treat you.

              Reply ↓
              1. Irish Teacher.*

                Yeah, and honestly, a doctor who tells a patient to “eff off” if asked “would you be willing to give a referral for abortion/do gender affirming healthcare?” is sort of showing a great big red flag and pretty much answering the question.

                Reply ↓
            3. Elsewise*

              I’ve spent my whole life living with providers who tell me my relationship is invalid, my medications are immoral, and that they would happily refuse to treat me if it was legal. My partner has had dozens of providers refuse to gender them correctly, comment negatively on their gender-affirming care, and tell them to detransition and break up with me. I’ve had friends tell me about doctors “joking” about calling ICE on patients of color they found “difficult”.

              I think you’re well-intentioned, but you’re approaching this from the point of view that marginalized people don’t know how to curate their own experiences. We know.

              Reply ↓
            4. Meaningful hats*

              Um…it absolutely is my business. I get to choose who my providers are and if their politics are going to impact how they care for me (usually in a negative way), it’s my prerogative to find that out so I can find another provider. Which I have done, multiple times.

              Reply ↓
          2. CommanderBanana*

            ^^ Right? I have my ever-growing Boycott List. Just put two more local businesses on it because their chef can’t stop vomiting all over X about how much he wants to lick Elon’s bootsoles.

            Reply ↓
            1. RC*

              Heh, your euphemism is not the same word I use but it does fit into a b*t*oles search term too.

              I’ve been thinking a lot about what I’d say to future historians (if we still have historians) or the neighbor kids when I’m an old neighbor lady (if we still have kids, and neighborhoods) if they ask what I did at this point in time.

              Reply ↓
        5. FrivYeti*

          It’s a slippery slope and the Republican party has already fallen into the depths of the well.

          Absolutely serious question: if someone told you to your face that they thought you should be thrown in jail, your kids should be taken away from you, and your family should be tortured, would you want to eat at their restaurant?

          What if you knew that they were taking the money from your drinks order and giving it to bounty hunters who were currently trying to find your children and kidnap them? Would you still eat at that restaurant? What if it was only 10% of your drinks order?

          Where is the line for you, when it comes to people who are actively trying to murder you?

          Reply ↓
        6. Caramel & Cheddar*

          This is such an odd comment to me. Some of these are within your control and some aren’t. I can’t control who delivers my mail, but I can absolutely make a choice not to eat at the restaurant of someone who is a raging bigot. This isn’t a difficult calculus, and it’s weird that it’s presented as such.

          Reply ↓
        7. Yawnley*

          It’s so wild to me that there are people like you AREN’T doing this. I’ve been purchasing in ways that align with my morals for, like 20 years. Welcome to being a human with privilege, we get to do things like this :)

          Reply ↓
        8. Irish Teacher.*

          The slippery slope fallacy is considered a fallacy for a reason though and honestly, I don’t agree that if you refuse to work with somebody you know to be actively harming you, you have to check everybody else to see if they are actively harming you too.

          That’s like saying you can’t divorce your partner if you find out they cheated on you unless you actively investigated every previous partner to be sure they weren’t cheating or that we shouldn’t jail murderers unless we investigate every single person in the country to find out if they committed murder.

          In reality, some people will get away with doing bad things. That doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to enact consequences on those who get caught out.

          People have the right to draw the line wherever they wish in their own lives. They don’t have to justify it by proving they are being “fair”.

          Reply ↓
        10. AnonForThis*

          No. There is rather a large difference between “X likes small government and big guns” versus “X is actively trying to eliminate the minority I / people I love belong to.” There really, really is a difference.

          Reply ↓
    8. Irish Teacher.*

      I don’t think it’s always that simple. I mentioned the Dunnes Stores strike below, though I think my comment is in moderation. It might not have done much practical good. While it led to Ireland banning South African goods, I doubt their economy is dependant on our small country, but it drew attention and Mandela said it gave them hope.

      Even clearer, I think are issues like the bus drivers in the days of segregation, who should not have enforced that.

      Sometimes what is wrong and what is a crime are two very different things.

      Reply ↓
    9. Not just doing my job*

      Five or six years ago I went to see The Evidence Room, which is a display of the architectural and other professional aspects of the design and development of Auschwitz.

      Someone once, very professionally, sat down and wrote up a memo describing the necessary specifications for gas-proof shutters, and someone else wrote up a very professional order for howevermany such shutters of whatever size and someone else very professionally manufactured them and someone else very professionally installed them.

      “Just do your job, you’re a professional” wasn’t a defensible notion then and it isn’t now either.

      Reply ↓
      1. CommanderBanana*

        Thanks for pointing that out! It’s almost like politics is a choice and the others…are not!

        Reply ↓
    11. Ex-Teacher*

      “Just following orders” never protected the Nazis from ultimate accountability.

      Your employment should never override your moral boundaries. Being able to ignore morals because you aren’t personally in danger is really a privileged position to be in.

      Reply ↓
    13. Really?*

      I’m trans. When your political group wants to deny me basic human rights and uses my existence as a way to incite hate towards people like me, saying “just do your job” is not only enabling, but also an extremely bigoted take.

      Reply ↓
    14. Roland*

      There were many places where hiding a runaway slave was illegal and turning them over was legal. Which was the moral choice for a white public servant?

      Reply ↓
    15. Peregrine*

      The Holocaust was legal. Lots of horrific things can end up being legal. If your line is just “legal”… you may end up complicit in many evil things.

      Reply ↓
  10. Sloanicota*

    I also think it’s fair to say these are unprecedented times in the US. So don’t just automatically defer to the “business as usual” rules where it’s “professional” to keep your politics separate from your work life. These aren’t normal events.

    Reply ↓
    2. Caramel & Cheddar*

      This. If you’re “just following orders” now, it’s going to get real uncomfortable once this gets worse.

      Reply ↓
    4. Beth*

      Seems like a good moment to quote this item again:

      “The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance, not as a moral standard, but as a social contract.

      If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, they are not covered by it.

      In other words, the intolerant aren’t deserving of your tolerance.”

      Reply ↓
  11. Oaktree*

    There is a difference between a client who voted for someone I dislike and a client who routinely posts hateful things on social media.

    Reply ↓
    1. Lisa*

      Agreed, and there may also be a difference depending on what you would be doing for the client. Handling payroll isn’t the same as putting together an ad campaign, and different people will draw the line of “what’s OK” differently.

      Reply ↓
  12. Dawn*

    I’m trans. If you told me I had to work with a virulently trans company in spite of my objection, I’d quit, end of story.

    I can’t work with people who don’t respect, and are offensive about, the core of my identity.

    Reply ↓
    2. NothingIsLittle*

      That is your right! However, I don’t think it would be your boss’s moral failing to say, “This is over my head, our team must provide this work and I’m not allowed to exempt any of you. I understand if that means you need to quit.” The company would be in the wrong, insofar as a company can be, but your individual boss wouldn’t be at fault. (I’m agender.)

      Reply ↓
      1. Dawn*

        It was less in the way of accusing the manager of being wrong, and more a warning to him that people will walk away over this stuff – and the company might want to take that into account.

        Reply ↓
  13. MBK*

    For me, the line is, “am I being asked to do work for someone whose politics I find objectionable?” vs. “am I being asked to do work that will enable this client to further an agenda I find objectionable?” For example, creating a bus stop ad for a plumber when you know that plumber is a vocal supporter of a particular candidate you find objectionable, vs. creating a campaign ad for the candidate. (The latter example doesn’t have to be that directly political. I would just weigh the potential for my work to be used to cause harm.)

    Reply ↓
    1. Turquoisecow*

      This. What is the work you’re doing, because that would make a big difference to me. Is the work going to help push a hate-filled agenda, like in PR or marketing or whatever, or is it just unclogging their toilets? In the first example, I would definitely take a stand; in the second it would be easier to separate the job from the beliefs, and I’d be more inclined to think workers should just get it done.

      Reply ↓
      1. Turquoisecow*

        With an important caveat to worker safety- if you’re sending people to client sites and, for example a BIPOC person objects to visiting a racist or a trans person feels unsafe around a particular client, I definitely understand that objection even if all they’re doing is mopping floors or something unrelated.

        Reply ↓
        1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

          Great point. Installing a sign isn’t just installing a sign if you know that the client has called for the deportation/elimination/etc. of a group you’re part of.

          Reply ↓
  14. Cat*

    “does not contribute to things that I consider ethically or morally wrong” is like, bar one for me when thinking about a job or company. I can’t really imagine how anyone else could feel otherwise, but then I’m extremely autistic so. ymmv.

    Reply ↓
    1. till Tuesday*

      What happens when the company changes? Let’s say you’re an engineer, and you make sturdy, safe bridges. Halfway through the bridge build, the state that you are building the bridge for decides to use the bridge to transport goods – which you have no moral problem with – to *also* use the bridge to displace the local indigenous population, which you’re opposed to. You couldn’t have foreseen this when you took the job. Do you stay or quit? If you quit, what will you do? Do you look for a different job before you quit?

      Reply ↓
      1. Cat*

        Come on. That’s an extremely convoluted scenario you’ve created, but I think I can trust myself to use common sense on a case by case basis. As we all presumably do, no?

        Reply ↓
        2. till Tuesday*

          Actually, it’s not that dissimilar to situations my engineering company has faced. We get large contracts from various nations, many developing world countries. Our contracts last for many years, sometimes through civil wars and changes of governments to rebels and back again.

          Reply ↓
      2. CommanderBanana*

        Well, I would imagine one would sit down and examine one’s soul, ethics, and integrity, and decide according to one’s moral compass, no?

        Reply ↓
      3. FrivYeti*

        If I discover that a client is going to use my work to commit genocide, yes, I have a moral obligation to stop that work. I have a moral obligation to *fight* that work.

        How is that even a question? Who sits down and says, “Okay, I’m going to be a party to genocide, but do I have another job lined up?”

        Reply ↓
        1. NothingIsLittle*

          You’re strawmanning till Tuesday’s argument. Obviously they’re not saying, “you must be party to atrocity if your company decides to commit one.” They’re saying, “I won’t work for a company furthering positions I find morally objectionable,” is more complicated than Cat’s comment presumes.

          Your company is building bridges that will cut the commute between remote villages and the nearest big city by several hours. This change will enable the residents of the village to access better medical facilities hours sooner than they otherwise could, and may save hundreds of lives yearly. You learn that it will also be used by diamond mines. My point is that it is not easy to decide when the chain of violence begins.

          Reply ↓
      4. bamcheeks*

        That’s exactly why the advice from AAM is to sit down and think about your personal hard lines we fire you are asked to cross them, and why increasing numbers of engineering courses include ethics. There is no perfect and ethically correct answer to this question, and everyone needs time (and sometimes expert guidance) to think through different scenarios and what their personal response would be.

        Reply ↓
    2. NothingIsLittle*

      I think you’re underestimating the difficulty of determining where “contributes” begins. Per examples above, does the company servicing the White House’s HVAC contribute to the actions of the current administration? What about the Dry Cleaner for Trump’s suits? Harder question, what about the farms providing food to distribution companies that contract with the White House? What about the factories providing the paper to Office Depot that is used to print campaign documents?

      Reply ↓
  15. Social Media Restricted*

    OP, I think it’s worth including in your calculations whether your company has a social media / personal activities policy, formal or informal, that might interact with this situation as well. My current job has a broad “don’t criticize our clients on social media or post adverse to their business interests” policy that, while valuable to the company for client relations, means the politics of our clients can impact how employees advocate for their beliefs in their personal time. If you’re likely to be fired for making posts on your social media disagreeing with this client’s objectionable posts, that might change the calculus for you or your employees. Just another factor to add to your thinking!
    (The broad social media policy combined with a very long list of clients is a major downside to my current job— it’s one of the main reasons I’ve considered leaving)

    Reply ↓
  16. Off Plumb*

    What is it that’s changed recently? Are your clients behaving the same, but because the climate is so charged it feels less acceptable to work with them? Or has the clients’ public behavior gotten worse? If it’s the latter, I think that’s a good reason to start some larger-picture conversations with management about what your company wants to be publicly associated with. (“With the change in the political context I can no longer stomach doing work that I used to be ok with” is valid, but it’s going to carry a lot less weight than “conditions have changed, our clients are taking public stances they didn’t take before, and that creates issues for the company as a whole as well as individual employees.”)

    Reply ↓
  17. Irish Teacher.*

    I’m just going to relate a story from Irish…history, I guess it would be now, as it took place in the early 80s, when employees in Dunnes Stores refused to handle apartheid South African goods. An employee was suspended for refusing to do so, the union called a strike in support of her, it dragged on for, I think, over two years until finally, the government got involved and banned South African goods nationally.

    So yeah, their refusal to just separate their politics from work literally changed national policy. Mary Manning, the young woman who started it is now a known name, Mandela himself said they gave him hope, knowing people at the other side of the world cared enough to put their jobs at risk.

    On the other hand, they had to live on IR£21 a week while on strike, were harassed by their employer and the police and I think some found it hard to find work afterwards, as they were considered “difficult.”

    So there are no easy answers. Sometimes sucking things up is the right thing to do. Sometimes standing up and refusing to do the assignment is. It depends on context and on how strongly you feel and whether you can take the hit.

    Reply ↓
    2. bamcheeks*

      there are several comments further up saying “but if you were [just] doing plumbing / HVAC installation / some other manual job, ofc you wouldn’t be expected to take a stand” and I think this is a GREAT corrective and reminder that a lot of the most effective political action was started by people in lower paid and lower status jobs!

      Reply ↓
      1. NothingIsLittle*

        I don’t think those comments are meant to convey “ofc you wouldn’t be expected to take a stand,” but rather, “that changes the calculation for how moral your working for those clients is.” Many people are not in a position where they can afford to be without work and for those people it matters whether their work directly or indirectly furthers positions they find reprehensible. Mary did an amazing thing with real impact, but she also absolutely suffered for it.

        I don’t think individuals have a duty to avoid indirectly supporting causes they disagree with when they are not in a position of privilege.

        Reply ↓
        1. bamcheeks*

          Yeah, I get that. I just think we have a tendency to think that the big moral stands come from people with the most power, and it’s worth remembering that historically it’s often the opposite.

          Reply ↓
  18. CzechMate*

    One of my husband’s coworkers is going through this right now. Coworker has been tasked with doing marketing/PR for the “passion project” of someone associated with Trump. The work itself isn’t associated with Trump (or really, the politics of the person).

    Here’s the kicker–the person is a TERRIBLE client. He’s rude, demanding, bad at business and completely lacking in knowledge about the space he’s trying to get into, etc. The firm is strongly considering just firing him as a client.

    My question is: if the clients are sharing things that are “horrifying” on social media, how are they as clients generally? If working for them is already a headache, AND they have political beliefs your team doesn’t agree with, it could be time to consider just parting ways. The money may not be worth the hassle.

    Reply ↓
    1. MaskedMarvel*

      “Tough, no nonsense, no excuses”

      obnoxious,completely uninterested in nuance, will rip you off.

      Reply ↓
    2. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

      For sure, the harder call is when the folks are ok to work with but then you find out from their social or an offhanded remark that they’re morally repugnant. The clients who style their “business acumen” after the Art of the Deal seem eminently fire-able.

      Reply ↓
      1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

        That came out wrong. It’s not a hard call to avoid working with folks who are morally repugnant, once you know about it. (Practical considerations like keeping a roof over your head are definitely a factor, but it’s not a hard call mentally/morally.) It’s not always easy to know folks’ repugnance levels, though, so you might find yourself working for someone really reprehensible who’s been a perfectly fine client *for you* for years, when their repugnance reveals itself on social or in other ways.

        Reply ↓
  19. Miss Chanandler Bong*

    This is tricky. I’m an accountant, and one of the reasons I chose to go into corporate accounting was because there would be clients I wouldn’t be willing to work for. For instance, I’m not willing to work for any religious groups besides my own (I don’t take compensation if I do any side work for my own group). I don’t work with any political organizations. Non-profits…depends on what they do. So corporate ensures that I’m okay with the company and their mission*.

    I think it’s important to consider the employees in this. If I did not want to work with a specific client for ethical reasons, I’d resign.

    *I don’t have a problem with who my company sells to as long as I’m not personally involved in the sale.

    Reply ↓
  20. Beth*

    OP, you ask, “What’s a good way of explaining to them that they need to separate their personal beliefs from the work?” This is the wrong question. As their manager, this isn’t something you can order them to do. Only they can decide if they’re able and willing to do it.

    You have 2 options here.
    1) You may be able to adjust your team to dodge the conflict. If an employee morally objects to working on a specific project, maybe you assign them elsewhere and pull in a different team member. If an employee objects to your entire team’s purpose for existing, maybe you know they’d fit better elsewhere in the company, and you can push for a transfer. If you know your whole team would quit over working with this customer, you can let higher-ups know that, and potentially suggest reconsidering the relationship.
    2) If this is just inherent to working for your company, and there is no way to work around it, you can be honest with your team about that. Some of them might quit. Others might suck it up, but struggle with the impact their work (as it sounds like you are). This will likely hurt their job satisfaction and could impact their performance over time–unhappy, frustrated, morally torn people don’t tend to be enthusiastic top performers. But this is sometimes how it is.

    Reply ↓
  21. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

    I left a company because I could no longer accept what they were doing – and that was ‘only’ financial fraud against a vulnerable population. I honestly don’t know what I’d do if we were told to provide support to people who quite vocally want people like me dead or deported or shoved into camps etc.

    Take serious stock of myself and be honest to both me AND my staff probably. There are some lines I find utterly abhorrant and that’s not a comfortable discussion. If it was a serious line I’d feed the info back up the chain that this is causing major issues, but for me and my staff I’d look into help – be it financial, mental, legal etc.

    Reply ↓
  22. el l*

    As with many things professional – it’s all about who you work WITH, and who you work FOR. A person’s political views may or may not define them. But if it truly does say something broader/symptomatic about them, it will flow down to you.

    So I think there are 2 steps. First step, can you still respect these clients, in spite of not just supporting-the-other-side but their behavior? There’s no formula to answering that, but it is a fundamental question that requires a clear yes or no answer.

    Second step: If the answer is yes on your end, then share your thoughts and then ask your team, “If management asked you to work for them – not saying they will – what would you be prepared to do? Leave? Stay but suffer career consequences? Need to know so I can communicate that upwards.” And if the answer is no for you – ask yourself that same question, and be willing to act accordingly.

    Reply ↓
    1. juliebulie*

      I’m not sure I’d feel safe telling you anything if you’re going to “communicate it upwards.”

      Reply ↓
      1. Bunch Harmon*

        I think that highly depends on what exactly is being communicated. “45% of my team is not willing to work with this client due to ethical concerns” is a lot different than “Sally is willing to quit if you make her work with this client”.

        Reply ↓
  23. Cloud Wrangler*

    I think one has to be very careful. Otherwise we end up with FEMA supervisor telling staff to skip houses with Trump signs.

    To quote the great free scholar Ricky Gervais:
    If you don’t believe in free speech for people who you disagree with, and even hate for what they stand for, then you don’t believe in free speech.

    Reply ↓
    1. A. Lab Rabbit*

      Please stop conflating business with government. The purpose of government is to serve all citizens, whereas the purpose of business it to make money any way it can. (And please remember that the only reason we don’t send children down coal mines is because we had to pass laws to outlaw it, and the only reason it doesn’t happen now is because the punishment involves a heavy fine.)

      Your analogy is completely false.

      Reply ↓
    2. LaurCha*

      meh. Ricky Gervais ain’t all that. He’s certainly not a scholar. Free speech has – correctly imo – limits. Nobody has to tolerate hate speech because some whiny libertarian is going to accuse them of being “against free speech” if they object.

      Reply ↓
    4. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

      Ricky Gervais is a comedian NOT a scholar (and personally I think he’s a blimmin eejit).

      I think a lot of people need to look up the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate hatred then you end up with only the hateful having a voice.

      Granted I’m in the UK and we’ve still got a lot of raw wounds about the damage fascists have done round here. One doesn’t need to accept the unacceptable.

      Reply ↓
    5. AnonForThis*

      Is this satire? Ricky Gervais is a transphobic, cringeworthy hack who has tantrums on social media when people disagree with him.

      His concept of free speech is that he should be allowed to say whatever he likes, but anyone criticising him is engaging in ‘cancel culture’.

      Reply ↓
  24. My 2 cents*

    I don’t know where people are coming from over the last 25 years, the idea that you isolate yourself from people that don’t think exactly like you do.

    What a small, simple minded little world you are going to live in. My business would have starved with this attitude, so would the 30-40 families that I employed.

    In my lifetime, I’ve been very political, my parties, big dinners included people from both sides of the aisle, we socialized and we worked together. Ive sat on boards which were involved in intense lobbying efforts. My children have worked in the capital majority and minority.

    It’s easy to assume this “I can’t be around or work with someone who supports this” attitude, than work with an open mind. Anyone who has this attitude has been manipulated into being controlled by individuals trying to keep their own personal, trading power. Power, which they have achieved in their own small world of political party participation, working for a candidate or officeholder. These little peons thrive on this manipulation, it’s the only thing they can feed to trade on.
    We have created a big money driven election industry. This industry, the people running it has to create the chasm to survive.

    Good politics includes compromise, a solution for all.

    Reply ↓
      1. RC*

        Good reference year; this is literally that idealized West Wing model of bipartisanship. Which would have been great, but died (was killed?) a long time ago now.

        Man I *wish* we could have rational discussions about how best to adapt to climate change instead of one party pretending all the scientists are lying liars and then also FEMA is lying liars when responding to hurricanes which will keep having worse impacts the more we bury our heads in the sand. There are SO MANY BETTER discussions we could be having instead of “Nazis are bad… but are they really?” ugh.

        Reply ↓
      2. Helewise*

        Compromising with Nazis wasn’t a thing in 1999. We used to all agree on that. I generally agree with most of the comment above and think that we isolate ourselves too quickly today, but the red lines that used to be obvious aren’t anymore.

        Reply ↓
    2. Bromaa*

      Compromise and inter-party socialization works well when the issue is like, how should we regulate emissions. It works less well when, y’know, the opposition wants to kill me.

      Reply ↓
      1. Kivrin*

        This. As a queer person I have been in spaces where people have literally said, “I think all gay people should be murdered.” That is not a place for compromise.

        Reply ↓
      2. Chirpy*

        This, as a woman, these people want to strip my rights – to vote, to bodily autonomy, to own property, to be educated. They want to force me to get married to survive and to have kids and/or die in the attempt. Because healthcare won’t be available to me.

        And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

        Reply ↓
    3. A. Lab Rabbit*

      “Good” politics — except that we have people who are (and have been) actively pursuing very bad politics. I don’t know where you’ve are coming from over the last 25 years, but gerrymandering, voter suppression, murder (Charlottesville), deportations, family separation, etc. are not “good” politics, unless of course, you side with the people who are carrying out these acts.

      Reply ↓
    5. Elsewise*

      I think that’s a pretty privileged take, though. I can socialize easily with people who disagree with me on a lot of political takes. But a lot of “political” conversation these days centers around whether or not I should be allowed to get married, have health insurance, or live. To me, that’s not politics, that’s my survival.

      Reply ↓
      1. Elsewise*

        Also, re: compromise. If one side believes I should have equal rights and the other side believes I’m a child-abusing degenerate who should get the death penalty, what’s the compromise there? I can’t get half killed. Should we deport people but have them eat six pomegranate seeds so they can return for half of the year? Stop doctor’s appointments halfway through?

        I mean, the new deputy director of the FBI says liberals are literally demons. A lot of trans people feel unsafe working with people who say trans people should die. Why do I only see comments like yours about the latter situation?

        Reply ↓
    6. HB*

      ” the idea that you isolate yourself from people that don’t think exactly like you do.”

      This idea exists only in your head. Literally everyone else is talking about isolating themselves from people who *actively wish to do them harm*. You can’t compromise with people who don’t think you have a right to exist.

      Reply ↓
    7. Kevin Sours*

      How do you compromise with people who refuse to uphold their word or follow the law? The West Wing is fantasy.

      Reply ↓
    8. Ellis Bell*

      A really big part of the letter talks about how OP and their team have worked across the political spectrum for ages.

      Reply ↓
      1. Mark This Confidential And Leave It Laying Around*

        Yes, but it’s not true. Or at least, not effective. Or we would not be here.

        Reply ↓
    9. NotAnotherManager!*

      I’m old, so I understand falling back into thinking that the present times are like the late 90s/early 2000s. They’re not.

      This was a much easier attitude to have when we were talking about everyone wanting to reduce the federal deficit but having very different ideas about how to do that. It is not possible to be tolerant of racial/ethnic bigotry, oligarchy, and eroding of human rights.

      It was also a much easier attitude to have before one aisle of the US political machine decided that they would rather burn everything down than compromise. When only one side is compromising, that’s a hostage situation, not a place where we can all find a solution together. We no longer have “good politics” where compromise is valued or even a goal.

      Reply ↓
      1. Sar*

        I went into a short fugue last week about (in reverse chronological order) the Patriot Act, the reversal of the Mexico City Rule (global gag rule on intl ngos that perform abortions anywhere), and “Put it in a lockbox.” The problems were so comparatively quaint it borderline makes my head explode.

        Reply ↓
    10. Tea Monk*

      Do people who say awful things about me, my family and friends ever hear ” you have to hear from people who disagree?” Everything is one sided these days

      Reply ↓
    11. Jasmine Clark*

      Having an “open mind” is not inherently a good thing.

      I know that may sound weird to you because the phrase “open-minded” is generally seen as a good thing. And yes, you should try to listen carefully to other people’s perspectives, within reason. But there has to be a limit somewhere. For example, if someone is telling lies or misinformation, that’s not something you should be “open-minded” to. If someone is promoting something that threatens someone’s safety, that’s not something you should be “open-minded” to. If someone doesn’t support human rights, that’s not something you should be “open-minded” to.

      If you are socializing with and working with people who are doing things like this, and you stay silent and don’t call them out, you are part of the problem.

      Reply ↓
    12. JustKnope*

      There’s a key difference between isolating yourself from people who disagree with you and actively doing work to further the agenda of people who disagree with you. The latter is what the letter is talking about. And there’s a key difference in people who disagree with you about how often the trash should get picked up vs whether trans people should have the right to exist, for example.

      Reply ↓
    13. One Duck In A Row*

      How bizarre to assume that all anti-fascists agree on all things. I am friends with people who have a wide variety of political beliefs, but they are all beliefs that lie within the realm of respecting human rights and dignity.

      Reply ↓
    14. MigraineMonth*

      At the risk of showing my ass, I *do* think there is something that’s been going wrong in the United States in the last few decades where political polarization keeps getting worse and worse. We barely talk about each other as if we’re all human anymore. It seems like the billionaires keep getting richer and more powerful, while the rest of us are crabs in a bucket tearing each other apart for the scraps. It seems like there’s a new moral panic every week, and the reason is ridiculous but the fear and violence is real.

      Maybe it was just being raised white, cis and middle-class, but I remember having conversations with republicans where I completely disagreed but didn’t feel afraid or enraged. I remember being able to say, “I’m not sure about communism as an economic system” to friends without them getting mad at me. I’m worried that until we fix that social fabric our democracy won’t be able to recover.

      Reply ↓
      1. Ellis Bell*

        Yeah, some very unethical people have worked out that if you can whip up a lot of online rage, then a lot more people listen and share, which is why we are in a polarised mess with people making practically useless and obviously untrue statements which generate more fear than thought. I think some people are assuming that OP and Co. are people who’ve been whipped up into intolerance, and that’s why they can’t deal with opposing views, but I disagree that that’s the case
        From OP’s tone of dismay about things being so different lately, I think it’s really that they don’t want to work with people they know are deliberately stirring up trouble purely for the sake of mischief and attention (or at least, OP might consider that framing a useful lens for drawing lines).

        Reply ↓
        1. Head Sheep Counter*

          I think its unclear what the objections are to. Without more information, we don’t know if they are working with anti-LGBTQ folk or if they are working with people who aren’t aligned with something less impactful. There are many many shades of disagreement. Some feel worth the capital to say no to and some… feel like they are devices to further rhetoric (each side pushes its sides further and further but it feels like the left is more destructive about it).

          Reply ↓
    15. Beth*

      I can work with someone who disagrees with me on whether roads should be funded via taxes on gas, tolls, or more general income taxes. There are plenty of government decisions and political topics where there’s room for people who are working in good faith and fundamentally share values to disagree.

      But some political topics are hard lines. If I’m talking to someone and it boils down to “I think I should have the same access to marriage (meaning the legal structure of it, not any specific religious version) as straight people do; you think I should be locked up or killed because you believe all gay people are pedophilic groomers and an affront to God,” then what common ground are we going to find? How much of my civil rights should I be willing to give up in order to compromise with this person? What level of threats of violence should I accept to continue having the conversation?

      If someone can’t or won’t view me as a person who is their equal and deserves equal rights and equal opportunities, then there’s no conversation to be had. They’re always going to push for me to have less than them and be treated worse than them. Any compromise we reach will just be the new ‘normal’ from which they continue to push for me to have even less and be treated even worse. Why would I engage with that?

      Reply ↓
    16. Kesnit*

      I am a liberal who works as a prosecutor – an area of the law known to be on the conservative side. Several of my coworkers – including a close friend – are conservatives. While we try to avoid discussing politics, every once in a while, things will come up.

      We’ve had conversations about gun control and the Second Amendment. We’ve had conversations about tax policy. We’ve had discussions on immigration. (I’ve even managed to make my coworkers think because I used to be an immigration attorney and am familiar with how the process works.) We can disagree without causing issues in our professional relationships.

      I’m also part of the queer community. (Not an obvious one, like a gay man.) There is a huge difference between “we disagree about how guns should be regulated” and “people like you are sick and need to be separated from ‘normal’ society.”*

      * To be clear, I have never heard any of my coworkers say something like this. I strongly doubt their conservative beliefs – even as admitted Trump supporters – go that far.

      Reply ↓
    17. Elizabeth West*

      Unfortunately, one side has fully embraced treason and fascism, and there is no “both sides,” across-the-aisle compromise anymore. If you can ignore that, it’s a mark of ignorance, privilege, or both. These days you also have to be careful not to slip into complicity.

      Reply ↓
  25. One Duck In A Row*

    Given how many unethical, immoral, and downright dangerous things are being attempted, said, and done right now under the guise of “politics”, it feels more important than ever to be precise about how we frame things – is the issue here actually “politics” or is it ethical/human rights issues that have become politicized in an attempt to cause real harms? If the latter (and given the language the OP used to describe the team’s reactions as well as the current state of the country in general it feels likely that it is), I think the word “politics” is getting in the way of how you need to frame what decisions you make and actions you take. I know that not everybody is able to push back against stuff like this as much as they’d like – personal safety can be a factor, as well as obviously whether one has the ability to absorb the financial blow of loss of income and possibly loss of health insurance associated with employment. I hope you all push back as much as you are safe and able to.

    Reply ↓
  26. liz*

    This reminds me of the people who would whine about the selection of speakers for my profession’s conference. They could never quite explain why we would select people that thought we shouldn’t exist.

    Reply ↓
  27. HannahS*

    This is may be not germane to the discussion (and if it becomes derailing it should be deleted) but as a Jew, I am absolutely exhausted by the number of people–all over this site and elsewhere–who are making making WW2, concentration camp, Nazi comparisons, but without ever mentioning antisemitism or Jews. Please, each of you who has done it, take three minutes out of your day to learn something about antisemitism. Take one minute to google “antisemitism + [your city]” and learn about what’s going on around you. Take an hour and read about how antisemitism lies at the core of Nazism and its new rise.

    Reply ↓
    1. Bromaa*

      I don’t think it’s exactly germane to the current discussion, but I DO think it’s a very good idea. As a trans person, I’m very aware that although trans and queer people were also a target during WWII, the reason our history and resources were destroyed has a whole lot to do with the fact that Magnus Hirshfield, may his memory be a blessing, was Jewish. I’ve seen that pointed out frequently in my community lately; I hope we can all remember that while this may be an intersectional fight, antisemitism is often at the root of the thing we’re fighting against.

      Reply ↓
    2. Happy Camper*

      I am someone who has done it and will absolutely do that research. If you don’t mind me asking, is there something specific you want those of us who aren’t Jewish to be picking up on? And if you don’t want to answer that’s fine too.

      Reply ↓
      1. a trans person*

        Reposting to expand on this point, because my followup didn’t go through: posts like this are enraging because it erases, not just the queer and trans people who actually died, but all of us trans and queer Jews today. I am educated. But today, I am far far FAR more likely to be murdered because I am trans than because I am Jewish, and I am far far FAR more frightened for my trans family members than my cis brother or parents.

        Reply ↓
    4. Silver Robin*

      Also Jewish, and not bothered. The Nazis targeted us, yes. And they targeted a whole lot more than us. Nobody is mentioning the Roma; nobody is mentioning the elderly and disabled (who were the ones the Nazis tested their solutions on); nobody is mentioning the political dissenters either.

      I am more than happy to see people drawing accurate parallels between the current rise and execution of fascism with advise on how to address it. Fascism is bad; it is not bad because it is antisemitic, it is bad because it is a murderous, vile, toxic ideology that destroys everything it touches, including its proponents. The targeted groups change and shift (and come back around) depending on who is being a fascist. We do not need to list all victims or even cite all the history of fascism to discuss how to resist it here and now, unless we are sharing tactics (which people are doing).

      Reply ↓
    5. One Duck In A Row*

      I am also Jewish. I am the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, and I am also the parent of a trans teenager. Jews were not the only group targeted by the Nazis. Obviously, they made up the bulk of those imprisoned, tortured, and killed, but they were not the only ones then, we aren’t the only ones who are in fear now, and I don’t think it’s necessary to specifically reference Jews when noting how the fascism from last century is being mirrored right now. I don’t think anyone who is scared of this re-rise of fascism is not well aware of the suffering of Jewish people, or that there are hate symbols that are still being used to intimidate us. I also recognize that of all the ways my family is in danger from the current fascist regime, our religion is not (yet) at the top of the list.

      Reply ↓
      1. Good Lord Ratty*

        It’s not about our religion at all, and it wasn’t about our religion during WWII either. It’s about scapegoating and conspiracies.

        Reply ↓
    7. Head Sheep Counter*

      I’m more concerned about the actual Nazi’s being elected or put in positions of power… like Elon.

      Reply ↓
    8. Ali + Nino*

      Thank you @HannahS. So freaking sick of this. And to those asking what Jews would like you to understand – for me, it’s that “Zionist” has become the polite way of saying “Jew” or “Jewish.” Literally just replace whatever chants or slogans you’re hearing and seeing with “Jews” instead of “Zionists” and you should get it. If you can’t bear to do that, you’re part of the problem.

      Reply ↓
  28. Gudrid The Well-Traveled*

    I’m not clear on how this client’s political beliefs were expressed on your company’s Facebook page, but I would think having a client be openly …partisan on company social media would be bad for business. Can your employer rein in that sort of content on a policy level? The cat is out of the bag for this client, but it could make working with future clients easier.

    Reply ↓
    1. Purple Stapler*

      A careful reread of the OP’s letter seems to indicate that the client was sharing their political beliefs on CLIENT’s social media

      Reply ↓
  29. Youth*

    My old company worked on a project for the NRA (two gun safety courses). Some employees refused to do work on it because they didn’t want to be involved with the NRA. Other employees who disliked the NRA chose to work on it because they felt like gun safety was a positive thing and that, coming from the NRA, the courses would reach some people who needed them.

    In another instance, I had to work on a course about selling cigarettes, something I have a strong moral objection to. Unlike my colleagues who worked on the NRA course, I didn’t have enough political capital to push back without being fired. At this point in my career, several years later, I would probably refuse–although happily, I’m no longer at that company and don’t have to worry about it.

    Reply ↓
  30. Copyright Economist*

    My first thought was about a law firm. Everyone is entitled to a defence lawyer. Defence lawyers may represent people who are truly odious. What about non-lawyers who work at a law firm? Are they required to do work for clients with whom they greatly disagree?

    Reply ↓
    1. Kevin Sours*

      There is absolutely no requirement that a particular lawyer work for a particular client outside of the public defenders office.

      Reply ↓
    2. Phony Genius*

      This reminds me of a lawyer I saw years ago on TV who was Jewish and had some family members killed during the Holocaust. He said if it had ever come up, he would have been willing to represent the leader of the Holocaust in criminal court, and defend him as best he could. When asked why, he said because almost every lawyer in the world would refuse to take the case, and if nobody took the case, they’d have to let him go. He saw his job as only to defend the defendant’s actions in the eyes of the law, not in the eyes of morality.

      Reply ↓
      1. Kesnit*

        I live a few hours from where a well-publicized, well-known far-right rally was held many years ago. There were several arrests – including one murder charge – that arose from the rally. I know the defense attorney who represented several of the defendants. (Not the one charged with murder.) Most of his clients were convicted, but he represented them to the best of his ability and protected their rights.

        Reply ↓
    3. Ellis Bell*

      I used to know a lot of court people in former jobs, and when I used to speak to these defense solicitors about ethical concerns, a lot of them would point to the fact that court proceedings against the worst crimes wouldn’t even go ahead without them. So, even when they were defending people who had done truly awful things they knew they were part of making sure they were processed and convicted, and that without a rigorous defence, the conviction wouldn’t be safe. I think “publicise and help harmful attitudes from people who are free and powerful” is a very different equation to “support a criminal, and justice, while said criminal is being fairly punished”.

      Reply ↓
      1. UKDancer*

        Yes when I was doing my degree I interviewed for a project several barristers including sone who had represented some fairly awful people about the rules of evidence in England and Wales.

        I asked some of them about defending these people and they all believed everyone needed a defence to have a fair trial. Otherwise the judicial system fell apart.

        Reply ↓
        1. Elizabeth West*

          This is why I was really happy that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was a defense lawyer. That perspective is needed. Well, the majority of the Supreme Court is corrupt and illegitimate, but still. She’s there, with her perspective. Maybe Justice Kingdom of God might be inclined to consider it once in a while, I don’t know.

          Reply ↓
    4. A. Lab Rabbit*

      Non-lawyers who work at a law firm isn’t a really good example here. You know what they do and the kinds of people they represent when you apply for the job. You do have options here.

      Reply ↓
    5. Silver Robin*

      I do, every day. As do the paralegals, more directly than I do since I am not client-facing. One of the programs we participate in is representing people in detention who fall below a particular income threshold, regardless of how winnable their case is. I was asked in my interview about my comfort working on the team for that reason.

      The legal process, as explained in other comments, is strongest when both parties have competent legal rep. And even if our clients have done horrible things, the law is not always accurately/correctly/justly applied (sidestepping the justness of the laws, which is a huge question). It matters that the people face the correct consequences, not just whatever consequences the police or judge feel like doling out that day. Besides, as human beings, they also still have rights and nobody is around to advocate for those except their lawyers.

      One of the ways I have seen it presented is that we do it because it is who we are, not because of who they are.

      And all of that is very very different from being the in-house attorney to the KKK.

      Reply ↓
  31. Head Sheep Counter*

    Disagreeing with some client’s politics is fine. I disagree with all kinds of things. I do think that in an era where there are some very real and present issues and a real a present danger to democracy that we need to be thoughtful.

    Bob is a flat-earther. I believe in science. Bob needs his taxes done and as an accountant he’s assigned to me. There’s nothing about being a flat-earther that can and should stop me from providing my service. I’ll not change his opinion and I’m not being asked to further his cause.

    Jane is not as left as me. She’s got questions and she really wants the world to work in a way that I see as furthering centrist ideas. She needs her garden landscaped. I work for a landscaper and am assigned her property. My mowing over her left but not left enough signs in her yard… won’t make the impact I think it will. My landscaping her garden isn’t inherently political… but sabotaging her signs would be.

    Jim is a MAGA hat wearing Tumper. He needs me to set up his home internet. I decline. He hires someone else. I did my truth and lost a client, but he still got service. This is all fine. I can deny service and he can go find that service elsewhere. It would get messy if I then sabotaged his home.

    We do all need to have thought through our lines in the sand but we need to balance with pragmatism. Not all things are supporting Nazis. Knowing the consequences and probable outcomes of one’s choices is important. And not all of us have the resources to take the high ground (hopefully we are never in the situation where the low ground is supporting actual harm of others).

    We also need to conserve our fights to be where they are most effective. We’ve a long long fight a head and then even then if we find the light and move forward and do not fall further into this moment… the work to “fix” things is long and unlikely to be popular (I point you to the last eight years that begat us this future).

    Reply ↓
    1. A. Lab Rabbit*

      Or you could just charge charge Bob and Jim more. And you could set up Jim’s internet so that he can’t access far-right extremist websites.

      Reply ↓
      1. Head Sheep Counter*

        I mean… if you could… I’m saying you shouldn’t but… it might be business/career limiting.

        Reply ↓
    2. I Fought the Law*

      Yes, we need to conserve our energy, but in a capitalist system, refusing to do business with someone IS one of the most effective ways to fight fascism, even if you’re the one who would be getting paid. Someone has to be the first one to refuse. Yes, maybe someone else will step in and do the work anyway, but any step that makes things more complicated for the fascist is worthwhile. The goal is to be the sand in the machine.

      Reply ↓
  32. Art3mis*

    My company is going to be taking on a fast food chicken restaurant as a client. Not happy about it, but not much I can do about it.

    Does remind me of the scene in Clerks about the second Death Star and all the contractors that were killed.

    Reply ↓
  33. Just Thinkin' Here*

    Depending upon where you land in the org chart and the type of work you do, another option would be to tell your team ‘go find me a new client that can replace the revenue and profit from the one you disagree with’. This is easier when you are small and have a growing market, but worth a try before asking someone to leave their job.

    Reply ↓
  34. Ashley*

    This is a really common issue for folks who work with nonprofits (think fundraising consultants, donor management software, etc). Some companies do a better job of navigating than others. It may be worth looking at their policies.

    For example: one company I know had a policy that they wouldn’t work with anyone listed on certain “hate group” lists (they had a set group of lists) and beyond that, the company policy was to not refuse service. However, individual employees were allowed to request to not work with certain groups and there was a process for management to try to cover their work. It wasn’t always possible but having formal processes helped everyone feel like they had the ability to at least raise a red flag and feel heard without serious risk, and it helped a ton.

    Reply ↓
  35. Anon for this*

    I’m currently in a situation where a lot of things I don’t agree with are happening at my company. When I’ve raised my concerns to my manager, her response basically has been “I hear you, but this is what the company is doing.” Fair enough, so I have made the decision to find another job with a company that more aligns with my values, while keeping my head down as much as possible.

    Reply ↓
  36. Constitutional Lawyer*

    For many years, I worked as a capital defense attorney in a legal services organization. Yes, at times, I represented the truly innocent, but most of the time I worked for people who were truly guilty and whose actions had introduced great pain and chaos into the lives of the victim survivors. I got a number of people off death row. More times than I can count, people would ask, “How can you sleep at night knowing who you defend?”

    Here’s the answer: I did this work not because I support murder as a means of settling disputes, but because I believe in the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, and because I don’t believe a government should engage in judicially sanctioned homicide.

    Now, that may not be a good enough answer for the purists here, but I have no trouble sleeping. There are very few jobs in this life where you get a stark good vs. evil choice. Rather, you define your principles and you decide how you’ll adhere to them in a world full of flawed choices. Only you can determine how much compromise you can live with.

    Reply ↓
      1. Kesnit*

        I think they were referring to representing people facing the death penalty (and all the politics around the death penalty), rather than criminal defendants in general.

        Reply ↓
    3. Caramel & Cheddar*

      I mean, those people clearly suck for asking you how you can sleep at night, but I’d wager most of us here (in the land of purists!) can understand that there are certain kinds of jobs that involve explicitly working with people you may not otherwise choose to spend time with, where their basic right to XYZ trumps personal discomfort. If you’re a public defender, you might have to defend a murderer. If you’re a doctor, you might have to treat a white supremacist (every medical show ever has an episode about this!). The ethical obligations of your chosen profession can sometimes provide an “exemption” to a the kinds of things being discussed here.

      Reply ↓
  37. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

    My chosen field (R&D Engineering) was unlikely to produce ethical dilemmas about the work I did in any job.
    If I had chosen another field, I would have swallowed quite a bit of disgust in some areas to pay my bills. However, if I had been told to do work that would help actual fascists, e.g. certain politicians sadly powerful in the US or Europe, then that would have been a line in the sand for me. I would have refused and accepted that I would likely be sacked, despite employment protections in Europe.

    (If it had been early in my career, before I had substantial savings, then I might have scrambled next month to pay the bills but decent jobs were pretty easy to get in my field and being in Europe I never had to worry about keeping health insurance)

    Reply ↓
  38. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

    I like Alison’s advice to spend some time thinking seriously about what your red lines are. In your letter, you say you feel like a sellout. That’s your moral compass telling you that you’re not OK with this, that you’re not living up to your values. I’m not going to pretend there isn’t a cost to pushing back. There often is. But there’s also a cost for not doing so. The road to real awfulness often involves a bunch of escalating moral compromises that start off small. When you act in a way that’s contrary to your values, this causes psychological discomfort, which we call cognitive dissonance. Given that you’ve already done the actions, the only way to reduce the dissonance is to alter your values. These compromises can change a person.

    If you can, go to your bosses and show them what this client is saying online. Hopefully, they will also feel uncomfortable enough to refuse their business. I mean, it’s potentially a big risk for them. Target is feeling the effects of cutting back on their DEI commitments, while Costco is reaping the benefits. Not to mention that they risk a staff exodus with this decision.

    At this point, it’s about so much more than “politics.” It’s about values. It’s about the difference between right and wrong. It’s about who gets to have their full humanity recognized and respected and who doesn’t.

    Reply ↓
  39. I Fought the Law*

    Good for these employees. They’ve established where their red line is and what they’re going to do about it. I’m honestly bewildered (and enraged) by people who still haven’t.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS