

Ask HN: Has a candidate's political views ever stopped you from hiring them? - waterside81

We're hiring a bunch of people for one of my startups and I checked each of their FB profiles (for whatever reason) and I noticed one candidate has some political views that I strongly disagree with. Now I've already decided to hire them because they are very talented and I don't feel any differently towards them because of our differences in opinion, but I'm wondering if anyone out there has not hired (or not been hired themselves) because of differing political views?
======
gyardley
If I only hired people who agreed with my political views I'd have a hard time
hiring anybody. It's important to realize and accept that two equally
intelligent people can come to very different political viewpoints, and that
these political viewpoints generally don't impact a person's ability to do
their job.

That said, I strongly believe that political conversations don't belong in the
office. I've been in both workplaces and graduate programs where one's
political views were simply _assumed_. Sitting around in the middle of a one-
sided political 'conversation' isn't fun - you have to decide whether you want
to just politely keep quiet or speak up and potentially ruin your relationship
with your co-workers. (While most people can handle differing political views,
some hold grudges or assume you're stupid, and it's not easy to tell who's
going to do this at first.) Neither option is particularly enjoyable when you
just want to get your job done and get along with everybody.

~~~
aspiringsensei
>I've been in both workplaces and graduate programs where one's political
views were simply assumed.

Ditto with religion. I'm not devout, but I don't believe it's anyone's right
to sit around and mock religious people on pure "durr hurr god isn't real"
grounds.

~~~
jawngee
1st amendment guarantees that right to sit around and mock people for whatever
you feel like.

~~~
doki_pen
Why do people think that the 1st amendment gives you the right to say anything
you want without consequence. It only gives you the right to say whatever you
want without LEGAL consequence. It is a very important distinction. You have
the right to say what you want, and I have the right to think or act based on
what you say.

Maybe I'm having a bad day but I am sooooo sick of hearing this argument that
people can say whatever stupid thing they want and then just shout "1st
Amendment!"

~~~
carbocation
Not even that. It gives you the right to say most anything you want without
retribution from the government. It doesn't compel your employer, a private
entity, to do anything.

------
jlindley
Political affiliation or activities can result in protected-class status in a
few jurisdictions in the US (DC and NY at least, I believe), sometimes only
under certain circumstances. Check your particular state's non-discrimination
laws to be sure.

That said, if you get along with the person and they can contribute to the
team and they're also OK with disagreeing with you on these issues, it
shouldn't be a problem. I'm a gay atheist, and I have a close friend who's
actually an evangelical pastor. We get along just fine despite our radical
differences in outlook because we respect each other.

Culture is about how you communicate, what you value, and how to make
difficult decisions as a company. Consider at what level those values sit.

Human interaction can't just be a checklist. A person is more than just a
Facebook profile.

------
ryandvm
Only hiring people that think like you is one of the worst mistakes a small
team can make. Nobody can drive a bus off a cliff like a bunch of "yes men".

Unless you're never wrong, you should embrace hiring smart people that have
completely different ideas than yourself.

~~~
seven
I agree to what you said, but isn't it the problem that we consider people
with political views that we _strongly_ disagree with, as less smart or smart
but evil?

To answer the question of waterside81: Yes, I rejected somebody just because I
did not want to have an 18 year old kid working with us that calls himself
'very very conservative'. I do not care much about left or right wing. I just
do not want extremists. :)

And I am pretty sure I got rejected myself at least once because of my
political views that collided with the business model. Which is perfectly ok
and a very understandable reason.

~~~
MichaelSalib
I'd be very wary of declaring someone an extremist just because they said they
were very very conservative. Individual understanding of what terms like
liberal and conservative mean often is completely turned around. My politics
are fairly liberal but at times I think of myself as a fairly conservative
person because I think some conservatives are radicals. There is too much
uncertainty about what these terms mean to base hiring decisions on them.

Plus, people with experience in other countries or cultures can have very
different definitions. It seems that the spectrum of allowable political
opinions in the US is much narrower than in Europe. Many American liberals
would be considered quite conservative in some European countries.

------
lkrubner
Do they have a sense of humor about their political views? As a practical
matter, I think having a sense of humor is important, especially on small
teams. Someone might have political views that I disagree with it, but the
important reality is how they handle themselves in regards to those issues,
and how do they handle disagreement from others. Some people get angry when
others have different views - and I think these people need to be avoided.
Other people meet disagreement with a bit of humor - I think these people are
easier to deal with, even if their views are somewhat extreme.

~~~
gregwebs
Not having a sense of humor about something like political beliefs is a good
sign that someone is accepting dogma on the subject. This could make them more
likely to accept dogma for things important to work also.

I also wonder if people think it is hacker-like to have strong political
beliefs. Maybe I am way of base, but I always thought of hackers as being more
apolitical, or at least not enjoying (pointless) political arguments. It is
one thing to be adamantly against software patents, or to focus on a few
issues that you can do something about, but another to spend a lot of time on
something as unproductive as politics.

~~~
MichaelSalib
_but another to spend a lot of time on something as unproductive as politics_

I disagree strongly. Some hackers like politics, others don't. Neither choice
is more hacker-like. I find politics interesting because I like seeing how
institutional structure leads to outcomes; as a corollary, I find 95% of
political reporting to be garbage, so my perspective on politics might be
unusual. But that seems like a very hacker-like perspective: political
outcomes are emergent properties of institutional structures that resulted
from random compromise and contingent events. Tweak the structure here and
look what changes....

In terms of unproductivity, I feel the same way about C++. I mean, the
language is so obviously fundamentally broken that I weep when considering how
much time has been wasted fixing problems that only arise because of C++'s
brokenness. That doesn't mean that I think it is always the wrong choice, but
I am astounded when I encounter people who C++ is a well designed language. It
feels like talking to someone who claims the government is controlling their
thoughts with an implant in their tooth.

------
nhebb
Some of my favorite coworkers over the years are ones I've vehemently
disagreed with politically. Politics is a funny thing. I can't think of
anything else that turns otherwise intelligent people into bumbling idiots to
the same degree. Whenever you get caught up in the political issue du jour,
it's good to keep in mind that much of the political news is about petty
bickering inside the beltway and not about governance and policy.

------
HeyLaughingBoy
I keep hearing about practices like this and I wonder how prevalent they are
outside of HR.

I've interviewed my share of people. In fact, we just finished hiring for all
our open positions and I interviewed most of the candidates. But not once did
it even occur to me to check out someone on Facebook or LinkedIn or even
google them. What people are doing on their own time simply isn't relevant to
the job and I think they're smart enough that if they have something useful
and relevant online (like OSS contributions/projects), they would mention it
since it can only benefit them.

Am I out to lunch here? Are you guys really googling people you're going to
hire as a matter of course? If so, what _useful_ information are you getting
from it?

~~~
sedachv
LinkedIn is designed (or at least used) with that in mind - I think it's safe
and helpful to check out potential candidates' profiles there. I think
checking Facebook is inappropriate, but a lot of people seem to disagree.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
I think of LinkedIn as useful for maintaining networks, but yeah, I can see it
being useful for checking out a candidate. I just wouldn't bother since people
will only put positive things there and that should already be on the resume
or they should bring it up in the interview.

------
bhousel
It's far easier reject a candidate up front than it is to fire them later.

I don't have any data, but I know of several companies that take 'culture fit'
very seriously and won't hire a candidate if they feel that they won't fit in.

~~~
lzw
By definition this is a form of political correctness. I think that there are
a lot of companies run by people eho think they are tolerant but who really
aren't and reject candidates for the simple crime of growing up in a differnt
part of the country.

For instance, someone i know at amazon will not hire people from the south.
He's a liberal and as "tolerant" as he thinks is, he thinks everyone from the
south is stupid and evil, and so he won't hire them.

Personally, I would take politics into account. I had to work with some
leftists who were constantly sowing dissent in the company because they
thought anything having to do with profit was evil. I'd want to screen those
kinds out, they led several pointless sorta revolts.

------
exline
Unless you are a politician, it shouldn't make a difference. I don't care to
much what they do/think outside of work. As many people have said, having a
diversity is a good thing in the work place. Unless the person was very out
spoken about his/her beliefs that was disrupting work, it shouldn't matter.
But you wouldn't know this before hiring them, but if they had that type of
personality, they probably show up in other ways in the interview processes.

------
robertg
Diversity is one of the ingredients that makes projects successful. You need
people on your project that think differently than you. As long as they aren't
interested in terrorism or a complete asshole (which, consequently, can be
anyone from any political affiliation) then you shouldn't pass up on the good
talent. Smart people are hard enough to find these days, as long as they keep
that shit out of the work place (and you too, by the way) then you should be
fine.

Also, I would google and check the social media profiles of everyone I was
about to hire. It's easier to get out of some marriages than it is to fire
some people and you need to know what you are getting in to.

------
lee
I had a friend who didn't hire someone because he was very religious. During
the interview he refused to shake her hand, and stated that in no manner
should a female touch him (such as tap him on the shoulder...etc...).

He was the most qualified person from those interviewed, but she just couldn't
hire him because of his extremist views.

I think she made the right choice.

~~~
loumf
I know that seems extreme, but even in some liberal orthodox Jewish
denominations, men and women don't touch (except for husband/wife of course).
I'm pretty sure that not hiring on this basis is illegal, and in some places,
like NYC, it's extremely common. I'm not Jewish, but have worked with, and
known, and have many friends who hold these beliefs. I have never thought of
them as being extremists.

I think this specific person might have explained it inartfully.

~~~
jacquesm
Liberal and orthodox in one description feel kind of funny.

~~~
loumf
yeah -- there are gradations -- I'm just saying that even the most liberal of
the orthodox Jews I have known still follow this. Which is why I don't think
of it as extreme -- it's a fairly common practice.

Also, think of it from this guy's case. He has a religious belief -- he knows
that you might think it's odd (based on past reactions, no doubt). He's not
very good at explaining it -- perhaps he's nervous because it's an interview.

------
iuguy
I think there's a difference between political views and activism. Our
employees tend to go through Government clearance, which weeds the activists
out. We do have people with differing political views, and used to have
someone that would be considered borderline extreme right wing and it wasn't a
problem as long as they weren't active.

~~~
MichaelSalib
What qualifies as activism? Writing a letter to the editor? Attending a
protest? Signing a petition? Speaking at a public meeting?

------
vaksel
if they reveal their political or any other affiliation during an interview
without being asked then it's probably a good idea since it's obvious that
they don't know when to keep their mouth shut...and that should apply no
matter what political affiliation the person holds(i.e. even if you agree with
them)

~~~
roboneal
A very insightful comment - if your political views are evident during the
interview process = you are "doing it wrong".

------
jacquesm
You're going to have a hard time trying to _not_ let your views of this person
be coloured by things that you probably shouldn't have known about them until
they volunteered.

What someones political views are should have nothing to do with the hiring
process. I'm pretty sure that you're not alone in doing this, in fact I think
it happens all the time but I don't think you should go around and check up on
the private stuff you can dig up on your hires. If it's work related that's
different, but facebook profiles are for the most part family and friends. If
someone lists their FB profile on their CV that probably changes matters a
bit, that's more like volunteering but even then if they list any political
affiliation there it should never be used against them.

------
narag
I once refused to work for a company for ideological reasons. Not a right-left
question, but more of a "would you work for the RIAA" kind. I finally accepted
an offer that was a 5% worse and not so technically interesting.

I've also systematically rejected a good number of offers in certain kind of
companies (that was also time ago, when the job market was hotter) for fear to
be discriminated in the workplace. This is a problem that's specific of my
country, so I won't bother you with it, but I consider it political, to a
point.

I'm happy to work with any kind of people, but I can't stand people that
constantly try to bully you into something. I really prefer not to be chosen
than to end in a place that I'm uncomfortable in.

------
Agustus
I am not a lawyer. I wish you would not have looked. The question you need to
ask is will their political views impede their ability to do the job
requirements. If they do, you have a legitimate concern, if they do not, you
would fall into the Civil Rights Act of 1964: "The Act requires the
elimination of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment
that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as
here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown
to be related to job performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the
employer's lack of discriminatory intent."

~~~
mikeryan
This isn't how discrimination works in employment law. Discrimination is for
the most part only relevant to those who fall under Protected Classes (age,
gender, race etc). Political affiliation is not a protected class.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class>

~~~
xiaoma
A quick google search suggests that it's a bit more complicated than that.
According to an employee rights attorney here
([http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/employment-
labor-l...](http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/employment-labor-
law/LAW_ELW/449714-9356514)):

"I will answer based on CA law. Labor Code 1101 and 1102 prohibit employers
from forbidding, directing, controlling, terminating or threatening to
terminate an employee based on politics. This was further expanded on in Ali
v. LA Focus Publication (2003) 112 CA4th 1477. "

------
jawngee
Not political views, but I have passed on overtly religious people as I view
religion as a sign of mental illness.

Mod me down if you like, but having "faith" in invisible people is oddly
creepy to me.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Here's the thing. You gain nothing by treating the religious as idiots. Many
of them are very much not idiots. Do you think Einstein and Planck were
"mentally ill"?

Here's the other thing, we all have our mistaken beliefs. Whether they are
part of an organized religion or not. The best way to bring people around to a
more robust and more evidence based understanding of the universe is not to
revile, insult, and discriminate against them. Rather, it's to engage in open,
honest, humble, and compassionate debate. You know, the same variety of debate
that advances science itself.

~~~
jawngee
Einstein was an atheist who only identified with Judaism from a cultural
perspective:

[http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-
of-...](http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-
weakness.html)

What is there to debate? There is _nothing_ to debate and we waste time even
entertaining the thought of doing so, which is why you rarely see Dawkins,
Hitchens, et. al. doing so.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Einstein stated quite bluntly that he was not an atheist, specifically using
the phrase "I'm not an atheist."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_v...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views)

The notion that there is nothing to debate is insulting. Proof is required,
always. And everyone is bettered by an open an honest debate that patiently
brings people around by convincing them with a sound argument backed by
evidence. At some point it's important to recognize when an intellectual
opponent is no longer worth debating, but that doesn't justify shutting down
debate entirely, or of refusing to reach out and attempt to convince others
who might be more open minded.

Indeed, this is quite critical, especially today. Because guess what?
Atheists, and believers in, say, evolution, we are in the minority. Even in
the liberal and intellectual modern western world. Far more so in the world at
large. The world believes in gods, it doesn't believe in science. If you shut
off that debate you aren't helping yourself or your beliefs in the slightest.

------
yock
I'd suggest that their political views are largely irrelevant until someone
makes them relevant, which you have done. Since this now apparently presents a
bit of a dilemma for you, it would seem that it is self-inflicted.

Political views can be--though they aren't always-- indicators of
intelligence. Don't stop reading here though. I don't mean to say that one end
of the spectrum is smart and the other stupid, rather a political opinion is
like any other self-representation in that how it is presented can be a good
indicator of many traits important in evaluating a candidate-for-hire.

Sadly, I suspect that the Facebook political information is merely their
political affiliation, a one word response to heading on a profile form. Which
causes me to question whether or not someone could put any stock in it. Like
most things on Facebook, it's designed as a conversation starter, nothing
more. That leads me to conclude that perhaps Facebook is not, allowing
exception for egregious examples of anti-social behavior posted to someone's
wall, is not a good place to find professional information about an
individual.

------
billjings
One's political views are not as much of an issue as how one expresses them.
Two people having a political argument will tactically try to find a place in
their disagreement that they're comfortable with - maybe they will need to win
the argument, withdraw and concede the point, or try to work out some
compromise position. They will probably use the same tactics when they are
disagreeing over something material to the workplace.

------
lukejduncan
What's the name of this startup? Is the startup involved in any way with the
politics that bother you? If yes, then you may have some ground to stand on...

It not, its it would be a signal to me that the organization doesn't value
people as people, but property. Personally, I would turn down work at a place
if I knew they hired and fired for based on political bias.

------
jackfoxy
Birds (and aircraft) need a left wing and a right wing to fly.

------
InclinedPlane
s/political/religious/

Does this change your opinion? Should it?

Ask yourself why you feel that not hiring this person based on their political
views is justified. Force yourself to back up that justification with hard,
concrete facts, not just speculation. Then recast their political views as,
say, their religion, or their cultural norms. Does this change your thinking?
Why? Maybe you'll come to a better appreciation for your own viewpoint and
degree of tolerance / intolerance.

~~~
lzw
People who are irrational make poor employees. I wouldn't say all people with
particular views are irrational, but this is one way of discovering some who
are.

