

Does the Google policy of allowing dogs at work offend Muslims?  Does Google have dog-free zones? - amichail

I'm curious about this. It seems that such a policy would not create a friendly work environment for Muslims.<p>While I'm not Muslim, I would not like to work around dogs or most other pets for that matter (although I would be ok with a fish tank).
======
ivankirigin
Generally, I believe people have the right to be offended by anything and
voice their opinions about it. Because it can be for anything, people
shouldn't have the right to force change. This should be as much company
policy as the law allows.

Also, I love dogs. They're so cute!
<http://mfrost.typepad.com/cute_overload/pups/index.html>

There is a funny story related to this. My company has a tiny branch on the
other side of the country. Essentially an elite group of engineers wanted more
sun, and started a skunk-works. After paying tens of thousands of dollars for
a video-conference system, it wasn't used often. This is because a golden
retriever would be the only one on the small office side. He'd come after
hearing the system start and would sit in front of the camera. The owner was
off doing real work.

~~~
amichail
How is this different from allowing people to bring guns to work that they may
point at you occasionally?

~~~
willarson
Normally when you try to make a point using reduction to absurdity you jump
straight to nuclear missiles: i.e. "How is this different from allowing people
to bring nuclear missiles to work that they may point at you occasionally?"

Unfortunately this is a contrived comparison. People who are bringing dogs
into work are not bringing them as weapons that they then deliberately
threaten their coworkers with. The key differences here is intentionality:
bringing a dog to work is not intrinsically threatening, point a gun at
someone is.

Your comparison only becomes valid if the individuals brought their dogs into
work and threatened to assault coworkers with them. This is likely not part of
Google's acceptable policies.

~~~
amichail
The point is dogs are less predictable than people and may decide to attack
for no obvious reason. It doesn't matter that their owners did not bring them
to work to intimidate coworkers.

~~~
willarson
Your argument is based your intuitive view on the comparable reliability of
dogs and people. It is your personal opinion that dogs are less predictable
than people. Personally I find your opinion to be troubling, how can a much
simpler creature be more complex and less predictable?

There have been between 17 and 26 dog related deaths per year for the past two
decades in the US. There were 28874 gun related deaths in 1999 in the US.
These numbers don't tell a very complete story, but I think they are
sufficient to raise doubts about your premise that dogs are less predictable
or more dangerous than armed humans.

------
willarson
Religious acceptance is a two-way street. Demanding that other religions
accept your religious tenants is bigotry. As a world with diverse conflicting
religions we have to remember that our relationship with a higher power (or
lack thereof) is a personal issue: we ought to apply our standards to
ourselves, attempts to force them on others end with catastrophe.

The typical response to my statement is "What if their religion supports
eating babies?" This is what secular government is for, it formulates these
things called laws which trump religious preference.

The response to that response is "there is no truly secular government."
Imperfection is one of the few realities we can count on, condemning a
solution for its lack of perfection is insincere. Remember that we're all
using operating systems built the Wrong Way.

~~~
amichail
There are two issues here.

If indeed most Muslims don't like being around dogs, then there is definitely
a problem with Google's policy.

The other issue is that some people -- like me -- simply don't like being
around dogs even though this has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

~~~
willarson
First, just because most Muslims don't like being around dogs doesn't
automatically indicate that there is a problem with Google's policy.

People that don't like being around dogs will place a lower value upon working
at Google. People who do like dogs will place a higher value upon working at
Google.

If more people like dogs than don't like dogs, Google will benefit from their
policy, and those who dislike dogs will suffer for their intolerance. If the
opposite is true then they will suffer from their policy and people who
dislike dogs will benefit.

Regardless of your policy someone is being discriminated against, so moral
arguments will be irresolute. As such, economic reasoning seems as good as
standard to judge by as any other. The claims of discrimination by allowing
dogs in the workplace suffer from assuming that the status quo is some how
more just than an alternative: don't worry, someone gets screwed no matter
what.

~~~
amichail
You could make the claim that Google is actually discriminating against
Muslims because allowing dogs at work is not critical to its business.

It's against the law to discriminate based on religion.

~~~
willarson
The Muslims would be the ones religiously discriminating against Google.
Allowing dogs at the workplace is a secular decision, viewing them as profane
is a religious ones.

This argument is without legal grounds. Restaurants serve food that is not
kosher, they are not being shut down for discriminating against Jews.
Restaurants serve beef, despite offending those of the Hindu faith. Legally
these are not grounds for religious discrimination. Neither is allow dogs in
the workplace... and other companies have done the same for decades.

------
SwellJoe
Don't like dogs? Work somewhere else.

The vast majority of offices don't allow dogs. Google allows a lot of things
that most offices don't...you take the good with the bad. I've been to the
Google offices quite a bit, and dogs are not a major source of annoyance for
anyone, as far as I can tell (though, truth be told, I like dogs a lot--though
the majority of them are small dogs and I tend to like them less than proper
sized ones).

Nobody makes you work at any particular office or in any particular type of
environment...it's up to you to decide where you'll be happiest. Seems pretty
obvious to me, but maybe I'm too much of a free market fanboy to see how
oppressive Google's dog policy is for dog-haters.

