I'm surprised this question would get asked--first because of possible legal problems with asking questions political in nature, second because in my experience the employer doesn't really care what you think as long as you do the work. Also, there are quite a lot of left-leaning folks working for military contractors that may or may not support a particular action but are professional enough not to let that get in the way of their job.
A few years back I interviewed with a company that manufactured potentiometers. They had a bunch of government contracts and the like.
At one point my technical interviewer (and soon-to-be supervisor), Jerry, looked me square in the eye and said, "You realize you'll be making parts that kill people, right?"
To this day it still bothers me that I took the job, but I really needed it at the time so I justified it out: someone else would make them anyway, and besides, I wasn't the guy giving the orders.
There was a news report a while back that a Hellfire missile had been used to kill some number of people in Afghanistan. It's likely, given the timeframes involved, that I made sure that at least one of the parts on that particular missile functioned correctly.
Good. Personally, I'm glad a competent engineer was responsible for making a weapon of war function successfully (even if it was being misused -- let's not forget that it is actually important to have a technologically-advanced arsenal, regardless of our personal political views about how that arsenal should be used).
I think it's good to ask the question. I think it's an important indication of fit.
But, why is it considered professional to work towards something you're against? I'm not saying throw a tantrum or shout at people about your views, but you certainly shouldn't be applauded with professionalism for going against your own political views to make a buck.
I certainly understand that many of us have to suck it up at times in order to pay the rent. But I don't consider that a positive thing.
Should have answered this in my earlier post, as it's the natural question to ask.
Life is complicated. I don't say that to somehow absolve me of responsibility, but rather because I feel that hardline extreme stances are generally counterproductive and don't really reflect the complex nature of issues.
For example, a military contractor could have a personal view of not supporting, say, the Iraq war. This does not mean that said person thinks that all military spending is bad.
I view it as akin to police protecting a perpetrator from others. They may hate the guy, hate what he's done, but it's still their duty to protect him.
Of course I agree. Should the positives outweigh the negatives and you want the position because of that then I guess it could be called professional to accept those negatives stoically and not whine about it. It would definitely be unprofessional to take such a position and then moan about it all day.
I just wasn't fond of the wording. Seemed to say that under the guise of professionalism we're all justified in going against our morals. It's that contradictory mentality you see in business where you run a tobacco company by day and go home to hug your kids at night. To pay the bills? Those would have to be some pretty serious bills... Probably not the way you meant the statement, and just the way I read it ;)
No offense taken; I appreciate the opportunity for reflection. While composing the above, I noticed that the theoretical scenarios I was constructing were becoming harder to justify, so I admit I cherry-picked a more clear cut one. It seems like justification is a bit of a slippery slope.
There's so much interconnectedness that you sort of have to essentially pick how close you're willing to get to something you don't agree with. It's pretty difficult to have nothing to do with X for most values of X.
I think your reference is only a survey of state laws. Additionally to those, federal law prohibits different kinds of discrimination as well. For example, Title IX [1] protects discrimination on sex in all states. Although political discrimination doesn't seem to fall under any federal law. An interesting discussion of religious versus political discrimination is here: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/1998-August/0129...
As professional as one could be, it would just gradually eat away at anyone knowing they were contributing work to something that they are at aims with.
I recently went through this (not military related) - working on something I had conflicts with. I did it for a few months and then, for the first time in my career, one morning I really did not want to go to work. I sat and stared at the wall for 10 minutes wondering if I should go or not.
Yes but I talked with them and fortunately, they were pretty accommodating. I now work from home (which is something I wanted) and don't have to work on that project.
My guess is that they perhaps previously employed someone who subsequently had a fundamental ethical objection to what they were doing, or maybe got deployed into a war zone. If you're doing something which might be politically sensitive it does make sense to have some idea of your employees views.
I'm not sure exactly what the rules are on this (in the UK). I know that officially you're not allowed to discriminate on grounds of sex, race and age but I'm not sure about political views.
The rest of the interview, which was about the technical details, was quite congenial but I knew from the initial question that I wasn't going to get the job. If I had known that the job was primarily military and involved with the Afghan war I wouldn't even have bothered to apply, but the company's web site didn't make this clear and showed only civilian/industrial applications. In this case a phone based rather than face to face initial interview would have saved time and expense for all those concerned.
You don't think they're asking to see if you're simply trying to sabotage the war efforts? Like a pre-security interview before they pass your file on to the Secret Service team.
You may well be right, but a background check would make more sense for this. If one was planning on sabotage one would almost certainly pretend to be a fan of the war.
