Return to Answer

To me, there are two reasons to object to a publication being in the office. One is that I might feel upset or disgusted if I catch sight of a headline. Since newspapers are often displayed outside in public in the UK, this is probably not an "extra" risk. The other is the effect of that material on my co-workers. In the 70s, pinup calendars were present in a number of my workplaces. I had to explain repeatedly that this was not about not wanting to see naked ladies, but about not wanting to try to have a work conversation with someone who had just been staring at a naked lady. I believe your issue with the DM is similar.

Step 1 will be to find out who made the change. You're more likely to get an answer if you imply you're missing the old paper than upset about the new. A quick stick-your-head-in to the boss "hey, what happened to the Daily Gleaner? It never occurred to me to wonder who chose those papers!" should probably get you the information that you need. Then you can ask that person (or a member of the group) why they made the change, and if they'd consider replacing it with something more neutral. It might all happen very smoothly and simply.

I think plenty of people are willing to defend the freedom of others to read hateful things at work. The fact is there is very clearly a line, even if we don't all agree where it's drawn. In the US, few people would be comfortable with an openly Communist newspaper kicking around the lunchroom. In Germany, a Nazi one would be illegal. If NAMBLA were to publish a paper that didn't have any pictures, just espoused their opinions on how kids should be allowed to have sex with adults (their typical phrasing), again that would not be welcome in a workplace. While any individual (especially one who hasn't read the DM) might not think the DM was "over the line", the fact remains that a line exists, and that employees can do something about an employer providing material that is over that line.

So Step 2 if your boss says "it was Betty," you stop by to see Betty. Maybe says "oh I just grab 3 or 4 every day at the corner shop, and they stopped carrying the Daily Beano so I switched to the DM." And you ask her to maybe not get that one and she looks blank and says "but it's very popular." Well I guess in that case you will have to go back to your boss (Step 3), as a conduit to the powers that be, and explain your feelings. You'll have to be emotionally vulnerable about the impact the presence of the paper has on you. Some people might consider it too much work. But that will be the route to having someone stop by Betty's desk and say "pick a different paper next time, that one upsets people."

And Step 4? If management think you're making a mountain out of a molehill or actively like the paper and directed "Betty" to include it? There may be some sort of tribunal to which you could go about a hostile work environment. Chances are that the DM won't be far enough over the line to qualify, but by that time you may be getting unpleasant pushback from people who like it and have learned you're trying to get rid of it, so ...

It would be a good idea to decide in advance how far you're willing to go with this.

To me, there are two reasons to object to a publication being in the office. One is that I might feel upset or disgusted if I catch sight of a headline. Since newspapers are often displayed outside in public in the UK, this is probably not an "extra" risk. The other is the effect of that material on my co-workers. In the 70s, pinup calendars were present in a number of my workplaces. I had to explain repeatedly that this was not about not wanting to see naked ladies, but about not wanting to try to have a work conversation with someone who had just been staring at a naked lady. I believe your issue with the DM is similar.

Step 1 will be to find out who made the change. You're more likely to get an answer if you imply you're missing the old paper than upset about the new. A quick stick-your-head-in to the boss "hey, what happened to the Daily Gleaner? It never occurred to me to wonder who chose those papers!" should probably get you the information that you need. Then you can ask that person (or a member of the group) why they made the change, and if they'd consider replacing it with something more neutral. It might all happen very smoothly and simply.

I think plenty of people are willing to defend the freedom of others to read hateful things at work. The fact is there is very clearly a line, even if we don't all agree where it's drawn. In the US, few people would be comfortable with an openly Communist newspaper kicking around the lunchroom. In Germany, a Nazi one would be illegal. If NAMBLA were to publish a paper that didn't have any pictures, just espoused their opinions on how kids should be allowed to have sex with adults (their typical phrasing), again that would not be welcome in a workplace. While any individual (especially one who hasn't read the DM) might not think the DM was "over the line", the fact remains that a line exists, and that employees can do something about an employer providing material that they feel is over that line.

So Step 2 if your boss says "it was Betty," you stop by to see Betty. Maybe says "oh I just grab 3 or 4 every day at the corner shop, and they stopped carrying the Daily Beano so I switched to the DM." And you ask her to maybe not get that one and she looks blank and says "but it's very popular." Well I guess in that case you will have to go back to your boss (Step 3), as a conduit to the powers that be, and explain your feelings. You'll have to be emotionally vulnerable about the impact the presence of the paper has on you. Some people might consider it too much work. But that will be the route to having someone stop by Betty's desk and say "pick a different paper next time, that one upsets people."

And Step 4? If management think you're making a mountain out of a molehill or actively like the paper and directed "Betty" to include it? There may be some sort of tribunal to which you could go about a hostile work environment. Chances are that the DM won't be far enough over the line to qualify, but by that time you may be getting unpleasant pushback from people who like it and have learned you're trying to get rid of it, so ...

It would be a good idea to decide in advance how far you're willing to go with this.

To me, there are two reasons to object to a publication being in the office. One is that I might feel upset or disgusted if I catch sight of a headline. Since newspapers are often displayed outside in public in the UK, this is probably not an "extra" risk. The other is the effect of that material on my co-workers. In the 70s, pinup calendars were present in a number of my workplaces. I had to explain repeatedly that this was not about not wanting to see naked ladies, but about not wanting to try to have a work conversation with someone who had just been staring at a naked lady. I believe your issue with the DM is similar.

Step 1 will be to find out who made the change. You're more likely to get an answer if you imply you're missing the old paper than upset about the new. A quick stick-your-head-in to the boss "hey, what happened to the Daily Gleaner? It never occurred to me to wonder who chose those papers!" should probably get you the information that you need. Then you can ask that person (or a member of the group) why they made the change, and if they'd consider replacing it with something more neutral. It might all happen very smoothly and simply.

I think plenty of people are willing to defend the freedom of others to read controversial things at work. The fact is there is very clearly a line, even if we don't all agree where it's drawn. For example far-right, far-left, or sexually explicit material would generally be over the line. While people may disagree whether or not the Daily Mail was over the line, the fact remains that a line exists, and that employees can do something about an employer providing material that is over that line.

So Step 2 if your boss says "it was Betty," you stop by to see Betty. Maybe says "oh I just grab 3 or 4 every day at the corner shop, and they stopped carrying the Daily Beano so I switched to the DM." And you ask her to maybe not get that one and she looks blank and says "but it's very popular." Well I guess in that case you will have to go back to your boss (Step 3), as a conduit to the powers that be, and explain your feelings. You'll have to be emotionally vulnerable about the impact the presence of the paper has on you. Some people might consider it too much work. But that will be the route to having someone stop by Betty's desk and say "pick a different paper next time, that one upsets people."

And Step 4? If management think you're making a mountain out of a molehill or actively like the paper and directed "Betty" to include it? There may be some sort of tribunal to which you could go about a hostile work environment. Chances are that the DM won't be far enough over the line to qualify, but by that time you may be getting unpleasant pushback from people who like it and have learned you're trying to get rid of it, so ...

It would be a good idea to decide in advance how far you're willing to go with this.

To me, there are two reasons to object to a publication being in the office. One is that I might feel upset or disgusted if I catch sight of a headline. Since newspapers are often displayed outside in public in the UK, this is probably not an "extra" risk. The other is the effect of that material on my co-workers. In the 70s, pinup calendars were present in a number of my workplaces. I had to explain repeatedly that this was not about not wanting to see naked ladies, but about not wanting to try to have a work conversation with someone who had just been staring at a naked lady. I believe your issue with the DM is similar.

Step 1 will be to find out who made the change. You're more likely to get an answer if you imply you're missing the old paper than upset about the new. A quick stick-your-head-in to the boss "hey, what happened to the Daily Gleaner? It never occurred to me to wonder who chose those papers!" should probably get you the information that you need. Then you can ask that person (or a member of the group) why they made the change, and if they'd consider replacing it with something more neutral. It might all happen very smoothly and simply.

I think plenty of people are willing to defend the freedom of others to read hateful things at work. The fact is there is very clearly a line, even if we don't all agree where it's drawn. In the US, few people would be comfortable with an openly Communist newspaper kicking around the lunchroom. In Germany, a Nazi one would be illegal. If NAMBLA were to publish a paper that didn't have any pictures, just espoused their opinions on how kids should be allowed to have sex with adults (their typical phrasing), again that would not be welcome in a workplace. While any individual (especially one who hasn't read the DM) might not think the DM was "over the line", the fact remains that a line exists, and that employees can do something about an employer providing material that is over that line.

So Step 2 if your boss says "it was Betty," you stop by to see Betty. Maybe says "oh I just grab 3 or 4 every day at the corner shop, and they stopped carrying the Daily Beano so I switched to the DM." And you ask her to maybe not get that one and she looks blank and says "but it's very popular." Well I guess in that case you will have to go back to your boss (Step 3), as a conduit to the powers that be, and explain your feelings. You'll have to be emotionally vulnerable about the impact the presence of the paper has on you. Some people might consider it too much work. But that will be the route to having someone stop by Betty's desk and say "pick a different paper next time, that one upsets people."

And Step 4? If management think you're making a mountain out of a molehill or actively like the paper and directed "Betty" to include it? There may be some sort of tribunal to which you could go about a hostile work environment. Chances are that the DM won't be far enough over the line to qualify, but by that time you may be getting unpleasant pushback from people who like it and have learned you're trying to get rid of it, so ...

It would be a good idea to decide in advance how far you're willing to go with this.

To me, there are two reasons to object to a publication being in the office. One is that I might feel upset or disgusted if I catch sight of a headline. Since newspapers are often displayed outside in public in the UK, this is probably not an "extra" risk. The other is the effect of that material on my co-workers. In the 70s, pinup calendars were present in a number of my workplaces. I had to explain repeatedly that this was not about not wanting to see naked ladies, but about not wanting to try to have a work conversation with someone who had just been staring at a naked lady. I believe your issue with the DM is similar.

Step 1 will be to find out who made the change. You're more likely to get an answer if you imply you're missing the old paper than upset about the new. A quick stick-your-head-in to the boss "hey, what happened to the Daily Gleaner? It never occurred to me to wonder who chose those papers!" should probably get you the information that you need. Then you can ask that person (or a member of the group) why they made the change, and if they'd consider replacing it with something more neutral. It might all happen very smoothly and simply.

I think plenty of people are willing to defend the freedom of others to read hateful things at work. The fact is there is very clearly a line, even if we don't all agree where it's drawn. In the US, few people would be comfortable with an openly Communist newspaper kicking around the lunchroom. In Germany, a Nazi one would be illegal. If NAMBLA were to publish a paper that didn't have any pictures, just espoused their opinions on how kids should be allowed to have sex with adults (their typical phrasing), again that would not be welcome in a workplace. While any individual (especially one who hasn't read the DM) might not think the DM was "over the line", the fact remains that a line exists, and that employees can do something about an employer providing material that is over that line.

So Step 2 if your boss says "it was Betty," you stop by to see Betty. Maybe says "oh I just grab 3 or 4 every day at the corner shop, and they stopped carrying the Daily Beano so I switched to the DM." And you ask her to maybe not get that one and she looks blank and says "but it's very popular." Well I guess in that case you will have to go back to your boss (Step 3), as a conduit to the powers that be, and explain your feelings. You'll have to be emotionally vulnerable about the impact the presence of the paper has on you. Some people might consider it too much work. But that will be the route to having someone stop by Betty's desk and say "pick a different paper next time, that one upsets people."

And Step 4? If management think you're making a mountain out of a molehill or actively like the paper and directed "Betty" to include it? There may be some sort of tribunal to which you could go about a hostile work environment. Chances are that the DM won't be far enough over the line to qualify, but by that time you may be getting unpleasant pushback from people who like it and have learned you're trying to get rid of it, so ...

It would be a good idea to decide in advance how far you're willing to go with this.

To me, there are two reasons to object to a publication being in the office. One is that I might feel upset or disgusted if I catch sight of a headline. Since newspapers are often displayed outside in public in the UK, this is probably not an "extra" risk. The other is the effect of that material on my co-workers. In the 70s, pinup calendars were present in a number of my workplaces. I had to explain repeatedly that this was not about not wanting to see naked ladies, but about not wanting to try to have a work conversation with someone who had just been staring at a naked lady. I believe your issue with the DM is similar.

Step 1 will be to find out who made the change. You're more likely to get an answer if you imply you're missing the old paper than upset about the new. A quick stick-your-head-in to the boss "hey, what happened to the Daily Gleaner? It never occurred to me to wonder who chose those papers!" should probably get you the information that you need. Then you can ask that person (or a member of the group) why they made the change, and if they'd consider replacing it with something more neutral. It might all happen very smoothly and simply.

I think plenty of people are willing to defend the freedom of others to read controversial things at work. The fact is there is very clearly a line, even if we don't all agree where it's drawn. For example far-right, far-left, or sexually explicit material would generally be over the line. While people may disagree whether or not the Daily Mail was over the line, the fact remains that a line exists, and that employees can do something about an employer providing material that is over that line.

So Step 2 if your boss says "it was Betty," you stop by to see Betty. Maybe says "oh I just grab 3 or 4 every day at the corner shop, and they stopped carrying the Daily Beano so I switched to the DM." And you ask her to maybe not get that one and she looks blank and says "but it's very popular." Well I guess in that case you will have to go back to your boss (Step 3), as a conduit to the powers that be, and explain your feelings. You'll have to be emotionally vulnerable about the impact the presence of the paper has on you. Some people might consider it too much work. But that will be the route to having someone stop by Betty's desk and say "pick a different paper next time, that one upsets people."

And Step 4? If management think you're making a mountain out of a molehill or actively like the paper and directed "Betty" to include it? There may be some sort of tribunal to which you could go about a hostile work environment. Chances are that the DM won't be far enough over the line to qualify, but by that time you may be getting unpleasant pushback from people who like it and have learned you're trying to get rid of it, so ...

It would be a good idea to decide in advance how far you're willing to go with this.