Where's your line on what constitutes politics then? Is a discussion on let's say patterns of harassment of female employees by senior staff and ways to avoid that a political discussion? Is a discussion of salary disparities at the company among employees of different genders and races a political discussion?
The point is that instead of drawing a line around topics to say which ones are acceptable and which ones are not, there should be a line that says any discussion that causes harm/hurt to colleagues is frowned upon and to be avoided?
It's quite easy to say let's avoid politics because it causes problems at work, but that stance ignores the nuance in the situation.
Actual harassment is harm, and harm is not politics. It should be discussed and resolved.
Salary disparities based on completely arbitrary physical characteristics is not harm, it's politics. What does gender and race have to do with your salary? Aren't you negotiating your salary based on experience and competence? Is someone actively being harmed? How so?
Work hazards are not politics. There is a major difference between a construction worker wanting to discuss democrat vs republican, or if they need to bring up the lack of hard hats and steel shoes at work. If you need to bring national politics in order to address work safety then the issue is no longer between the employee and employer. Unions sometimes mix work place issues with national politics but it can also limit the effectiveness of unions by splitting members along national political lines. Having two construction unions, one that is republican and an other that is democrat decreases the power the union have to push against the employer, so even for them a policy of not discussing politics might be a good strategy in order to be as inclusive as possible.
A salary disparity is also not a political discussion but its not a easy topic to bring up as in any company there will be multiple disparities. Work hour disparities. Work freedom disparities. Perks disparities. External disparities such as commuting distance between work and home. Flexibility disparities. Skill and social contact disparities. Education disparities. There are even game theory issues such as optimizing for retention might not always end up with all employees being identical cogs that can simply be replaced.
Just recently I know a very skilled employee that left his company after almost 10 years because the company had a policy of having every employee under the same title, same wage system, and same heavily rotating schedule. That place suffer a very heavy turnover and looking at their strategy for handling employees it is not that surprising, but in fairness they have no salary disparities if you account for hours worked. Everyone is treated as an identical cogs in the machine.
The point is that instead of drawing a line around topics to say which ones are acceptable and which ones are not, there should be a line that says any discussion that causes harm/hurt to colleagues is frowned upon and to be avoided?
It's quite easy to say let's avoid politics because it causes problems at work, but that stance ignores the nuance in the situation.