3 ms·
Alright. > Google is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say. This was a simplified point and
by stagbeetle 9y ago
Alright.
> Google is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say.
This was a simplified point and I have to apologize for being vague. Google, in certain circumstances covered under the law, cannot discriminate against someone for what they express or what they would otherwise express.
This is shown in under the EEOC links as "illegal to retaliate against employees that speak out against discrimination in the work place." Coincidentally, this is what Damore is suing Google for. Whether he wins or not, I agree, is a fruitless debate in semantics. However, this doesn't change that it is possible he has a case.
> Again, no, it isn't. And you keep mixing the law of different countries with opinions from the UN. Pick one. You wanna talk about laws, let's talk about laws. But stop switching from one to the other whenever your argument has no ground. It doesn't matter if there was a legal case in Canada, it is completely irrelevant to the case being discussed here. Or even the UN. None of that matters to this context.*
This is incorrect and I have to accuse you of not reading the sources I provided you. The legal case in Canada was set as precedent for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international law document, by the UN, which the U.S is a part of and an adopter of said document.
> So if you really want to cite sources, a decision by a federal judge, the SCOTUS or the NLBR showing that an action by a company that is exactly like Google's falls into illegality will do. Anything else makes no difference here, either requiring your own interpretation, or being foreign to the laws of this country.
Exactly is impossible and exactly is not how precedent is set. There are certain actions a company can take, no matter its size or circumstance, that illegal due to precedent. Here is an NLBR ruling against codes of conduct, which Google has violated: http://www.quarles.com/publications/employers-take-note-nlrb-finds-common-handbook-policies-unlawful/ http://www.quarles.com/publications/employers-take-note-nlrb...
- ucaetano 9y ago> Coincidentally, this is what Damore is suing Google for. Is there a lawsuit already? I can't find any news about it. > I agree, is a fruitless debate in semantics That's my point about this discussion, it became about interpretation of laws. We can continue to argue forever here, but ultimately it will be up to the courts, if he pursues legal action, to decide the correct interpretation. > The legal case in Canada was set as precedent for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international law document, by the UN, which the U.S is a part of and an adopter of said document. "International law" is a vague term that carries little weight. It has no "law" power unless any country actually formally agrees and implements internal laws with the same effect. So, again, it carries no weight here. > There are certain actions a company can take, no matter its size or circumstance, that illegal due to precedent. That could illegal due to precedent. > Here is an NLBR ruling against codes of conduct, which Google has violated Again, you make the claim that Google has violated, with nothing but your opinion to back it. And from your own source: A policy that is written in the context of unprotected comments toward coworkers (e.g., unlawfully harassing comments), rather than protected criticism of the employer, will be deemed lawful. That's what Google claims that the author violated, and apparently was fired for. Remember, California is an at-will employment state. You can fire someone for ANY reason except a few clearly defined reasons. The burden of proof is on you to show that Google has fired for one of those reasons, not on Google (or me) to show that the firing WASN'T for those reasons. Google doesn't have to justify a firing at all.
- stagbeetle 9y agoI see my error. There is little point in continuing since it'll be just opinion. And a correction on my part, Damore is filing a labor complaint.