4 ms·

Thanks for that explanation, it was both thorough and frankly, illuminating in a way that I wasn't expecting. Do you think if he had kept his original memo to

Thanks for that explanation, it was both thorough and frankly, illuminating in a way that I wasn't expecting. Do you think if he had kept his original memo to those acceptable points(the hostile attitude toward conservative views), that they might have gone forward with it? Or would it have still been too difficult to prove with the case?

ggggtez 9y ago
I dunno, if you believe the legal teams, the only reason he was fired at all is because of those points. Maybe you believe it or maybe you don't, but in some alternate universe he didn't say those things, and didn't get fired at all.
tptacek 9y ago
Yes. I'm summarizing not the Bloomberg article but the Advice Memo itself, which is on NLRB's case website (you can just go read it). It's a little fuzzy because the Advice Memo asserts up front that it's assuming arguendo that the memo, in both its protected and unprotected components, constituted protected concerted action. So it's possible that NLRB never really reached the question of whether this kind of organizing truly constitutes organizing for "mutual aid and protection" under the definitions of the NLRA; it didn't have to, because whether or not you're organizing under the NLRA, the memo says there's pretty extensive case history saying you can't do it to work against federal anti-discrimination law. The NLRA does not eliminate employment at-will! You can get fired for all sorts of dumb superficial reasons. You just can't be fired for exercising your specific rights to concerted action for improved workplace conditions under the NLRA. But before you go flex this particular right --- and really people should start doing this, like, a lot --- go talk to a labor lawyer and dot your 't's. This turns out to be pretty easy to do: you can just contact @michelleimiller at Coworker.org, who facilitates this kind of stuff.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- notconservative 9y ago
  Does the Advice Memo go into detail on exactly which parts of Damore's memo are discriminatory and which parts aren't?
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Yes. Despite "limiting language" like "studies show" or "on average", the NLRB found that the Damore memo's claims that women are susceptible to "neuroticism" and that they have lower variance in IQ constituted valid cause for Google to terminate. It's important I think to understand that the NLRB isn't saying that it's unlawful to write the Damore memo. They're not even saying that Damore's IQ and psychology claims violate EEO law. Instead, what they're saying is that they're close enough to the underlying issue of anti-discrimination compliance that the NLRB isn't going to second-guess Google's decision to terminate.
    - devinhelton 9y ago
      "It's important I think to understand that the NLRB isn't saying that it's unlawful to write the Damore memo." Well, they did call what Damore wrote "sexual harassment" and "discriminatory", and sexual harassment is illegal and violates EEO, so that is basically saying that what he wrote is unlawful: "The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. [His] statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [his] effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers."
      - tptacek 9y ago
        It is probably not generally unlawful for a rank-and-file employee to make discriminatory statements. You can be fired for doing that, but the government is unlikely to step in and do that for your employer.
- notconservative 9y ago
  Do you have a link to the Advice Memo? I'm having trouble finding it on nlrb.gov's site or Google w/ `site:www.nrlb.gov`. It looks like it may be this [0][1]. But, that case doesn't mention Damore as a participant, though it does list his lawyer: Dhillon Law Group, Inc. [0] NRLB Case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351 [1] Advice Memo (PDF): http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391 http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391
  - tptacek 9y ago
    No, this is 32-CA-205351. (I have a local copy I downloaded but not the link).
    - notconservative 9y ago
      Didn't I link 32-CA-205351 (both the case page and the PDF)?
      - tptacek 9y ago
        Oh, wait, you totally did. The document list page you had was different than the one I saw, but that's the Advice Memo.

ggggtez 9y ago

I dunno, if you believe the legal teams, the only reason he was fired at all is because of those points. Maybe you believe it or maybe you don't, but in some alternate universe he didn't say those things, and didn't get fired at all.

tptacek 9y ago

Yes. I'm summarizing not the Bloomberg article but the Advice Memo itself, which is on NLRB's case website (you can just go read it). It's a little fuzzy because the Advice Memo asserts up front that it's assuming arguendo that the memo, in both its protected and unprotected components, constituted protected concerted action. So it's possible that NLRB never really reached the question of whether this kind of organizing truly constitutes organizing for "mutual aid and protection" under the definitions of the NLRA; it didn't have to, because whether or not you're organizing under the NLRA, the memo says there's pretty extensive case history saying you can't do it to work against federal anti-discrimination law. The NLRA does not eliminate employment at-will! You can get fired for all sorts of dumb superficial reasons. You just can't be fired for exercising your specific rights to concerted action for improved workplace conditions under the NLRA. But before you go flex this particular right --- and really people should start doing this, like, a lot --- go talk to a labor lawyer and dot your 't's. This turns out to be pretty easy to do: you can just contact @michelleimiller at Coworker.org, who facilitates this kind of stuff.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
notconservative 9y ago
Does the Advice Memo go into detail on exactly which parts of Damore's memo are discriminatory and which parts aren't?
- tptacek 9y ago
  Yes. Despite "limiting language" like "studies show" or "on average", the NLRB found that the Damore memo's claims that women are susceptible to "neuroticism" and that they have lower variance in IQ constituted valid cause for Google to terminate. It's important I think to understand that the NLRB isn't saying that it's unlawful to write the Damore memo. They're not even saying that Damore's IQ and psychology claims violate EEO law. Instead, what they're saying is that they're close enough to the underlying issue of anti-discrimination compliance that the NLRB isn't going to second-guess Google's decision to terminate.
  - devinhelton 9y ago
    "It's important I think to understand that the NLRB isn't saying that it's unlawful to write the Damore memo." Well, they did call what Damore wrote "sexual harassment" and "discriminatory", and sexual harassment is illegal and violates EEO, so that is basically saying that what he wrote is unlawful: "The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. [His] statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [his] effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers."
    - tptacek 9y ago
      It is probably not generally unlawful for a rank-and-file employee to make discriminatory statements. You can be fired for doing that, but the government is unlikely to step in and do that for your employer.
notconservative 9y ago
Do you have a link to the Advice Memo? I'm having trouble finding it on nlrb.gov's site or Google w/ `site:www.nrlb.gov`. It looks like it may be this [0][1]. But, that case doesn't mention Damore as a participant, though it does list his lawyer: Dhillon Law Group, Inc. [0] NRLB Case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351 [1] Advice Memo (PDF): http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391 http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391
- tptacek 9y ago
  No, this is 32-CA-205351. (I have a local copy I downloaded but not the link).
  - notconservative 9y ago
    Didn't I link 32-CA-205351 (both the case page and the PDF)?
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Oh, wait, you totally did. The document list page you had was different than the one I saw, but that's the Advice Memo.