3 ms·

> He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair. He so

by darawk 9y ago

> He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair. He sought relief under an exception to at-will, the NLRA, which protects concerted action to improve working conditions. The NLRB determined that because the substance of his action involved requests that Google might reasonably determine would be problematic under EEO law, that whether or not Damore's actions were unlawful, Google was within its rights as a US employer to terminate him. Ya, I understand that. I was objecting to the notion that his protests would have violated EEO law were they realized. That seems to me to be an uncareful reading of his opinions on the part of the NLRA board.

tptacek 9y ago
Wait, hold on, because the point still isn't clear. The NLRB is not saying that Damore's statements violate any EEO laws (they might, they might not; that argument isn't reached). Rather, what they found was that Damore's efforts intersected with Google's anti-harassment policies. EEO law aside, NLRB gives deference to anti-harassment policies --- presumably for the same reason they'd give deference to ISO 27001 procedures done for regulatory reasons. Google gets to decide what the rules are for that specific set of issues. All Google has to show is that they have anti-harassment policies that Damore ran aground of. The NLRB generally isn't going to dig into the policies; that's what "deference" means. It's important that people not come away from this with the idea that the NLRB is telling Damore what is and isn't OK for him to say in the workplace. Absent the organizing protections the NLRA provides, almost nothing Damore says in the workplace has any legal protection. It's not NLRB who fired Damore; it's Google. Reversing that decision is an extraordinary move; not doing the extraordinary is what NLRB decided.

by darawk 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

Wait, hold on, because the point still isn't clear. The NLRB is not saying that Damore's statements violate any EEO laws (they might, they might not; that argument isn't reached). Rather, what they found was that Damore's efforts intersected with Google's anti-harassment policies. EEO law aside, NLRB gives deference to anti-harassment policies --- presumably for the same reason they'd give deference to ISO 27001 procedures done for regulatory reasons. Google gets to decide what the rules are for that specific set of issues. All Google has to show is that they have anti-harassment policies that Damore ran aground of. The NLRB generally isn't going to dig into the policies; that's what "deference" means. It's important that people not come away from this with the idea that the NLRB is telling Damore what is and isn't OK for him to say in the workplace. Absent the organizing protections the NLRA provides, almost nothing Damore says in the workplace has any legal protection. It's not NLRB who fired Damore; it's Google. Reversing that decision is an extraordinary move; not doing the extraordinary is what NLRB decided.