3 ms·

> You don't have a legal right to engage in science-based discussion of anything at your workplace! This is the point that I think most people aren't getting.

> You don't have a legal right to engage in science-based discussion of anything at your workplace! This is the point that I think most people aren't getting. It seems like people are starting from the position that one should be able to have free and open conversations in the workplace. That a company shouldn't be able to fire an employee for dissent. But this is _absolutely_ not the case with at will employment. If you say just about _anything_ in the workplace (or not at the workplace!) that your employer doesn't like they can terminate you. I think the quoted sentence is the key to understanding this all. Your 1A rights only protect you from the government. Your employer may not—and does not have to—tolerate a "marketplace of ideas"

leereeves 9y ago
This is probably worth repeating: According to the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the legal right to discuss work-related issues with each other. https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights This comes from Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: "Employees shall have the right to...engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." In this specific case, the Advice Memo refers to protection for "expressing a dissenting view on matters affecting working conditions or offering critical feedback of its policies and programs".
- ncallaway 9y ago
  Yes, and the specific details of this case are not protected by the NLRA. Also according to the NLRB.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Yes, we all agree that's what the NLRB said. We're discussing how they came to this conclusion. The lawyer who wrote this memo argued that Damore's statements would normally be deserving of protection, if they weren't so offensive.
    - ncallaway 9y ago
      They didn't say that. The lawyer who wrote this memo argued that Google had wide latitude in determining what qualified as sexual-harassment. They had a policy that pre-dated this incident such that those statements qualified. The NLRB didn't determine that the statements were offensive. They determined that Google was operating in a reasonable manner when Google decided that those statements were offensive.
      - leereeves 9y ago
        Perhaps it would be helpful if we cite the statements we're referring to. Which statement do you interpret as saying "Google had wide latitude in determining what qualified as sexual-harassment"? In at least one statement which I've quoted here too many times already ("so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected"), the lawyer who wrote this memo expressed their own opinion that these statements were too offensive to be protected.
        ncallaway 9y ago
        > the Employer determined that certain portions of the Charging Party’s memorandum violated existing policies on harassment and discrimination > The Employer has a legitimate, lawful policy prohibiting race and sex discrimination and harassment in its workplace. > An employer’s good-faith efforts to enforce its lawful anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policies must be afforded particular deference in light of the employer’s duty to comply with state and federal EEO laws > Where an employee’s conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions
        leereeves 9y ago
        This seems like an interesting discussion to continue, weighing the deference the memo mentioned to the employer's policy against the fact that they ultimately make their own determination (which they must, of course, make to avoid abusive or spurious claims of harassment). Sadly, I'm too tired to continue right now. Perhaps another time.

leereeves 9y ago

This is probably worth repeating: According to the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the legal right to discuss work-related issues with each other. https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights This comes from Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: "Employees shall have the right to...engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." In this specific case, the Advice Memo refers to protection for "expressing a dissenting view on matters affecting working conditions or offering critical feedback of its policies and programs".

ncallaway 9y ago
Yes, and the specific details of this case are not protected by the NLRA. Also according to the NLRB.
- leereeves 9y ago
  Yes, we all agree that's what the NLRB said. We're discussing how they came to this conclusion. The lawyer who wrote this memo argued that Damore's statements would normally be deserving of protection, if they weren't so offensive.
  - ncallaway 9y ago
    They didn't say that. The lawyer who wrote this memo argued that Google had wide latitude in determining what qualified as sexual-harassment. They had a policy that pre-dated this incident such that those statements qualified. The NLRB didn't determine that the statements were offensive. They determined that Google was operating in a reasonable manner when Google decided that those statements were offensive.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      Perhaps it would be helpful if we cite the statements we're referring to. Which statement do you interpret as saying "Google had wide latitude in determining what qualified as sexual-harassment"? In at least one statement which I've quoted here too many times already ("so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected"), the lawyer who wrote this memo expressed their own opinion that these statements were too offensive to be protected.
      - ncallaway 9y ago
        > the Employer determined that certain portions of the Charging Party’s memorandum violated existing policies on harassment and discrimination > The Employer has a legitimate, lawful policy prohibiting race and sex discrimination and harassment in its workplace. > An employer’s good-faith efforts to enforce its lawful anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policies must be afforded particular deference in light of the employer’s duty to comply with state and federal EEO laws > Where an employee’s conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions
        leereeves 9y ago
        This seems like an interesting discussion to continue, weighing the deference the memo mentioned to the employer's policy against the fact that they ultimately make their own determination (which they must, of course, make to avoid abusive or spurious claims of harassment). Sadly, I'm too tired to continue right now. Perhaps another time.