7 ms·

> If the Labor Board did what Google wanted, “it would have a huge chilling effect,” said Google employee activist Colin McMillen Weird, I guess then they woul

> If the Labor Board did what Google wanted, “it would have a huge chilling effect,” said Google employee activist Colin McMillen Weird, I guess then they would have to use the employee email system for employment related matters. There isn't any restriction to prevent any employee from using a non-employer email system for organizing the very same activities. The unintended consequence of allowing this kind of activity in the office place is the creation of political gravities. If you don't agree with the mass consensus the majority will find a way to punish the minority opinions. During one of the private internal all hands Google's chief of HR said their research indicated this very behavior. If you cannot be honest in the work place then its a hostile work environment.

bilbo0s 8y ago
>If you cannot be honest in the work place then its a hostile work environment... Not sure I would go that far. I mean how many people are honest about how they feel about their boss? But is that "dishonesty" or just "professionalism". I'd say that you have to be professional. There should be some sort of a sanctioned mechanism or forum for giving professional criticism. But yeah, if all a guy or gal wants to do is spout off some expletive laden rant, then that's not really helpful for anyone. Least of all the other employees.
blub 8y ago
The fact that their employer made special deals with people accused of sexual harrassment or wanted to work on military projects are employment related matters.
- austincheney 8y ago
  As a corporate leader what is more important: allowing employees to use employer resources for personal politics or solving for toxic/hostile behavior?
  - bendoernberg 8y ago
    The answer is that being a human with moral and ethical obligations to the rest of humanity should take precedence over being a corporate leader. If you don't sell censorship and weapons tech or cut backroom deals to silence victims of sexual harassment, there's no need to try to stop your employees from talking about it.
    - barnesto 8y ago
      And there’s nothing preventing employees from finding a new place to work if they don’t agree with how their company handles things. It’s a multinational corporation not college or even a democracy.
      - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
        But the company shouldn't prevent employees from trying to improve their workplace for their fellow employees either way, especially given the power imbalance between employers and employees. Children, debt, high COL, and health emergencyes can easily prevent employees from seeking new places to work.
      - sdenton4 8y ago
        These are systemic problems in the industry, though. Leaving google will almost certainly place you in a company where the situation is worse, and where the ability to set industry standards is less. As for the "it's not a democracy:" I ask why we tolerate that. In a country founded in individual freedoms, we're apparently ok with creating no-freedom zones that pretty much every adult has to spend half of their waking hours in.
        abcdefghello 8y ago
        They don't own the company.
        bogomipz 8y ago
        >"These are systemic problems in the industry, though. Leaving google will almost certainly place you in a company where the situation is worse, and where the ability to set industry standards is less." These issues seem to be particularly acute in Silicon Valley. "The industry" is much more than companies located in the Bay Area and Peninsula in Northern California. There is no shortage of companies out there that have zero tolerance for sexual harassment, who do not pursue projects related to censorship or the Pentagon. I know because I have worked at them. They are only worse than Google salary-wise. Let's not pretend that Google employee's primary concerns are trying to set "industry standards" or that they're somehow looking out for all of us.
advisedwang 8y ago
It isn't nearly as easy to connect to people outside the workplace. You have to reach out to people to get their personal contact details, and doing this en-masse could be construed as organizing activity by itself. They could even argue you are ex-filtrating confidential information (list of employees).
- austincheney 8y ago
  > It isn’t nearly as easy to connect to people outside the workplace. I think this is absolute core of the discussion. Like nearly all bad decisions ultimately it comes down to convenience. If this form of political discourse were as important as people claim they would find a way.
  - danharaj 8y ago
    You know, unless the difficulty of doing without it makes it infeasible. Mobility impaired people lobbied for curb cutouts waybackwhen because it would make it easier to use sidewalks. I think that situation obviously shouldn't be belittled by saying it's about convenience. Ugh, if going to the grocery store were as important as they claim they would find a way /s. I'm not convinced this particular situation isn't also about feasibility.
    - austincheney 8y ago
      Accessibility is justified by equal access or anti-discrimination, which isn't the same as convenience. As an accessibility advocate I find that equivalence either insulting or grossly misinformed. This conversation isn't about equal access. Trying to warp it into such is insulting.
      - danharaj 8y ago
        > This conversation isn't about equal access. You're right. It's about workers rights. I'm telling you that I think construing the ability of workers to effectively organize as a convenience is also an insulting stance. In fact, I'm glad I chose an example that you find important. Maybe you can consider the possibility that there is a higher principle at work, maybe one that is as important to society as equal access is.
whieee 8y ago
> There isn't any restriction to prevent any employee from using a non-employer email system for organizing the very same activities. Actually, in some cases there is. By using third-party email systems employees might violate non-disclosure agreements or company rules, which would in turn give the company cause for direct termination.
philwelch 8y ago
Making matters worse, if you talk a big game about allowing free and open discussion and then make a big show of firing people for expressing views that are too right-of-center, you’ve thrown your institutional weight in the direction of radicalizing the left wing.
mbostleman 8y ago
I don't understand the tendency to fix markets by "organizing". I wish there was more of an attraction to work with the market. Just quit and work somewhere else. Spread your ideas and persuade others to do the same. It's a lot healthier in my opinion for all involved, not to mention the consumers of the product.
- manifestsilence 8y ago
  This opinion reflects a particular kind of career and living situation. If you rent and work in a field that has many options per city, and/or remote work, things are fine. I've heard it said that programming is an industry that favors lateral movement. On the other hand, if you own a house and the economy has tanked to where it's worth less than you owe on it, and you work for a large company that is a unique industry in that town, your options are limited. If they gouge you (see history on "the company store") you're screwed. Hence unions are far more important in certain industries than others.
  - mbostleman 8y ago
    I'm familiar with that argument. My take is that I don't make much of a distinction between a worker and an entrepreneur. I think the healthiest approach is for everyone to see their personal financial journey the same as if it were a business. The situation of owning (or rather heavy leveraging the purchase of) a house and working for a company that is unique in the town, etc. is the result of a series of risk/reward decisions that were made. Sometimes they're made well and pay off and sometimes they're not and end up biting you. For those that have a particular lack of innate ability for making good decisions (for whatever reason), I would rather see the community have a sense of responsibility to work with them to provide assistance either proactively (to keep them out of trouble) or retroactively (to keep them afloat after disasters). Without the community approach, it seems like the alternative is to allow compromises to principles - in this case the temptation to manage the market. Theoretically that's not the end of the world, but in practice what I feel happens is that bad actors are hanging around these doors egging others to crack them open. And as soon as that happens, they rush in and take advantage of it.

bilbo0s 8y ago

>If you cannot be honest in the work place then its a hostile work environment... Not sure I would go that far. I mean how many people are honest about how they feel about their boss? But is that "dishonesty" or just "professionalism". I'd say that you have to be professional. There should be some sort of a sanctioned mechanism or forum for giving professional criticism. But yeah, if all a guy or gal wants to do is spout off some expletive laden rant, then that's not really helpful for anyone. Least of all the other employees.

blub 8y ago

The fact that their employer made special deals with people accused of sexual harrassment or wanted to work on military projects are employment related matters.

austincheney 8y ago
As a corporate leader what is more important: allowing employees to use employer resources for personal politics or solving for toxic/hostile behavior?
- bendoernberg 8y ago
  The answer is that being a human with moral and ethical obligations to the rest of humanity should take precedence over being a corporate leader. If you don't sell censorship and weapons tech or cut backroom deals to silence victims of sexual harassment, there's no need to try to stop your employees from talking about it.
  - barnesto 8y ago
    And there’s nothing preventing employees from finding a new place to work if they don’t agree with how their company handles things. It’s a multinational corporation not college or even a democracy.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      But the company shouldn't prevent employees from trying to improve their workplace for their fellow employees either way, especially given the power imbalance between employers and employees. Children, debt, high COL, and health emergencyes can easily prevent employees from seeking new places to work.
    - sdenton4 8y ago
      These are systemic problems in the industry, though. Leaving google will almost certainly place you in a company where the situation is worse, and where the ability to set industry standards is less. As for the "it's not a democracy:" I ask why we tolerate that. In a country founded in individual freedoms, we're apparently ok with creating no-freedom zones that pretty much every adult has to spend half of their waking hours in.
      - abcdefghello 8y ago
        They don't own the company.
      - bogomipz 8y ago
        >"These are systemic problems in the industry, though. Leaving google will almost certainly place you in a company where the situation is worse, and where the ability to set industry standards is less." These issues seem to be particularly acute in Silicon Valley. "The industry" is much more than companies located in the Bay Area and Peninsula in Northern California. There is no shortage of companies out there that have zero tolerance for sexual harassment, who do not pursue projects related to censorship or the Pentagon. I know because I have worked at them. They are only worse than Google salary-wise. Let's not pretend that Google employee's primary concerns are trying to set "industry standards" or that they're somehow looking out for all of us.

advisedwang 8y ago

It isn't nearly as easy to connect to people outside the workplace. You have to reach out to people to get their personal contact details, and doing this en-masse could be construed as organizing activity by itself. They could even argue you are ex-filtrating confidential information (list of employees).

austincheney 8y ago
> It isn’t nearly as easy to connect to people outside the workplace. I think this is absolute core of the discussion. Like nearly all bad decisions ultimately it comes down to convenience. If this form of political discourse were as important as people claim they would find a way.
- danharaj 8y ago
  You know, unless the difficulty of doing without it makes it infeasible. Mobility impaired people lobbied for curb cutouts waybackwhen because it would make it easier to use sidewalks. I think that situation obviously shouldn't be belittled by saying it's about convenience. Ugh, if going to the grocery store were as important as they claim they would find a way /s. I'm not convinced this particular situation isn't also about feasibility.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Accessibility is justified by equal access or anti-discrimination, which isn't the same as convenience. As an accessibility advocate I find that equivalence either insulting or grossly misinformed. This conversation isn't about equal access. Trying to warp it into such is insulting.
    - danharaj 8y ago
      > This conversation isn't about equal access. You're right. It's about workers rights. I'm telling you that I think construing the ability of workers to effectively organize as a convenience is also an insulting stance. In fact, I'm glad I chose an example that you find important. Maybe you can consider the possibility that there is a higher principle at work, maybe one that is as important to society as equal access is.

whieee 8y ago

> There isn't any restriction to prevent any employee from using a non-employer email system for organizing the very same activities. Actually, in some cases there is. By using third-party email systems employees might violate non-disclosure agreements or company rules, which would in turn give the company cause for direct termination.

philwelch 8y ago

Making matters worse, if you talk a big game about allowing free and open discussion and then make a big show of firing people for expressing views that are too right-of-center, you’ve thrown your institutional weight in the direction of radicalizing the left wing.

mbostleman 8y ago

I don't understand the tendency to fix markets by "organizing". I wish there was more of an attraction to work with the market. Just quit and work somewhere else. Spread your ideas and persuade others to do the same. It's a lot healthier in my opinion for all involved, not to mention the consumers of the product.

manifestsilence 8y ago
This opinion reflects a particular kind of career and living situation. If you rent and work in a field that has many options per city, and/or remote work, things are fine. I've heard it said that programming is an industry that favors lateral movement. On the other hand, if you own a house and the economy has tanked to where it's worth less than you owe on it, and you work for a large company that is a unique industry in that town, your options are limited. If they gouge you (see history on "the company store") you're screwed. Hence unions are far more important in certain industries than others.
- mbostleman 8y ago
  I'm familiar with that argument. My take is that I don't make much of a distinction between a worker and an entrepreneur. I think the healthiest approach is for everyone to see their personal financial journey the same as if it were a business. The situation of owning (or rather heavy leveraging the purchase of) a house and working for a company that is unique in the town, etc. is the result of a series of risk/reward decisions that were made. Sometimes they're made well and pay off and sometimes they're not and end up biting you. For those that have a particular lack of innate ability for making good decisions (for whatever reason), I would rather see the community have a sense of responsibility to work with them to provide assistance either proactively (to keep them out of trouble) or retroactively (to keep them afloat after disasters). Without the community approach, it seems like the alternative is to allow compromises to principles - in this case the temptation to manage the market. Theoretically that's not the end of the world, but in practice what I feel happens is that bad actors are hanging around these doors egging others to crack them open. And as soon as that happens, they rush in and take advantage of it.