4 ms·

That law protects against retaliation only against certain protected actions by the employees. Nothing these Google employees did is even close to being on tha

That law protects against retaliation only against certain protected actions by the employees. Nothing these Google employees did is even close to being on that list. The Google employees simply didn't like what their company was doing and decided to take a very public action against it. There is nothing protected about that at all, whatsoever. I don't even think it would be covered if they were unionized.

Jasper_ 7y ago
The walkouts were organized to protest ongoing claims of sexual harassment and abuse. That is protected action. Namely, the second bulletpoint here: "communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment"
- bendbro 7y ago
  Next time they should communicate with their supervisor in binary encoded ASCII, 1s encoded in days they are in office and 0s in days they are out of office ;) Edit: Guys stop hating me im just trying to help the cause!1!!
- turc1656 7y ago
  You are correct. I can't edit my original comment anymore but found this explanation - https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hits-employees-and-employers-rights-during-a-protest/?slreturn=20190322161726 https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...
jakelazaroff 7y ago
Per another Wired article [1], they organized the walkout to protest sexual harassment: > Thousands of Google employees and contractors around the globe—many of them women—briefly walked off the job Thursday to protest Google’s handling of sexual harassment claims and other workplace issues, and to demand more transparency around harassment incidents and pay levels at the company. The aforelinked EEOC page [2] explicitly mentions that asserting your right to not be harassed is protected activity: > communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment > Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws [1] https://www.wired.com/story/google-walkout-just-latest-sign-tech-worker-unrest/ https://www.wired.com/story/google-walkout-just-latest-sign-... [2] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/retaliation.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/retaliation.cfm
- 0815test 7y ago
  This is Google we're talking about - where, as shown in the Damore complaint, organized trolling groups were routinely cyber-harassing and cyber-bullying coworkers on company-provided spaces and "forums", often with the implied acquiescence of middle management, for purely political reasons. It's just harassment fest and the definition of a toxic work environment - and they got away with it. Sure, the shoe is now on the "other" foot so to say, but other than that what exactly has changed?
  - lenticular 7y ago
    Breitbart is probably not the most authoritative source on Google's internal politics.
    - 0815test 7y ago
      Funny that you should say that when I didn't mention Breitbart at all! I referenced the extensive evidence provided by James Damore - formerly a relatively high-profile Google employee - and privately confirmed or corroborated to Damore by other Googlers or former Googlers, not all of whom were necessarily willing to come out publicly.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- turc1656 7y ago
  "Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws" That's pretty vague. And nothing else on the government site supports protests. That's not any sort of normally protected activity in regards to labor laws. Plus, I think it's fairly common knowledge that if you walk out of your office to protest anything (your employer, the government, the weather, whatever), nearly everyone would say that you walking out is you not performing your job duties at that specific time. And I don't think Google or any other company has a written policy to take part in protests. The government's site seems to indicate that following the company's policies and HR practices with regards to raising the alarm bells at alleged/suspected improper activity cannot receive retaliation. EDIT - I was wrong. It is protected. https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hits-employees-and-employers-rights-during-a-protest/?slreturn=20190322161726 https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...
idlewords 7y ago
You're wrong about this. The walkout organizers were engaging in concerted action to redress a specific workplace grievance, and that conduct is protected under US labor law. Google is not allowed to retaliate, either by punishing them, or by offering positive incentives to others to not participate in the conduct.
- dekhn 7y ago
  Which is why any actions Google would take against the organizers would be especially carefully scrutinized. That's why I'm surprised- to take this action, Google HR would have to know they would be watched closely and likely end up with a court case (a skeptic might surmise that the protestors were hoping such a case would occur).
  - idlewords 7y ago
    Effective retaliation turns a difficult HR and employee morale problem into a minor legal problem. A court case is a bad outcome for labor organizers—they can never hope to match the resources their employer can bring to bear, and the proceedings can last for years. For that reason, it's a good outcome for the employer, and why you see large companies using the tactic at the first sign of labor unrest.
  - Jasper_ 7y ago
    White collar crime (like retaliation, or wage theft) is rarely tried or prosecuted for.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      Violations of the NLRA are rarely criminal.
      - idlewords 7y ago
        Is there any case where they've been criminal?
serioussecurity 7y ago
The NLRA is pretty complicated and it comes down to what you can get the NLRB to agree about, but this does qualify as protected concerted activity. Anything which is collective organizing in the interests of the employees w.r.t. working conditions is protected. Protesting gender discrimination is literally a text book case. I recommend "labor law for the rank and filer" as a nice introduction to the field.
- turc1656 7y ago
  You are correct. I can't edit my original comment anymore but found this explanation - https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hits-employees-and-employers-rights-during-a-protest/?slreturn=20190322161726 https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...

Jasper_ 7y ago

The walkouts were organized to protest ongoing claims of sexual harassment and abuse. That is protected action. Namely, the second bulletpoint here: "communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment"

bendbro 7y ago
Next time they should communicate with their supervisor in binary encoded ASCII, 1s encoded in days they are in office and 0s in days they are out of office ;) Edit: Guys stop hating me im just trying to help the cause!1!!
turc1656 7y ago
You are correct. I can't edit my original comment anymore but found this explanation - https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hits-employees-and-employers-rights-during-a-protest/?slreturn=20190322161726 https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...

jakelazaroff 7y ago

Per another Wired article [1], they organized the walkout to protest sexual harassment: > Thousands of Google employees and contractors around the globe—many of them women—briefly walked off the job Thursday to protest Google’s handling of sexual harassment claims and other workplace issues, and to demand more transparency around harassment incidents and pay levels at the company. The aforelinked EEOC page [2] explicitly mentions that asserting your right to not be harassed is protected activity: > communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment > Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws [1] https://www.wired.com/story/google-walkout-just-latest-sign-tech-worker-unrest/ https://www.wired.com/story/google-walkout-just-latest-sign-... [2] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/retaliation.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/retaliation.cfm

0815test 7y ago
This is Google we're talking about - where, as shown in the Damore complaint, organized trolling groups were routinely cyber-harassing and cyber-bullying coworkers on company-provided spaces and "forums", often with the implied acquiescence of middle management, for purely political reasons. It's just harassment fest and the definition of a toxic work environment - and they got away with it. Sure, the shoe is now on the "other" foot so to say, but other than that what exactly has changed?
- lenticular 7y ago
  Breitbart is probably not the most authoritative source on Google's internal politics.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    Funny that you should say that when I didn't mention Breitbart at all! I referenced the extensive evidence provided by James Damore - formerly a relatively high-profile Google employee - and privately confirmed or corroborated to Damore by other Googlers or former Googlers, not all of whom were necessarily willing to come out publicly.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
turc1656 7y ago
"Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws" That's pretty vague. And nothing else on the government site supports protests. That's not any sort of normally protected activity in regards to labor laws. Plus, I think it's fairly common knowledge that if you walk out of your office to protest anything (your employer, the government, the weather, whatever), nearly everyone would say that you walking out is you not performing your job duties at that specific time. And I don't think Google or any other company has a written policy to take part in protests. The government's site seems to indicate that following the company's policies and HR practices with regards to raising the alarm bells at alleged/suspected improper activity cannot receive retaliation. EDIT - I was wrong. It is protected. https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hits-employees-and-employers-rights-during-a-protest/?slreturn=20190322161726 https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...

idlewords 7y ago

You're wrong about this. The walkout organizers were engaging in concerted action to redress a specific workplace grievance, and that conduct is protected under US labor law. Google is not allowed to retaliate, either by punishing them, or by offering positive incentives to others to not participate in the conduct.

dekhn 7y ago
Which is why any actions Google would take against the organizers would be especially carefully scrutinized. That's why I'm surprised- to take this action, Google HR would have to know they would be watched closely and likely end up with a court case (a skeptic might surmise that the protestors were hoping such a case would occur).
- idlewords 7y ago
  Effective retaliation turns a difficult HR and employee morale problem into a minor legal problem. A court case is a bad outcome for labor organizers—they can never hope to match the resources their employer can bring to bear, and the proceedings can last for years. For that reason, it's a good outcome for the employer, and why you see large companies using the tactic at the first sign of labor unrest.
- Jasper_ 7y ago
  White collar crime (like retaliation, or wage theft) is rarely tried or prosecuted for.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    Violations of the NLRA are rarely criminal.
    - idlewords 7y ago
      Is there any case where they've been criminal?

serioussecurity 7y ago

The NLRA is pretty complicated and it comes down to what you can get the NLRB to agree about, but this does qualify as protected concerted activity. Anything which is collective organizing in the interests of the employees w.r.t. working conditions is protected. Protesting gender discrimination is literally a text book case. I recommend "labor law for the rank and filer" as a nice introduction to the field.

turc1656 7y ago
You are correct. I can't edit my original comment anymore but found this explanation - https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hits-employees-and-employers-rights-during-a-protest/?slreturn=20190322161726 https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...