4 ms·

Firing would have been even more provably retaliation; presumably they were hoping to reduce legal liability. Why they thought this would work is beyond me, sin

Firing would have been even more provably retaliation; presumably they were hoping to reduce legal liability. Why they thought this would work is beyond me, since this kind of activity is also recognized by labor law as Totally Illegal. One possibility - the people with power to fire her actually talked to their lawyers, while the people with the power to initiate this kind of harassment did not.

mindcrime 8y ago
Firing would have been even more provably retaliation; presumably they were hoping to reduce legal liability. Yes, but in some ways it would have been more honest. But the real question, still, is why do either? How does retaliating against this individual benefit Google? (Not that it would be justified even IF the answer was "Their stock will go up 3x as a result" or something). It's just dumb from what I can see. It's almost like some manager was butt-hurt that somebody expressed their opinion and decided to try and fuck them over for no real reason. That manager is the one who ought to be fired.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  They might believe it would act as a visible deterrent to other employees. If employees at Google see activism go un-retaliated-against, then it may become so rampant that it actually does pose an existential threat to Google. This way, even if she sues them and wins, it will scare a lot of other employees and make them second guess if they want to be put in a position to have to hire a lawyer, be dragged to court, risk losing, etc.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    If employees at Google see activism go un-retaliated-against, then it may become so rampant that it actually does pose an existential threat to Google. That's fair. I guess the question, then, is whether or not this kind of activism can actually represent a real threat to the company. I lean towards "I doubt it", at least in any realistic scenario. But I'd be interested to hear the arguments for that position.
    - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
      You may be right, but a company the size of Google may view the legal costs + bad press that they have to hire PR people to expunge from the minds of the community as a fairly trivial overall cost relative to sending a damning authoritarian style message that they will hit back hard. With nearly infinite money & power, it is hard to speculate what their ethical calculus is in a situation like this.
  - kelnos 8y ago
    Not sure why you're being downvoted. Contacting a lawyer can be a scary, expensive proposition. Doing so in order to make a case against your employer, which provides your livelihood, sounds even harder. Even if these people prevail, the entire experience can have a chilling effect on other would-be activists.
- olefoo 8y ago
  > That manager is the one who ought to be fired. True, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
- azernik 8y ago
  > It's almost like some manager was butt-hurt that somebody expressed their opinion and decided to try and fuck them over for no real reason. Well, my second guess in my comment was that the person who consulted lawyers and decided against firing was not the same person as the idiot manager who decided on this harassment.

mindcrime 8y ago

Firing would have been even more provably retaliation; presumably they were hoping to reduce legal liability. Yes, but in some ways it would have been more honest. But the real question, still, is why do either? How does retaliating against this individual benefit Google? (Not that it would be justified even IF the answer was "Their stock will go up 3x as a result" or something). It's just dumb from what I can see. It's almost like some manager was butt-hurt that somebody expressed their opinion and decided to try and fuck them over for no real reason. That manager is the one who ought to be fired.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
They might believe it would act as a visible deterrent to other employees. If employees at Google see activism go un-retaliated-against, then it may become so rampant that it actually does pose an existential threat to Google. This way, even if she sues them and wins, it will scare a lot of other employees and make them second guess if they want to be put in a position to have to hire a lawyer, be dragged to court, risk losing, etc.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  If employees at Google see activism go un-retaliated-against, then it may become so rampant that it actually does pose an existential threat to Google. That's fair. I guess the question, then, is whether or not this kind of activism can actually represent a real threat to the company. I lean towards "I doubt it", at least in any realistic scenario. But I'd be interested to hear the arguments for that position.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    You may be right, but a company the size of Google may view the legal costs + bad press that they have to hire PR people to expunge from the minds of the community as a fairly trivial overall cost relative to sending a damning authoritarian style message that they will hit back hard. With nearly infinite money & power, it is hard to speculate what their ethical calculus is in a situation like this.
- kelnos 8y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted. Contacting a lawyer can be a scary, expensive proposition. Doing so in order to make a case against your employer, which provides your livelihood, sounds even harder. Even if these people prevail, the entire experience can have a chilling effect on other would-be activists.
olefoo 8y ago
> That manager is the one who ought to be fired. True, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
azernik 8y ago
> It's almost like some manager was butt-hurt that somebody expressed their opinion and decided to try and fuck them over for no real reason. Well, my second guess in my comment was that the person who consulted lawyers and decided against firing was not the same person as the idiot manager who decided on this harassment.