3 ms·

For one, they are would be retaliating against employees who generate bad PR for them. For another the rest of the tech companies don't seem to enable let alon

For one, they are would be retaliating against employees who generate bad PR for them. For another the rest of the tech companies don't seem to enable let alone tolerate this shenanigans.

DFHippie 7y ago
Retaliating against whistle blowers is a great way to generate bad PR for yourself. You may disagree that this is whistle blowing. You may view these employees as entitled troublemakers. I expect the googlers doing this view themselves as making personal sacrifices for the greater good. In any case, I doubt Google wants to lose talent to competitors because they are viewed as a hotbed of right-to-workers ideology in Silicon Valley.
- fyoving 7y ago
  1. Any bad PR resulting from firing these types would be a one time thing instead of this ongoing situation. 2. Google shouldn't accommodate the delusional and entitled. 3. Labor unions are antithetical to sound economic theory and practice, and no other company in the business supports them.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Ah yes, because dumping a bunch of people who will tell the "I was screwed over by google" story to all their friends into an economy where hiring is driven by personal recommendations can't possibly have any ongoing consequences?
    - googthrow2019 7y ago
      Do you really believe that these people are enhancing Google's image in the eyes of the general public? You have no idea how many potential employees Google is losing due to the company having acquired a reputation as an extreme ideological environment.
  - DFHippie 7y ago
    >Any bad PR resulting from firing these types would be a one time thing instead of this ongoing situation. Imagine if you could murder troublesome people because that PR hit would be a one-time thing and better than this ongoing situation. There's a reason reputation is a thing.
  - wffurr 7y ago
    You are completely ignoring the fact that what you propose is illegal in the US. Also 2 and 3 are just, like, your opinion, man. I hope for your sake that you're a boss or capitalist and not a worker.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Google didn't hesitate to fire Damore. Whether you agree with him or not, he was definitely blowing the whistle on what he saw as a problem of political extremism being baked into Google's culture. The move was pretty much universally celebrated in the press (although I suspect it had a much more negative impact among people who are independent thinkers).
  - wffurr 7y ago
    Damore was not engaging in protected behavior. NLRB sided with Google, and he withdrew his lawsuit.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      We're talking about PR not lawsuits.
      - wffurr 7y ago
        Yeah and the main reason Google can't and shouldn't fire people like in the article for generating bad PR is because they are engaging in legally protected behavior, which Damore demonstrably was not.
        malvosenior 7y ago
        There are plenty of other reasons why firing someone might be a bad idea from an ethical and PR standpoint (like if you solicit political opinions from your employees and fire those that you don't agree with). I also don't think it's clear that these employees have engaged in protected behavior. If they're using company resources to organize activism, that's not protected. If they're leaking info to the press, that's also not protected.
- googthrow2019 7y ago
  These people are not whistleblowers. They are instead hard-left political activists falsely claiming whistleblower protection as cover for activity that harms the company. For years now, these people have been bullying the company into advancing hard-left political positions instead of serving the company's founding mission. They have created a climate of fear for anyone who disagrees with their extreme political positions, and they have almost certainly violated their employment contracts by leaking confidential information to the press. Their friends in HR protect them. They appear to engage in activism full-time on the company's payroll according to documents they themselves have posted. They talk constantly about "Google's values", which they twist into claims that the company has already decided to support their political positions. They demand that Google give up billions of dollars in business by abandoning product lines and refusing to serve huge portions of the population. For example, one of them demanded that one business disable a key component that drives a lot of revenue, calling the situation an "extremism emergency". To this person, the negative impact would have been irrelevant. These demands never stop. They call them "ethics". Any functioning company would have fired these people a long time ago. Google leadership is full of cowards.

For one, they are would be retaliating against employees who generate bad PR for them. For another the rest of the tech companies don't seem to enable let alone tolerate this shenanigans.

DFHippie 7y ago

Retaliating against whistle blowers is a great way to generate bad PR for yourself. You may disagree that this is whistle blowing. You may view these employees as entitled troublemakers. I expect the googlers doing this view themselves as making personal sacrifices for the greater good. In any case, I doubt Google wants to lose talent to competitors because they are viewed as a hotbed of right-to-workers ideology in Silicon Valley.

fyoving 7y ago
1. Any bad PR resulting from firing these types would be a one time thing instead of this ongoing situation. 2. Google shouldn't accommodate the delusional and entitled. 3. Labor unions are antithetical to sound economic theory and practice, and no other company in the business supports them.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Ah yes, because dumping a bunch of people who will tell the "I was screwed over by google" story to all their friends into an economy where hiring is driven by personal recommendations can't possibly have any ongoing consequences?
  - googthrow2019 7y ago
    Do you really believe that these people are enhancing Google's image in the eyes of the general public? You have no idea how many potential employees Google is losing due to the company having acquired a reputation as an extreme ideological environment.
- DFHippie 7y ago
  >Any bad PR resulting from firing these types would be a one time thing instead of this ongoing situation. Imagine if you could murder troublesome people because that PR hit would be a one-time thing and better than this ongoing situation. There's a reason reputation is a thing.
- wffurr 7y ago
  You are completely ignoring the fact that what you propose is illegal in the US. Also 2 and 3 are just, like, your opinion, man. I hope for your sake that you're a boss or capitalist and not a worker.
malvosenior 7y ago
Google didn't hesitate to fire Damore. Whether you agree with him or not, he was definitely blowing the whistle on what he saw as a problem of political extremism being baked into Google's culture. The move was pretty much universally celebrated in the press (although I suspect it had a much more negative impact among people who are independent thinkers).
- wffurr 7y ago
  Damore was not engaging in protected behavior. NLRB sided with Google, and he withdrew his lawsuit.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    We're talking about PR not lawsuits.
    - wffurr 7y ago
      Yeah and the main reason Google can't and shouldn't fire people like in the article for generating bad PR is because they are engaging in legally protected behavior, which Damore demonstrably was not.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        There are plenty of other reasons why firing someone might be a bad idea from an ethical and PR standpoint (like if you solicit political opinions from your employees and fire those that you don't agree with). I also don't think it's clear that these employees have engaged in protected behavior. If they're using company resources to organize activism, that's not protected. If they're leaking info to the press, that's also not protected.
googthrow2019 7y ago
These people are not whistleblowers. They are instead hard-left political activists falsely claiming whistleblower protection as cover for activity that harms the company. For years now, these people have been bullying the company into advancing hard-left political positions instead of serving the company's founding mission. They have created a climate of fear for anyone who disagrees with their extreme political positions, and they have almost certainly violated their employment contracts by leaking confidential information to the press. Their friends in HR protect them. They appear to engage in activism full-time on the company's payroll according to documents they themselves have posted. They talk constantly about "Google's values", which they twist into claims that the company has already decided to support their political positions. They demand that Google give up billions of dollars in business by abandoning product lines and refusing to serve huge portions of the population. For example, one of them demanded that one business disable a key component that drives a lot of revenue, calling the situation an "extremism emergency". To this person, the negative impact would have been irrelevant. These demands never stop. They call them "ethics". Any functioning company would have fired these people a long time ago. Google leadership is full of cowards.