5 ms·

I don't know if Google's story here is honest, but the two protesters' certainly aren't. They were not organizing anything to do with improving the working con

I don't know if Google's story here is honest, but the two protesters' certainly aren't. They were not organizing anything to do with improving the working conditions or treatment of their co-workers - they were explicitly attempting to subvert company policy for their own political ends, in ways which are highly controversial and likely went against the wishes of many of their peers. There is no reasonable way you could call this legitimate union activity. While others have rightly pointed out that Google's statements about stalking and harassment are vague enough that they could refer to reasonable activities, I have no doubt that people engaging in this kind of political intrigue would have to resort to some kind of harassment at some point. I'm not saying that Google is right here. But the fired protesters are definitely in the wrong.

hos234 7y ago
Google is a political entity. Anyone controlling info flow is. There are lot of people in Google deluding themselves that this is not true, while taking decisions that effect millions of people. Who elected them? That contradiction will always create political tensions. If they don't want to be political they should stick to tech like phones and browsers and sell off Search and YouTube. Until that happens don't call polical objections and resistance wrong.
- anongraddebt 7y ago
  There is a difference between 'resistance' (whatever that even means) against your own company versus against fellow employees. In what universe should a company let workers organize against fellow employees apart from simply having those workers complain to HR? This is particularly specious when organizing for 'political' reasons. This is the issue: were they organizing for the purposes of 'resisting' the company or were other employees also apart of what they were 'resisting'? If the former, then what Google did seems questionable. If more like the latter, then the people rightfully were fired.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  You cannot accept a paycheck from a company, while also be trying to subvert it internally. It is crazy you don't understand that.
  - capitalistpigs 7y ago
    Yes you can. Every employee is responsible for shaping the company in some way. The company belongs to the employees, not the other way around.
  - samcday 7y ago
    Of course you're entitled to your point of view, but dismissing any other perspective on the matter as "crazy" is, well, itself a little bit crazy ;) Putting aside the contract law side of this, philosophically what you're saying doesn't make sense to me. If Google were to direct some of its employees tomorrow to restrict the flow of information relating to a hot-button political issue, right in the middle of an election cycle, would it be crazy for some of the employees to attempt to "subvert" the company to prevent that from happening?
    - zeveb 7y ago
      > If Google were to direct some of its employees tomorrow to restrict the flow of information relating to a hot-button political issue, right in the middle of an election cycle, would it be crazy for some of the employees to attempt to "subvert" the company to prevent that from happening? Yes, it would be. What they should do in that case is resign. Google isn't the military — you can leave any time you want to. And while it may not be easy for a black janitor to leave Billy Bob's House of Cars if Billy Bob starts airing racist commercials, given Google salaries and Google's technical reputation, I think it's probably incredibly easy for a Googler to leave at any time. If you cannot support your employer's decisions, you leave. Think what an impact that would make!
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        Maybe you would resign, but plenty of other people would rather stay and fight. You can have much more impact by staying and fighting than by leaving.
koheripbal 7y ago
Yeah, these folks were brazen. They would have gotten much much worse in the tactics they were willing to use to pressure fellow employees to their political ends.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bogwog 7y ago
Why are you giving Google the benefit of the doubt, but not to the employee? Do you have more details about the situation beyond that letter Google sent out, or are you just trusting Google by default because...well, I can't imagine why.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Because Bloomberg asked at least one of the fired employees for comment, and she would not comment even to deny Google's story.
  - bogwog 7y ago
    So? That doesn't mean they're guilty. There are many reasons why they wouldn't want to give a comment. Maybe they're planning a lawsuit and their lawyer told them to keep quiet.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      There are many reasons why Google wouldn't want to give a comment too, but they did it anyway. I'm not saying I know for a fact they're guilty. I have no objections to anyone who wants to withhold judgment. But I don't think it's reasonable to look at a clear, unrefuted accusation of misconduct and say "well I don't trust Google".
      - tanderson92 7y ago
        Is it unreasonable because google has never before done things untrustworthy with regards to their employees? https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jobs-settlement-20150903-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jo... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/11/google-executive-payout-harassment-amit-singhal https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/11/google-ex...
        SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
overthemoon 7y ago
This is within the purview of union activity. The notion that their peers didn't agree is speculative. At the barest level, Google is an unusual company in an unusual technological, social, and political position, and their employees have the right to organize to shape that via union activity. It's part and parcel of labor organization. I mean, that doesn't mean you have to accept it, but to say that it isn't legitimate union activity is incorrect.
high_derivative 7y ago
In particular, looking at one of the fired employee's Twitter, even in October, they were publicly bashing their employer, calling them evil, etc. pp [0] [0] https://twitter.com/Tri_Becca90/status/1187460338784055296 https://twitter.com/Tri_Becca90/status/1187460338784055296 It really does come off as if they are using unionizing as a veil for their political activism. Shitting all over your employer on social media tends to be symptomatic for a certain character style who was long welcomed at Google, and probably felt empowered to take it further and further, to a point of actively damaging the company's interest. It takes someone pretty tone-deaf to do that and not expect to be fired.
RickJWagner 7y ago
I've always viewed my employers as a means to support myself and my family. I keep political activites separate. (The same way I keep recreational, religious, etc. activities separate. No use in telling my coworkers everything about me!) I think such a housecleaning is understandable. I don't force my politics on others, I wouldn't want theirs forced on me. My colleagues do not speak for me in this regard.

hos234 7y ago

Google is a political entity. Anyone controlling info flow is. There are lot of people in Google deluding themselves that this is not true, while taking decisions that effect millions of people. Who elected them? That contradiction will always create political tensions. If they don't want to be political they should stick to tech like phones and browsers and sell off Search and YouTube. Until that happens don't call polical objections and resistance wrong.

anongraddebt 7y ago
There is a difference between 'resistance' (whatever that even means) against your own company versus against fellow employees. In what universe should a company let workers organize against fellow employees apart from simply having those workers complain to HR? This is particularly specious when organizing for 'political' reasons. This is the issue: were they organizing for the purposes of 'resisting' the company or were other employees also apart of what they were 'resisting'? If the former, then what Google did seems questionable. If more like the latter, then the people rightfully were fired.
koheripbal 7y ago
You cannot accept a paycheck from a company, while also be trying to subvert it internally. It is crazy you don't understand that.
- capitalistpigs 7y ago
  Yes you can. Every employee is responsible for shaping the company in some way. The company belongs to the employees, not the other way around.
- samcday 7y ago
  Of course you're entitled to your point of view, but dismissing any other perspective on the matter as "crazy" is, well, itself a little bit crazy ;) Putting aside the contract law side of this, philosophically what you're saying doesn't make sense to me. If Google were to direct some of its employees tomorrow to restrict the flow of information relating to a hot-button political issue, right in the middle of an election cycle, would it be crazy for some of the employees to attempt to "subvert" the company to prevent that from happening?
  - zeveb 7y ago
    > If Google were to direct some of its employees tomorrow to restrict the flow of information relating to a hot-button political issue, right in the middle of an election cycle, would it be crazy for some of the employees to attempt to "subvert" the company to prevent that from happening? Yes, it would be. What they should do in that case is resign. Google isn't the military — you can leave any time you want to. And while it may not be easy for a black janitor to leave Billy Bob's House of Cars if Billy Bob starts airing racist commercials, given Google salaries and Google's technical reputation, I think it's probably incredibly easy for a Googler to leave at any time. If you cannot support your employer's decisions, you leave. Think what an impact that would make!
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      Maybe you would resign, but plenty of other people would rather stay and fight. You can have much more impact by staying and fighting than by leaving.

koheripbal 7y ago

Yeah, these folks were brazen. They would have gotten much much worse in the tactics they were willing to use to pressure fellow employees to their political ends.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bogwog 7y ago

Why are you giving Google the benefit of the doubt, but not to the employee? Do you have more details about the situation beyond that letter Google sent out, or are you just trusting Google by default because...well, I can't imagine why.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Because Bloomberg asked at least one of the fired employees for comment, and she would not comment even to deny Google's story.
- bogwog 7y ago
  So? That doesn't mean they're guilty. There are many reasons why they wouldn't want to give a comment. Maybe they're planning a lawsuit and their lawyer told them to keep quiet.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    There are many reasons why Google wouldn't want to give a comment too, but they did it anyway. I'm not saying I know for a fact they're guilty. I have no objections to anyone who wants to withhold judgment. But I don't think it's reasonable to look at a clear, unrefuted accusation of misconduct and say "well I don't trust Google".
    - tanderson92 7y ago
      Is it unreasonable because google has never before done things untrustworthy with regards to their employees? https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jobs-settlement-20150903-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jo... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/11/google-executive-payout-harassment-amit-singhal https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/11/google-ex...
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

overthemoon 7y ago

This is within the purview of union activity. The notion that their peers didn't agree is speculative. At the barest level, Google is an unusual company in an unusual technological, social, and political position, and their employees have the right to organize to shape that via union activity. It's part and parcel of labor organization. I mean, that doesn't mean you have to accept it, but to say that it isn't legitimate union activity is incorrect.

high_derivative 7y ago

In particular, looking at one of the fired employee's Twitter, even in October, they were publicly bashing their employer, calling them evil, etc. pp [0] [0] https://twitter.com/Tri_Becca90/status/1187460338784055296 https://twitter.com/Tri_Becca90/status/1187460338784055296 It really does come off as if they are using unionizing as a veil for their political activism. Shitting all over your employer on social media tends to be symptomatic for a certain character style who was long welcomed at Google, and probably felt empowered to take it further and further, to a point of actively damaging the company's interest. It takes someone pretty tone-deaf to do that and not expect to be fired.

RickJWagner 7y ago

I've always viewed my employers as a means to support myself and my family. I keep political activites separate. (The same way I keep recreational, religious, etc. activities separate. No use in telling my coworkers everything about me!) I think such a housecleaning is understandable. I don't force my politics on others, I wouldn't want theirs forced on me. My colleagues do not speak for me in this regard.