5 ms·

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 decisi

by 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.
- darkwater 7y ago
  Why not? Being inside the company you are in the best position to actually change/subvert it for real.
- dspillett 7y ago
  If you aren't part of the company you can't subvert it internally because you aren't internal. Your logic seems rather flawed. Unless you are expecting them to work for the company for free while trying to subvert it.
  - stale2002 7y ago
    No, they could work somewhere else, while attempting to oppose Google.
    - dspillett 7y ago
      But that is not "trying to subvert it internally".
      - stale2002 7y ago
        Regardless, they should still leave and try to oppose it while working somewhere else.
- dwild 7y ago
  You certainly can, what stop you from it? You never had a disagreement at your work? You never tried to convince them that their decisions were bad? Then you were "subverting them"... The fact that you were disagreeing with their ethics or politics doesn't change a single thing. It's also completely useless and hurt the conversation to do personal attacks like saying it's "crazy" to not share your opinion.
  - bhhaskin 7y ago
    HR stops you from doing that. Publicly bad mouthing the company you work for is definitely grounds for termination. If it was any other company in any other state it would have happened quickly and swiftly. It wouldn't be a news story.
    - dwild 7y ago
      > Publicly bad mouthing the company you work for is definitely grounds for termination. We aren't talking about termination on that ground though. We wouldn't have this discussion here if it was, I would actually agree with it (though I would still find it sad that the company wouldn't try to improve what an employee see as an issue). > HR stops you from doing that. Here's the exact quote from the comment I was answering to: > You cannot accept a paycheck from a company, while also be trying to subvert it internally. We weren't talking about "Publicly bad mouthing" but about "subvert it internally", or in a less threatening way "changing how the company works internally". I believe you have all the rights to do this even on its paycheck, it's about improving what the company does, which is pretty much what employees are paid for.
    - wildfire 7y ago
      > Publicly bad mouthing the > company you work for > is definitely grounds > for termination Having not read any of the tweets in question, I can not say what the content is about. However, according to https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/can-you-fire-someone-for-their-social-media-complaints-about-work-31743 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/can-you-fire-someone-for-t..., speech about working conditions and union organising is protected. I suspect none of us armchair lawyers will come up with a simple way to analyse these tweets with a lot of context that isn't available.
- theincredulousk 7y ago
  Well you can but now carry a baseline hypocrisy that undermines anything you’d hope to accomplish. I have a hard time respecting these people for that reason. Hard not to view someone as entitled, or having some form of delusional idealism, when they trash their company on Twitter. Every tweet was made either shortly before or after one their exceptionally large Google paychecks was direct deposited into their account. Further highlighting this obscure world view, they thought they wouldn’t be fired for these things? Maybe they did know they’d be fired - that would at least be a credible signal of rational thought and motivation.

by hos234 7y ago

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.
darkwater 7y ago
Why not? Being inside the company you are in the best position to actually change/subvert it for real.
dspillett 7y ago
If you aren't part of the company you can't subvert it internally because you aren't internal. Your logic seems rather flawed. Unless you are expecting them to work for the company for free while trying to subvert it.
- stale2002 7y ago
  No, they could work somewhere else, while attempting to oppose Google.
  - dspillett 7y ago
    But that is not "trying to subvert it internally".
    - stale2002 7y ago
      Regardless, they should still leave and try to oppose it while working somewhere else.
dwild 7y ago
You certainly can, what stop you from it? You never had a disagreement at your work? You never tried to convince them that their decisions were bad? Then you were "subverting them"... The fact that you were disagreeing with their ethics or politics doesn't change a single thing. It's also completely useless and hurt the conversation to do personal attacks like saying it's "crazy" to not share your opinion.
- bhhaskin 7y ago
  HR stops you from doing that. Publicly bad mouthing the company you work for is definitely grounds for termination. If it was any other company in any other state it would have happened quickly and swiftly. It wouldn't be a news story.
  - dwild 7y ago
    > Publicly bad mouthing the company you work for is definitely grounds for termination. We aren't talking about termination on that ground though. We wouldn't have this discussion here if it was, I would actually agree with it (though I would still find it sad that the company wouldn't try to improve what an employee see as an issue). > HR stops you from doing that. Here's the exact quote from the comment I was answering to: > You cannot accept a paycheck from a company, while also be trying to subvert it internally. We weren't talking about "Publicly bad mouthing" but about "subvert it internally", or in a less threatening way "changing how the company works internally". I believe you have all the rights to do this even on its paycheck, it's about improving what the company does, which is pretty much what employees are paid for.
  - wildfire 7y ago
    > Publicly bad mouthing the > company you work for > is definitely grounds > for termination Having not read any of the tweets in question, I can not say what the content is about. However, according to https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/can-you-fire-someone-for-their-social-media-complaints-about-work-31743 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/can-you-fire-someone-for-t..., speech about working conditions and union organising is protected. I suspect none of us armchair lawyers will come up with a simple way to analyse these tweets with a lot of context that isn't available.
theincredulousk 7y ago
Well you can but now carry a baseline hypocrisy that undermines anything you’d hope to accomplish. I have a hard time respecting these people for that reason. Hard not to view someone as entitled, or having some form of delusional idealism, when they trash their company on Twitter. Every tweet was made either shortly before or after one their exceptionally large Google paychecks was direct deposited into their account. Further highlighting this obscure world view, they thought they wouldn’t be fired for these things? Maybe they did know they’d be fired - that would at least be a credible signal of rational thought and motivation.