5 ms·

Labor board rolls back employee email rights after Google recommendation

123 points by aaronbrethorst 7y ago

tyingq 7y ago
That's fairly interesting, as employers then benefit from the progression of tech over time. For example, building entrances and break rooms used to be significant places for unions to spread messaging. With campus sprawl, "work from home", globally spread workforce, etc...that doesn't work. The equivalent of the physical entrance is now often an employee portal. And break rooms / water cooler chat might now be company email or MS Teams / Slack.
- close04 7y ago
  > the Obama-era standard “should be overruled” and a broader, pro-employer ruling reinstated Yes, you can never have enough pro-employer ruling. I wonder if the fact that this is Google had any influence on the decision. Would Walmart have convinced the labor board of the same?
  - ggggtez 7y ago
    Kinda weird they didn't mention which "Las Vegas casino" it was. I didn't read the case, so for all we know it might have been decided the same way without the Google petition. Still, rather a surprising decision...
- smacktoward 7y ago
  If you're interested in exploring this line of thought further, you might want to check out Erik Loomis' book Out of Sight: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23258901-out-of-sight https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23258901-out-of-sight
- Bartweiss 7y ago
  The implications of this for all-remote companies are fairly chilling. Yes, in principle, staff could put together outside channels, but it's a significant chilling effect. And without legal shielding, even "using corporate email to get non-corporate contact info to unionize" might not be safe. I wonder if this could end up with unionization pressure driving companies to accept more remote work? Your break room comparison seems apt. The NLRB rationale of "using employer equipment to organize" sounds reasonable, but we're not talking about a consumable resource like using company ink to print pro-union fliers. If the company is already providing a platform for informal/social employee communication, restricting union-related content is clearly not aimed at conserving resources but at impeding union activity.
oneepic 7y ago
I imagine the next best thing would be setting up a site/mailing list outside of the company. But I also imagine the company would take action to shut that down anyway. A very absurd situation.
- wmf 7y ago
  Instead of trying to take it down they'll just make it very difficult for employees to even find out about it. Organizers are going to have to contact people one by one now.
  - Bartweiss 7y ago
    And if you're an organizer relying on obscurity instead of NLRB protections, would you really feel safe starting that process by telling prospective members "hey, PM me your personal email" over a corporate channel? If your company is too big or remote to talk in person, establishing wholly-external connections is not going to be an easy task.
goatinaboat 7y ago
Everyone has a smartphone and a dataplan now. This ruling won’t stop anyone, it will just drive them underground. Secret WhatsApp groups are the future of social networking.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Great, strikes will be limited to 255 participants now.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    Right. Limit the size of the breach incase any cell is comprised.
- tyingq 7y ago
  It's the "discoverability". You know all their work emails, so messaging all potential union members is easier. Basically, an opt-in model will have lower reach.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > Secret WhatsApp groups are the future of social networking That would also mean super-broad discoverability, and a likely change in employment law permitting employers to check employees' personal phones for such groups. Particularly in compliance regimes.
- ggggtez 7y ago
  With all the talk about tech trying to unionize, and people being fired for unionizing at Google... Why haven't we actually seen any... you know... unions? I keep seeing news about this, but I have a lot of trouble buying the argument that it's union busting behavior when I don't see any evidence of anyone actually trying to form a union in the tech world. (That said, yeah it makes sense that Google and other tech companies would want to prevent it).
  - SaberTail 7y ago
    I'm not sure I follow your logic. You present as evidence that we see no unions forming. Wouldn't that equally well support the hypothesis that there is union busting behavior going on (to great success)? You are also ignoring that Google is enlisting a union-busting consulting firm[1]. This seems like furher evidence that union-busting is happening. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-consultant.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-c...
GoodJokes 7y ago
Google doesn’t want its employees organizing. Why? One of the most crucial things about organizing is being able to contact your fellow employees. Yes the equipment is Google’s, but also I would contend that conversing with your fellow employees is in service to the company, in service of making the company better. If I am trying to organize I would just send a blast asking everyone to add their personal emails to list. Could google call that organizing and penalize? What if I just wanted a personal email so I could schedule getting a beer.
- tssva 7y ago
  In many companies purposely sending an all employee email such as that would potentially be grounds for dimisal. I know of people that have been fired for accidently sending all company emails too many times.
  - GoodJokes 7y ago
    I believe you and that is dystopian af. It is so lovely that most of spend most of our lives serving in little authoritarian states.
1023bytes 7y ago
So would this apply if a Google employee used their personal Gmail account?
- gnicholas 7y ago
  No, it’s about email provided by the employer to the employee qua employee.
jakelazaroff 7y ago
Google's position here is utterly disingenuous. They have been one of the leading forces blurring employees' home and work lives, and have reaped the productivity benefits thereof. But now that it's negatively impacting Google, they're advocating for a strict separation between the two. (Limited to organizing, of course — you're still free to push commits from home or stay late to play foosball with your coworkers and talk about work.)
- NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
  What does organizing have to do with 'blurring ... home and work lives'? Union organizing seems like a focal case of a workplace activity. I feel many commenters didn't take the time to read the NLRB decision or understand it properly. The NLRB's position (now, and also prior to 2014) is that companies should not be compelled to allow organizers the use of corporate IT if other non-business use is not permitted. That doesn't mean that companies are allowed to have discriminatory policies that permit some non business-related IT usage but ban use for organizing. This puts email back on the same footing as employer-provided telephones, bulletin boards and photocopiers etc.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    I agree that organizing is a workplace activity. But if that’s the case, why should companies be allowed to prohibited it on corporate IT? What other job-related activities are outright banned on company-provided equipment? Google’s position is clearly that organizing is not a workplace activity. That’s why the point about breaking down the boundaries between home and work is salient. They are happy to blur those lines when it means their employees donating their personal time and equipment to benefit Google, but when it means employees organizing they try to prevent what they see as “personal” use of company property.
    - NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
      I agree that organizing is a workplace activity. But if that’s the case, why should companies be allowed to prohibited it on corporate IT? What other job-related activities are outright banned on company-provided equipment? It's a workplace activity; but it's not a business activity. By definition, companies are allowed to make rules about employee conduct and, in most cases except workplace safety/conditions, restrict activities that are not business-related when employees are working. Imagine a company has a policy that says "company mobile phones can only be used for business purposes". So if you're making a sales call or rescheduling a meeting, that's fine - it's a business purpose. On the other hand, chatting with colleagues about plans for the weekend would not be permitted; nor would calling overseas relatives and so on. The NLRB has always held that if a company had such a policy on telephone usage then it was also acceptable to restrict the use of that company mobile phone for union organizing purposes. That is because the policy is non-discriminatory. If the policy said, on the other hand, "company mobile phones should be used primarily for business purposes but reasonable personal use is permitted, but you cannot use the phone for labor organization purposes", then that policy would not be acceptable because it's discriminatory. The question is whether policies are discriminatory in treating labor organization less generously than other non-business usage. The case in 2014 created a special case for email, where even if the employer didn't permit non-business use of email, then they still had to permit use for labor organizing. The recent decision simply undoes that special case and puts email back on the same footing as (e.g.) company telephones. Given Google seems to have a vastly permissive policy on the use of company IT, it seems very unlikely they'd ever be able to restrict use of that same company IT for labor organization purposes; and there is nothing in this ruling that suggests otherwise.
larnmar 7y ago
Sounds reasonable. If I were a Google employee I wouldn’t want some fucking union spamming me through my company work email.
- EliRivers 7y ago
  What you, as a google employee, want and don't want with regards to the company email (NOT yours - theirs) is of no concern. You'll get what the company decides you'll get and you'd better pretend to like it!

That's fairly interesting, as employers then benefit from the progression of tech over time. For example, building entrances and break rooms used to be significant places for unions to spread messaging. With campus sprawl, "work from home", globally spread workforce, etc...that doesn't work. The equivalent of the physical entrance is now often an employee portal. And break rooms / water cooler chat might now be company email or MS Teams / Slack.

close04 7y ago
> the Obama-era standard “should be overruled” and a broader, pro-employer ruling reinstated Yes, you can never have enough pro-employer ruling. I wonder if the fact that this is Google had any influence on the decision. Would Walmart have convinced the labor board of the same?
- ggggtez 7y ago
  Kinda weird they didn't mention which "Las Vegas casino" it was. I didn't read the case, so for all we know it might have been decided the same way without the Google petition. Still, rather a surprising decision...
smacktoward 7y ago
If you're interested in exploring this line of thought further, you might want to check out Erik Loomis' book Out of Sight: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23258901-out-of-sight https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23258901-out-of-sight
Bartweiss 7y ago
The implications of this for all-remote companies are fairly chilling. Yes, in principle, staff could put together outside channels, but it's a significant chilling effect. And without legal shielding, even "using corporate email to get non-corporate contact info to unionize" might not be safe. I wonder if this could end up with unionization pressure driving companies to accept more remote work? Your break room comparison seems apt. The NLRB rationale of "using employer equipment to organize" sounds reasonable, but we're not talking about a consumable resource like using company ink to print pro-union fliers. If the company is already providing a platform for informal/social employee communication, restricting union-related content is clearly not aimed at conserving resources but at impeding union activity.

oneepic 7y ago

I imagine the next best thing would be setting up a site/mailing list outside of the company. But I also imagine the company would take action to shut that down anyway. A very absurd situation.

wmf 7y ago
Instead of trying to take it down they'll just make it very difficult for employees to even find out about it. Organizers are going to have to contact people one by one now.
- Bartweiss 7y ago
  And if you're an organizer relying on obscurity instead of NLRB protections, would you really feel safe starting that process by telling prospective members "hey, PM me your personal email" over a corporate channel? If your company is too big or remote to talk in person, establishing wholly-external connections is not going to be an easy task.

goatinaboat 7y ago

Everyone has a smartphone and a dataplan now. This ruling won’t stop anyone, it will just drive them underground. Secret WhatsApp groups are the future of social networking.

marcosdumay 7y ago
Great, strikes will be limited to 255 participants now.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Right. Limit the size of the breach incase any cell is comprised.
tyingq 7y ago
It's the "discoverability". You know all their work emails, so messaging all potential union members is easier. Basically, an opt-in model will have lower reach.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> Secret WhatsApp groups are the future of social networking That would also mean super-broad discoverability, and a likely change in employment law permitting employers to check employees' personal phones for such groups. Particularly in compliance regimes.
ggggtez 7y ago
With all the talk about tech trying to unionize, and people being fired for unionizing at Google... Why haven't we actually seen any... you know... unions? I keep seeing news about this, but I have a lot of trouble buying the argument that it's union busting behavior when I don't see any evidence of anyone actually trying to form a union in the tech world. (That said, yeah it makes sense that Google and other tech companies would want to prevent it).
- SaberTail 7y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your logic. You present as evidence that we see no unions forming. Wouldn't that equally well support the hypothesis that there is union busting behavior going on (to great success)? You are also ignoring that Google is enlisting a union-busting consulting firm[1]. This seems like furher evidence that union-busting is happening. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-consultant.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-c...

GoodJokes 7y ago

Google doesn’t want its employees organizing. Why? One of the most crucial things about organizing is being able to contact your fellow employees. Yes the equipment is Google’s, but also I would contend that conversing with your fellow employees is in service to the company, in service of making the company better. If I am trying to organize I would just send a blast asking everyone to add their personal emails to list. Could google call that organizing and penalize? What if I just wanted a personal email so I could schedule getting a beer.

tssva 7y ago
In many companies purposely sending an all employee email such as that would potentially be grounds for dimisal. I know of people that have been fired for accidently sending all company emails too many times.
- GoodJokes 7y ago
  I believe you and that is dystopian af. It is so lovely that most of spend most of our lives serving in little authoritarian states.

1023bytes 7y ago

So would this apply if a Google employee used their personal Gmail account?

gnicholas 7y ago
No, it’s about email provided by the employer to the employee qua employee.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

Google's position here is utterly disingenuous. They have been one of the leading forces blurring employees' home and work lives, and have reaped the productivity benefits thereof. But now that it's negatively impacting Google, they're advocating for a strict separation between the two. (Limited to organizing, of course — you're still free to push commits from home or stay late to play foosball with your coworkers and talk about work.)

NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
What does organizing have to do with 'blurring ... home and work lives'? Union organizing seems like a focal case of a workplace activity. I feel many commenters didn't take the time to read the NLRB decision or understand it properly. The NLRB's position (now, and also prior to 2014) is that companies should not be compelled to allow organizers the use of corporate IT if other non-business use is not permitted. That doesn't mean that companies are allowed to have discriminatory policies that permit some non business-related IT usage but ban use for organizing. This puts email back on the same footing as employer-provided telephones, bulletin boards and photocopiers etc.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  I agree that organizing is a workplace activity. But if that’s the case, why should companies be allowed to prohibited it on corporate IT? What other job-related activities are outright banned on company-provided equipment? Google’s position is clearly that organizing is not a workplace activity. That’s why the point about breaking down the boundaries between home and work is salient. They are happy to blur those lines when it means their employees donating their personal time and equipment to benefit Google, but when it means employees organizing they try to prevent what they see as “personal” use of company property.
  - NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
    I agree that organizing is a workplace activity. But if that’s the case, why should companies be allowed to prohibited it on corporate IT? What other job-related activities are outright banned on company-provided equipment? It's a workplace activity; but it's not a business activity. By definition, companies are allowed to make rules about employee conduct and, in most cases except workplace safety/conditions, restrict activities that are not business-related when employees are working. Imagine a company has a policy that says "company mobile phones can only be used for business purposes". So if you're making a sales call or rescheduling a meeting, that's fine - it's a business purpose. On the other hand, chatting with colleagues about plans for the weekend would not be permitted; nor would calling overseas relatives and so on. The NLRB has always held that if a company had such a policy on telephone usage then it was also acceptable to restrict the use of that company mobile phone for union organizing purposes. That is because the policy is non-discriminatory. If the policy said, on the other hand, "company mobile phones should be used primarily for business purposes but reasonable personal use is permitted, but you cannot use the phone for labor organization purposes", then that policy would not be acceptable because it's discriminatory. The question is whether policies are discriminatory in treating labor organization less generously than other non-business usage. The case in 2014 created a special case for email, where even if the employer didn't permit non-business use of email, then they still had to permit use for labor organizing. The recent decision simply undoes that special case and puts email back on the same footing as (e.g.) company telephones. Given Google seems to have a vastly permissive policy on the use of company IT, it seems very unlikely they'd ever be able to restrict use of that same company IT for labor organization purposes; and there is nothing in this ruling that suggests otherwise.

larnmar 7y ago

Sounds reasonable. If I were a Google employee I wouldn’t want some fucking union spamming me through my company work email.

EliRivers 7y ago
What you, as a google employee, want and don't want with regards to the company email (NOT yours - theirs) is of no concern. You'll get what the company decides you'll get and you'd better pretend to like it!