4 ms·

>It would be noteworthy if a company didn't restrict their employees from publicly talking... No it would NOT. It is absolutely noteworthy if they do such a ne

by harry8 6y ago

>It would be noteworthy if a company didn't restrict their employees from publicly talking... No it would NOT. It is absolutely noteworthy if they do such a nefarious, un-american thing. Banning speaking on behalf of their employer. Sure. Go nuts. Banning speaking as a private citizen because you have an opinion you wish to express in public as a private citizen representing the opinions of yourself?!? FFS! Are you actually serious about that??? You can't push back against that hard enough. Surely? Freedom, opposition to totalitarianism. The right to speak your mind. Even if Google doesn't like your opinion and your opinion is objective wrong, to hell with them. Freedom.

pmiller2 6y ago
The distinction here is that Google employees are not legally banned from speaking as a private citizen about the company they work for. They just won't be employees of Google for much longer after Google finds out. I don't like that any more than you do. Corporations have far too much power in the US, and way more control over the lives of ordinary citizens than they should. But, there's nothing against the rules here. And, that's the way big corporations like it. Note that Google employees are still free to donate money or otherwise assist organizations calling for Google to be broken up. While Google may not like this, it's highly unlikely they'll ever find out about it.
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  > The distinction here is that Google employees are not legally banned from speaking as a private citizen about the company they work for. They just won't be employees of Google for much longer after Google finds out. A distinction without a difference, the intended effect is still the same: discouraging people from speaking out. > I don't like that any more than you do. Corporations have far too much power in the US, and way more control over the lives of ordinary citizens than they should. But, there's nothing against the rules here. Then surely the focus should be on changing the rules and pushing back what little we can, not making excuses about how it is technically not illegal.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Speaking out about legal violations is not only allowed, it's protected by whistleblowing laws. It's an adversarial process, but legally protected. What Google frowns upon, and will terminate an employee legally for, is speculation outside of that legally-protected space. So going to the SEC with evidence Google is acting bad? Legally protected. Circulating in an email "hey, is thing X that team Y is doing monopolistic?" No, and you'll get canned for having that discussion in an unprivileged environment without legal counsel present.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Look, I'm not making an excuse. I'm telling you how it is. The problem here is that big corporations have captured the political process in this country. Your representatives in Washington probably don't represent you; they're responsive to the people who fund their campaigns, and, unless you're a billionaire or something, that's not you.
- chii 6y ago
  > While Google may not like this, it's highly unlikely they'll ever find out about it. if you donated or is affiliated with _any_ political cause, and google fired you for that reason, then they've committed illegal discrimination against you. However, this political affiliation/activism needs to be conducted outside working hours, lest it be associated with google's official public stance or incur liabilities. You actions as an employee could be misrepresented as the position of google, and they are well within their rights to restrict how you represent yourself during office hours, and they should also be allowed to prevent you from mis-representing yourself too (i.e., you cannot use your position as an employee to act as an agent of political activism or affiliation unless authorized by the owners of google).
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    > if you donated or is affiliated with _any_ political cause, and google fired you for that reason, then they've committed illegal discrimination against you. I believe that's only the case in California and a handful of other states. For instance: "Can an employer fire or discriminate against an employee based on political beliefs? You may be surprised to learn that, for many employees, the answer is yes." [0] --- [0]: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...
WoahNoun 6y ago
I, for one, think employers should have the right to fire neo-nazis/neo-confederates/white supremacists, but you do you.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  Except James Damore wasn’t one but got labeled so anyway. It’s not okay to selectively allow or prohibit speech. Everyone should be able to say anything. It’s just words.
  - WoahNoun 6y ago
    He used company resources and an internal forum so that doesn't fit under OP's description of being "a private citizen representing the opinions of yourself." And he was fired for creating a hostile work environment for his colleagues. Not for his private views.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - wokwokwok 6y ago
    You can say anything you like. What you're actually asking for is that people can say anything they like without repercussions of any kind. That's a different thing. ...and, legally, it's been a thing (see 'libel laws') that freedom of speech does not guarantee for a long time. /shrug
    - harry8 6y ago
      So you cannot say anything you like. Or by that reasoning you could say anything you liked in the Soviet Union when Stalin was the big cheese but of course there were repercussions. Once upon a time we were taught there was a /fundamental/ difference between freedom, justice and Stalin's Soviet reigime that we were (and still are) dead against. The difference, which is a significant one right now, is not fundamental. It is just a difference of degree of those repercussions. Interesting isn't it?
yongjik 6y ago
> ... such a nefarious, un-american thing ... Well, TBH, "banning employees from using certain everyday terms because they have specific legal usages and the company can be sued for $$$ if the words were taken out of context" is one of the most American things I can think of.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  Manager at a multi-national corporation. This definitely isn’t unique to the US. If anything, it’s more ubiquitous in regions with higher degrees of regulation. The whole thing has been taken out of context here. It’s basically just “here’s how you avoid saying anything that can be taken out of context and used against us”.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
astrea 6y ago
I think the part of that sentence you conveniently left out of the quote is the most critical. One would be wise to not talk about matters of which they know nothing about, especially if it harms their employer. I think this SV tendency to speak and rally against their employers at every turn is cutting off your nose to spite your face and comes from a place of extreme privilege.
- justinclift 6y ago
  > One would be wise to not talk about matters of which they know nothing about, especially if it harms their employer. Hmmm... After Google interviewed a candidate for an executive job last year, that person sent a follow-up email to Sundar Pichai ... the candidate asked about the antitrust implications of a potential merger. That's an absolutely valid question for a executive candidate to be asking their potential employer, considering concerns over recent years. However: An antitrust question to Mr. Pichai was seen as inappropriate, raising questions about the candidate’s judgment. Not being able to ask material questions about the very environment they're being asked to perform in, is frankly bizarre. Hopefully the candidate chose a better place.
  - sujinge9 6y ago
    I feel like the judgment is asking about antitrust in an email. Leaving a paper trail on this either way is definitely poor executive judgement.
    - shard972 6y ago
      I think a big part of divide here is between people who agree with you and disagree. Some would hope in a good society that executives were interested in such things as accountability, transparency, ethics and the like. But the laws are what they are and following those values will not only prevent your progress as an Exec but potentially end your career, when again, many would hope the opposite to be true.
    - Closi 6y ago
      > I feel like the judgment is asking about antitrust in an email. Leaving a paper trail on this either way is definitely poor executive judgement. Poor executive judgement in an organization that has something to hide.
esoterica 6y ago
If you are freedom absolutist then you have to agree that Google has a freedom of association right to fire you if they don't like the things you are saying. It's funny how the people who adamantly oppose any restrictions on "freedom" don't realize "freedom" cuts both ways - if you have the unlimited freedom to do what you want then other people also have the unlimited freedom to punish you if they don't like what you are doing.
- MinusGix 6y ago
  While I don't entirely agree with the poster above, I think there can be a notable difference in freedoms that your post ignores. People and corporations are two separate groups, and you may want more freedoms for either or even both. Like, I'm for individual freedoms, but companies have the potential for more abuse than a single person not liking you does, and so they should be far harsher regulated (and they are, though some may want more/less) in how they behave towards individuals.
codecutter 6y ago
Freedom.. absolutely.!! An employee is free to find another employer.
dleslie 6y ago
They're free to make those statements. And Google is free to fire them for doing so. 'Tis quite American sounding, to me.
kenferry 6y ago
If I, as an employee of google, say a bunch of stuff about google antitrust, it doesn't matter how often I say I'm speaking "not in my capacity as an employee of google." It will be reported as "google employee says <>". It _will_ be taken as a statement that is believed by "google employees".
delfinom 6y ago
Worked at numerous small companies. General stance by lawyers is if you write down a legal issue without consulting them first, they will have you fired six ways to Sunday. It is a big de.

by harry8 6y ago

pmiller2 6y ago

The distinction here is that Google employees are not legally banned from speaking as a private citizen about the company they work for. They just won't be employees of Google for much longer after Google finds out. I don't like that any more than you do. Corporations have far too much power in the US, and way more control over the lives of ordinary citizens than they should. But, there's nothing against the rules here. And, that's the way big corporations like it. Note that Google employees are still free to donate money or otherwise assist organizations calling for Google to be broken up. While Google may not like this, it's highly unlikely they'll ever find out about it.

Nullabillity 6y ago
> The distinction here is that Google employees are not legally banned from speaking as a private citizen about the company they work for. They just won't be employees of Google for much longer after Google finds out. A distinction without a difference, the intended effect is still the same: discouraging people from speaking out. > I don't like that any more than you do. Corporations have far too much power in the US, and way more control over the lives of ordinary citizens than they should. But, there's nothing against the rules here. Then surely the focus should be on changing the rules and pushing back what little we can, not making excuses about how it is technically not illegal.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Speaking out about legal violations is not only allowed, it's protected by whistleblowing laws. It's an adversarial process, but legally protected. What Google frowns upon, and will terminate an employee legally for, is speculation outside of that legally-protected space. So going to the SEC with evidence Google is acting bad? Legally protected. Circulating in an email "hey, is thing X that team Y is doing monopolistic?" No, and you'll get canned for having that discussion in an unprivileged environment without legal counsel present.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Look, I'm not making an excuse. I'm telling you how it is. The problem here is that big corporations have captured the political process in this country. Your representatives in Washington probably don't represent you; they're responsive to the people who fund their campaigns, and, unless you're a billionaire or something, that's not you.
chii 6y ago
> While Google may not like this, it's highly unlikely they'll ever find out about it. if you donated or is affiliated with _any_ political cause, and google fired you for that reason, then they've committed illegal discrimination against you. However, this political affiliation/activism needs to be conducted outside working hours, lest it be associated with google's official public stance or incur liabilities. You actions as an employee could be misrepresented as the position of google, and they are well within their rights to restrict how you represent yourself during office hours, and they should also be allowed to prevent you from mis-representing yourself too (i.e., you cannot use your position as an employee to act as an agent of political activism or affiliation unless authorized by the owners of google).
- pmiller2 6y ago
  > if you donated or is affiliated with _any_ political cause, and google fired you for that reason, then they've committed illegal discrimination against you. I believe that's only the case in California and a handful of other states. For instance: "Can an employer fire or discriminate against an employee based on political beliefs? You may be surprised to learn that, for many employees, the answer is yes." [0] --- [0]: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...

WoahNoun 6y ago

I, for one, think employers should have the right to fire neo-nazis/neo-confederates/white supremacists, but you do you.

dkdk8283 6y ago
Except James Damore wasn’t one but got labeled so anyway. It’s not okay to selectively allow or prohibit speech. Everyone should be able to say anything. It’s just words.
- WoahNoun 6y ago
  He used company resources and an internal forum so that doesn't fit under OP's description of being "a private citizen representing the opinions of yourself." And he was fired for creating a hostile work environment for his colleagues. Not for his private views.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- wokwokwok 6y ago
  You can say anything you like. What you're actually asking for is that people can say anything they like without repercussions of any kind. That's a different thing. ...and, legally, it's been a thing (see 'libel laws') that freedom of speech does not guarantee for a long time. /shrug
  - harry8 6y ago
    So you cannot say anything you like. Or by that reasoning you could say anything you liked in the Soviet Union when Stalin was the big cheese but of course there were repercussions. Once upon a time we were taught there was a /fundamental/ difference between freedom, justice and Stalin's Soviet reigime that we were (and still are) dead against. The difference, which is a significant one right now, is not fundamental. It is just a difference of degree of those repercussions. Interesting isn't it?

yongjik 6y ago

> ... such a nefarious, un-american thing ... Well, TBH, "banning employees from using certain everyday terms because they have specific legal usages and the company can be sued for $$$ if the words were taken out of context" is one of the most American things I can think of.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Manager at a multi-national corporation. This definitely isn’t unique to the US. If anything, it’s more ubiquitous in regions with higher degrees of regulation. The whole thing has been taken out of context here. It’s basically just “here’s how you avoid saying anything that can be taken out of context and used against us”.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

astrea 6y ago

I think the part of that sentence you conveniently left out of the quote is the most critical. One would be wise to not talk about matters of which they know nothing about, especially if it harms their employer. I think this SV tendency to speak and rally against their employers at every turn is cutting off your nose to spite your face and comes from a place of extreme privilege.

justinclift 6y ago
> One would be wise to not talk about matters of which they know nothing about, especially if it harms their employer. Hmmm... After Google interviewed a candidate for an executive job last year, that person sent a follow-up email to Sundar Pichai ... the candidate asked about the antitrust implications of a potential merger. That's an absolutely valid question for a executive candidate to be asking their potential employer, considering concerns over recent years. However: An antitrust question to Mr. Pichai was seen as inappropriate, raising questions about the candidate’s judgment. Not being able to ask material questions about the very environment they're being asked to perform in, is frankly bizarre. Hopefully the candidate chose a better place.
- sujinge9 6y ago
  I feel like the judgment is asking about antitrust in an email. Leaving a paper trail on this either way is definitely poor executive judgement.
  - shard972 6y ago
    I think a big part of divide here is between people who agree with you and disagree. Some would hope in a good society that executives were interested in such things as accountability, transparency, ethics and the like. But the laws are what they are and following those values will not only prevent your progress as an Exec but potentially end your career, when again, many would hope the opposite to be true.
  - Closi 6y ago
    > I feel like the judgment is asking about antitrust in an email. Leaving a paper trail on this either way is definitely poor executive judgement. Poor executive judgement in an organization that has something to hide.

esoterica 6y ago

If you are freedom absolutist then you have to agree that Google has a freedom of association right to fire you if they don't like the things you are saying. It's funny how the people who adamantly oppose any restrictions on "freedom" don't realize "freedom" cuts both ways - if you have the unlimited freedom to do what you want then other people also have the unlimited freedom to punish you if they don't like what you are doing.

MinusGix 6y ago
While I don't entirely agree with the poster above, I think there can be a notable difference in freedoms that your post ignores. People and corporations are two separate groups, and you may want more freedoms for either or even both. Like, I'm for individual freedoms, but companies have the potential for more abuse than a single person not liking you does, and so they should be far harsher regulated (and they are, though some may want more/less) in how they behave towards individuals.

codecutter 6y ago

Freedom.. absolutely.!! An employee is free to find another employer.

dleslie 6y ago

They're free to make those statements. And Google is free to fire them for doing so. 'Tis quite American sounding, to me.

kenferry 6y ago

If I, as an employee of google, say a bunch of stuff about google antitrust, it doesn't matter how often I say I'm speaking "not in my capacity as an employee of google." It will be reported as "google employee says <>". It _will_ be taken as a statement that is believed by "google employees".

delfinom 6y ago

Worked at numerous small companies. General stance by lawyers is if you write down a legal issue without consulting them first, they will have you fired six ways to Sunday. It is a big de.