4 ms·

To me it's much more shocking to what great length you go to defend the rights of the company. It seems to me that freedom of speech should come before the righ

To me it's much more shocking to what great length you go to defend the rights of the company. It seems to me that freedom of speech should come before the right of firing at will. Or is your opinion that companies are about as souverign as states?

Maro 15y ago
IANAL, but I think there are some things you can't fire people for, like race, age, being pregnant, etc. But other than that, I'd think you're free to 'fire at will'.
- hollerith 15y ago
  Please call it "at-will employment". "Fire at will" is a command given to riflemen.
pstack 15y ago
Google is not a branch of government in any way whatsoever and, like any other business or private organization, can tell you how to speak and how to dress and how to behave without it being censorship. My company requires that employees not speak with the press unless they are granted direct permission to do so and that they should, instead, refer them to an internal rep who will speak with them. That is not censorship. That is my company looking out for their best interests so that some dumb ass like me doesn't say something stupid that misrepresents them. My company also has the right to tell me to watch my crude language while working for them and not to dress like I'm attending a beach party. There are already whistle-blower laws and protections to address what you are referring to, which is the exposition of unethical or illegal business practices by an employee.
benmccann 15y ago
Both rights are fully in tact. A company or individual has a right to enter into and terminate contracts with anyone it wishes at any time. An individual has a right to say anything he wants. No one stopped him from saying anything or from posting a video to his blog for example. You seem to infer some other right that doesn't exist - the right to never be fired. But a law forcing such a measure would decrease the freedom of individuals to freely enter into and terminate contracts with each other. If both parties enter into a contract by their own free will, why should there be some law restricting their freedom to structure that contract in a manner that both parties agree to?

Maro 15y ago

IANAL, but I think there are some things you can't fire people for, like race, age, being pregnant, etc. But other than that, I'd think you're free to 'fire at will'.

hollerith 15y ago
Please call it "at-will employment". "Fire at will" is a command given to riflemen.

pstack 15y ago

Google is not a branch of government in any way whatsoever and, like any other business or private organization, can tell you how to speak and how to dress and how to behave without it being censorship. My company requires that employees not speak with the press unless they are granted direct permission to do so and that they should, instead, refer them to an internal rep who will speak with them. That is not censorship. That is my company looking out for their best interests so that some dumb ass like me doesn't say something stupid that misrepresents them. My company also has the right to tell me to watch my crude language while working for them and not to dress like I'm attending a beach party. There are already whistle-blower laws and protections to address what you are referring to, which is the exposition of unethical or illegal business practices by an employee.

benmccann 15y ago

Both rights are fully in tact. A company or individual has a right to enter into and terminate contracts with anyone it wishes at any time. An individual has a right to say anything he wants. No one stopped him from saying anything or from posting a video to his blog for example. You seem to infer some other right that doesn't exist - the right to never be fired. But a law forcing such a measure would decrease the freedom of individuals to freely enter into and terminate contracts with each other. If both parties enter into a contract by their own free will, why should there be some law restricting their freedom to structure that contract in a manner that both parties agree to?