3 ms·

Why is any of this true? All you're doing is setting the meta-rules, but who gave you this special freedom to define the rules for others? I mean, that's the c

by calf 3y ago

Why is any of this true? All you're doing is setting the meta-rules, but who gave you this special freedom to define the rules for others? I mean, that's the conceit of your argument. It's the rhetoric of political belief which is why "check your beliefs at the door" is a completely disingenous argument. The very argument you and others offer is foundationally a political belief - a belief about what are freedoms - masquerading as something everyone should uncritically accept as given. That's the lie that you are telling to yourself and others.

xcv123 3y ago
It's really not that complicated. Employees are allowed to have their political beliefs. Believe whatever you want to believe, while doing the job you are paid to do. Their employer can choose to fire them if they behave unprofessionally. That's what happened.
fargle 3y ago
it is a belief. it's a belief in actual freedom - one where we are free to decide whether to do business or not with who we choose. if we choose to contract with a FANG for lots and lots of money, but we have "sell our soul" and promise not to harangue the CEO in the mens' room, that's OK. if we choose not to promise that, for much less $$, that's also OK. and checking your beliefs are the door is a strawman. you're allowed to have beliefs. you're even allowed to voice them, discuss them in a professional way. they do not have to be hidden. but you cannot harass/annoy/intimidate/etc. but if you still do not like those rules, that's fine too! don't sign up for them - leave. if you were really principled in your beliefs, you would NOT "check them at the door" - you would not work there nor participate. but you can't have it both ways AND then claim moral high ground too.
- krapp 3y ago
  Sit-in protests have been long established as a legitimate expression of political speech for decades. "harassment/annoyance/intimidation" have also always been considered legitimate (up to the point of violence, usually) and no political action has ever had any effect in which the protestors kept their place and politely made certain never to upset the status quo. Read MLK's letter from the Birmingham Jail[0], and his opinions on white moderates telling black protestors where and when and how they should conduct themselves. You're backing the wrong side, here. It may be correct in a purely legal sense that American companies can fire anyone for any reason, but it isn't necessarily just when they do so to punish nonviolent political protest. [0]https://www.denverpost.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-legacy-racism-birmingham-opinion-carroll/ https://www.denverpost.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-leg...
  - fargle 3y ago
    sorry, but a peaceful sit-in in a public place or semi-public-place (shop, college etc.) is one thing. in this case they were: - not-peaceful. damaging property. antagonizing people. - in a private space. in a private office in a private space. - in the employ of the very people they were protesting. OK, even if they had the right to be there (which they did not), the company still has the right (moral and legal), actually imperative, to fire them. i don't agree that you need to "check your opinions at the door" at work. you can put up a poster or a flag. you can wear a t-shirt. within reason. you CANNOT harass your employer or other employees. would you say the same: "it isn't necessarily just" [to be fired] if it were 24 KKK members protesting hiring H1Bs in otherwise exactly the same manner? if you can't, it isn't a protest, it's thuggery.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    Comparing this to Civil Rights protests is disingenuous. Google is a company. They are lawfully transacting with a US ally. The employees violated the terms of their employment and Google has no legal obligation to keep those employees. If the employees want to change the law to add Israel to a sanctioned blacklist they can go protest the US government and they won't be arrested or fired. Their rights to political protest are protected.

by calf 3y ago

xcv123 3y ago

It's really not that complicated. Employees are allowed to have their political beliefs. Believe whatever you want to believe, while doing the job you are paid to do. Their employer can choose to fire them if they behave unprofessionally. That's what happened.

fargle 3y ago

it is a belief. it's a belief in actual freedom - one where we are free to decide whether to do business or not with who we choose. if we choose to contract with a FANG for lots and lots of money, but we have "sell our soul" and promise not to harangue the CEO in the mens' room, that's OK. if we choose not to promise that, for much less $$, that's also OK. and checking your beliefs are the door is a strawman. you're allowed to have beliefs. you're even allowed to voice them, discuss them in a professional way. they do not have to be hidden. but you cannot harass/annoy/intimidate/etc. but if you still do not like those rules, that's fine too! don't sign up for them - leave. if you were really principled in your beliefs, you would NOT "check them at the door" - you would not work there nor participate. but you can't have it both ways AND then claim moral high ground too.

krapp 3y ago
Sit-in protests have been long established as a legitimate expression of political speech for decades. "harassment/annoyance/intimidation" have also always been considered legitimate (up to the point of violence, usually) and no political action has ever had any effect in which the protestors kept their place and politely made certain never to upset the status quo. Read MLK's letter from the Birmingham Jail[0], and his opinions on white moderates telling black protestors where and when and how they should conduct themselves. You're backing the wrong side, here. It may be correct in a purely legal sense that American companies can fire anyone for any reason, but it isn't necessarily just when they do so to punish nonviolent political protest. [0]https://www.denverpost.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-legacy-racism-birmingham-opinion-carroll/ https://www.denverpost.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-leg...
- fargle 3y ago
  sorry, but a peaceful sit-in in a public place or semi-public-place (shop, college etc.) is one thing. in this case they were: - not-peaceful. damaging property. antagonizing people. - in a private space. in a private office in a private space. - in the employ of the very people they were protesting. OK, even if they had the right to be there (which they did not), the company still has the right (moral and legal), actually imperative, to fire them. i don't agree that you need to "check your opinions at the door" at work. you can put up a poster or a flag. you can wear a t-shirt. within reason. you CANNOT harass your employer or other employees. would you say the same: "it isn't necessarily just" [to be fired] if it were 24 KKK members protesting hiring H1Bs in otherwise exactly the same manner? if you can't, it isn't a protest, it's thuggery.
- xcv123 3y ago
  Comparing this to Civil Rights protests is disingenuous. Google is a company. They are lawfully transacting with a US ally. The employees violated the terms of their employment and Google has no legal obligation to keep those employees. If the employees want to change the law to add Israel to a sanctioned blacklist they can go protest the US government and they won't be arrested or fired. Their rights to political protest are protected.