3 ms·

There was a fairly benign protest, from what I can tell. Whether you agree with the rationale or not, those staging the protest have come to a conclusion that

There was a fairly benign protest, from what I can tell. Whether you agree with the rationale or not, those staging the protest have come to a conclusion that Google, through the services they deliver, is aiding the killing of innocents. Is that unreasonable to protest? Sure it might make fellow employees uncomfortable, but is that not the point? It's not disputable that tens of thousands of innocent children, women and men have been killed by Israel? Is it? That your organisations capabilities are likely to have been used to kill those people feels like something that should make all employees think about the company that employs them, it is sort of relevant to all employees, is it not?

bradfox2 3y ago
Then they should quit if their personal beliefs no longer align with the company. The expectation that they can do anything outside of working for the company on company objectives while on company time and not face consequences is insane to anyone that's worked at a non-SV tech company.
- SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
  I don't think that should be the first step. Trying to voice your frustrations is an important first step, maybe leave if you eventually find the organisation impervious to change, but simply leaving as a first step isn't the right way to do things.
- Starman_Jones 3y ago
  If your recommendation for airing their grievances still results in their unemployment, why on earth should they quit instead of doing what they did?
  - fjkdlsjflkds 3y ago
    Makes sense to protest and raise hell before you get fired (or quit), in such a context, yes. What doesn't make much sense is to act surprised and complain that you got fired afterwards. Getting fired is exactly what one would expect when an employee is not only misusing their working time, but also disrupting everyone else's work, and actively trying to publically undermine the company's image (e.g., by suggesting that Google is supporting literal genocide, without any actual evidence of such).
  - filoleg 3y ago
    > why on earth should they quit instead of doing what they did? Would’ve made them more hireable in the future. Especially given the arrest record for some of them. Usually, having an arrest on your record isn’t going to result in an automatic rejection of your offer during the background check. You usually get to explain yourself, and it could be salvageable. However, I see it being rather difficult in their case to explain away “yeah, so i was fired for disrupting my previous workplace with a protest and then got arrested for refusing to leave the company property and, subsequently, trespassing.”
    - raydev 3y ago
      > Would’ve made them more hireable in the future I think you're overestimating how much this harms their career prospects outside of FAANG.
      - filoleg 3y ago
        But that’s the thing, most of them would much rather be employed at a FAANG with high pay and high tolerance for “expressing yourself” in the workplace. I totally agree with you that they would be unlikely to not be able to get a job at some old school enterprise with a very unsexy product. Those types of employers typically won’t tolerate even a hint of a similar behavior they could get away with at a FAANG though. Also, I dont automatically stigmatize people for having prior issues with the law. Imo, it all depends on a case by case basis. However, if I was an employer, I would feel just as uneasy hiring someone who was previously fired and arrested for staging a protest that got out of hand at their previous workplace, as I would about hiring someone with prior convictions for wire fraud and embezzling as my CFO. P.S. Besides FAANG, also good luck to them to be able to get employed by the government or military contractors (which I assume they wouldn’t even apply for in the first place, given their stances).
        raydev 3y ago
        There are plenty of just-below-FAANG tier high-paying companies that aren't spending time Googling your history outside of LinkedIn. Most of these folks will be fine and getting paid lots of money. If they make this cause their entire online personality then maybe they'll have an issue, but I have a feeling most of them will probably get back to work and move on with their lives.
  - bradfox2 3y ago
    Probably to avoid being arrested and/or retain the ability to pass a background check while finding alternate employment in the future.

bradfox2 3y ago

Then they should quit if their personal beliefs no longer align with the company. The expectation that they can do anything outside of working for the company on company objectives while on company time and not face consequences is insane to anyone that's worked at a non-SV tech company.

SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
I don't think that should be the first step. Trying to voice your frustrations is an important first step, maybe leave if you eventually find the organisation impervious to change, but simply leaving as a first step isn't the right way to do things.
Starman_Jones 3y ago
If your recommendation for airing their grievances still results in their unemployment, why on earth should they quit instead of doing what they did?
- fjkdlsjflkds 3y ago
  Makes sense to protest and raise hell before you get fired (or quit), in such a context, yes. What doesn't make much sense is to act surprised and complain that you got fired afterwards. Getting fired is exactly what one would expect when an employee is not only misusing their working time, but also disrupting everyone else's work, and actively trying to publically undermine the company's image (e.g., by suggesting that Google is supporting literal genocide, without any actual evidence of such).
- filoleg 3y ago
  > why on earth should they quit instead of doing what they did? Would’ve made them more hireable in the future. Especially given the arrest record for some of them. Usually, having an arrest on your record isn’t going to result in an automatic rejection of your offer during the background check. You usually get to explain yourself, and it could be salvageable. However, I see it being rather difficult in their case to explain away “yeah, so i was fired for disrupting my previous workplace with a protest and then got arrested for refusing to leave the company property and, subsequently, trespassing.”
  - raydev 3y ago
    > Would’ve made them more hireable in the future I think you're overestimating how much this harms their career prospects outside of FAANG.
    - filoleg 3y ago
      But that’s the thing, most of them would much rather be employed at a FAANG with high pay and high tolerance for “expressing yourself” in the workplace. I totally agree with you that they would be unlikely to not be able to get a job at some old school enterprise with a very unsexy product. Those types of employers typically won’t tolerate even a hint of a similar behavior they could get away with at a FAANG though. Also, I dont automatically stigmatize people for having prior issues with the law. Imo, it all depends on a case by case basis. However, if I was an employer, I would feel just as uneasy hiring someone who was previously fired and arrested for staging a protest that got out of hand at their previous workplace, as I would about hiring someone with prior convictions for wire fraud and embezzling as my CFO. P.S. Besides FAANG, also good luck to them to be able to get employed by the government or military contractors (which I assume they wouldn’t even apply for in the first place, given their stances).
      - raydev 3y ago
        There are plenty of just-below-FAANG tier high-paying companies that aren't spending time Googling your history outside of LinkedIn. Most of these folks will be fine and getting paid lots of money. If they make this cause their entire online personality then maybe they'll have an issue, but I have a feeling most of them will probably get back to work and move on with their lives.
- bradfox2 3y ago
  Probably to avoid being arrested and/or retain the ability to pass a background check while finding alternate employment in the future.