5 ms·

You 100% have the right to protest. What you do not have is the right to use your access to the company building to protest in said company building. Feel free

You 100% have the right to protest. What you do not have is the right to use your access to the company building to protest in said company building. Feel free to stage a protest out front and I 100% support that. If you truly object to what your employer does then quit. In this case you are highly paid and skilled talent that is not stuck in your job. I have much more sympathy for the like of service workers, factory workers, et.al. that lack the mobility of jobs that these people have.

tw04 2y ago
Ultimately a whole new generation is finding out about the value of a union. You don’t need collective bargaining rights up until the point you disagree with the company you work for and decide to vocalize it. Then you find out how few rights you have.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  I know of no union in the USA that would be able to get its members off the hook for a sit in on an executive office. The unions, however, would at least have counsel on what its members could do to protest, but only for collective action, I’m not sure anti-Israeli sentiment would meet that bar. Usually it’s for economic things, like pay and benefits, that a majority of the union members could actually agree on.
  - tw04 2y ago
    The UAW literally had all their members sit down in various places throughout the factory and offices of GM in the past... I don't know why you think they "wouldn't be able to get members off" from this.
    - Clubber 2y ago
      >The UAW literally had all their members sit down in various places throughout the factory and offices of GM in the past... I don't know why you think they "wouldn't be able to get members off" from this. Ya but that was coordinated by the union for the benefit of the union, right? These people are going rogue. I don't think the UAW would support them either.
      - tw04 2y ago
        You do realize the UAW has protected members from showing up to work high, right? Gotten them into treatment and back on the line. They don’t just protect members when it suits their needs. They would absolutely support members protesting what the members believe is a human rights violation.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        They wouldn’t because the case law is very clear in this. I mean, they might offer moral support, but the lawyers would already know that legal support is futile.
        tw04 2y ago
        Please cite the “case law that is very clear in this”.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        I did in another comment, you can just look at the wiki article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike The case that sets the definitive answer is in 1939 by the Supreme Court: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Fansteel_Metallurgical_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Fansteel_Metallurgic.... It leaves wiggle little room to get anything out of this from the company being striked against.
        tw04 2y ago
        It leaves a ton of wiggle room actually. Nothing in the story says the Google employees were trespassed and arrested. The case you cited says that the NRLB can’t force an employer to rehire a worker fired for breaking the law. Furthermore, it says absolutely nothing about the union itself protecting an employee, just the limits of the NRLB in forcing a worker to be rehired. Otherwise ya… no wiggle room.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      No. https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes#:~:text=Strikes%20unlawful%20because%20of%20misconduct,not%20protected%20by%20the%20law https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes#:~:text=Strikes%20unlawful%20be.... > The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a “sitdown” strike, when employees simply stay in the plant and refuse to work is not protected by the law. Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike#:~:text=A%20wave%20of%20sit%2Ddown,Fansteel%20Metallurgical%20Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike#:~:text=A%20w....). When the Supreme Court rules on this topic specifically, union lawyers are going to be fairly clear about the consequences and advice strongly against it. Whoever organized this at Google either didn’t do a basic Google search or didn’t care about very clear consequences.
      - ambrozk 2y ago
        My understanding is that the protests were closely coordinated with lawyers, and Google will likely spend a ton of $$$ defending the terminations as a result.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        The case law is really clear here, unless the Supreme court has gotten progressive enough to overturn their 1939 decision (which is really not possible), this will not make it far at all in court (anyone can sue anyone for anything, but this probably gets thrown out before pretrial). If they got advice from lawyers, however, that this was ok, there is probably clear grounds for a legal malpractice lawsuit. I really doubt Google is going to spend much on this at all.
        ambrozk 2y ago
        I am just repeating what I have heard from people who should know.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        I think you've been misinformed, but this is the internet, so anything goes really. I can't imagine any lawyer, or anyone who can use google to search for things, thinking they can get a decent payday from this.
    - addicted 2y ago
      You are incorrect. Picketing, which is what unions do, is preventing people from entering the workplace. You can’t really picket in the workplace. But even assuming that is correct, unions wouldn’t support this because it doesn’t fall under the mandate or the union, which is to protect the direct interests of its members. Some unions may broaden this to protect the interests of the industry at large, but even that is because it’s considered related to the direct interests of the members. Unions may canvass their members to support other causes outside the workplace but they’re not gonna shut down the workplace to support a cause that doesn’t directly affect their members.
      - runarberg 2y ago
        https://uaw.org/uaw-statement-israel-palestine/ https://uaw.org/uaw-statement-israel-palestine/
FactKnower69 2y ago
>If you truly object to what your employer does then quit. If you want to make a change in the world, then quit wielding your power and just voluntarily surrender it! >I have much more sympathy for the like of service workers, factory workers, et.al. that lack the mobility of jobs that these people have. I don't share or care about your guilty tech bro self-loathing. I will continue to make a half million dollars a year barely working while using my time and money to accomplish what political goals I see fit. Any serious activist should do the same. Don't fall for this bullshit narrative that you have to voluntarily live in poverty to be a populist.
theptip 2y ago
I’m not sure “rights” are the correct framing. The protesters surely expected to be fired. They traded their jobs for attention on an issue they cared about. The question of what is a legitimate protest, and when doing illegal things is tactically optimal, is quite a complex issue. I think the only element of surprise/outrage was that seeming bystanders also got fired. To understand this, consider Google’s position here; cynically it makes sense to use this as an opportunity for an “Object Lesson” (in Horowitz’s terminology). The decision to fire everyone here was obviously excessive, and that is the point. A proportionate response would not convey the message as clearly to staff. “Bring your whole self to work” is no longer the rule, this is clearly an attempt to signal that employees must yield to corporate values (or go elsewhere if they disagree). In other words the standard expectations from your employer, outside the SV bubble.
- myrandomcomment 2y ago
  All your words seem reasonable with the exception that I do not believe they expect to fired. I have been doing this valley tech thing since before the .bomb and I can tell you I have never seen a more self entitled class of workers in my time here.
ParetoOptimal 2y ago
> What you do not have is the right to use your access to the company building to protest in said company building. Feel free to stage a protest out front and I 100% support that. Companies don't play by the rules. I see no problem with protests bending rules to make that protest harder to ignore.

tw04 2y ago

Ultimately a whole new generation is finding out about the value of a union. You don’t need collective bargaining rights up until the point you disagree with the company you work for and decide to vocalize it. Then you find out how few rights you have.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
I know of no union in the USA that would be able to get its members off the hook for a sit in on an executive office. The unions, however, would at least have counsel on what its members could do to protest, but only for collective action, I’m not sure anti-Israeli sentiment would meet that bar. Usually it’s for economic things, like pay and benefits, that a majority of the union members could actually agree on.
- tw04 2y ago
  The UAW literally had all their members sit down in various places throughout the factory and offices of GM in the past... I don't know why you think they "wouldn't be able to get members off" from this.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    >The UAW literally had all their members sit down in various places throughout the factory and offices of GM in the past... I don't know why you think they "wouldn't be able to get members off" from this. Ya but that was coordinated by the union for the benefit of the union, right? These people are going rogue. I don't think the UAW would support them either.
    - tw04 2y ago
      You do realize the UAW has protected members from showing up to work high, right? Gotten them into treatment and back on the line. They don’t just protect members when it suits their needs. They would absolutely support members protesting what the members believe is a human rights violation.
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        They wouldn’t because the case law is very clear in this. I mean, they might offer moral support, but the lawyers would already know that legal support is futile.
        tw04 2y ago
        Please cite the “case law that is very clear in this”.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        I did in another comment, you can just look at the wiki article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike The case that sets the definitive answer is in 1939 by the Supreme Court: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Fansteel_Metallurgical_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Fansteel_Metallurgic.... It leaves wiggle little room to get anything out of this from the company being striked against.
        tw04 2y ago
        It leaves a ton of wiggle room actually. Nothing in the story says the Google employees were trespassed and arrested. The case you cited says that the NRLB can’t force an employer to rehire a worker fired for breaking the law. Furthermore, it says absolutely nothing about the union itself protecting an employee, just the limits of the NRLB in forcing a worker to be rehired. Otherwise ya… no wiggle room.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    No. https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes#:~:text=Strikes%20unlawful%20because%20of%20misconduct,not%20protected%20by%20the%20law https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes#:~:text=Strikes%20unlawful%20be.... > The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a “sitdown” strike, when employees simply stay in the plant and refuse to work is not protected by the law. Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike#:~:text=A%20wave%20of%20sit%2Ddown,Fansteel%20Metallurgical%20Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike#:~:text=A%20w....). When the Supreme Court rules on this topic specifically, union lawyers are going to be fairly clear about the consequences and advice strongly against it. Whoever organized this at Google either didn’t do a basic Google search or didn’t care about very clear consequences.
    - ambrozk 2y ago
      My understanding is that the protests were closely coordinated with lawyers, and Google will likely spend a ton of $$$ defending the terminations as a result.
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        The case law is really clear here, unless the Supreme court has gotten progressive enough to overturn their 1939 decision (which is really not possible), this will not make it far at all in court (anyone can sue anyone for anything, but this probably gets thrown out before pretrial). If they got advice from lawyers, however, that this was ok, there is probably clear grounds for a legal malpractice lawsuit. I really doubt Google is going to spend much on this at all.
        ambrozk 2y ago
        I am just repeating what I have heard from people who should know.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        I think you've been misinformed, but this is the internet, so anything goes really. I can't imagine any lawyer, or anyone who can use google to search for things, thinking they can get a decent payday from this.
  - addicted 2y ago
    You are incorrect. Picketing, which is what unions do, is preventing people from entering the workplace. You can’t really picket in the workplace. But even assuming that is correct, unions wouldn’t support this because it doesn’t fall under the mandate or the union, which is to protect the direct interests of its members. Some unions may broaden this to protect the interests of the industry at large, but even that is because it’s considered related to the direct interests of the members. Unions may canvass their members to support other causes outside the workplace but they’re not gonna shut down the workplace to support a cause that doesn’t directly affect their members.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      https://uaw.org/uaw-statement-israel-palestine/ https://uaw.org/uaw-statement-israel-palestine/

FactKnower69 2y ago

>If you truly object to what your employer does then quit. If you want to make a change in the world, then quit wielding your power and just voluntarily surrender it! >I have much more sympathy for the like of service workers, factory workers, et.al. that lack the mobility of jobs that these people have. I don't share or care about your guilty tech bro self-loathing. I will continue to make a half million dollars a year barely working while using my time and money to accomplish what political goals I see fit. Any serious activist should do the same. Don't fall for this bullshit narrative that you have to voluntarily live in poverty to be a populist.

theptip 2y ago

I’m not sure “rights” are the correct framing. The protesters surely expected to be fired. They traded their jobs for attention on an issue they cared about. The question of what is a legitimate protest, and when doing illegal things is tactically optimal, is quite a complex issue. I think the only element of surprise/outrage was that seeming bystanders also got fired. To understand this, consider Google’s position here; cynically it makes sense to use this as an opportunity for an “Object Lesson” (in Horowitz’s terminology). The decision to fire everyone here was obviously excessive, and that is the point. A proportionate response would not convey the message as clearly to staff. “Bring your whole self to work” is no longer the rule, this is clearly an attempt to signal that employees must yield to corporate values (or go elsewhere if they disagree). In other words the standard expectations from your employer, outside the SV bubble.

myrandomcomment 2y ago
All your words seem reasonable with the exception that I do not believe they expect to fired. I have been doing this valley tech thing since before the .bomb and I can tell you I have never seen a more self entitled class of workers in my time here.

ParetoOptimal 2y ago

> What you do not have is the right to use your access to the company building to protest in said company building. Feel free to stage a protest out front and I 100% support that. Companies don't play by the rules. I see no problem with protests bending rules to make that protest harder to ignore.