5 ms·

Googler protests in the past have typically been walk-outs and other outdoor gatherings. This protest took place within the offices. Some of the protestors occu

Googler protests in the past have typically been walk-outs and other outdoor gatherings. This protest took place within the offices. Some of the protestors occupied senior executives' offices for many hours, and had to be removed by the police. Some of the protestors also streamed their protest from within the offices of the notoriously confidentiality-obsessed company. I don't buy the narrative that Google is cracking down on employee activism. It seems more like the activists in this instance went too far and were dealt with accordingly.

llm_nerd 2y ago
I think it's fair to say that Google is cracking down. They did tolerate activities like this previously, but came down like a hammer on this. It seems like they are setting a precedent and giving fair warning to anyone else thinking of doing something similar. Things like this can be viral, as seen with the college protests. And the more enabled they are, the worse they get, as seen with Columbia. And to be fair there has been a big shift in the market for tech workers. There was a sort of indispensable aura that protected tech employees before that just isn't there any more. People who think this sort of thing wouldn't yield a rapid firing are living in the past. There is a video from the participants- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLiWHO71fOU&lc= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLiWHO71fOU&lc= I find it rather incredible. They end it by announcing that they should all be reinstated because they "did nothing wrong". They repeatedly talk as if they expected just to have their "concerns heard", to get a warning, etc. As an aside, what is with the insane, anti-HN moderation in here? Rational, constructive comments are greyed out because someone's raging bias is countered.
- D13Fd 2y ago
  > I find it rather incredible. They end it by announcing that they should all be reinstated because they "did nothing wrong". They repeatedly talk as if they expected just to have their "concerns heard", to get a warning, etc. Yeah. This is true "privilege" speaking -- they don't seem to realize how fortunate they were to be in their positions in the first place. Companies employ you because it's a good deal for them. If you're lucky, you find a place where it is a good deal for you too. Protesting and disrupting work changes that calculus for the company. It's no longer a good deal for them, and the unsurprising result is that they don't want to employ such people or hire them back.
  - krainboltgreene 2y ago
    > This is true "privilege" speaking -- they don't seem to realize how fortunate they were to be in their positions in the first place. This is an extreme assumption on your part. > Companies employ you because it's a good deal for them. If you're lucky, you find a place where it is a good deal for you too. Protesting and disrupting work changes that calculus for the company. It's no longer a good deal for them, and the unsurprising result is that they won't want to hire such people back. Everytime workers do something collectively there's a dozen people in these threads saying the same thing, as if it's some sort of revelation. Sometimes people do things regardless of what's "expected" to be done to them, hoping for reason and empathy to prevail. That's not a sin and being snide about it isn't helpful.
    - stickfigure 2y ago
      How much reason and empathy were the protesters offering to the people whose offices they occupied?
      - krainboltgreene 2y ago
        An extremely reasonable amount, by all counts, what a strange question.
    - D13Fd 2y ago
      > This is an extreme assumption on your part. It's not. As I said, that's what I take from a video where a string of people had some of the best paying jobs available to any kind of worker, and at one of the most significant companies in the world right now, but don't seem to appreciate how fortunate they were to be in that situation or that they are replaceable. > hoping for reason and empathy to prevail "Reason" is what will get them in trouble here. A reasonable company is unlikely to keep or re-hire disruptive employees when it has other options, and boy does it have other options right now in this tech labor market. > being snide about it isn't helpful. I'm not being snide. They have every right to stand up for what they believe in, and there is something noble in that regardless of whether you agree with their view. I'm just remarking on how these individuals don't seem to realize what they had and what they've likely lost.
relaxing 2y ago
[flagged]
relaxing 2y ago
The idea that live streaming the protests was going to leak corporate secrets is also laughable.
- cad31 2y ago
  This idea that projects are "confidential" is a classic for keeping employees on their toes and preventing them from asking questions.
Willish42 2y ago
> I don't buy the narrative that Google is cracking down on employee activism. Seriously? As somebody who's followed this stuff closely there's loads of historical precedent here for assuming exactly that. Including with NLRB and retaliation from other "good kinds of protests". https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/25/20983053/google-fires-four-employees-memo-rebecca-rivers-laurence-berland-union-busting-accusation-walkout https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/25/20983053/google-fires-fo... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/02/google-labor-laws-nlrb-surveillance-worker-firing https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/02/google-la... https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/3/23624631/alphabet-cognizant-joint-employers-youtube-music-workers-union https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/3/23624631/alphabet-cognizan...
bb88 2y ago
Either way, they're not coming back into the building, and Google would probably rather fight a law suit than dealing with these people personally ever again.
- garbagewoman 2y ago
  Why do you say that google would rather not deal with them personally?
  - wtcactus 2y ago
    Because they proved they are toxic. No company would like to deal with them again unless there’s something to be gained from the PR aspect.
    - garbagewoman 2y ago
      Toxic? How so?
    - ParetoOptimal 2y ago
      The company is toxic, not the people. Also, sucks for Google that future hires are gonna look a lot more like these "unacceptable people".

llm_nerd 2y ago

I think it's fair to say that Google is cracking down. They did tolerate activities like this previously, but came down like a hammer on this. It seems like they are setting a precedent and giving fair warning to anyone else thinking of doing something similar. Things like this can be viral, as seen with the college protests. And the more enabled they are, the worse they get, as seen with Columbia. And to be fair there has been a big shift in the market for tech workers. There was a sort of indispensable aura that protected tech employees before that just isn't there any more. People who think this sort of thing wouldn't yield a rapid firing are living in the past. There is a video from the participants- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLiWHO71fOU&lc= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLiWHO71fOU&lc= I find it rather incredible. They end it by announcing that they should all be reinstated because they "did nothing wrong". They repeatedly talk as if they expected just to have their "concerns heard", to get a warning, etc. As an aside, what is with the insane, anti-HN moderation in here? Rational, constructive comments are greyed out because someone's raging bias is countered.

D13Fd 2y ago
> I find it rather incredible. They end it by announcing that they should all be reinstated because they "did nothing wrong". They repeatedly talk as if they expected just to have their "concerns heard", to get a warning, etc. Yeah. This is true "privilege" speaking -- they don't seem to realize how fortunate they were to be in their positions in the first place. Companies employ you because it's a good deal for them. If you're lucky, you find a place where it is a good deal for you too. Protesting and disrupting work changes that calculus for the company. It's no longer a good deal for them, and the unsurprising result is that they don't want to employ such people or hire them back.
- krainboltgreene 2y ago
  > This is true "privilege" speaking -- they don't seem to realize how fortunate they were to be in their positions in the first place. This is an extreme assumption on your part. > Companies employ you because it's a good deal for them. If you're lucky, you find a place where it is a good deal for you too. Protesting and disrupting work changes that calculus for the company. It's no longer a good deal for them, and the unsurprising result is that they won't want to hire such people back. Everytime workers do something collectively there's a dozen people in these threads saying the same thing, as if it's some sort of revelation. Sometimes people do things regardless of what's "expected" to be done to them, hoping for reason and empathy to prevail. That's not a sin and being snide about it isn't helpful.
  - stickfigure 2y ago
    How much reason and empathy were the protesters offering to the people whose offices they occupied?
    - krainboltgreene 2y ago
      An extremely reasonable amount, by all counts, what a strange question.
  - D13Fd 2y ago
    > This is an extreme assumption on your part. It's not. As I said, that's what I take from a video where a string of people had some of the best paying jobs available to any kind of worker, and at one of the most significant companies in the world right now, but don't seem to appreciate how fortunate they were to be in that situation or that they are replaceable. > hoping for reason and empathy to prevail "Reason" is what will get them in trouble here. A reasonable company is unlikely to keep or re-hire disruptive employees when it has other options, and boy does it have other options right now in this tech labor market. > being snide about it isn't helpful. I'm not being snide. They have every right to stand up for what they believe in, and there is something noble in that regardless of whether you agree with their view. I'm just remarking on how these individuals don't seem to realize what they had and what they've likely lost.

relaxing 2y ago

[flagged]

relaxing 2y ago

The idea that live streaming the protests was going to leak corporate secrets is also laughable.

cad31 2y ago
This idea that projects are "confidential" is a classic for keeping employees on their toes and preventing them from asking questions.

Willish42 2y ago

> I don't buy the narrative that Google is cracking down on employee activism. Seriously? As somebody who's followed this stuff closely there's loads of historical precedent here for assuming exactly that. Including with NLRB and retaliation from other "good kinds of protests". https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/25/20983053/google-fires-four-employees-memo-rebecca-rivers-laurence-berland-union-busting-accusation-walkout https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/25/20983053/google-fires-fo... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/02/google-labor-laws-nlrb-surveillance-worker-firing https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/02/google-la... https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/3/23624631/alphabet-cognizant-joint-employers-youtube-music-workers-union https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/3/23624631/alphabet-cognizan...

bb88 2y ago

Either way, they're not coming back into the building, and Google would probably rather fight a law suit than dealing with these people personally ever again.

garbagewoman 2y ago
Why do you say that google would rather not deal with them personally?
- wtcactus 2y ago
  Because they proved they are toxic. No company would like to deal with them again unless there’s something to be gained from the PR aspect.
  - garbagewoman 2y ago
    Toxic? How so?
  - ParetoOptimal 2y ago
    The company is toxic, not the people. Also, sucks for Google that future hires are gonna look a lot more like these "unacceptable people".