8 ms·

Rule number one of being a rebel. Don’t do it at work. Protest all you want in the public streets where you have freedom of assembly. You do NOT have that freed

Rule number one of being a rebel. Don’t do it at work. Protest all you want in the public streets where you have freedom of assembly. You do NOT have that freedom within a corporate office building. Regardless of employer. A few firings and maybe they’ll get the message to take it outside. I empathize with people wanting to speak out over something they are passionate about. I do this often. Just know your venue and know your audience. Bridges take a while to build…

rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> Rule number one of being a rebel. Don’t do it at work By doing it at work, they are risking high paying jobs, putting their careers at risk. In public. Risking something for a protest is the whole point. To the extent that they do that with their eyes open, risking high paying jobs, they are heroes. If they do that thinking the people who control Google will be fine with that and they will still keep their jobs, they are, well, without jobs.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Their actions achieved nothing of consequence. I don't see how that makes them "heroes", even from the point of view of someone that supports their views.
  - rufus_foreman 3y ago
    >> Their actions achieved nothing of consequence They drew attention to their cause, you're talking about them. You're talking about their cause. >> even from the point of view of someone that supports their views What views of theirs do you support, exactly?
    - userbinator 3y ago
      There is such a thing as bad publicity.
      - rufus_foreman 3y ago
        There's such a thing as bad publicity for Google also.
        M911T 3y ago
        there's also the fact that google will just keep being used by nearly everyone. at the same time, for the now fired employees, having "was a google employee" in their resumes will help them land a new job
        reactordev 3y ago
        So long as they never mention why they are a former Google employee. Instead of a current one.
        b112 3y ago
        This is accurate. HR doesn't want protesters on staff, and HR often googles candidates, checks social media, etc. They may find sympathy at some businesses, but the larger the company, likely the less of that.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        camdenreslink 3y ago
        I think it really depends on the company. There are a lot of companies out there with a wide range of values. Some might even consider this a quality that they want in a candidate (it will certainly eliminate them from consideration for some companies though).
        reactordev 3y ago
        That’s true! Some might even be more inclined to hire you based on your stance on the matter and that you protested. Good point. Just saying it’s not the best light to show why you were let go. I stick to the canned “We were over-resourced and so there were layoffs” is an easy blanket statement.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      > They drew attention to their cause, you're talking about them. You're talking about their cause. You almost got it. We are talking about them… but not about their cause. And therein lies the gold: they found a cause that they can use to scream look at me me me.
      - b112 3y ago
        Sadly for them, I don't know any of their names, couldn't care who they are, and their protest will vanish from the news cycle in a few hours ... forever. I suspect this is the same for everyone, even those who may be discussing Google's response. So they may have wanted a "me me me" response, or they may have legitimately wanted to raise awareness, but it's a pretty large fail for a now strongly narrowed career path.
  - gitfan86 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - faeriechangling 3y ago
      I feel "Virtue signalling" isn't really fair when they have so much skin in the game here. That's evidence of sincerity rather than disingenuousness, agree or disagree with them. Unless the definition of virtue signalling is so expansive as to be meaningless, where every act of protest which is not anonymous is virtue signalling.
      - gitfan86 3y ago
        The consequence of their actions is that they receive high social status from people with similar politics and Google makes zero changes to their contracts with Israel. And that was obviously going to be the result of these actions. If you want to attribute their actions to a genuine desire to help the Palestinians, that is fine.
        faeriechangling 3y ago
        You know, accusing others of virtue signalling can itself be a form of virtue signalling.
        gitfan86 3y ago
        Ok, but how is that relevant to the Google employees motives? Are you just changing the subject?
  - ParetoOptimal 3y ago
    > Their actions achieved nothing of consequence. They accomplished me never responding to Google recruiter emails and informing others in my network to avoid Google where they can be fired for happening upon a protest at work.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      That might make them Google's heroes.
    - colpabar 3y ago
      I would say google is more than okay with that.
- tolerantgravity 3y ago
  Then they shouldn't be suing imo. Suing implies they think they shouldn't have been fired, which means their risk was not intentional. So they're not heroes.
  - krainboltgreene 3y ago
    In a just world they wouldn't have been fired for speaking out for what they did.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      That's purely based on personal opinion though. I'm sure you could find people with the opposite opinion, that in a just world they would be able to go to work and do their job without having political debates forced on them. Or alternately, one could easily say that in a just world a person would leave their when they disagree with the company rather than making a spectacle out of it.
      - krainboltgreene 3y ago
        You can find people who disagree with me about allowing mixed race couples, but it isn't meaningful to say that it's "purely based on personal opinion". You might as well also comment on how I used air to breath while writing it. No one was stopped from going to work. There were no "political debates" going on, much less "forced" on people. I swear you guys are just making stuff up to get mad at. I feel like there are real problems you could be worried about, like the people in Rafah. Instead I see a lot of chuffing about a gathering of noisy people. Whatever makes you feel good about your time on earth, I guess.
        _heimdall 3y ago
        I had seen reports that there were people disrupting others trying to work in the office. I also expect that those protesting weren't talking about the weather, they would have been raising the issues they are there to protest. Call it what you want I guess, but that is IMO stopping work and engaging in political debate. I'm not sure why you reach for a straw man argument about air or mixed race couples, neither of those are relevant here at all and just make your argument weaker. Edit: also to be clear, I'm not sure who the "you guys" you're referring to are and I'd rather not be lumped in with some larger group for my opinion on one specific situation. I'm also not looking to be angry about anything and am in no way angry about this. I can have opinions without it throwing my mood out of whack.
- reactordev 3y ago
  > Risking something for a protest is the whole point. I can think of a number of protests that didn’t involve risking one’s career, livelihood, or life - that were pretty successful outside the workplace. Inside the workplace, it’s not a public venue and you don’t have the right to occupy offices and sit ins and disrupt work while expecting the company to pay you for that time. Get realistic. They aren’t heroes. They are trespassers. Disruptive ex-employees that cost the company money. Now if they did this right outside Google offices on the streets, that’s a different story all together. That’s a public place. However, many states have at-will employment so if the company feels you no longer represent their interests, you’re done. Bye. Doesn’t matter the cause.
devsda 3y ago
At almost every company I've worked over the years, I had to go through countless mandatory annual trainings that effectively says expressing opinions on non work related subjective political topics with coworkers/employer is not advisable, risky and can be grounds for termination in extreme cases. Either these people genuinely believed there was scope for discussion, or believed their opinion/choice of topic is a PR minefield that their employer wouldn't dare take action or they really wanted to get fired. I'm not from the US. So, unless I'm missing some cultural context, their actions like political activism at work (unless related to labor issues and laws) are unthinkable atleast in my country.
- reactordev 3y ago
  Those trainings are mandatory but usually done via an edutech platform that is basically just a QuickTime movie. Ethics, compliance, corporate policy, it’s just a 30 minute video you play while you do something else and then click the obvious multiple choice answers for 100%. Then forget everything in a week. Lately it’s been those 2D animations using canned software and AI voice over because that’s cheaper than actually giving a damn. Animaker I believe.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  This was most certainly work related. It was about a Google contract which is 100% related to Google and workers at Google.
  - atonse 3y ago
    But a company isn’t a democracy. They don’t have a right to protest it. If they as employees refuse to work (what they’re paid to do), then the employer has every right to fire them. They aren’t forming a union or something.
    - maxboone 3y ago
      This is not universally so, but as far as I can see in the US it is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination
francisofascii 3y ago
Sure, agree, but what about the employee in the article who wondered onto the 10th floor to check out the protest. That person wasn't actively protesting. And that person gets fired. That's not right.
- reactordev 3y ago
  Guilty by association. Again, at-will employment means they can justify it however they want to and it’s totally legal. Unless the individual is part of a union…
  - blitzar 3y ago
    No, at-will employment means they don't need to justify it, however, should they decide to - then the "justification" needs to be true and legal.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
araes 3y ago
> Rule number one of being a rebel. Don't work for the Empire.
- cad31 3y ago
  Let me fix this for you > Rule number one of being a rebel Work for the Empire. Just don't be surprised when you get fired, but complain about it anyway, because why not.

rufus_foreman 3y ago

>> Rule number one of being a rebel. Don’t do it at work By doing it at work, they are risking high paying jobs, putting their careers at risk. In public. Risking something for a protest is the whole point. To the extent that they do that with their eyes open, risking high paying jobs, they are heroes. If they do that thinking the people who control Google will be fine with that and they will still keep their jobs, they are, well, without jobs.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Their actions achieved nothing of consequence. I don't see how that makes them "heroes", even from the point of view of someone that supports their views.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  >> Their actions achieved nothing of consequence They drew attention to their cause, you're talking about them. You're talking about their cause. >> even from the point of view of someone that supports their views What views of theirs do you support, exactly?
  - userbinator 3y ago
    There is such a thing as bad publicity.
    - rufus_foreman 3y ago
      There's such a thing as bad publicity for Google also.
      - M911T 3y ago
        there's also the fact that google will just keep being used by nearly everyone. at the same time, for the now fired employees, having "was a google employee" in their resumes will help them land a new job
        reactordev 3y ago
        So long as they never mention why they are a former Google employee. Instead of a current one.
        b112 3y ago
        This is accurate. HR doesn't want protesters on staff, and HR often googles candidates, checks social media, etc. They may find sympathy at some businesses, but the larger the company, likely the less of that.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        camdenreslink 3y ago
        I think it really depends on the company. There are a lot of companies out there with a wide range of values. Some might even consider this a quality that they want in a candidate (it will certainly eliminate them from consideration for some companies though).
        reactordev 3y ago
        That’s true! Some might even be more inclined to hire you based on your stance on the matter and that you protested. Good point. Just saying it’s not the best light to show why you were let go. I stick to the canned “We were over-resourced and so there were layoffs” is an easy blanket statement.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > They drew attention to their cause, you're talking about them. You're talking about their cause. You almost got it. We are talking about them… but not about their cause. And therein lies the gold: they found a cause that they can use to scream look at me me me.
    - b112 3y ago
      Sadly for them, I don't know any of their names, couldn't care who they are, and their protest will vanish from the news cycle in a few hours ... forever. I suspect this is the same for everyone, even those who may be discussing Google's response. So they may have wanted a "me me me" response, or they may have legitimately wanted to raise awareness, but it's a pretty large fail for a now strongly narrowed career path.
- gitfan86 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - faeriechangling 3y ago
    I feel "Virtue signalling" isn't really fair when they have so much skin in the game here. That's evidence of sincerity rather than disingenuousness, agree or disagree with them. Unless the definition of virtue signalling is so expansive as to be meaningless, where every act of protest which is not anonymous is virtue signalling.
    - gitfan86 3y ago
      The consequence of their actions is that they receive high social status from people with similar politics and Google makes zero changes to their contracts with Israel. And that was obviously going to be the result of these actions. If you want to attribute their actions to a genuine desire to help the Palestinians, that is fine.
      - faeriechangling 3y ago
        You know, accusing others of virtue signalling can itself be a form of virtue signalling.
        gitfan86 3y ago
        Ok, but how is that relevant to the Google employees motives? Are you just changing the subject?
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago
  > Their actions achieved nothing of consequence. They accomplished me never responding to Google recruiter emails and informing others in my network to avoid Google where they can be fired for happening upon a protest at work.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    That might make them Google's heroes.
  - colpabar 3y ago
    I would say google is more than okay with that.
tolerantgravity 3y ago
Then they shouldn't be suing imo. Suing implies they think they shouldn't have been fired, which means their risk was not intentional. So they're not heroes.
- krainboltgreene 3y ago
  In a just world they wouldn't have been fired for speaking out for what they did.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    That's purely based on personal opinion though. I'm sure you could find people with the opposite opinion, that in a just world they would be able to go to work and do their job without having political debates forced on them. Or alternately, one could easily say that in a just world a person would leave their when they disagree with the company rather than making a spectacle out of it.
    - krainboltgreene 3y ago
      You can find people who disagree with me about allowing mixed race couples, but it isn't meaningful to say that it's "purely based on personal opinion". You might as well also comment on how I used air to breath while writing it. No one was stopped from going to work. There were no "political debates" going on, much less "forced" on people. I swear you guys are just making stuff up to get mad at. I feel like there are real problems you could be worried about, like the people in Rafah. Instead I see a lot of chuffing about a gathering of noisy people. Whatever makes you feel good about your time on earth, I guess.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        I had seen reports that there were people disrupting others trying to work in the office. I also expect that those protesting weren't talking about the weather, they would have been raising the issues they are there to protest. Call it what you want I guess, but that is IMO stopping work and engaging in political debate. I'm not sure why you reach for a straw man argument about air or mixed race couples, neither of those are relevant here at all and just make your argument weaker. Edit: also to be clear, I'm not sure who the "you guys" you're referring to are and I'd rather not be lumped in with some larger group for my opinion on one specific situation. I'm also not looking to be angry about anything and am in no way angry about this. I can have opinions without it throwing my mood out of whack.
reactordev 3y ago
> Risking something for a protest is the whole point. I can think of a number of protests that didn’t involve risking one’s career, livelihood, or life - that were pretty successful outside the workplace. Inside the workplace, it’s not a public venue and you don’t have the right to occupy offices and sit ins and disrupt work while expecting the company to pay you for that time. Get realistic. They aren’t heroes. They are trespassers. Disruptive ex-employees that cost the company money. Now if they did this right outside Google offices on the streets, that’s a different story all together. That’s a public place. However, many states have at-will employment so if the company feels you no longer represent their interests, you’re done. Bye. Doesn’t matter the cause.

devsda 3y ago

At almost every company I've worked over the years, I had to go through countless mandatory annual trainings that effectively says expressing opinions on non work related subjective political topics with coworkers/employer is not advisable, risky and can be grounds for termination in extreme cases. Either these people genuinely believed there was scope for discussion, or believed their opinion/choice of topic is a PR minefield that their employer wouldn't dare take action or they really wanted to get fired. I'm not from the US. So, unless I'm missing some cultural context, their actions like political activism at work (unless related to labor issues and laws) are unthinkable atleast in my country.

reactordev 3y ago
Those trainings are mandatory but usually done via an edutech platform that is basically just a QuickTime movie. Ethics, compliance, corporate policy, it’s just a 30 minute video you play while you do something else and then click the obvious multiple choice answers for 100%. Then forget everything in a week. Lately it’s been those 2D animations using canned software and AI voice over because that’s cheaper than actually giving a damn. Animaker I believe.
asadotzler 3y ago
This was most certainly work related. It was about a Google contract which is 100% related to Google and workers at Google.
- atonse 3y ago
  But a company isn’t a democracy. They don’t have a right to protest it. If they as employees refuse to work (what they’re paid to do), then the employer has every right to fire them. They aren’t forming a union or something.
  - maxboone 3y ago
    This is not universally so, but as far as I can see in the US it is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

francisofascii 3y ago

Sure, agree, but what about the employee in the article who wondered onto the 10th floor to check out the protest. That person wasn't actively protesting. And that person gets fired. That's not right.

reactordev 3y ago
Guilty by association. Again, at-will employment means they can justify it however they want to and it’s totally legal. Unless the individual is part of a union…
- blitzar 3y ago
  No, at-will employment means they don't need to justify it, however, should they decide to - then the "justification" needs to be true and legal.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

araes 3y ago

> Rule number one of being a rebel. Don't work for the Empire.

cad31 3y ago
Let me fix this for you > Rule number one of being a rebel Work for the Empire. Just don't be surprised when you get fired, but complain about it anyway, because why not.