Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 473 posts

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#21

Post by slickbuntu »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #12
bb101 wrote: post #8

It just goes to show that a large company is made up of many different people in different departments, sometimes with different agendas. It appears that there is a conflict of vision within Google.

No, it doesn't. I think it shows precisely what's going on in every MegaCorp in the US: Woke Capitalism. Everything is calculated to maximize profit, including campaigning, branding, and marketing to say that you're NOT all about profit. In this case, both the saying of soothing things to the people who are complaining, AND lobbying the government to make those complaints less effective in the future are in line with…

The Game. This sounds right on.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#22

Post by JumpCrisscross »

genericresponse wrote: post #16

Are we going to ignore that Google responded that they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort. From the article: "We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses" I'm not saying that makes it right, but I see a difference between pus…

> they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort

We live in a common law system [1]. Case law, regulatory proceedings, statutes and constitutions are all law. What ultimately matters is outcome.

We don't know the details of the case they are defending against. We don't even know if there is one. Either way, there is lots of ground between "this right shouldn't apply here" and "you should take it away." Google chose the latter.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#23

Post by close04 »

genericresponse wrote: post #16

Are we going to ignore that Google responded that they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort. From the article: "We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses" I'm not saying that makes it right, but I see a difference between pus…

> but I see a difference between pushing for it as an independent agenda and using it to defend yourself from a legal filing

> In filings in May 2017 and November 2018, obtained via Freedom of Information Act request, Alphabet Inc.’s Google urged the National Labor Relations Board to undo that precedent

Are we going to pretend that "lobbying" and "urging" are different concepts? It simply represents their views, and they're trying to push them into reality.

> Lobbying, persuasion, or interest representation is the act of attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of officials in their daily life, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.

Also, are we going to pretend that they are not actually doing this because a spokesperson used the right words in a PR statement? You can't claim to use it "just" as a defense but you don't actually want it or even believe in it. You do it because you want a specific outcome. And given the vile nature of Google in recent times I wouldn't expect better from them.

P.S. Oh, double digit downvotes in just a few minutes on all comments I made in this thread. Nothing to see here. o_O

P.P.S. And still rolling in as I edit. 10 downvotes in just 5-6 minutes for pointing out that OP is (deliberately) misrepresenting what the article states very clearly.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#24

Post by slickbuntu »

mehrdadn wrote: post #17
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. I think it shows precisely what's going on in every MegaCorp in the US: Woke Capitalism. Everything is calculated to maximize profit, including campaigning, branding, and marketing to say that you're NOT all about profit. In this case, both the saying of soothing things to the people who are complaining, AND lobbying the government to make those complaints less effective in the future are in line with…

What could a company like Google do to convince you that this isn't the case, if it truly isn't the way you imagine for that company? Because it sounds like there isn't anything.

There really is no other credible argument that they could give. Business must grow, if they don't they die.

It's predatory no doubt, and Google certainly can't be considered an honest broker. But this dichotomy is necessary in today's hysterical environment that social media has created.

It sucks.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#25

Post by ocdtrekkie »

samfriedman wrote: post #13

Oh, to read the Google employee forums today... I wonder how those "activist employees" will respond this time.

They'll be upset and "outraged", before returning to work. I keep thinking, each time Google is in the news, that this is finally the day engineers will just walk off the job and not come back. But I know it probably isn't. Even those who have every ability to find a new job quickly will find some excuse to justify staying.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#26

Post by rjf72 »

bb101 wrote: post #8

It just goes to show that a large company is made up of many different people in different departments, sometimes with different agendas. It appears that there is a conflict of vision within Google.

I would never judge a company based on their words. Most corporations spend immense amounts of money on public relations firms, and these firms are pretty decent at their job. And words can be faked - lies, deception. If you want to see what a company truly is judge them by their actions, particularly ones that are not obvious PR efforts. Google in recent times:

- looking to move into China and create a censored search engine blocking offensive search terms like "human rights" [1]

- the above search engine would also tie users' searches to their phone numbers for ease of tracking

- tracking users' location on phones when tracking was set to disabled (we're back to everywhere - not just China on this one)

- looking to implement change that would disable most ad-blockers

- lobbying the government restrict employees' rights to organize against it

And this is just a list of things from the past several months. It is seriously not comprehensive. No, I think Google has quite a clear agenda, a great PR department, and a whole bunch of people in cognitive dissonance who want to believe the PR rather than acknowledge what they're taking part in.

---

edit : Added a source for first point. It's borderline unbelievable, but it was not rhetorical. Human rights (in Mandarin of course) was literally on Google's black list of terms.

[1] - https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-l...

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#27

Post by 908087 »

genericresponse wrote: post #16

Are we going to ignore that Google responded that they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort. From the article: "We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses" I'm not saying that makes it right, but I see a difference between pus…

Yes, I generally ignore carefully worded PR misdirection.

I find it interesting that you found posting this weak defense so important that it compelled you to log in for the first time in over 2 years.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#28

Post by SquareWheel »

JeremyBanks wrote: post #20
SquareWheel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't spread misinformation. Alphabet created a new motto but Google never removed theirs. It's still very clearly in their code of conduct. Alphabet's Code: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct/ Google's Code: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/

The code of conduct is where the motto has always been. It is hardly "some document".

Your other claims are merely speculative and unprovable.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#29

Post by mehrdadn »

slickbuntu wrote: post #24
mehrdadn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What could a company like Google do to convince you that this isn't the case, if it truly isn't the way you imagine for that company? Because it sounds like there isn't anything.

There really is no other credible argument that they could give. Business must grow, if they don't they die. It's predatory no doubt, and Google certainly can't be considered an honest broker. But this dichotomy is necessary in today's hysterical environment that social media has created. It sucks.

"Other"? What is the first credible argument they could give?

You can't accuse someone of something for which you would never accept anything as evidence in their defense.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#30

Post by SquareWheel »

908087 wrote: post #27
genericresponse wrote: post #16

Are we going to ignore that Google responded that they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort. From the article: "We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses" I'm not saying that makes it right, but I see a difference between pus…

Yes, I generally ignore carefully worded PR misdirection. I find it interesting that you found posting this weak defense so important that it compelled you to log in for the first time in over 2 years.

I see you found a way to call them a "shill" without saying it directly.
Post reply on HN