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

31–40 of 473 posts

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

#31

Post by close04 »

SquareWheel wrote: post #15
sudoaza wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They quietly removed the "Do no evil" when they renamed into alphabet

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/

> And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!

But make sure to not use company email for this.

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

#32

Post by pdpi »

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…

> Are we going to ignore that Google responded that they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'd go as far as to say that this actually makes it _worse_, not better. Saying that that those protections are important is easy when there's nothing at stake. The fact that they then called for their overturn when the chips are down is how you know what they really think about it.

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

#33

Post by resters »

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…

The parent is pretty much textbook astroturfing.

The idea that a company’s PR goals and legal strategy should somehow be divergent is itself the height of cynicism.

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

#34

Post by close04 »

SquareWheel wrote: post #30
908087 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps not a shill but definitely providing a distorted interpretation of what the article says as clearly as possible:

Official filings

> Google’s attorneys wrote that the 2014 standard “should be overruled” and a [...] precedent [...] should be reinstated.

Google spokesperson

> We're not lobbying for changes to any rules

Reconciling this information into an opinion that only gives credit to PR words, while completely ignoring lawyers' actions is strange.

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

#35

Post by Retric »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #25
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.

Google has a very high turnover rate relative to company age pay etc at just 3.2 years on average.

So, I suspect they really do lose a lot of people over this stuff, they just keep hiring at a very fast pace.

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

#36

Post by koboll »

pdpi wrote: post #32
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…

> Are we going to ignore that Google responded that they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'd go as far as to say that this actually makes it _worse_, not better. Saying that that those protections are important is easy when there's nothing at stake. The fact that they then called for their overturn when the chips are down is how you kno…

It's silly to equate a legal defense with a belief though.

I may not have the belief, personally, that spontaneous crimes of passion deserve a light sentence, but it would be malpractice for my lawyer to therefore not advance that argument if, god forbid, I was convicted of a murder. Whether I committed the murder or not, and whether or not I believe those sentencing guidelines should be extrapolated to wider society, as a lawyer you have an obligation to use every tool in your arsenal that can help your client. It has nothing to do with your own personal or political views on whether those tools should exist.

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

#37

Post by resters »

SquareWheel wrote: post #30
908087 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The grandparent comment is noteworthy among HN comments for being so eagerly apologetic for the kind of corporate/branding hypocrisy that Google used to position itself against.

It makes me wonder if someone posted it in an attempt to make Google look bad even though the comment purports to defend Google.

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

#38

Post by hnal943 »

wongarsu wrote: post #19
mises wrote: post #3

I tend to agree with the people saying there's a problem in Google. But that said, I also think Google should have the right to say what can and can't be broadcast. Otherwise, you make the company transmit, broadcast, and disseminate viewpoints: coercing speech.

>Otherwise, you make the company transmit, broadcast, and disseminate viewpoints: coercing speech. By the same argument net neutrality is coercing speech. A company has the right to decide what appears on the company blog. Deciding what is written in internal communication is on a very different level

Isn't that why James Damore was fired? He wrote an internal communication Google didn't like.

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

#39

Post by austincheney »

> If the Labor Board did what Google wanted, “it would have a huge chilling effect,” said Google employee activist Colin McMillen

Weird, I guess then they would have to use the employee email system for employment related matters. There isn't any restriction to prevent any employee from using a non-employer email system for organizing the very same activities.

The unintended consequence of allowing this kind of activity in the office place is the creation of political gravities. If you don't agree with the mass consensus the majority will find a way to punish the minority opinions. During one of the private internal all hands Google's chief of HR said their research indicated this very behavior. If you cannot be honest in the work place then its a hostile work environment.

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

#40

Post by thisisit »

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.

> It appears that there is a conflict of vision within Google.

So what you saying is that two departments in a big company can have their own attorneys and/or publicists and approach government agencies on their own without a higher approval?

Post reply on HN