Earlier quoted context omitted.
The code of conduct is where the motto has always been. It is hardly "some document". Your other claims are merely speculative and unprovable.
[deleted]
Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
41–50 of 473 posts
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#42Earlier 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.
Capitulate constantly to their Workers' demands, converting their authoritarian management hierarchy into a worker-led cooperative, buying back their stock and issuing it to their users.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Assertions of certain politicians to the contrary, corporations are not people, and Google wasn't defending against a crime of passion.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#44It 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.
Possibly maybe Google /Alphabet needs a new GC and HR Director
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#45> 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 activ…
>If you cannot be honest in the work place then its a hostile work environment...
Not sure I would go that far. I mean how many people are honest about how they feel about their boss? But is that "dishonesty" or just "professionalism".
I'd say that you have to be professional. There should be some sort of a sanctioned mechanism or forum for giving professional criticism.
But yeah, if all a guy or gal wants to do is spout off some expletive laden rant, then that's not really helpful for anyone. Least of all the other employees.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I wonder at what point working for Google will lose its shine, and their hiring pace will drop off.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Assertions of certain politicians to the contrary, corporations are not people, and Google wasn't defending against a crime of passion.
Sure, I wrote a contrived example. But the onus, I think, is on the critics in this thread to provide the theory of legal ethics under which attorneys should refrain from advancing the most effective defense of their clients if doing so might cause public relations concerns. It's my understanding that zealously defending their clients within the bounds of the law is among an attorney's highest obligations.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Had they argued that the Obama-era rules didn't apply to this case for some reason, I would've agreed with you. But the argument is that those rules should be overruled. That is precisely arguing that your preferred outcome for this case should be "extrapolated to wider society", as you put it.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#49Earlier 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.
> Business must grow, if they don't they die.
Perhaps re-labeling major (and unprecedented) communication/organization platforms from "businesses" to something akin to "utilities"—or, more radically, "platform coops"—would quash such apologia.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#50Are 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…
I'm guessing stock holders would argue that there's a fiduciary duty to get the best legal defense and the lawyers have a similar mandate. Still you would think that Google would not mount such a defense on the basis of a moral principal.