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

51–60 of 473 posts

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

#51

Post by nabla9 »

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…

Court room is an adversarial game, everything the defense or prosecutors say should be considered in this light. They should use every argument to defend themselves.

Google has fiduciary duty to not lose money unnecessarily. The corporate policy is completely different from legal defense when sued.

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

#52

Post by blub »

austincheney wrote: post #39

> 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…

The fact that their employer made special deals with people accused of sexual harrassment or wanted to work on military projects are employment related matters.

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

#53

Post by romanovcode »

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 don't believe it even for one second. It is clear that they are trying to be seen in public as a good guys when in fact they are not.

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

#54

Post by koboll »

pdpi wrote: post #48
koboll wrote: post #36

Earlier 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…

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.

If those two arguments would have been equally effective, then perhaps you would be right. I would bet that that wasn't the case, and that's why Google's attorneys advanced the argument they did. Perhaps you are right but they advanced both arguments to be safe, as a higher parent comment suggested.

But it's hard to tell, because the article is vague on these points. It refers to their actual argument only as "urged the National Labor Relations Board to undo that precedent". What exactly does that mean? It's written as if they submitted a policy brief, but it sounds more like they were arguing a prior decision by the NLRB was incorrectly decided, based on previous precedent. Which is something attorneys do all the time and much less dramatic, sans the lobbying-esque framing here.

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

#55

Post by koboll »

skh wrote: post #6
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.

I don’t see how allowing workers to use workplace email to organize can be equated to coercing speech. Worker protections in the U.S. are quite poor in relation to the EU. I see no evidence that further limiting worker rights would be good for the people.

Here's what I don't understand -- why would I use work email for organizing purposes? Even if there were very clear laws in place prohibiting employers from stopping me, wouldn't organizers be paranoid that their employer would find out and position themselves accordingly, making the unionization drive likelier to fail? I just don't see why anyone would choose to use an employer-owned communications channel to organize something that will inevitably be fought aggressively by their employer.

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

#56

Post by jschwartzi »

nabla9 wrote: post #51
pdpi wrote: post #32

Earlier 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…

Court room is an adversarial game, everything the defense or prosecutors say should be considered in this light. They should use every argument to defend themselves. Google has fiduciary duty to not lose money unnecessarily. The corporate policy is completely different from legal defense when sued.

This is fine, but then you can't claim the moral high ground if your legal defense is that employees don't actually have the rights that your policy says they do.

It's worth noting that people don't like doing business with hypocrites either, so Google has a fiduciary duty to avoid pissing its customers and employees off by systematically eroding their rights through legal arguments as well.

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

#57

Post by rootusrootus »

koboll wrote: post #47
rootusrootus wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In my view, the lawyer is absolutely obligated to present all viable (in their view) legal options to their client. But the buck stops with the client -- they decide which legal arguments to make.

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

#58

Post by akiselev »

sjg007 wrote: post #50
pdpi wrote: post #32

Earlier 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…

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.

IANAL but "We're in an extremely competitive industry and we might lose all of our best people if we do this" is a perfectly good reason to give shareholders. It only breaks fiduciary duty if the executives have concrete data that their actions will have zero impact on hiring, which is a stretch.

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

#59

Post by chongli »

bmj wrote: post #46
Retric wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably at the point when they can no longer offer sky-high starting salaries. You should see the job boards for my school co-op program. Job postings by Google, Apple, et al get ridiculous numbers of applications for just 1 position. Nobody here cares about Google's stance on activist employees. They want to get their money and pad their resume.

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

#60

Post by austincheney »

blub wrote: post #52
austincheney wrote: post #39

> 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…

The fact that their employer made special deals with people accused of sexual harrassment or wanted to work on military projects are employment related matters.

As a corporate leader what is more important: allowing employees to use employer resources for personal politics or solving for toxic/hostile behavior?
Post reply on HN