51–60 of 148 posts
I wish there was more negative backlash when Google retaliated against James Damore The privilege to speak up against the status quo is important. Especially when you have less power, and even if your opinion is unsavory to some
how did the managers doing the alleged retaliating get hired at google in the first place? I thought the crazy I interview process existed to get the right people?
I wish there was more negative backlash when Google retaliated against James Damore The privilege to speak up against the status quo is important. Especially when you have less power, and even if your opinion is unsavory to some
Well said.
Someone posted preliminary sit-in attendance numbers. Attendance ranges from 50-150 per office in the larger offices. Anecdotally, I've seen very little discussion and energy this time compared to the walkout. Back then, one couldn't walk 20 feet without hitting some kind of exhortation to join the walkout. This time, more people might find out about this sit-in through this HN story than through internal channels. T…
I hope this is a bellwether for the rest of SV, the Bay Area, and the rest of the country.
The small core group of habitual protesters is as active as ever, but they've struggled to come up with concrete evidence that substantiates their "systemic retaliation" narrative, and it feels like they've lost the hearts and minds of the public.
Ditto.
It's telling that the main mailing list that these people use to communicate has enacted strict moderation policies that effectively ban debate and disagreement.
When "movements" start going around using authoritarian intimidation tactics to keep their own ranks in line, this is a sign that the movement is no longer guided by principles. It's devolved into yet another group which is in a power struggle against a different group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on this?
Here's a WaPo article from the controversial woman Google appointed to the board, Kay Cole James. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wanted-to-help-goo... I may not agree with her politically, but its important to have different viewpoints in discourse as long as they're rooted in principles. I think its shameful that the AI Ethics Council was disbanded, if employees took issue with her it would have been nice…
OK, so besides James', which other viewpoints rooted in principles were represented on the council? Did Google assemble a panel of balanced viewpoints?
I wish there was more negative backlash when Google retaliated against James Damore The privilege to speak up against the status quo is important. Especially when you have less power, and even if your opinion is unsavory to some
Even the NLRB (pretty much the most employee-friendly place you can find, if you look through rulings) found they didn't.
I've enough friends working at Google to know that they have a pretty strong mandated daily dose of kool-aid, where you are elite and only valuable if you work at google and adopt the one true Googler world view. Certain factions at Google demanded and ensured that anyone not in conformance at Google no longer work there. Then they are shocked and surprised when the same executives use the same mechanisms to hurt the…
I wish there was more negative backlash when Google retaliated against James Damore The privilege to speak up against the status quo is important. Especially when you have less power, and even if your opinion is unsavory to some
I wish there was more negative backlash when Google retaliated against James Damore The privilege to speak up against the status quo is important. Especially when you have less power, and even if your opinion is unsavory to some
I wish there was more negative backlash when Google retaliated against James Damore The privilege to speak up against the status quo is important. Especially when you have less power, and even if your opinion is unsavory to some
Even the NLRB (pretty much the most employee-friendly place you can find, if you look through rulings) found they didn't.
In the summary: "we conclude that the memorandum included both protected and unprotected statements and that the Employer discharged [Damore] solely for [Damore's] unprotected statements. Therefore, the employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act"
In the Action:
"The Board has acknowledged that it has a duty to balance an employee’s statutorily-protected rights against an employer’s legitimate right to enforce its workplace rules and managerial prerogatives"
"In furtherance of these legitimate interests, employers must be permitted to “nip in the bud” the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a “hostile workplace,” rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action."
An earlier decision they quoted in the ruling: "In view of the controversial nature of the language used and its admitted susceptibility to derisive and profane construction, [the employer] could legitimately ban the use of the provocative [language] as a reasonable precaution against discord and bitterness between employees and management, as well as to assure decorum and discipline in the plant"
To me this sounds like they are saying that Google indeed retaliated, and it was legal for them to do so