Google Protest Leader Leaves • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#251

Post by sverige » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

serioussecurity wrote: post #208

Merrill wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did she do that is protected under the various whistleblower protection laws? https://www.whistleblowers.gov/sites/wb/files/2019-06/whistl... I don't think that objecting to your company's AI work for DoD or plans to comply with Chinese internet search regulations fall under any of them. What did the "Open Research Group" at Google actually build?

So many arm chair lawyers on HN. The parent is wrong. It's illegal because it violates the NLRA, not whistleblower protections. "Protected concerted activity". If you want a good primer, "Labor Law for the Rank and Filer" is a good one.

I'm not clear on what Whittaker's role was with regard to the Chinese project, but the final straw appears to have been her protest regarding the composition of the AI ethics panel.

How is an outside ethics panel going to affect their working conditions? The people on the panel don't have any say on employees' pay, promotions, disciplinary actions, assignments, or anything else that might affect their working conditions.

The idea was to have some people from outside the company look at the tech and its potential hazards and provide some input on the ethics of developing and deploying it. People inside the company said, No, we don't want that particular viewpoint to have a seat at the table on this outside committee. The ethics panel had nothing at all to do with their working conditions.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#252

Post by repolfx » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #188

joey_bob wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because you don't want to see the thing you worked so hard to build misused to build killer robots and "war minds"? Seems reasonable to me. Google's got a different mission and sometimes the leadership forgets it, and needs to be reminded. The question is not why would you publicly protest actions of your employer. The question is why would you expect, or even want, to work there while you do. Also, do whistleblower…

The two women who claimed retaliation were organizers of the women's march. The common thread between them is that they were organizers of that event. The claims of retaliation fell shortly after that.

But nothing Google has done in these cases is illegal. The protestors just didn't like it, so that shouldn't be protected actions.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#253

Post by Nasrudith » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #110

charliesharding wrote: post #47

I don't really understand why it's surprising to anyone that they would face "internal retaliation" after exposing their employer as evil and boycott worthy to the entire world. By publicizing it to the degree that they did and attaching their name to it, they were putting their interests over the company. If my company started doing business practices that I didn't approve of, I would try my hardest to change the di…

Large coorporations look a lot like governments. Normally, I bring this up from the perspective of regulations (eg. we should be willing to restrict the power of large private actors in the same ways we restrict the power of governments). However, I think it is applicable here too. If you don't like something the US government is doing, you generally aren't going to leave. You are either going to ignore it, or try to…

One issue is that while internal behaviors may mirror the situation isn't that comparable. Starting a new government in competition with your own another's borders is generally known sedition. Governments are defined by their monopoly on the use of force. Not so for even large corporations.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#254

Post by nvrspyx » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

leftyted wrote: post #199

There are two narratives: 1. These people are rabble-rousers who will never be happy and are disrupting the work environment at Google. 2. These people are highlighting legitimate problems within the company and are trying to enact positive change. Take your pick. But be aware of both narratives. And be aware that neither of them is unreasonable.

1. is a bit presumptuous though if you’re going to jump to the conclusion that they’ll never be happy and that this would be a continuous issue after the enacted change that they were protesting for. It’s a rather baseless assumption if the only thing to go off of was an organized protest with well-defined ethical motivations. Unless there’s evidence of rabble rousing intention, it seems that 1. is unreasonable.

With that said, I have not followed this closely. For all I know, that evidence does exist and/or Google leadership has chosen not make said evidence publicly available.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#255

Post by imtyler » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

_zachs wrote: post #150

Cool! Does she want a medal or something? I'm not sure why people feel like they should be rewarded by their own company for publicly going against them. Talk about entitlement.

In addition to being somewhat condescending, your language seems to imply that an employee is never justified in questioning their company.

For instance, you've said "why people feel" instead of "why this person felt." Additionally, you're broadly referring to "companies" and not just "Google."

Whether or not protesting was the correct course of action in this particular case, I'm not sure. But please don't broadly imply that all whistle-blowers are entitled reward-seekers.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#256

Post by LordFast » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #224

hirundo wrote: post #207

Rowboat politics. If one of the rowers decides that she doesn't like the direction the coxswain is steering and starts to row in the other direction, it tends to annoy the other rowers. This is true whether she is right or not. If she can't change the coxswain's mind it's better for both her and the rest of the crew for her to find another rowboat.

Your analogy fails right away with a simple example: if the renegade rower realizes that the team is rowing towards a waterfall, then it is indeed not in the team’s best interest to push him or her out.

Pioneers are seldom welcomed with open arms and often made into pariahs. Not picking a side here, just stating a fact.

The fact is also such that most pioneers would not end up having chosen a better direction than status quo.

The harder some people try and toe the line, the harder some other people will try to rebel, and then the system starts trending more towards extremes.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#257

Post by gfo » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:08 PM UTC

BonesJustice wrote: post #244

charliesharding wrote: post #47

I don't really understand why it's surprising to anyone that they would face "internal retaliation" after exposing their employer as evil and boycott worthy to the entire world. By publicizing it to the degree that they did and attaching their name to it, they were putting their interests over the company. If my company started doing business practices that I didn't approve of, I would try my hardest to change the di…

> I don't understand the desire to stay with a company and accept paychecks while simultaneously publicly denouncing and leading protests against them. I do not understand why it should be preferable to say "oh well, nothing to be done, time to quit" rather than be a force for change. The former is easy, but it does little to correct systemic problems that affect many of your peers. Also, you make "accept paychecks"…

You can influence change from the outside. And in tech where talent acquisition is a fierce game, employees leaving due to ethics would be the greatest show of force.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#258

Post by pessimizer » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:08 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #233

enraged_camel wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retaliating against whistleblowers is illegal. Therefore, I strongly advise you stop treating it as “obvious” and “expected”.

Explaining it and condoning it aren't the same thing.

Explaining it is an uninteresting answer to an unasked question. The reason whistleblowers *(edit: or protestors) are protected is because everybody already understands why. Justifying it interesting.

It's obvious why you would fire someone for trying to start a union, or for turning down your sexual advances.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#259

Post by quibbler » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:09 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #46

cobookman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this look bad for Google? Honest question.

It's bad to retaliate against workers who organize against sexual harassment and gender compensation disparity in the workplace. It looks bad because it is bad.

Not really, because those are actually hate campaigns against men. Plenty of people would prefer their emploers to stay out of such shenanigans.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#260

Post by ketzo » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #210

geofft wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liz Fong-Jones (who left Google earlier this year after some 11 years there) tweeted about this last night: https://twitter.com/lizthegrey/status/1150960547803860993 Of the walkout organizers alone, four out of seven have now left.

That looks very bad. On the other hand, if you're organizing a walkout, you're probably pretty fed up already. How far are you from quitting at that point? Probably not very. If you organize the walkout and nothing changes, even if there is zero retaliation, do you quit? At a minimum, this probably indicates that there was not enough improvement, fast enough, at Google. Note well: I am not saying that there was not r…

I actually think organizing a walkout is something you do if you don't want to leave. I mean, if they were really just fed up, they could have just left like you said. I think these people (as a couple have said publicly) really did want to help change Google for the better because they love at least some parts of it.