Google Protest Leader Leaves • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#261

Post by DannyBee » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #219

snvzz wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be obvious to anyone, but people are for some reason having trouble understanding it. It's completely expected for a company to get rid of individuals on the payroll who are badmouthing the company they work for. Why would anyone willfully employ people to work against the company's interest?

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

So, just to point out - the person is talking about badmouthing, you are talking about whistleblowing.

These are not the same thing at all.

In the US, talking about improving working conditions is also protected, but it's also not whistleblowing, either.

As a lawyer, i can tell you a lot of people badly misunderstand what "protected concerted activity" covers. It is not about your individual complaints. Explicitly not.

See, e.g., https://www.employerlaborrelations.com/2019/04/30/nlrb-publi...

"Charging Party 2 posted a 23-minute live video on Facebook during work hours and while in uniform talking about the discipline for wearing improper shoes and the confidentiality provision in the disciplinary notice, referencing the wage-and-hour lawsuits, making crude and disparaging jokes and comments about a supervisor, and stating that by asking Charging Party 2 to sign something interfering with free speech, the conduct of the company’s officials was “against the United States Constitution and you need to be shot on sight.”

As far as i can discern, hacker news would consider this protected because it complains, somewhere, about their working condition, and was in fact done as a direct response to being disciplined.

However, NLRB says

"The Division of Advice found that although Charging Party 2 referred to subjects in the video that could have been relevant to employees’ mutual aid or protection, the comments were entirely individual complaints and there was no indication that Charging Party 2 was speaking for other employees or seeking to act in concert with others. ... "

(They found it okay to fire this person)

In fact, the company had filed defamation lawsuits against the charging parties over the facebook videos, and the NLRB found that was okay too, because they weren't for protected activity.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#262

Post by marktani » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

KUcxrAVrtI wrote: post #105

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does this look bad for Google? Organising protests takes management and leadership skill. Regardless of retaliation, multiple people, predominantly women, who publicly demonstrated this skill are opting not to put it to use at Google. When competent people leave, it’s worth asking why and what further effect those departures might have.

[flagged]

Having a company culture where _everyone_ feels safe enough to speak up and being heard (instead of getting kicked out) is not democracy. It is smart and crucial, in my opinion.

I am surprised that critizing something at a company equals being a trouble maker to you.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#263

Post by cobookman » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

fourthark wrote: post #221

lallysingh wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-selected (those who choose to answer the poll in their app) sample (7k of 100k) of the population.

More so: 7k replied, 64% against the censored search engine. Of those 7k a smaller number were Google employees (it does not say the number) and among them 65% approved of censored search.

The 64% against includes entire blind community. Of those working at Google who replied it was majority for it.

Put another way, even though the macro blind community was against. Googlers in said group were for it. Showing googlers are more likely to be for than against

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#264

Post by leftyted » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

nvrspyx wrote: post #254

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…

People who tend toward 1. would say that Google has bent over backwards to accomodate protesters and has acceded to their demands multiple times, e.g. canceling their project in China and dropping their contract with the US military.

Seems reasonable to me.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#265

Post by kupiakos » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #61

knd775 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe she protested the AI ethics council.

I'm pretty there was some protest surrounding the ethics council.

There was protest involving the AI ethics council, but it was due to the inclusion of a homophobic and transphobic person on the board, not of the council itself.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#266

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

gfo wrote: post #257

BonesJustice wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You don't have to leave to influence, being on the inside often gives you better access, knowledge and opportunity to influence change.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#267

Post by andrewprock » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

mondoshawan wrote: post #184

SiempreViernes wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't they drop that motto like 3 years ago?

Yes, but the beliefs of the folks that have been at Google for 5+ years hasn't changed. Source: been at google since 2006.

Something changed. Defense contracting is certainly something that many might characterize as "be evil".

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#268

Post by pessimizer » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

sverige wrote: post #251

serioussecurity wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conditi…

Are you trying to make a fine distinction between "working conditions" and "work"? You just said that this panel that she was protesting the composition of would look at what the company was doing and plans for what the company wished to do, and have input into the ethics of developing and deploying them (and I'm assuming changing them or ending them, otherwise this panel's only job was to kiss paper.)

The employees of google would then be expected to produce and maintain these projects. That's their work. At the least, they're expected to share a roof with these projects, and profits from the work they do could be spent on these other projects, or vice-versa.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#269

Post by Aunche » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #24

dmix wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What retaliation have they faced from Google exactly?

https://www.wired.com/story/google-walkout-organizers-say-th... >In a message posted to many internal Google mailing lists Monday, Meredith Whittaker, who leads Google’s Open Research, said that after the company disbanded its external AI ethics council on April 4, she was told that her role would be “changed dramatically.” Whittaker said she was told that, in order to stay at the company, she would have to “abandon”…

> My manager started ignoring me, my work was given to other people, and I was told to go on medical leave, even though I’m not sick.

I'm sure there is another side to this story. Nobody has an infinite amount of time or effort. If you're spending your time organizing protests rather than doing the job you're actually paid to do, you shouldn't be surprised that your coworkers and manager would be upset that they have to pick up the slack and try to replace you.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#270

Post by tm1265 » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:22 PM UTC

0815test wrote: post #232

geofft wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the effect is the same. A "right-wing Google" won't succeed because left-wing policies are more beneficial to the growth of cities, which are beneficial to the success of organizations like Google. It is actually sort of surprising to me that cities are tech hubs - you should be able to deliver fantastic products while working remotely and never meeting anyone in person. (And the free software/open source m…

> left-wing policies are more beneficial to the growth of cities Left-wing policies like urban exclusionary zoning? Yeah right. Look at how Texas and other Sunbelt states are doing, despite them being in inherently more challenging parts of the country than CA.

Texas cities are doing good in spite of the state's political culture, not because of it. All the cities except maybe DFW are in a constant struggle with the conservative state government.