Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
1–10 of 473 posts
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#2[deleted]
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#3I 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.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#4I 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.
The ruling was not about limiting company free speech, the ruling was to not limit employees use of company channels to organize.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#5[deleted]
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#6I 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.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#7I 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.
It does get a bit absurd when extended. Can you not speak to someone in company buildings? On company property?
The logical rule seems like if if the communication doesn't have a direct impact on company operations (e.g. flooding email servers so other mail cannot be processed), then it's protected.
And the quote to the effect of 'This was a legal defense, not a position Google endorses' is... odd.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#8It 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.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#9It 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.
While this statement is definitely true, in this instance, it comes across as some sort of apology for Google—as if the vast majority of their other activities are benign and this is a glaring exception.
This is the norm.—the wonderful things some Google employees produce are the exception.
Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers
#10Wow, don't they have a "Do no evil" printed around?