Live data from Hacker News

Google Protest Leader Leaves

bloomberg.com

211–220 of 442 posts

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#211
post #91
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're the people making Google work. Why shouldn't they be entitled?

Some people think the leaders of Google are entitled to unilaterally decide what people at Google work on, and if you resist that sense of entitlement, people call you entitled.

If you're the one paying for the work, you're entitled to say what the work will be. In this case 'you' is Google shareholders, through their representatives.

Nobody is entitled to be paid to do what they choose. If you want to do something for your own personal reasons, do it off the clock.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#212
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which is the bigoted right at the moment Ah yes, let's generalize ~50% of the country as bigots. That surely will lead to quality discussion.

The leaders certainly all are. Not saying anything about ordinary people. Why would you think I'm optimizing for quality of discussion? I'm optimizing for the material conditions of oppressed people, not some silly debate conducted on an online forum. It's more important to state the obvious truth than to soften it.

The leaders? You're quite right, but maybe not the way you think. Trump said plenty of truly outrageous things, but he wasn't the one who generalized 50% of the population as "the basket of deplorables". Maybe Bernie is not overly bigoted, I'll give you that.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#213
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Google employees do the work that keeps the company going. There's no law that says that people can't refuse to do certain kinds of work. You take a job that you expect to give you work that you find acceptable and if that expectation is violated, you resist.

s/resist/quit

That would be senseless. Neither employees nor management would like that. Why do you think you should be able to tell them how to deal with each other?

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#214
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, they can be, but is there any reason to believe they are? Have male leaders of similar protests been treated better? Surely it's not right to infer gender bias just because the victims are women.

> I mean, they can be, but is there any reason to believe they are? Yes, there is: women stepped forward. > Have male leaders of similar protests been treated better? Men either haven't experienced the same, or they are keeping their mouth shut. In both scenarios, women should be supported. If men step forward, so should they. They didn't so far (or at least, not in large enough numbers for such a protest to be repor…

I don’t really understand the response. Is your claim that, if something bad happens to a woman without simultaneously happening to a man, that automatically makes it a gender bias issue?

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#215
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There was separate protests that the ethics council was inappropriately scoped and those on the council not fit to be there. The protests Meredith was on was regarding the letting go with generous severance packages of employees found to have been sexually harassing co workers, and the lack of resources within Google for those victims of sexual harassment/assault.

sverige: none of your links work. You seem to have copied only substrings for all of them

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#216
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What retaliation have they faced from Google exactly?

IANAL, but nothing I've read in sibling comments and other threads fits the legal definition of retaliation. Realigning priorities in a way that the employee doesn't like, sure, but not technically retaliation from a legal perspective. EDIT: To clarify, Google's reaction isn't the disqualifier, it's that the employee's action of staging a political walkout isn't legally protected since it conflicts with contractual d…

It depends on which protections you're talking about (note: IANAL either). From what I can gather, it's true that the organizers may not be covered under laws protecting employees who report concerns internally or file EEOC or OSHA complaints. However, any activities related to collective bargaining (which may absolutely include organizing and participating in protests) are legally protected under the National Labor Relations Act, and would not be affected by "contractual duties" or "utilizing good faith channels for whistleblowing."

Whether the organizers were covered by the NLRA is another matter; those with direct reports are likely excluded by the 'supervisors' exemption, which has been expanded over the years to cover pretty much anyone in a managerial role. For those who are covered, Google's actions could absolutely meet the legal definition of retaliation.

As an aside, the legal standards for what constitutes 'retaliation' are not the only ones that matter. They may manage to avoid a lawsuit, but they will suffer harm to their reputation regardless. I, for one, could not care less whether the law allows them to retaliate against the protest organizers. To me, this is just one in a long line of reasons why I scratched Google off my "short list" of potential employers.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#218
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why only in their spare time?

Because you're paid by Google...to work at Google? And other employees shouldn't have to be fed your politics constantly just because they have to show up at work every day just like you do.

Let's take a step back. When I work somewhere, my job is much larger than 'deliver code'. It includes (and will show up on my Review) things like 'team building' and 'contributing to a non-hostile work environment'. It is everybody's job to make sure that their workplace is non-hostile. This is the cultural version of 'see something? Say something'. If you are in a workplace that makes that impossible, or retaliates against people who agitate for improvement, then that is a real problem.

TBH, the real problem here is people's different views on the Overton window. I suspect that is why you are getting such vigorous blowback on these topics; your window isn't aligned with at least some of the people on this thread.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#219
post #117

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…

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”.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#220
post #10

Google works like crazy to hire all of the smartest and the best people, but do they really need them? Billions and billions in shareholder value could be extracted by hiring a bunch of mid-tier Java programmers and having them farm Ad Words for the next decade, until the first competition shows up.

Many great people are hired not necessarily to move Google forward, but so that they don’t move a Google-competitor forward.

Woah, it must feel great to have so much money to do this kind of "defensive" hires!!
Post reply on HN