Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 473 posts

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#61

Post by wang_li »

close04 wrote: post #34
SquareWheel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you found a way to call them a "shill" without saying it directly.

Perhaps not a shill but definitely providing a distorted interpretation of what the article says as clearly as possible: Official filings > Google’s attorneys wrote that the 2014 standard “should be overruled” and a [...] precedent [...] should be reinstated. Google spokesperson > We're not lobbying for changes to any rules Reconciling this information into an opinion that only gives credit to PR words, while complet…

Lobbying is talking to legislatures and regulators in an attempt to change laws/policy. Arguing in court is trying to do an end run around the legislatures and regulators. Big difference.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#62

Post by [deleted] »

koboll wrote: post #54
pdpi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had they argued that the Obama-era rules didn't apply to this case for some reason, I would've agreed with you. But the argument is that those rules should be overruled. That is precisely arguing that your preferred outcome for this case should be "extrapolated to wider society", as you put it.

If those two arguments would have been equally effective, then perhaps you would be right. I would bet that that wasn't the case, and that's why Google's attorneys advanced the argument they did. Perhaps you are right but they advanced both arguments to be safe, as a higher parent comment suggested. But it's hard to tell, because the article is vague on these points. It refers to their actual argument only as "urged…

[deleted]

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#63

Post by pdpi »

koboll wrote: post #47
rootusrootus wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assertions of certain politicians to the contrary, corporations are not people, and Google wasn't defending against a crime of passion.

Sure, I wrote a contrived example. But the onus, I think, is on the critics in this thread to provide the theory of legal ethics under which attorneys should refrain from advancing the most effective defense of their clients if doing so might cause public relations concerns. It's my understanding that zealously defending their clients within the bounds of the law is among an attorney's highest obligations.

To use an equally contrived example of my own — there's plenty of jurisdictions where arguing something along the lines of "look at how she was dressed, she was asking for it" will get you off the hook on rape charges. Would you still argue that an attorney who makes that argument is merely "advancing the most effective defense of their clients"? Or would you find that conduct reprehensible both for the attorney, and the client who allowed the attorney to use that line of reasoning?

Ultimately, it's your own choice what lines of arguing you present, and you don't get an ethical freebie just because it's "effective".

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#64

Post by tssva »

neves wrote: post #10

Wow, don't they have a "Do no evil" printed around?

What is evil about expecting a work email system to be used for you know work?

There are many other forums employees can use to organize. Coercing a company to allow employees to use a company funded and provided system to actively organize against the company is closer to being evil.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#65

Post by yourbandsucks »

rootusrootus wrote: post #43
koboll wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's silly to equate a legal defense with a belief though. I may not have the belief, personally, that spontaneous crimes of passion deserve a light sentence, but it would be malpractice for my lawyer to therefore not advance that argument if, god forbid, I was convicted of a murder. Whether I committed the murder or not, and whether or not I believe those sentencing guidelines should be extrapolated to wider society…

Assertions of certain politicians to the contrary, corporations are not people, and Google wasn't defending against a crime of passion.

The legal system treats them as entities very similar to people. It's not a statement of principle, it's a statement of process.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#66

Post by yourbandsucks »

rjf72 wrote: post #26
bb101 wrote: post #8

It 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.

I would never judge a company based on their words. Most corporations spend immense amounts of money on public relations firms, and these firms are pretty decent at their job. And words can be faked - lies, deception. If you want to see what a company truly is judge them by their actions, particularly ones that are not obvious PR efforts. Google in recent times: - looking to move into China and create a censored sear…

Funny detail, it turns out the complaints were filed against conservative ex-googlers alleging that they were discriminated against by the progressive activist majority inside Google.

The people filing NRLB complaints probably disagree with you about the morality of all your bullet points above, and they're claiming they were discriminated against for disagreeing with the consensus.

I wonder if that changes progressives' opinions on the topic?

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#67

Post by advisedwang »

austincheney wrote: post #39

> If the Labor Board did what Google wanted, “it would have a huge chilling effect,” said Google employee activist Colin McMillen Weird, I guess then they would have to use the employee email system for employment related matters. There isn't any restriction to prevent any employee from using a non-employer email system for organizing the very same activities. The unintended consequence of allowing this kind of activ…

It isn't nearly as easy to connect to people outside the workplace. You have to reach out to people to get their personal contact details, and doing this en-masse could be construed as organizing activity by itself. They could even argue you are ex-filtrating confidential information (list of employees).

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#68

Post by topspin »

koboll wrote: post #36
pdpi wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are we going to ignore that Google responded that they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'd go as far as to say that this actually makes it _worse_, not better. Saying that that those protections are important is easy when there's nothing at stake. The fact that they then called for their overturn when the chips are down is how you kno…

It's silly to equate a legal defense with a belief though. I may not have the belief, personally, that spontaneous crimes of passion deserve a light sentence, but it would be malpractice for my lawyer to therefore not advance that argument if, god forbid, I was convicted of a murder. Whether I committed the murder or not, and whether or not I believe those sentencing guidelines should be extrapolated to wider society…

> It's silly to equate a legal defense with a belief though.

It's actually silly not to. As was said; when there is something at stake their story is something other than what they offer while placating outrage. I can't fathom rationally choosing to believe meaningless pillow talk over the black and white filings of Google's representation in a court.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#69

Post by googlerthrowaw »

I'm a googler, going anonymous for soon-to-be obvious reasons.

While I think this headline is overblown, I think the change would be for the better. For the past couple of years working at Google has been like what I'd imagine it's to work for the Trump administration: constant scandals, people around you being outraged, constant diversion of internal attention to issues unrelated to the core business etc.

Nominally the internal culture is all for open communication and being yourself. However, it's far easier to express an opinion that signals your 'good' and 'acceptable' values by eg. demanding Google shuts down anything that's even remotely suspicious. This leads to the loudest voices being the most extreme ones and makes you feel like you're alone with your opinion if you happen to favor nuanced debate over knee jerk reactions. For example, I think Dragonfly is a good idea and something we should pursue - but honestly, I'm only comfortable expressing that opinion to a select few coworkers in a private setting.

This brings me to my point of why I think more company control over worker organization might be good. I take pride in my work ethic. My dad raised me to respect the work I do. And every time a new scandal comes along and the internal company focus gets diverted to an issue on which only a small part of the company feels comfortable expressing their opinions of, my attention gets diverted and my work suffers. As does the company as a whole. As a stock owner, having an internal company culture less focused on outrage would be a great improvement.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#70

Post by bendoernberg »

austincheney wrote: post #60
blub wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that their employer made special deals with people accused of sexual harrassment or wanted to work on military projects are employment related matters.

As a corporate leader what is more important: allowing employees to use employer resources for personal politics or solving for toxic/hostile behavior?

The answer is that being a human with moral and ethical obligations to the rest of humanity should take precedence over being a corporate leader. If you don't sell censorship and weapons tech or cut backroom deals to silence victims of sexual harassment, there's no need to try to stop your employees from talking about it.
Post reply on HN