71–80 of 473 posts
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.
Perhaps, but when then chips are down and Google is obliged to file their position on pain of perjury it is clear which 'vision' is real and which is window dressing.
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…
Is that naive impression off base or is the kernel of truth there?
Are we going to ignore that Google responded that they published this as part of a legal defense rather than a lobbying effort. From the article: "We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses" I'm not saying that makes it right, but I see a difference between pus…
> but I see a difference between pushing for it as an independent agenda and using it to defend yourself from a legal filing > In filings in May 2017 and November 2018, obtained via Freedom of Information Act request, Alphabet Inc.’s Google urged the National Labor Relations Board to undo that precedent Are we going to pretend that "lobbying" and "urging" are different concepts? It simply represents their views, and…
I 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.
If I have a right to use company systems to organize a strike, how do they then account for those messages in their normal record keeping and compliance procedures? Do they also have to retain them for x years along with everything else? If they have some kind of mandatory audit procedure how do they separate those emails out so that they aren’t reviewed on a regular basis? If someone sexually harasses someone in what is not specifically a workplace communication but do it over company email how does that impact their liability? How does it impact what materials may have to be handed over for any kind of other lawsuit?
If I were going to protest the company who is actually paying me presently I would never do it using their email system so for me it’s a moot point, but it’s not quite as cut and dry as an evil corporation trying to restrict the rights of workers.
This, yet again, reinforces the idea that people with good values are no longer welcome to work for Google anymore.
But some, the same people who LOVE to point out that "Don't be evil" is still forgotten somewhere in the last line of the workers' conduct, will likely remain skeptical that Google is becoming more evil by the month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has a very high turnover rate relative to company age pay etc at just 3.2 years on average. So, I suspect they really do lose a lot of people over this stuff, they just keep hiring at a very fast pace.
I wonder at what point working for Google will lose its shine, and their hiring pace will drop off.
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…
I think these types of debates are bellwether for programmer/IT professional unionization. These are the exact types of lawsuits brought against organized labor as it was trying to get organized to prevent exploitative behavior.
It's disturbing to see these same anti-organization arguments rehashed simply for a new industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.