Government Orders Google: Let Employees Speak Out (wsj.com) 72
Federal regulators have ordered Google to assure employees they are allowed to speak out on political and workplace issues [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source], WSJ reported Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter, as part of a settlement of formal complaints that the search giant punishes those who do just that. From a report: The move from the National Labor Relations Board offers Google an escape hatch from a thorny issue that has roiled the business in recent years. Though Google executives have long bragged about having a workplace culture designed to encourage open debate, current and former employees across the political spectrum have complained that they were retaliated against for raising concerns about equality and freedom of speech. The NLRB's settlement comes in response to a pair of complaints about Google's reaction to workplace dissent. The settlement orders Google to inform current employees that they are free to speak to the media -- without having to ask Google higher-ups for permission -- on topics such as workplace diversity and compensation, regardless of whether Google views such topics as inappropriate for the workplace.
Re: EMPLOYEE WALKOUTS ARE ABSOLUTELY HARMFUL!!! (Score:2)
I'm sorry you work in a prison. When you have marketable skills, you can walk out of work whenever you like.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: EMPLOYEE WALKOUTS ARE ABSOLUTELY HARMFUL!!! (Score:2)
Luckily I don't have to leave. Walkouts are legal and there is nothing in my contract that prevents me from doing them. Tough titties for Google.
Re: EMPLOYEE WALKOUTS ARE ABSOLUTELY HARMFUL!!! (Score:2)
The only thing you're making a legit case for here is that nobody at all should ever work at a place that refuses to offer part ownership in the company to its employees. Which Google does, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can Google still fire you? YES or NO. The answer is yes
Yes they can because I think most (all?) states have at will employment but that also means if you're an asshole, no one will want to work for you either and they can walk out on you at any time for any reason and you can't retaliate against them. It's a two way street.
Re: (Score:2)
Arguments like yours are why I often don't bother directly engaging with my opponents in class warfare; you make yourself look stupid and evil enough without my help.
Re: (Score:2)
Arguments like yours are why I often don't bother directly engaging with my opponents in class warfare
There is no "class warfare" here. Many Google engineers are making salaries of $200k or more. If a couple living together both make that much, they are in the top 1% of American households.
So this is the 1% against the 0.001%.
Re: (Score:2)
That's still class warfare. Labor vs. Capital. "The 1%" has always been kind of misleading, because 99% of the 1% also have exactly as much real power and only slightly more assurance of stability than a homeless guy. The main difference between them and us is that they more frequently get away with exercising their rights. The rest of us get fired for the same behavior with no real hope of recourse, and then people with top hats that are too tight to let blood flow to their brains come and say that employe
Re: (Score:2)
Can Google still fire you? YES or NO. The answer is yes, meaning asshole.
Answer is MAYBE. Legally Google can't fire employees if there is collective action going on. The US has this law, and many other countries, especially in Europe, do as well.
If you're just fucking around and skating through your job. Then yes, you can and will be fired. At a big company like Google it may take a long time before anything happens to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you feel you can tell the company YOU work for who it can do business with.
Yes. both sides must be an agreement. A business-employer relationship is a two way street. It's not a master-slave relationship.
Who the fuck do you think you are dictating to the people that cuts your pay check what they can and can not do.
I'm just one of many people that do the work. Collectively, if enough of us agree, we can negotiate with management. That's the current law. It's different than how things were in the 19th century.
They lose millions because of fucking you. You don't like their politics, who they support. You protest at work, do not perform your job duties? Fuck You.
Employees don't need to be in perfect alignment with their employer's politics, but people are certainly free to draw a line in the sand. If a plurality of employees agree they can work
Re: (Score:2)
I had an employer - after three months of courting and six weeks of negotiation - literally toss an IP rights assignment, non-compete, and non-disclosure "agreement" on my desk the morning I started.
There were several terms that were fundamentally unfair, and several which conflicted directly with terms I had signed in other places, NONE of which were discussed prior. (For instance, the agreement included a permanent, irrevocable, unconditional, and FREE licence for literally EVERY piece of intellectual pr
Re: (Score:2)
They could change our work agreement at any time because it was an "At-Will" employment state.
"At will" is the default employment arrangement. But if you have a written, signed contract specifying your employment agreement, then that contract takes precedence, and you are no longer "at will".
Re: EMPLOYEE WALKOUTS ARE ABSOLUTELY HARMFUL!!! (Score:2)
Presumably his contract didn't specify a minimum employment duration.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably his contract didn't specify a minimum employment duration.
This. Though I tried... that was a large part of the reason the negotiations took six weeks.
I should have known better.
But good luck trying to get most employers to sign a contract term - the default is so much better for them, especially in states that enforce non-compete agreements, that they have almost zero incentive to offer a minimum contract term. I was recently offered a position as an executive at a company that wouldn't guarantee a minimum term.
Employment law in the States is complete bollocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should an employer offer a "minimum contract term" if they don't have to in order to acquire the services they require? It's obvious that the employer believes the services you provide can be acquired without such a concession on the their part.
Obviously if a "minimum contract term" were to be agreed to, it should be symmetric -- the employee can't quit or reduce their output until the end of the term and, if they do, they should presumably pay damages (possibly in excess of what they had been paid to d
Re: (Score:2)
It feels awkward to bring it up during negotiations, but before you start is the best time to negotiate a severance package.
It is common at the executive level, and should be embraced at the professional level as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So what would you do when the company alters "the deal" or "the rules" after the fact?
Going with the Google example... For many years they sold themselves as a company with "Don't be evil." as part of its ethos. Plenty of people were attracted to, and lured in, by that philosophy and the "culture of openness" which they also advertise. Now, you may argue that they were naive to believe that "Don't be evil." would ever work for a publicly traded corporation. But nevertheless, a certain corporate culture i
Re: (Score:2)
When you have marketable skills, you can walk out of work whenever you like.
That is not true in the economy anymore. In order to work wherever you want you have to be a rockstar >= 98th percentile. I've probably been in the 95th percentile and couldn't find a job and had to level up to do what you're suggesting. Sure it can be done but you didn't have to know near this breadth or depth of knowledge 10 years ago that you do now. You basically have to be a savant. It was a hard road but I'm having fun now and my job is a cake walk as a result of leveling up.
Perfect! (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:2)
It's one thing to prevent employee retaliation internally, but it's quite another to ban a company from enforcing a no media policy. I wonder if this would actually hold up if it went to court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been in a very strong union on a very long strike in the oil patch where people on the strike line were very vocal and visible to media and you can bet your sweet bippy that management kept a list and those men and women's career didn't last long afterwards.
It was only coincidence of course because, apparently, there's a positive correlation between current media exposure and declining acceptable levels of competence at some future date.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet my sweet bippy you're full of shit.
You claim it's a "very strong union" and yet you claim management kept a list of striking employees (which is normally all union members when a strike is called) and then retaliated against them by ending their career?
Fucking horseshit. When you've got a union contract, you don't get to fire people without the union being in the middle of it.
If you have a competent union, you don't get to fire people as retaliation. Even thinking about that would bring about sev
Re: (Score:2)
And the only thing preventing retaliation in that case is the union itself. Again the interesting thing here is the government is getting involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
bjwest claimed:
Corporations are telling employees they have to attend political rallies/speeches and make donations to certain candidates/partys, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear of them requiring them to vote a certain way.
Citation needed - because your claims are obvious and unmitigated bullshit.
Liberty University requires its students and faculty to attend Donald Trump's on-campus rallies. I can't think of any other example of requiring employee attendance at political events as corporate policy in the USA - and I'll wager a shiny, new quarter that you can't cite another one, either. As for requiring donations to specific political candidates and/or political parties, there is no example I know of, and none y
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Informative)
bjwest claimed:
Corporations are telling employees they have to attend political rallies/speeches and make donations to certain candidates/partys, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear of them requiring them to vote a certain way.
Citation needed - because your claims are obvious and unmitigated bullshit.
Liberty University requires its students and faculty to attend Donald Trump's on-campus rallies. I can't think of any other example of requiring employee attendance at political events as corporate policy in the USA - and I'll wager a shiny, new quarter that you can't cite another one, either.
How's this? [nytimes.com] Of course you'll deny it was required because they could "opt out' by giving up some pay.
You can donate that quarter to the DNC. You can even do it with a money order, if you don't want it linked back to you.
Re: (Score:2)
bjwest claimed:
Corporations are telling employees they have to attend political rallies/speeches and make donations to certain candidates/partys, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear of them requiring them to vote a certain way.
To which I replied:
Citation needed - because your claims are obvious and unmitigated bullshit.
Liberty University requires its students and faculty to attend Donald Trump's on-campus rallies. I can't think of any other example of requiring employee attendance at political events as corporate policy in the USA - and I'll wager a shiny, new quarter that you can't cite another one, either.
Prompting bjwest to respond:
How's this? [nytimes.com] Of course you'll deny it was required because they could "opt out' by giving up some pay.
You can donate that quarter to the DNC. You can even do it with a money order, if you don't want it linked back to you.
Brzzt! But thanks for playing.
Which part of "attendance was not mandatory" was unclear to you?
Employees who chose not to attend still got paid for the day. What they did not get was overtime pay for the time they would have spent listening to Trump's self-promotional blather.
Go ahead and wave your arms about how giving up the mere opportunity to earn overtime pay in exchange for not having to endure Fearless Leader's ranting, in favor of being able to sleep in and get paid your regular day's wage to do that
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of any other example of requiring employee attendance at political events as corporate policy in the USA
It's way more common than you think and in ways that "allow" an out but not really. I'm sure you're well aware of the Shell incident recently. But yeah, companies forces employees to do their bidding is way, way, way, more common than anyone likes to let on.
If there were, the management of any companies that instituted such a policy would be put under a microscope, both by social media mobs and by authorities at every level of government
Well, to answer that you have to understand that it is done by both parties. Auto unions force folks into Democrats. Religious whatevers force folks into Republicans. So no one points it out because, everyone does it. So even if we'd put them under
Re: Interesting (Score:2)
Well, consider this: Some guy states on Twitter, off the clock, that he thinks transgenders should only use the bathroom of their biological sex. Somebody later doxes him and finds that he's a Google employee, the tweet goes viral, and it creates bad PR for Google even though it was the employee's own personal account, and he never at any point disclosed on the internet who his employer is.
Is it ok for Google to fire him in this case? Remember that his statements are well within the protection of the first
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Interesting (Score:2)
And what if he doesn't want to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if it's the CEO of a company and they are spotted repeatedly at Proud Boys events and the media picks up on it and publicizes it and customers begin to boycott the company's products in protest?
What if its the CEO of the ACLU and she's publicly and openly promoting, on her own time, the position that the Fourth Amendment doesn't prevent police from searching a person who is in a public place for no reason whatsoever or that she believes the word "people" in the Second Amendment means "government" and s
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. Liberals are outraged, they demand he be fired, google fires him, conservatives are outraged.
Then a month later another employee is identified expressing their view that American policing has a problem with both institutionalised racism and overzealous use of violence. Conservatives are outraged, they demands he be fired, google fires him, liberals are outraged.
The NFL had a firestorm not that long ago about athletes not participating in the national anthem as a political statement, and now they've go
Re: (Score:2)
no company should be able to tell any employee what they can and cannot think, say or do while not on the clock
Every large company I've worked for has had policies to prevent staff from badmouthing the company in public.
I don't think that's a bad thing. A company shouldn't have to continue employing someone that publicly states, "[My employer] is a shitty company with shitty practices that shits all over its customers."
Even if they're right, they're still wrong for saying that in public.
Re: (Score:2)
I would differentiate if this person is talking for themselves or for the company.
If I were to be pulled over by a reporter asking about my political stance. I wouldn't do it if they knew where I worked, and if on video with my badge with my companies logo on it. Because my point of view may be seen as inline with my work place, and especially with this polarized environment could cause people to complain to my workplace because of my opinion and values.
Now if it was on a weekend and I am in my weekend clo
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if this would actually hold up if it went to court
Lower courts, probably. Appeals, a very high degree of no.
Google needs a Safe Space (Score:2)
And they could get their feewings hurt if employees are allowed to speak freely about things that Google might be sensitive too. We don't want Google to get triggered. Especially by anything that might give employees any leverage, power, or simply freedom to speak their mind.
James Damore (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: James Damore (Score:2)
That was Zach Vorhies. Google sent a "wellness check" SWAT to his house after his leaks were identified.
Everybody here should read all 700 documents.
Progressives are gonna hate this (Score:3)
As we all know, the biggest enemy to the rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me crowd is free speech for everyone and open conversation about real issues.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, you are correct, in the same way so-called "conservatives" will talk about "family values" then resign over having affairs [nbcnews.com] or having their mistresses get abortions [businessinsider.com] or soliciting sex from other men or even boys [cleveland.com].
Or like when supposed religious people tell everyone not to do X, Y, or Z then themselves go about doing X, Y, and Z. Like this guy [politico.com].
So yup, we know what you mean. The rules only apply to you, not me.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The family values Republicans voted for Trump because he promised to make the queers and brown people go away, and maybe even help them get the ban on abortion they have been failing to get for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporatism and the Left (Score:1, Insightful)
It is odd to see the far left fight against free speech to the benefit of faceless, multinational, billionaire corporations. There were people cheering that Disney was taking down negative reviews of Captain Marvel. People calling for the firing of James Damore. People calling for youtube to get rid of people for telling... slightly offensive jokes? Talk about unintended consequences.
Keep in mind it is a very small group of loud people who would be against things like this.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you find it odd? That has always been standard operating procedure for "the left", or at least the socialist/communist left. It's mandatory for them to succeed - they have to force people to operate against their own interests, part and parcel of that is to be utterly intolerant of dissent, and to apply sanctions to anyone that doesn't go along. That's the principle behind the Chinese "social credit" system, behind the trials in communist countries about "counter-revolutionary" acts, and the histrion
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the conversa
Nope (Score:2)
"the right" ALSO has mandatory success criteria of forcing people to operate against their own best interests.
People keep saying that, which shows they have a vast misunderstanding of what people's interests really are.
Hint: For most people (even the poor) it is not money.
Not to mention the conversation I recently had with a veteran where he declared all liberals to be enemy combatants, terrorists and not "actual Americans".
Easy to understand when the people he is talking about proclaim others to not be A
Re: (Score:2)
also to note that you aren't mentioning the specific issues he is calling you crazy for, so the reader can't judge which of you is plum loco
Fuck you (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fuck you (Score:4, Informative)
"there would be zero tolerance of discussions in favor of cracking down on illegal immigration, or ensuring 2nd Amendment rights"
Just because you are paid to do a particular task, it doesn't mean you should be prohibited from speaking about anything outside that area.
As far as illegal immigration, most of the current debate is around legal immigration, specifically how asylum works. The US literally turned boatloads of jews back to NAZI Germany during the lifetime of many living Americans. Many people don't want to make that mistake again.
And most 2nd amendment debate now doesn't involve taking guns away; it centers around closing background check loopholes. Even most gun advocates agree that the 2nd amendment has limitations; i.e. not all people should have immediate access to all arms. Society has generally agreed that convicted felons, children, the mentally insane, and others should not have access to most arms. Additionally, some "Arms" are not allowed to be held by any citizen. They include hand grenades, claymores, surface to air missiles, and more.
Re: (Score:2)
MooseTick misstated:
Additionally, some "Arms" are not allowed to be held by any citizen. They include hand grenades, claymores, surface to air missiles, and more.
That's not entirely correct. Both museums and BATF-certified collectors can qualify to own all those things, as long as the artifacts in question qualify as curios and relics [atf.gov] ...
Re: (Score:2)
WRT gun legislation - there are many anti-gun, abolish the 2nd amendment type advocates, pushing for 'reasonable' gun reform, specifically as a wedge for further legislation. This tactic was successfully used by MAD (mothers against drunk driving) to drive blood alcohol content maximums absurdly low, such that you can't even be sure that you'll blow safe an hour after drinking a single beer.
It was logical
Re: (Score:2)
setting an example (Score:2)
so wait... um, let me get this straight... a company that has carte-blanche god-like control over what terms appear in search engines is *censoring* its own employees from speaking up??
Re: (Score:2)
Is the government going to start "helping" us by telling us when we can and can't let people go?
Does the government think it knows better anyway?
Yes, they are called "laws"
You're welcome