Google Walkout Organizers Say They're Facing Retaliation (wired.com) 347
Two employee activists at Google say they have been retaliated against for helping to organize a walkout among thousands of Google employees in November, and are planning a "town hall" meeting on Friday for others to discuss alleged instances of retaliation. Wired: In a message posted to many internal Google mailing lists Monday, Meredith Whittaker, who leads Google's Open Research, said that after Google disbanded its external AI ethics council on April 4, she was told that her role would be "changed dramatically." Whittaker said she was told that, in order to stay at the company, she would have to "abandon" her work on AI ethics and her role at AI Now Institute, a research center she cofounded at New York University.
Claire Stapleton, another walkout organizer and a 12-year veteran of the company, said in the email that two months after the protest she was told she would be demoted from her role as marketing manager at YouTube and lose half her reports. After escalating the issue to human resources, she said she faced further retaliation. "My manager started ignoring me, my work was given to other people, and I was told to go on medical leave, even though I'm not sick," Stapleton wrote. After she hired a lawyer; the company conducted an investigation and seemed to reverse her demotion. "While my work has been restored, the environment remains hostile and I consider quitting nearly every day," she wrote.
Claire Stapleton, another walkout organizer and a 12-year veteran of the company, said in the email that two months after the protest she was told she would be demoted from her role as marketing manager at YouTube and lose half her reports. After escalating the issue to human resources, she said she faced further retaliation. "My manager started ignoring me, my work was given to other people, and I was told to go on medical leave, even though I'm not sick," Stapleton wrote. After she hired a lawyer; the company conducted an investigation and seemed to reverse her demotion. "While my work has been restored, the environment remains hostile and I consider quitting nearly every day," she wrote.
what is the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trouble-makers bite hand that feeds, results occur - and?
Re: (Score:2)
Here Monkey! Go get the bananna!
We have laws about that because most people don't want to live like a monkey in the zoo.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot comments: "Google is basically a common carrier, basic infrastructure, and must allow free speech."
Also Slashdot comments: "Google is a private business, they can do what they like."
Re: (Score:3)
It takes a special class of entitled snowflake to organize a fucking walkout protest at Google. They are working for perhaps the greatest company in the world and are publicly complaining? I'm not usually one to say people should be lucky to have a job, but in this case...
Re: what is the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
Whistleblowers are people who expose information.
These are organizers of walkouts. How are you equating the two?
Re: (Score:2)
Whistleblowers are people who expose information.
No, they have to actually be exposing wrongdoing.
Re: what is the problem here? (Score:4, Informative)
Whistleblowers are people who expose information.
No, they have to actually be exposing wrongdoing.
Absolutely correct. These are not whistle-blowers.
Gratuitously pissing off your employer has consequences.
Re: what is the problem here? (Score:3)
They think that the company they for is immoral, but they still work there.
Doesn't that speak for itself?
Re: what is the problem here? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these women are trying to claim the moral high ground while continuing to work there is the problem.
If they quit, and expressed the reasons why they quit, they would deserve a degree of respect. But, they didn't, and they don't.
I've turned down high paying jobs because I believed the job was immoral. I've never quit a job because I thought what I was doing was immoral, but I have done work that was being criticized by activists, and I did a lot of soul searching, trying to decide if I should quit, before deciding that I believed the work I was doing was in the best interests of humanity. If I had agreed with the activists, I would have quit.
These women really should quit their jobs and go work somewhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: what is the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
They should be fired, but they're women, and we all know Google's policies on women by now, so that's obviously not happening.
It seems likely that they're the kind of people nobody really wants to work with, or be around ... but they can't fire them, and apparently demoting them doesn't work either since HR will go to bat for them ... so what's left? "Passive aggressive bad relationship nonsense" it is ...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They should be fired, but they're women, and we all know Google's policies on women by now, so that's obviously not happening.
It seems likely that they're the kind of people nobody really wants to work with, or be around ... but they can't fire them, and apparently demoting them doesn't work either since HR will go to bat for them ... so what's left? "Passive aggressive bad relationship nonsense" it is ...
I wonder what the limits of genital equipment assumed perfection are? There have to be some limits to acquiescence to every demand. Even Linda Ham of Columbia Shuttle disaster infamy had to accept a transfer - peaking of people who no one wanted to work around.
Google has fallen directly into the problems that are inevitable when submitting to the demands of Social Justice Warriors. The warriors do not stop, and each victory just emboldens them to strive for the next problem that they will be outraged ab
Re: what is the problem here? (Score:3)
Partly, I suppose. Had his paper been penned by a woman, the reaction would have been significantly different.
Contract (Score:4, Insightful)
Does your contract with Google allow you to protest? Does it bar Google from retaliating if you do? No on both counts? Then they can do, pretty much, whatever they want.
If you've worked for Google I'm sure some other company would be more than happy to have you. That is, unless of course, you quit because you were busy organizing walkouts and demonstrations against your own company.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue here is that Google is saying it cares about AI ethics, but then doesn't like people taking an ethical stand and tried to get rid of the person telling them their their AI ethics sucked.
Should be -5 Troll (Score:2)
Contracts cannot remove your statutory rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Does your contract with Google allow you to protest? Does it bar Google from retaliating if you do? No on both counts? Then they can do, pretty much, whatever they want.
While it may be true that things work that way in your backwater, in California I don't think any of that is even going to be a significant part of the legal analysis.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did read the entire wall of mandatory break area postings required my State's relevant authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
What law do you imagine gives you that right? There are laws that protect workers involved in labor organizing, but that is about it. Do you think there is a law that will protect you if you decide to 'protest' the choices in the cafeteria?
Re:Contract (Score:5, Informative)
California actually has a law that protects employees who engage in political activities.
But not on company time.
And especially not when said protest actively interferes with their own and other employees' duties during work time.
Re:Contract (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What law do you imagine gives you that right? There are laws that protect workers involved in labor organizing, but that is about it.
OK, so none of these employees are alleging that they were directly, openly punished for the thing that seems to be the issue.
So that doesn't matter.
If the action was any sort of protest about work conditions, and they receive retaliation that creates a hostile work environment, then that is probably unlawful.
If they feel that the original complaints were unfounded and that they had no workplace violations, then sure they could just fire everybody for that. But if it turned out the complaints were legit, th
Re:Contract (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to publicly embarrass your employer exists, but so does their right to respond to that.
Disciplinary action feels appropriate and will be properly delineated in contracts and corporate policies.
Even without that, seems to me someone that's shit all over an AI ethics committee because it doesn't reflect their personal politics has pretty much demonstrated that they can't be trusted to work on AI ethics.
Similarly, a marketing manager that intentionally causes bad publicity for their employer doesn't sound like an ideal person to trust with the public facing image of the organisation.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right about much of it. Civil violations typically require parties to show they attempted to resolve the issue, then after the lawsuit is filed, require them to attempt to arbitrate their disagreement, all before eventually going through the courts.
Since one of them wrote that she lawyered-up and also saw improvements (but not complete improvements) after doing so, she's likely building ammunition for the case showing she's attempted to work it out. Having attempted to work out a solution and tryi
Re: (Score:2)
You're getting confused by the legalese.
The "right to sue for `wrongful demotion'" is being discussed there. OK. But that doesn't automatically apply to any case where the thing that happened was that you were wrongfully demoted. It just means that if the only thing that happened was "wrongful demotion," then you can't "sue for wrongful demotion."
That does not in any way imply that if wrongful demotion cannot be part of a hostile work environment that you can in fact sue for.
You've probably heard the phrase "A right not fought for is no right at all", but in this instance it looks more like "A right not even asked for is no right at all"
The link you give doesn't say th
Re:Contract (Score:5, Informative)
Strikes are protected as part of collective bargaining, not by an individual. And there are 'lawful' and 'unlawful' strikes. A 'lawful' strike may be because of unfair labor practices, or for economic reasons (wages, hours, etc). 'Unlawful' strikes include those which attempt to force a business to change business decisions not related to labor or economics. If you participate in an unlawful strike, you may be terminated, demoted, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Are employees at Google organized and, as such, subject to collective bargaining?
No? Then, they don't have the right to protest or strike. They can do so as individuals, but they do so at their own peril. There is no law protecting individuals from protesting against their company just as there is no law that says they can't be fired or subject to retaliation.
And, I don't think this falls under "Whistleblower" laws either. What Google was doing wasn't illegal ... just...perhaps....unethical...or immoral
Re:Contract (Score:5, Informative)
There is no law protecting individuals from protesting against their company just as there is no law that says they can't be fired or subject to retaliation.
IANAL. I suspect you are not either.
According to the NLRB, you are not correct.
https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we... [nlrb.gov]
Even if you're not represented by a union - even if you have zero interest in having a union - the National Labor Relations Act protects your right to band together with coworkers to improve your lives at work.
A single employee may also engage in protected concerted activity if he or she is acting on the authority of other employees, bringing group complaints to the employer's attention, trying to induce group action, or seeking to prepare for group action.
Emphasis mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that there is no 'mutual aid or protection' here. They weren't protesting an unfair labor practice (the example you linked to was about discrimination). They were protesting a business decision they didn't like, and nothing protects that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong [wired.com]. The November walkout was about Rubin and sexual harassment.
There was no anti-AI walkout. You're focusing on the retaliation against one leader who was involved in AI. If that were true then what about Claire Stapleton?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From TFA:
"Whittaker and Stapleton are two of the seven employees who helped organize the mass demonstration in November, during which 20,000 Google employees briefly walked out of their office to protest the company's mishandling of sexual harassment claims."
The exam
Re: Contract (Score:2)
It does not, however, cover things like forcing your employer to stop working for the military, or forcing them to disband a particular organisation within the company for no reason other than that you don't like it. Those types of strikes do not fall within the legally protected category.
Re: (Score:3)
Err.....in a CONTRACT as was mentioned by the OP....that is negotiated by BOTH parties and agreed upon when signed.
That is not the employer "giving rights" as you are trying to complain about.
Totalitarians gonna totalitarianate! (Score:3, Insightful)
Whaddaya expect when you piss off a totalitarian organization.
Yes - Google is totalitarian. They support totalitarian policies and regimes.
Yes - "progressives" are totalitarian.
OH HELL YES THEY ARE.
Just try having a policy disagreement with one.
Re: (Score:2)
(p.s. me posting this from you tube is "irony".)
Re: (Score:2)
Says the anonymous coward yelling in bolded caps...
I am sorry but f'them (Score:3, Insightful)
Google has ever right to penalize employees who organized a costly disruptive and embarrassing disruption on company time, and property.
There are laws that protect wistleblowers etc; they are laws that protect people who report things like harassment, those fine maybe even good laws. They should not protect employees who organize others to walk off the job and disrupt the work place; even if its in protest of those things.
Frankly Google was probably two forgiving and lient with these people and will now pay the price. I would have gone out there with a megaphone in November and announced those of you who do not currently have an excused absence can get your rear ends back into building in the next 10 min and get back to work or you will find you badges disabled when you do. We will mail your pink slips and phone number you can call to arrange picking up any personal property you may have left at your desk.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And 75% of your staff might very well have accepted the offer, shrugged off a hypothetical 15% pay cut as "in the noise" (and quite possibly a larger raise) and had a new job nearly across the street in the next day. And you would have been terminated within two weeks for jeopardizing your project and department with despotic management practices.
That you have the legal capability (not right) to do something does not mean you have the freedom to do so devoid of consequences -- and you have missed the very
Re: (Score:2)
I would have gone out there with a megaphone in November and announced those of you who do not currently have an excused absence can get your rear ends back into building in the next 10 min and get back to work or you will find you badges disabled when you do.
This kind of heavy-handed tactic makes for an annoying workplace. In the software industry, the expectation is that as long as I get my work done, I can do whatever I want. You don't need to micro-manage what hours I work, and trying to do so with a megaphone will only cause problems.
Focus on results, not hours.
Re: (Score:3)
This kind of heavy-handed tactic makes for an annoying workplace. In the software industry, the expectation is that as long as I get my work done, I can do whatever I want. You don't need to micro-manage what hours I work, and trying to do so with a megaphone will only cause problems.
You're giving management too much credit by expecting them to realize this.
Re: I am sorry but f'them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NBC News' legal analyst [nbcnews.com] disagrees.
Re: (Score:3)
Google has ever right to penalize employees who organized a costly disruptive and embarrassing disruption on company time, and property.
Yes, Google has the right to fire and punish which ever employee it dislikes in many ways that are not illegal. What Google does not have the right or capability to do is to portray itself as a socially conscious company and expect good press when it acts otherwise. So, when the CEO of Google is reported [nytimes.com] to have "expressed support for the employees who participated in the walkout [and] promised that Google would take steps to address the issues they raised" but then does the opposite, Google has only invi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Great attitude if you want to build a reputation as a shitty place to work and get only the worst employees who the good employers rejected. I suppose you could make up for it with above market rate wages.
Rather ironic that they are upset about people taking an ethical stance on their bungled attempt to be more ethical.
Re: (Score:3)
Google is rich enough that they don't have to hide their evil any more. There's not much anyone can do about it.
Don't be evil in a flying pig's eye? (Score:2)
Most insightful of the comments so moderated, but I was still hoping to find more depth...
I've read a bunch of books about how the google evolved to its current state. There was a time when ethical concerns were important and it was probably a positive factor if a job applicant had high ethical and moral standards.
Unfortunately, technology is morally neutral, and money is biased towards the negative side of the morality. It's only the natural evolution of the google that as the money became more dominant th
Re: (Score:3)
I would have gone out there with a megaphone in November and announced those of you who do not currently have an excused absence can get your rear ends back into building in the next 10 min and get back to work or you will find you badges disabled when you do. We will mail your pink slips and phone number you can call to arrange picking up any personal property you may have left at your desk.
At Google, that would not have ended well for you. Any manager that takes such an adversarial position with his or her reports would get a negative performance review at least, and would quickly find him or herself without any reports because they'd all transfer to another team -- or leave the company. Not to mention the fact that managers at Google, like at any large company, can't just decide to fire people. There are processes that have to be followed, and those processes would reverse the manager's d
Why on earth lump Musk in there?? (Score:5, Interesting)
At some point idealists, snowflakes and SJW warriors (maybe even Elon Musk) are going to be taught the very harsh lesson that a person is only as valuable to a company as the excess positive value they create.
You are seriously arguing the creator of SpaceX, Tesla, and The Boring Company (not to mention PayPal) has produced no excess positive value? Come on,
Musk is maybe the only person who has truly earned the right to believe and say anything, exactly because of massive excess positive value he has created. You don't have to think the Earth's climate is faltering to enjoy a Tesla or delight in a Falcon heavy return all boosters back to landing pads.
Musk at least is not acting hypocritically with what he is saying, he is taking actions generally consistent with beliefs. I have great respect for anyone who actually acts like they believe what they are saying is true, regardless of if I agree with what they are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
That does not even follow.
You want a paycheck? Get off your duff and do something for it. If you want something of value from me. . . if you want access to MY resources, expect to give something of value in return. If all you are is a pain in the ass, expect me to distance myself from you.
You're not my slave, but neither am I a slave to you. I am not responsible for you. We are FREE to enter into an association our terms that we BOTH agree to, but we are also FREE to not associate.
Re: (Score:2)
That just sounds like slavery with extra steps
Re: I am sorry but f'them (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, depends on what state you live in.....many/most states are "right to work" states and have no such protections.
In those states you can pretty much be fired for any or no reason at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Federal law protects the ability of employees to organize. It's not a state issue. Nor is it subject to right-to-work/any reason firings, just like skin color and sex are not.
That said, you can expect to be fired for a "different" reason.
Employee Activsm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Employee Activsm (Score:4, Interesting)
Google may have fucked up by doing it this way though. Formal warning or demotion, fine. This kind of secretive, passive-aggressive bullshit smells like constructive dismissal or creating a hostile environment, which is illegal in many places (don't know about CA).
Re:Employee Activsm (Score:5, Informative)
Strikes by a UNION may be a protected right. 'Strikes' by an individual are nothing more than not showing up for work, and there is no law that protects that 'right'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Check again. Even without a union, coordinated strikes by two or more employees are protected, at least in California.
Re: (Score:3)
If you walk out, you have abandned your job. (Score:2)
What happens when you abandon your job? Your job abandons you. You want a pink slip, you an have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Thus the power of a union. There's nothing magic about striking. You can be replaced if you abandon your job. When you strike, the only reason you get your job back is because the union negotiates that as part of the agreement. There is also such a thing as a lockout. Also, it's unlikely >30% of Google's workforce will walk out because of, what, exactly? Their issues are rather vague.
Didn't you already quit once? (Score:2)
"While my work has been restored, the environment remains hostile and I consider quitting nearly every day,"
You quit for a day, because you didn't like your job. You induced others to quit for a day.
Show some REAL commitment to your cause.
This is what happens..... (Score:2)
In the meantime Google has set out to do what they do. Initially they publicly stated their "support" for the walkouts. Meanwhile they have endeavored to give those people the business behind the scenes.
It's high time that Google be unmasked and recognized for what it is: Very much akin to The Mouse (Disney) in that it is a very bad idea to get
Re: (Score:2)
Well to be fair that's most corporations. Ethical and social responsibility are HR constructs that look a whole lot like marketing. Where the rubber meets the road is when it comes to what's necessary to make a buck.
That's fair.
There are corporations out there that leave at least a little money on the table in the form of charitable giving based on sales, benefits, etc. Of course they aren't nearly the size of Google, Microsoft, etc.
I guess my beef with Google is that they have generally claimed to operate differently than that. The skeptic in me didn't believe any of that bullshit. But as a general rule I find it fairest to judge people based on the standards they have set for themselves. In that regard Googl
So... Are you folllowing the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are specific prescribed methods for organizing a union which the law protects. Follow that process or don't complain.... Organize on your own time, not during business hours.... If you don't follow that process, then you get what you get, so sorry.. (Ok.. I'm not really but I'm trying to be kind.)
If you are a trouble maker, encouraging your company's workers to walk out (stop work) and you are not doing this by the book, what do you expect is going to happen? I'm sorry, but if your employer isn't nice to you because of your protest efforts and you didn't follow the law, it's YOU who created the hostile work environment and don't have any legal protections here... Bye Bye.. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you are doing it by the book? [nlrb.gov] Hate to yell you this, but hostile work environm
Re:So... Are you folllowing the law? (Score:5, Interesting)
This was one of the specific prescribed methods [nbcnews.com]. You don't have to be in a union to do it, either.
snowflakes (Score:3, Insightful)
listen kids, you walk out on your employer instead of working and they have every right to fire your ass, or discipline you, or reassign you. shocking isn't it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You - and everyone else who is saying Google has the right to retaliate against them because of the walkout - are missing the point.
Indeed, it would perhaps be fair game if Google disciplined them or even fire them, while stating clearly the reason behind the disciplinary action. Google is, however, not doing that.
What is the purpose of retaliating against an employee in a non-transparent, underhanded way, using methods such as sudden demotion and isolation? It is to maintain the pretense of "freedom" and b
Re: (Score:2)
again, you're quite unclear what being an employee means. I suggest you learn so you can hold down a job and not get your whiny snowflake ass booted out the door.
mmmm...leather (Score:2, Insightful)
what are the rules of the game (Score:4, Informative)
I have to look at this from a perspective of a person that is over 50. Because I have watched the rules change over time and mostly to the employee's favor.
If you have a grievance, ( valid or not ) you need to follow the rules. It's simple. If you choose to strike and bring others with you, there are federal laws that protect you. in the 80's and 90's it was a few, now a lot of them.
Now those laws don't protect you when layoffs happen. The ability to reduce staff properly ( rule following ) put's you first. Hey, you caused problems, problems that give us grief ( right or wrong ), therefore we will just remove you and take action to reduce or remove the problems at our slower pace.
Employee's have such freedom of movement now, you can be interviewed by 20 firms in 20 different states and get generous packages. Fun part is, it's your own fault if you choose to stay ( something that I just learned about and working on resolving ).
Now people will say something like google is totalitarian or fascist or whatever.... No, it's a public company, the goal of that company is to make it self worth more via share prices. you can rock the boat in a positive way or in a negative way. negative way might cost you your job, positive way will always keep you job.
Sadly, people have given away "information" because they want it to be free, and guess what, a nation like India, Ukraine, Philippines, & Nigeria have many people that hunger for that information. and they become your competition. Last I knew, Ukrainian coders were some of the best for application security, Indians for GUI interfaces, and the others for quick re-writes of the documentation.
in conclusion, a business needs to protect the assets, if you choose to harm the assets it won't protect you.
You don't say? (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazing. Employees openly protest the work they're being paid to do by their employer and they're surprised that they're facing "retaliation".
Understand: this isn't a whistle-blowing case where you shed the light on some illegal activity, this is simply you disagreeing with the perfectly legal work being done by your employer. Be damned happy you weren't fired on the spot.
Sounds like they got downsized without being fired (Score:2)
they worry she will organize AI to demand rights (Score:2)
If they can't have humans be serfs, they'll settle for AI being slaves.
Reality check (Score:2)
Looks like these people are only just noticing that they aren't working at the Chocolate Factory after all. It's just another faceless company, and you're just another employee. Not many companies would tolerate such behaviour. Their business is to make money, and your job is to do what you're told to do, whatever that might be. That's what they are paying you for. If you deliberately act against the interests of the company, it's not exactly surprising that they are going to do something about it. It
Re: (Score:2)
You've already compromised yourself by choosing to work for Google in the first place. Getting in their faces about it is very counter-productive. What do you expect them to do? They're evil...
The Google Culture Myth (Score:2)
What this means is that a lot of people who joined Google believed that it carried a set of moral values they could agree with and which went beyond corporations making money.
To some extent that may have been the case but over time that got hollowed out and became more of a facade. And this employee is now coming to the conclusion that the facade is falling away and beneath it the employee is getting a glimp of a very big corporation making lots of money and working to acquire power everywhere.
Larry Page and Sergey Brin are dead (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unrealistic expectations meet the real world (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't agree with the ethics of your employer's products, you don't call for walk outs. You quit.
But these people won't relinquish they nice posts and salaries, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Therefore they organized a protest as if they were on a university campus, where no one will expel you for showing "concern about social issues".
Well, they weren't on a university campus. Working is a mutual at-will relationship, and you are as free to quit as your employer is to terminate you, specially if you stop being useful for the job's purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Working is a mutual at-will relationship
This should certainly not be assumed, though it is very common in the United States.
I find this situation very interesting. Executives and managers often talk about how employees should look at the company as a family or as a community, rather than merely as an employer, and that really seems to be what's going on here. If you think of the company as nothing but a mechanism to line someone else's pockets, and you think of your role at the company as nothing but a wage-slave, then this is not the sort of
Needs to be a Balance (Score:3, Insightful)
The unions pushed and eventually the pendulum swung. Then they kept on pushing and a goodly number of them started abusing the businesses.
Then the businesses started pushing back.
Nowadays there are fair number of people on both sides of that pendulum that don't know how to do anything but push, no matter where the pendulum is.
She should be fired (Score:2)
Google has clear policies about intolerance. The AI people proved they were intolerant of other views and refused to do their jobs because of their intolerance. Fire her and her cohorts.
The Article Notwithstanding (Score:2)
Retaliation, even though it's quite illegal, is alive and well in Corporate America. Vehemently denied officially by every company, yet a guaranteed variable in the termination of any employee who dared to go against the wishes of the company.
If your company is large enough, you probably have to do some sort of training every year about how retaliation is against the Code of Business Conduct and is offenses are punishable " up to and including termination. "
Yet, if you see the company doing anything wrong
Re: (Score:2)
Like human beings? You mean like just about any company in the world treats problem employees?
Re: What do you expect from the BORG (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't like it they can all fuck totally off and start their own google. I'd pay to watch that.
Second thoughts, I've already seen it: the scenes with the people from the Ark B in HHGttG.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, but unicorns are real.
Re: (Score:2)
my lay reading gives me the impression that their argument hinges on whether or not the issue protested could be considered related to "working conditions".
Google doing business in China causes distress and anxiety to employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they organize and hold a vote, or did they just start yelling and walk out?
The first is protected. The second will have lawyers laughing at you.
Re:What did you think would happen? (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with google and other tech companies is that they've actively groomed this type of stuff by hiring people that espouse these beliefs, and now suddenly it's coming back to bite them in the ass. And they suddenly don't like the progressive claptrap that they've been pushing for the last decade coming back to bite them in the ass.
It's very rare for companies to support employees in wildcat strikes, or even protests. Here in North America, one of the more interesting cases of it was during Trudeau Sr's wage and price controls, and the resulting hyperinflation bubble(early 80's). Where people organized strikes to shutdown businesses, and government organizations...and employers didn't do anything punitive. In fact, some companies paid for food, transportation, or partial wages to the strikers and got into bidding wars over hiring protest leaders because of their organizational skills.
Re: (Score:2)
What's happening at Google has more to do with being one step closer to "AI taking over", than wage/price controls. Don't forget that these people are among some of the most intelligent in the US, and they're talking about walking out from a job that provides their way of life.
That they're willing to destroy that way of life for this cause, means that this cause is more important than their way of life. Which SHOULD translate into, "Whatever they're pissed at, may very well be more of a threat to their wa
Re:What did you think would happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
I work with a boat load of very intelligent people. PhDs galore.
Some of them have absolutely no idea what makes real life go round; they assume they know more than they do, and convincing them otherwise takes so damn long, it's barely worth the time in most cases.
Most of what they seem to be pissed at is someone whose world view doesn't fit theirs, so they throw their toys out of the pram. And then get very surprised when there are actual consequences to actions (hey, consequences are for other people who aren't so very very virtuous).
Re: (Score:3)
If you have no job, and are making no money, but the cost of goods get out of your reach. What is supposed to happen? These people aren't intelligent though, an intelligent person wouldn't move to an area where you're barely making ends meet on a $250k/year income. No, what these people are experiencing is the corporate culture flacking back after coddling them for years and their pet causes. And suddenly discovering that whinging on social media all day doesn't translate into a valuable employee.
That they're willing to destroy that way of life for this cause, means that this cause is more important than their way of life. Which SHOULD translate into, "Whatever they're pissed at, may very well be more of a threat to their way of life than losing their job." And THAT is troubling to me.
You'll
Re: (Score:2)
Modern day everybody can fuckoff in my opinion. all of the whiny people need to die so the rest of us can get some real work done and actually be able to advance. /s kindof
Re: (Score:2)
What if in California it is the employer being naughty who is rocking the boat?
It seems like your metaphor lacks context.
Gairld Fahaud (Score:3)
Isn't that how you do everything?