Google Fires 4 Workers Active In Labor Organizing (bloomberg.com) 125
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: Google on Monday fired four employees who had been active in labor organizing at the company (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source), according to a memo that was seen by The New York Times. The memo, sent by Google's security and investigations team, told employees that the company had dismissed four employees "for clear and repeated violations of our data security policies." Jenn Kaiser, a Google spokeswoman, confirmed the firings but declined to elaborate.
The dismissals are expected to exacerbate rocky relations between Google's management and a vocal contingent of workers who have protested the company's handling of sexual harassment, its treatment of contract employees, and its work with the Defense Department, federal border agencies and the Chinese government. Tensions have increased as Google has cracked down on what had long been a freewheeling work culture that encouraged employees to speak out. Google recently canceled a regular series of companywide meetings that allowed workers to pose questions to senior executives and began working with a consulting firm hat has helped companies quell unionization efforts. Earlier this month, Google placed two employees, Laurence Berland and Rebecca Rivers, on administration leave, "saying they had gotten into confidential documents that were not relevant to their work," reports The New York Times. "They were among the four workers who were fired."
"In the memo, Google said the fired employees had repeatedly searched for, looked through and distributed information 'outside the scope of their jobs.' One of the workers set up notifications to receive emails detailing the work and whereabouts of other employees without their knowledge or consent, the memo said. 'This is not how Google's open culture works or was ever intended to work,' the memo said."
The dismissals are expected to exacerbate rocky relations between Google's management and a vocal contingent of workers who have protested the company's handling of sexual harassment, its treatment of contract employees, and its work with the Defense Department, federal border agencies and the Chinese government. Tensions have increased as Google has cracked down on what had long been a freewheeling work culture that encouraged employees to speak out. Google recently canceled a regular series of companywide meetings that allowed workers to pose questions to senior executives and began working with a consulting firm hat has helped companies quell unionization efforts. Earlier this month, Google placed two employees, Laurence Berland and Rebecca Rivers, on administration leave, "saying they had gotten into confidential documents that were not relevant to their work," reports The New York Times. "They were among the four workers who were fired."
"In the memo, Google said the fired employees had repeatedly searched for, looked through and distributed information 'outside the scope of their jobs.' One of the workers set up notifications to receive emails detailing the work and whereabouts of other employees without their knowledge or consent, the memo said. 'This is not how Google's open culture works or was ever intended to work,' the memo said."
Torches-n-pitchforks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Torches-n-pitchforks (Score:5, Insightful)
Try posting company memos to the public where you work or try accessing documents of management and see how long you last. If you ARE management, well I'm sorry.
Re:Torches-n-pitchforks (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I've read, browsing through everyone's projects and spying on user and employee data is all but standard practice at Google (and Amazon) and nothing is ever said about it unless you do something management finds disagreeable such as organizing protests, asking questions at meetings that management doesn't want to talk about, doing anything involving unions, etc., then they use it as an excuse to demote or fire you. "Do no evil." Well, they've officially shitcanned that motto. Now it's "Crush any opposition and don't get caught."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that standard practice? You work for your employer. If you disagree with your employment, then you find another job. It's their rules. If you disagree then generally you can voice your concern to your manager or HR. Harassing your employer to get what you want generally does not fall under that umbrella, and gets you fired no matter which company you had requested to be employed under. These individuals thought that they were entitled to do whatever they please, which seems to be the underlying proble
Re:Torches-n-pitchforks (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, they've officially shitcanned that motto. Now it's "Crush any opposition and don't get caught."
They may have shitcanned the motto, but it hasn't stopped d-bags from quoting it ever time Google comes in the news.
They fired 4 workers for using company resources / their position in the company to stir up shit in the company. This will get you fired from ANY company. If you don't get it then you are either a shit-stirrer yourself you haven't held a job.
By all means, be an activists, but don't expect the organization you are acting against to pay you hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, give you free meals snacks and drinks, RSUs and free transportation to and from work while you do it.
Re:Torches-n-pitchforks (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally you keep work related memos in-house, and don't snoop through other department's documents, according to the summary they were incapable of doing this. Try posting company memos to the public where you work or try accessing documents of management and see how long you last. If you ARE management, well I'm sorry.
And since when has labour organising been a clean and civilised process? The corpocrats have their rented congress critters, lawyers and security goons. Faced with that you won't get anywhere in labour organising if you play nice. There was a time when Ford felt entitled to machine gun his own workers [wikipedia.org], compared to that, snooping through documents is child's play. The first ones to turn labour disputes ugly are usually corporations.
Re:Torches-n-pitchforks (Score:5, Insightful)
And since when has labour organising been a clean and civilised process?
Well, here in Brazil company employees who become union leaders become unfireable as long as they continue serving the union. There are boatload of rules on how this works so that not all employees suddenly becomes fake-union leaders. Oh, and being unionized is mandatory, not optional, so that there aren't non-unionized workers. The process can therefore happen in a civilized manner. The difficulty is in getting that first set of laws approved given employers usually cry rivers about how this will destroy their businesses (it doesn't) and wipe away all jobs (doesn't happen either), but once that's done everything settles back into normalcy pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true, there are a lot of non-unionized labor in Brazil.
I'm referring to employees regularly contracted as formal workforce. Evidently people who opt to work freelance, or who build their own businesses, or who find themselves forced to work informally (because of the poor economy we've had for decades) operate outside that framework. But as long as one's formally employed as an actual employee, one's unionized.
Re: (Score:2)
all that and hot trannies too? I'm moving today!
LOL! Brazil is dysfunctional for lots of reasons, I could go an entire afternoon listing all of them. Unions themselves aren't on the list though! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone in the US can join a union.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone in the US can join a union.
Uber drivers can't unionise because they are contractors, in general contractors in the US cannot unionise:
... this is also why people are increasingly being bullied into becoming contractors, contractors can be more easily kicked around and abused by employers than regular employees who are backed by unions.
https://reason.com/2019/05/15/... [reason.com]
https://www.businessmanagement... [businessma...tdaily.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Sure they can. Anyone can join a union. Want to join the Steelworkers Union? Here ya go: https://www.usw.org/join/commu... [usw.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Sure they can. Anyone can join a union. Want to join the Steelworkers Union? Here ya go: https://www.usw.org/join/commu... [usw.org]
Well Uber drivers are not steel workers so stop trolling us with Republican talking points and tell us where one can join the Uber driver contractor's union the National Labor Relations Board just said Uber drivers can't set up?
https://reason.com/2019/05/15/... [reason.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There ya go: https://drivingguild.org/ [drivingguild.org]
Now fuck off.
Re: (Score:1)
There ya go: https://drivingguild.org/ [drivingguild.org]
What part of "Uber Drivers Cannot Unionize, Says National Labor Relations Board [reason.com]" are you to dull witted to understand you talking point slinging right-wing muppet?
Now fuck off.
You should be so lucky, :-D
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get it: I just told you anyone can join a union. I gave you a link to the application form. Any union will take your money. You don't even need to be a steelworker to join the steelworkers union. The article you are referring is about something else.
Re: (Score:2)
You folks are merely having a fairly annoying semantic argument. Anyone in the US can join any union they like (if the union will have them). That's protected by the constitution (Bill of Rights, Article 11).
The headline of the linked Reason.com article says the Uber workers cannot "unionize". That's a different term, and basically means that they cannot form an organization that Uber is legally forced to negotiate with in lieu of individual contracts with each worker.
Re: (Score:3)
And since when has labour organising been a clean and civilised process?
It has little to do with being "clean and civilized" or "playing nice," and everything to do with not giving your employer a valid reason to fire you when you're going to work against your employer's wishes.
Re:Torches-n-pitchforks (Score:5, Insightful)
And since when has labour organising been a clean and civilised process?
It has little to do with being "clean and civilized" or "playing nice," and everything to do with not giving your employer a valid reason to fire you when you're going to work against your employer's wishes.
They play dirty, we play dirty. They hire dirty lawyers, we hire lawyers willing to play dirty. They hire security companies to bug people's apartments/phones/cars/offices we start taking precautions and recruit hackers. That is how simple it is. Just be grateful things haven't yet gone back to the bad old days when employers hired mobsters or bribed police to beat up or even murder union activists. There are places in the world where that still happens.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the easy way is to refuse to work for such companies. If there are enough knowledge workers who also decide to do the same, eventually companies (like Google) are unable to hire the best and brightest no matter how much money they wave at you. ....
... and we are back at workers organising, something that leading figures in the Republican Party and the current US administration are on record as claiming that workers should be forbidden from doing it. If you think the rights that are currently being taken from you (and have been stripped away over the last few decades) are something handed to you by the founding fathers you are deluding yourself. These rights were won over decades of hard fighting with worker solidarity and there were lives lost along
Re: (Score:2)
Slight correction.
Republicans are not against anyone organizing. Republicans are against you deciding to organize and then claiming that I can't clock in, because you have decided to go on strike. Republicans are against you deciding that I don't have a right to go to work. I have a right to make an agreement with an employer. You do not have a right to stand in the way of that agreement.
Re: (Score:3)
If by "playing dirty", you give them a good (legal) excuse to fire you, then you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Or more recently, in the 1990s at the Cuautitlan plant (where they'll be making the new Mach-E) in Mexico - 12 shot, one (Cleto Nigno) dead. Although there the situation was a bit more indirect... instead of thugs hired directly by Ford, it was thugs hired by the corrupt national union (CTM) whose leaders were on the dole from Ford, which had been trying to suppress its own members from forming a new bargaining unit (th
Re: (Score:2)
we should machine gun communists more frequently tbqh
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but these days, simply saying "I'm labour organizing" or "I'm a whistleblower" automatically transforms you in the media from "bad employee fired for gross violations of company policy" into "hero fighting against The Man". And of course no need to wait until an actual court has heard and evaluated the case before transforming the individual into a modern-day Robin Hood.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
On the other, people working in tech are smart enough to negotiate a fair wage, and if they aren't they shouldn't be in tech.
I've been in tech management for several years and have had plenty of salary talks with employees. My experience is that there is zero correlation between tech skills and negotiation skills.
Re: (Score:1)
comments warning (Score:5, Funny)
abandon all hope ye who enter here
First they came (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they came for labor organizers and I did not speak out, because they were too socialist!!11!1!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
"Rebecca" is actually a guy. Of course.
Re:First they came (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't need to end well. Employer employee relationships are not based on fanciful goodwill. You're lucky if you work like that but that's where it ends. You have a legal right to not be harassed in the workplace, but that's where it ends. If your workplace has a toxic policy, or does deals with the Chinese government, well it's time for you to decide how strongly you feel about working for such a company, and quite frankly it's up to Google to decide whether you're still a team player.
Re: (Score:1)
First they came for Damore and I did not speak out, because he was too fascist!11!!1 Then they came for labor organizers and I did not speak out, because they were too socialist!!11!1!
The people who "came for Damore" are the people you call "labor organizers". Thank goodness someone finally stood up to them.
Re: (Score:1)
First they came for Damore and I did not speak out, because he was too fascist!11!!1
Then they came for labor organizers and I did not speak out, because they were too socialist!!11!1! ... (the story goes on and it does not end well)
Only he wasn't fascist at all. He was spot on almost to a fault and pointed out who the real fascists are. The SJW crazy people.
Re:First they came (Score:4, Insightful)
Feel sorry for them, don't feel sorry for them, in the end it doesn't matter. Alt-righties and alt-lefties will fight and never be united against the rich people who will keep milking them until there's nothing left.
Good doggies.
Re: (Score:2)
There is hope - mainstream conservatives and principled liberals seem to have quietly come together and formed a tacit alliance against the fringes. The alt-right and far left (ctrl-left) have more in common with each other than their mainstream counterparts, but because they shout the loudest everyone thinks they're representative of their entire side.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow you've escaped the fray and are not yourself subjected to the whims of a world run by the rich like a "good doggie"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: First they came (Score:2)
How courageous of you, AC. You must be working for Google.
If they did what they are accused of... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The Revolution . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
devours its children . . .
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the 'Do know evil" phrase Google used to pass around?
FTFY
Good for the goose (Score:5, Informative)
One of the workers set up notifications to receive emails detailing the work and whereabouts of other employees without their knowledge or consent, the memo said. 'This is not how Google's open culture works or was ever intended to work,' the memo said."
Isn't Google's entire business model predicated on tracking people without their knowledge or consent? That worker shouldn't have been fired, they should have been promoted!
Re:Good for the goose (Score:5, Insightful)
They committed the ultimate sin in Silicon Valley: They were trying to unionise the workforce to stand up against the C-level management.
Re:Good for the goose (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't Google's entire business model predicated on tracking people without their knowledge or consent?
No. You're just saying that because you didn't read your terms and conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Google's entire business model predicated on tracking people without their knowledge or consent?
No. You're just saying that because you didn't read your terms and conditions.
+5 informative or insightful - either will do.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see any such terms and conditions when I visited $RANDOM_SITE.
Re: (Score:2)
That's between you and the site and nothing at all to do with Google. Thanks to the GDPR we definitely do see terms and conditions as well as opt outs of Google's tracking code for sites we visit.
where are those when you are searching... (Score:1)
...?
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom right of the search page. Second link.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You're just saying that because you didn't read your terms and conditions.
Where were Google's terms and conditions posted here on Slashdot, which uses google analytics on anyone not clever enough to block that with noscript (etc.)? (Along with half a dozen other trackers.)
Re: (Score:2)
Where were Google's terms and conditions posted here on Slashdot
On every page you visit. You probably have a cookie set, or Slashdot doesn't give a shit about your privacy in your country. I on the other hand see:
"Our site is supported by advertising and we and our partners use technology such as cookies on our site to personalize content and ads, provide social media features, and analyze our traffic. Click "I Accept" below to consent to the use of this technology across the web. You can change your mind and change your consent choices at any time by returning to this site and clicking the Privacy Choices link.
By choosing I Accept below you are also helping to support our site and improve your browsing experience."
I also have the option of clicking "More Options" where I see a toggle:
OTHER
Google
Allow Google and their technology partners to collect data and use cookies for ad personalisation and measurement.
View Companies
Oh and clicking see vendors then gives me a link to all advertising companies used by Slashdot as well as this link:
https://policies.google.com/pr... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's not Google tracking you, that's slashdot tracking you... and giving/selling the information to others.
No, it's both. Your browser contacting Google for the scripts provides an opportunity for tracking. You would only be correct if my browser didn't try to contact Google directly. You don't even know how the web works, why do you think you're qualified to comment, coward?
Re: (Score:2)
Well your browser only does that because Slashdot allows it to. On the other hand when I first visit Slashdot I get a page which allows me to expressly toggle the following option:
OTHER
Google
Allow Google and their technology partners to collect data and use cookies for ad personalisation and measurement.
View Companies
Re: (Score:2)
We've had that since even before scripts, with any referenced asset like images. This isn't a Google thing, this is the very nature of the WWW and always has been.
It's not just a Google thing. I'm well aware of crap like tracking pixels, which predate scripts or even banner ads. But Google absolutely uses this method to track people who had no intention of providing them with any information.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was returning mediocre and irrelevant search results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the workers set up notifications to receive emails detailing the work and whereabouts of other employees without their knowledge or consent, the memo said. 'This is not how Google's open culture works or was ever intended to work,' the memo said."
Isn't Google's entire business model predicated on tracking people without their knowledge or consent? That worker shouldn't have been fired, they should have been promoted!
The evil of it depends on who is being tracked for what. Not that I'm advocating any tracking. But they were tracking for some obvious political purposes. If you believe their tracking was for unionization purposes only, you are fooling yourself. This is the same group that had James Damore fired for his opinion - no doubt they were looking for more. Perhaps Google has learned that it is not possible to appease Social Justice Warriors.
They're Stalkers (Score:5, Insightful)
The people Google fired are stalkers. Period. The fact they were involved in labor disputes means nothing.
They took personal information about other employees and shared it outside the company. The information was used to harass people within Google, especially managers and people involved in personnel decisions.
Google's memo was clear and specific about having multiple meetings with these people telling them to stop stealing personal information and sharing it outside the company. They did it anyway.
Companies don't make statements like that unless it happened. This is Google - you think they don't have physical evidence to back up their claims?
Re: (Score:3)
It is crazy that these cases never seem to result in arrests. Anything below millions of dollars in theft, or murder, and the perpetrators always seem to get away with it if they did it at they job.
Steal $5 of food from a convenience store, go to jail, steal thousands over months as a waiter, get fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the gravity of the situation.
The DOJ recently arrested a former Google engineer on his way to China with the Google Search Algorithm on a thumb drive. He's looking at a long stretch because there's a huge economic cost to that kind of stuff getting away from us.
A few punks grabbing their co-workers calendars to harass them at doctor's appointments, let them become someone else's problem. What's the economic cost? Zero. What's the personal cost to the victim? Probably zero if they don't have to de
hahhahahaahahah (Score:5, Interesting)
"Companies don't make statements like that unless it happened."
you are naive with a lot of evidence to show this is absolutely not the case.
"This is Google - you think they don't have physical evidence to back up their claims?"
When you show evidence, then there's evidence... there is not "evidence b/c why else would they say it".
However... I'm not saying there isn't evidence, I don't know, but automatically trusting the company is ludicrous.
Re: (Score:3)
IANAL, but that memo is pretty descriptive. It details acts that include direct insubordination, sharing personal information about employees outside the company, attempts to correct the problem over time, and other actions that would be a big red flag to many employers.
If Google is lying, the people fired have cause to sue. The memo itself probably limits the job prospects for everyone involved. I suspect they could get their case taken on contingency, given who the employer is.
The penalty for defamation i
it's probably well documented (Score:1)
I just couldn't let the idea stand that companies don't "take a chance" on getting caught lying and so don't lie.
that's all.
I don't know if the firing is related to the unionization issue or not, time will tell.
Welcome to the real world (Score:2)
In the real world looking through documents that aren't yours is a good way to get fired at most places. Distributing things that aren't yours is a better way to get fired. It's a concept called 'need to know'. If it doesn't pertain to your job, you don't need to know - especially if it is sensitive data. In fact it's such a basic tenet that there is a best practice in security called 'least privilege' just to to enforce it.
Frankly I'm more concerned that this very basic security practice wasn't in place to
Re:Welcome to the real world (Score:4, Interesting)
These employees never should have been able to do what they did to begin with.
It sounds like their "open culture" is a catch-22. Here's a company that has thrived in the Internet Age - they express belief in an open exchange of information and ideas and tools. They've embraced open-source tools. They've developed their own open-source tools. They profit off freely sharing software that people freely use (in exchange for freely sharing their own information). I'm not surprised that these employees had open access to data that they did not need access to, nor am I surprised to see Google renege on their promise to an open culture. It was all lip service anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Would this even be a news story, if not Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, how often does this happen in the rest of corporate America, where you fire 3 or 4 people for doing things outside the scope of their job for the purpose of spying or data collecting to use against your employer in some fashion?
I know we all use Google daily and it's a big thing for us I.T. folks .... But I can't help but feel they're under a microscope here.
Re: (Score:2)
> I can't help but feel they're under a microscope here.
We count on Google to organize the world's information in a non-biased way. When we find out that Google is strongly biased internally and also that we can't trust them for sensemaking because that bias leaks into their products, then we want to know that. HR has been one of their weapons on the anti-heterodox front, so when we hear about odd HR patterns, it gets attention, even if this one is justified.
Here, listen to James Damore's take:
Happy to (Score:1)
But no Communism allowed?
How is a healthy balanced market "communism"?? (Score:2)
So workers creating a business the balances the business of the leeches, err, "job creators", is "communism" now?.
Wow.
You sound more fascist every day, America.
Re: (Score:2)
So workers creating a business the balances the business of the leeches, err, "job creators", is "communism" now?.
Wow.
You sound more fascist every day, America.
You know, it's fascinating that you're popping a blood vessel over "fascist" 'Murrica, by defending a group that was actively spying on other employees for political purposes.
DoublePlusUnGood, Citizen!
Insuffurable (Score:2, Insightful)
Whatever you do, don't read their Twitter feeds. More insufferable, self-centered, Millennial BS.
Re: (Score:2)
I speled everything perfectly.
"looked through information" at Google? (Score:3)
Yeah, it sucks when someone is collecting information about you, hoarding it, keeping it for an opportunity to use it for their own purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds nice. My (mandatory) union negotiated a salary cap that was below my salary. So I quit. I guess that's one way to get out of the union.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to be like us. Just stay out of our way.
Re: (Score:1)
No problem. Go ahead. We all know you guys live in a enlightened society. You mention it every chance you get. Just don't start another World War. We are kinda sick of you guys doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, it's our fucking turn now.
Rockefeller would be proud. (Score:2, Insightful)
100 years after his 'fruitful' relationships with the Mafia, in crushing the healthy balance of the 'free market' they supposeldy love, by organizing but illegally* blocking the other side from doing the same, his successors still keep the spirit alive.
Let's see when the first outright murder will happen.
Profit maximization "over everything" demands it, after all.
* at least I expect and hope his is highly illegal, but in the US of today, I'm not sure.
Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Something tells me that working for Google requires you to pretty much do what these workers have done just to do get work done. I cannot think of a place where I have worked where access to things people should not have access to did not occur for multiple good and bad reasons.
Plus look at how they are discussing the violation. It is being implied that all these workers had to do was open up a file or folder somewhere and was not challenged by at least one security mechanism to run afoul of this violatio
"violations of our data security policies" (Score:4, Insightful)
Fake news:They were NOT fired for labor organizing (Score:2)
"Google said the fired employees had repeatedly searched for, looked through and distributed information 'outside the scope of their jobs.' "
Re: (Score:2)
Google has over 100,000 employees.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Just need Hot Grits and a poll with Cowboy Neal as an option and this trip down memory lane is complete.
Re: (Score:1)
I can all but guarantee that if the Democrats win the White House next November
...this will still be swept under the rug. Money talks and bullshit walks. You're a fool if you think "Democrat" stands for anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
i guess it's sort of flattering that even an obsolete shithole like slashdot gets organized trolling attempts still: https://slashdot.org/users2.pl... [slashdot.org]