Google Under Investigation For 'Thanksgiving Four' Firings, Allegedly Discouraging Unions

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: The U.S. National Labor Relations Board has started a new investigation into Google's labor practices. An agency spokesperson confirmed to CNBC Monday that the probe, which will include whether Google violated labor laws when it recently fired four employees, has officially commenced. It will also look at whether Google discouraged employees from engaging in union activity. The investigation is expected to take roughly three months and be conducted by its regional staff based in Oakland.

The latest investigation comes after four Google employees filed a federal complaint with the NLRB on Dec. 5, alleging unfair labor practices, which would violate a settlement made by Google. Google now faces another federal investigation into its labor practice just months after a separate settlement with the NLRB. [...] The latest investigation stems from employee uproar over the interrogation and subsequent firing of employees Rebecca Rivers and Laurence Berland, who had been placed on sudden and indefinite administrative leave in November for allegedly sharing sensitive information. After that, Berland and Rivers held a rally in San Francisco that drew in roughly 200 Google workers, demanding the company reinstate the two employees and stating they were placed on leave in retaliation for their activism against the company's handling of hate policies and immigration issues. The week of Thanksgiving, Google fired four employees, including Berland and Rivers, claiming they shared confidential documents and breached security. In an internal memo, the company's security and investigations team called it a "rare" case.

Just banning talk about pay is stop union activity

[Joe_Dragon]

Just banning talk about pay is done to discouraged union activity so by law they can't even do that.

Re:

[alvinrod]

Talk about pay isn't always banned or even discouraged, at least not for everyone. Typically everyone knows what the CEO makes. It's kind of funny but because the pay of CEO's is either typically disclosed to shareholders or is even required to be disclosed as a matter of law in some countries it's believed to be one of the driving factors [harvard.edu] behind the gap in executive and worker compensation.

The list is interesting (and a lot of what you might expect) but it's a lot of the same advice (e.g. know what your

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Typically everyone knows what the CEO makes

We don't typically know the stock options or golden parachute. Startlingly few employees in tech companies actually _own stock, though we often have generous "stock options", which is simply not the same thing as actually owning a single share of stock.

Re:

[cayenne8]

From the article synopsis:

The latest investigation stems from employee uproar over the interrogation and subsequent firing of employees Rebecca Rivers and Laurence Berland, who had been placed on sudden and indefinite administrative leave in November for allegedly sharing sensitive information. After that, Berland and Rivers held a rally in San Francisco that drew in roughly 200 Google workers, demanding the company reinstate the two employees and stating they were placed on leave in retaliation for their a

Re:

[rtb61]

It is not about laws, it is about the nature of Alphabet/Google/Youtube who they really are, what kind of individuals lead at the top. Who they really are compared to the way they try to present themselves, virtue signalling as real genuine people when reality, no, psychopath control freaks who spy on their employees even worse than they do the rest of us.

You know what, you still work for that POS evil privacy invasive and control freak corporation Google, you deserve to get fucked over by them, which they

Re:

[rgmoore]

Is there a law in CA that makes it illegal to bust a union drive?

Is CA an "at will" work state?

Being an "at will" employment state doesn't actually mean that an employer can fire an employee for any reason whatsoever. There are still legal protections. Some of those are classic protected classes; you can't fire somebody because of their race, gender, or religion, for instance. Employers also can't fire people for exerting their legal rights, including the right to organize a union. An employer can st

Re:

[ShanghaiBill]

Just banning talk about pay is done to discourage union activity so by law they can't even do that.

The law isn't clear. There are restrictions on what an employer can prohibit, but far fewer restrictions on what they can prohibit during working hours. Some of the people were fired for actions during working hours and were using Google's facilities without authorization.

Much of it comes down to politics. The NLRB swings wildly depending on which political party controls it. Currently, 3 of the 5 seats are Republicans, one is a Democrat, and one seat is vacant. So don't expect them to be too union-fri

Re:

[taustin]

Union organizing is irrelevant. Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, it's been (generally, there are exceptions) illegal to ban discussing pay (and other working conditions) between coworkers for 85 years.

People who don't know their rights don't have any.

Re:Just banning talk about pay is stop union activ

[sphealey]

I'm sure current AG William Barr will assign top men to that case right away.

Re:

[LenKagetsu]

A company convicted of such things need to lose their HR departments and have to seek permission from the government to even raise a voice to an employee.

Re:

[JoeyDot]

I'd like to know where talk about pay comes into this. There was more going on with the thanksgiving firings than that.

Google has done a lot of bad things as of late especially in regard to failing to be politically neutral. At least one of these people fired was rallying people at google to object and potentially obstruct business deals they disagreed with on a political basis. That's no what a union is for.

There is no doubt in my mind that these are the same kind of bullies and lets face it, mobster

mission accomplished no matter what

[hdyoung]

Win or lose, Google's accomplished the mission: demonstrate exactly what happens to employees who try to unionize. The process will be long, drawn out, with multiple layers of appeals, court cases, lawyers etc. etc. It will take so, so, soooooo much time that the outcome won't matter. Ten years from now, who's gonna care if the employees win or lose ? Google won't. To them 10 years is basically "when the sun dies out".

I guess that I really don't have much of a problem with this. Google's a company. They're gonna what they're gonna do, according to the rules that our society sets.

Re:

[110010001000]

Doubtful. The Board will probably issue a judgement within a month and they will reach a settlement. $300k each should settle it.

Re: mission accomplished no matter what

[Pinky's Brain]

The people fired were doing social justice activism. The unionization investigation is orthogonal.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

and when gop fails in 2020 and DEM is in?

[Joe_Dragon]

and when gop fails in 2020 and DEM is in?

Bernie Sanders is leading in multiple polls

[rsilvergun]

and the right wing [cnbc.com] pro-corporate [twitter.com] candidates are imploding [duckduckgo.com]

So hang in there, there's more hope than you think.

Re:

[JoeyDot]

There's a union and then there's a mob that practises extortion. I don't see how this is about unionisation and if it is I'd say shut it down. Google has long had issues firing people for not being PC enough. It have a huge problem with people who are extremist PC. It's about flushing out activists. Extremists. Fanatics. Those are people whose mission is not aligned with Google's. When Google says they were accessing things they weren't supposed to you can bet they were conducting their activism in the work

Finding the best equilibria points

[shanen]

"Successful" corporate cancers follow the money, not goodness. No question in my mind but that the google has become a "successful" corporate cancer. Your counterarguments might interest me, but mostly I've lost interest in Slashdot. I think this is a highly stimulating topic, but I predict the results of the discussions here on Slashdot will be anything but.

So here's my take on the general topic. There are various interests and participants. Individual employees are crucial, but mostly easy to ignore. Unio

Big Union is salivating at the prospect

[Jarwulf]

of worming into yet another industry and eating away at it until we're back to where we were with the auto industry overseas and they move on to another target to destroy. Don't get me wrong Google is scum and corporations by and large are greedy but don't be fooled into thinking this is pure grassroots. Big Union is just as bad.

Re:

[Rockoon]

Indeed. To be quite clear, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union now represents casino dealers in various casinos across the country. Its not even manufacturing!

Army status

[Akad status]

Nice post thanks for sharing. Lots of love with family army status [armystatus.in]

"Allegedly"

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"Allegedly", ha ha ha ha ha

Unions have been given an unfair advantage..

[fish_in_the_c]

Many , maybe all of the current union laws should be repealed. They were put in place by politicians who's campaigns were bought and paid for by unions and do a disservice to society.

Unions are great when they do what they should, which is empower and negotiate for groups of employees who are real disagreement about what the majority of them feel is important enough to strike over. On the other hand they should not have unlimited negotiating power, A company should not have to negotiate with them , and if

Good - fuck them.

[argStyopa]

They certainly can't hide behind the evaporating "Do no evil" mantra any longer.

And even the utterly self-righteous MIGHT come to recognize that their point of view is subjective: tendentious corporate fascism is still objectively corporate fascism.

In other words...

[ivothamdrup]

Thanks, we're giving you the boot.