California Judge Rules Google's Confidentiality Agreements Break the State's Labor Laws (msn.com) 29
"A California judge ruled this week that the confidentiality agreements Google requires its employees to sign are too broad and break the state's labor laws," reports the Washington Post, calling it "a decision that could make it easier for workers at famously secret Big Tech firms to speak openly about their companies."
A Google employee identified as John Doe argued that the broad nondisclosure agreement the company asked him to sign barred him from speaking about his job to other potential employers, amounting to a non-compete clause, which are illegal in California. In a Thursday ruling in California Superior Court, a judge agreed with the employee, while declining to make a judgment on other allegations that Google's agreements blocked whistleblowing and sharing information about wages with other workers.
The ruling marks the latest victory for labor advocates who have sought to force Big Tech companies to relax the stringent confidentiality policies that compel employees to stay quiet about every aspect of their jobs, even after they quit....
The decision isn't final and could still be appealed by Google.... If Google doesn't appeal, or loses the appeal, it could have a real impact on how much power companies hold over employees, said Ramsey Hanafi, a partner with QH Law in San Francisco. "It would mean most of these Big Tech companies would have to rewrite their agreements," Hanafi said. "They all have this broad language that employees can't say anything about anything about their old companies...."
In its opinion, the California Courts of Appeal affirmed the importance of the state's labor laws that go further than federal laws in protecting employees' rights to free speech. Those laws give workers in California the right to "speak as they choose about their work lives," the court wrote. "In sum, these statutes establish as a minimum employment standard an employee anti-gag rule...."
The lawsuit was originally filed in 2016, the article points out, and has been responsible for exposing several internal Google documents (including one detailing a program where employees can report suspected leakers of Google information).
The ruling marks the latest victory for labor advocates who have sought to force Big Tech companies to relax the stringent confidentiality policies that compel employees to stay quiet about every aspect of their jobs, even after they quit....
The decision isn't final and could still be appealed by Google.... If Google doesn't appeal, or loses the appeal, it could have a real impact on how much power companies hold over employees, said Ramsey Hanafi, a partner with QH Law in San Francisco. "It would mean most of these Big Tech companies would have to rewrite their agreements," Hanafi said. "They all have this broad language that employees can't say anything about anything about their old companies...."
In its opinion, the California Courts of Appeal affirmed the importance of the state's labor laws that go further than federal laws in protecting employees' rights to free speech. Those laws give workers in California the right to "speak as they choose about their work lives," the court wrote. "In sum, these statutes establish as a minimum employment standard an employee anti-gag rule...."
The lawsuit was originally filed in 2016, the article points out, and has been responsible for exposing several internal Google documents (including one detailing a program where employees can report suspected leakers of Google information).
confidentiality agreements try to block unions (Score:4, Insightful)
confidentiality agreements try to block unions as well
Re: (Score:2)
I read multiple times that unions in U.S.A. tech business can essentially not be formed and are either powerless or nonexistent due to subjective nature of termination there. — Essentially one can be terminated or not be promoted for being active in union work because one can be terminated or not be promoted for any reason, including no reason.
I really do not understand how the U.S.A. system is ever supposed to work. It is supposedly illegal to terminate employment for union activities, but it is lega
Re: (Score:3)
You're pretty-much correct.
That's why unions are so hard to get started. You can't be fired for trying to unionize, but *until you are unionized*, you can be fired for any (non-illegal) reason.
Basically that means that as soon as word gets out that you are forming a union, you are likely to be fired. Did you take a 61 minute lunch break instead of 60 minutes? You're fired.
Obviously, you can fight this stuff in court. But that costs money, and then end result is, you now work for a company that you sued, and
Re: (Score:2)
I simply don't understand how the U.S.A. system is ever supposed to be effective. It's not just unions but everything. How is being unable to be fired for one's religion in any way a meaningful protection if one can be fired for no reason. Obviously one will still be fired for one's religion, but no reason will be given.
In about any other developed country a reason must be given; it has to be salient; and a show must be made to an employment court that it wasn't arbitrary and no others also fit the pattern.
Re: (Score:2)
In most US companies it is not so easy to fire someone if you're just a bottom rank manager. And the middle and upper managers don't care about the religion or whatnot of the bottom rank employees. So getting someone fired almost always has to be for cause just to get through the paperwork and procedures involved. Now a for-cause firing can be fast and sudden (mooning the CEO during the staff meeting) but usually it takes time. Even then there's the worry that if you get rid of the employee will you be
Re: (Score:1)
If they don't really care about religion that doesn't mean the law is effective in stopping what it is meant to stop, merely that the law is not necessary or rarely applicable. There are no doubt many things they do care about they supposedly cannot fire for, such as unions.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the laws in democracies work in odd ways. It starts off by wanting to improve things slightly. So, ask the people if it's ok if we make it illegal to discriminate against religion in the workforce? Well sure, they say, we don't want anyone discriminating against us! So it gets passed, but it's very narrow. Next someone wants to try the same thing but based on race. Well, hmm, a little grumbling, but it gets through. Next, let's not discriminate in the workplace based upon sexual orientation. W
Re: (Score:1)
You speak of “democracies”, but this situation is largely unique to the U.S.A., and often criticized for it's complete ineffectiveness outside of it. In most jurisdictions, even in developing countries, the employer must make a show of salient, financial reason to the employment court or union to terminate employment. — U.S.A. employment law is notoriously in favor of the big man opposed to the little one.
Such hypothetical laws which you propose are not novel, new developments in most of t
You're talking policy vs law (Score:2)
In most US companies it is not so easy to fire someone if you're just a bottom rank manager. And the middle and upper managers don't care about the religion or whatnot of the bottom rank employees. So getting someone fired almost always has to be for cause just to get through the paperwork and procedures involved. Now a for-cause firing can be fast and sudden (mooning the CEO during the staff meeting) but usually it takes time. Even then there's the worry that if you get rid of the employee will you be allowed to hire a replacement or not, which I have seen as the cause to keep a terrible performer around.
By law, you can be fired for any reason or non-reason. Oh, wearing the same shoes as the boss?...you're fired!
Most companies don't allow that for various good reasons, primarily curtailing abuse. You don't want some manager going on a power trip and abusing their power...they have work to get done and you don't want to see them firing everyone who is less attractive than them so they can have a better chance at banging the receptionist, just to give a farcical example.
There's also a believe among HR
Re: (Score:2)
I was a manager once. I had no power to fire anyone. I could ask someone higher up to fire someone if I wanted though. This is the same as me being unable to hire anyone, I don't control the budget, I have to ask higher ups to create a job opening and then ask HR to arrange for interviews, etc.
Now there are some managers who avoid this difficulty by making someone's life a living hell and hope that they leave on their own... Avoid these people.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC at one time, Y2K, IT workers were lumped into essential workers like firemen, ambulance crews and paramedics, and police, in order to get around overtime and other labour laws so that systems could be fixed. I'm not going to argue about Y2K being real or not, but I did work on a number of projects for billion dollar companies where it was a 100% real issue. It was because of people working a massive amount of ridiculous hours that Y2K didn't affect much. Anyway, I don't think this change in job status
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not going to argue about Y2K being real or not"
I am 99.99% sure the year 2000 happened a few decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
and?
Re: (Score:2)
There are things it is illegal to be fired for, but the snag is in proving that this was the reason. This is why it's very useful to document everything, as employee or employer. If you get a great performance review, hang onto it. If someone is harassing you over gender, race, religion, or just being a bully, write it down with the date and save the emails from HR. Useful as employer too so that when you get accused of harassment you have a record of the performance reviews, meetings, and HR conversat
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe volcanoes are not news for nerds?
Re: (Score:1)
Volcanos are extremely nerdy, as noted at any respectable science fair
Great. You just insulted the volcano and now it's even more angry. We're going to have to sacrifice a virgin. Fortunately, it won't be hard for us to find one here.
Re: (Score:2)
Earthquakes, not volcanoes. This is perhaps the largest volcano generated tsunami since Krakatoa.
Fun to watch (Score:2, Troll)
Or maybe it's why companies are fleeing to Texas?
Maybe both?
Re: (Score:1)
They always try to get away with something (Score:3)