Google Terminates 28 Employees For Protest of Israeli Cloud Contract (reuters.com) 264
Google said on Thursday it had terminated 28 employees after some staff participated in protests against the company's cloud contract with the Israeli government. From a report: The Alphabet unit said a small number of protesting employees entered and disrupted work at a few unspecified office locations. "Physically impeding other employees' work and preventing them from accessing our facilities is a clear violation of our policies, and completely unacceptable behavior," the company said in a statement.
Google said it had concluded individual investigations, resulting in the termination of 28 employees, and would continue to investigate and take action as needed. In a statement on Medium, Google workers affiliated with the No Tech for Apartheid campaign called it a "flagrant act of retaliation" and said that some employees who did not directly participate in Tuesday's protests were also among those Google fired.
Google said it had concluded individual investigations, resulting in the termination of 28 employees, and would continue to investigate and take action as needed. In a statement on Medium, Google workers affiliated with the No Tech for Apartheid campaign called it a "flagrant act of retaliation" and said that some employees who did not directly participate in Tuesday's protests were also among those Google fired.
See, I told you (Score:5, Funny)
We told you that forcing people to return to the office was a bad idea! But did you listen? No. :0
Re: See, I told you (Score:3)
insubordination (Score:5, Insightful)
"flagrant act of retaliation"
No, getting fired for insubordination is not retaliation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But...they were protesting. Haven't you listened to any of these people? Constitutional rights override any other policies and law. /s
Re: (Score:2)
"they were protesting"
Except for the ones that weren't.
Re: (Score:2)
did you see the /s?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is. But it's justifiable retaliation. The people who cried "retaliation" clearly don't understand that just because something is retaliatory doesn't make it unjustified.
Re: (Score:3)
So their stance has changed. I'd be very interested to see if arrests and firings happen to the next group. They should if this is how Google is going to proceed. If it goes right back to "No worries, we're good!" then yeah, I see your point entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Putting corporate inefficiency aside for a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Twitter is in a complete shambles
Seems like it'd be pretty hard to know that since it's a private company, now. It's going to be pretty funny when it goes back on the market for more than ol' Elon bought it for, but either way I really don't care if they make money, that's not my metric, as much as the Elon haters versus Elon fanboys wanna go there. Your instantly hostile response and further editorializing about the name makes me think you're a hater with no rationality about this anyway.
What I do know is that they were pushing hella p [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like it'd be pretty hard to know that since it's a private company, now.
Well there have been numerous articles about it, and Musk himself said fairly recently that all of the advertisers leaving the platform were going to kill the company. So... it's not that hard.
It's not like being a private company means that we can't know what's going on inside. There are thousands of people working there, and all of them talk to somebody.
Re: (Score:3)
What a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You abuse the word "think." Try "believe" instead.
Re: (Score:2)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It's been protected since 1791.
Google != Congress (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law...
Yes but Google is not congress and they were not passing a law. That's the problem with the US constitution, unlike moden constitutions that define rights and hence stop anyone who tries to take them away, the US constitution only limits the US government and in today's world large companies often have as much influence on our lives as governments. That being said if you start publicly denouncing your employer it is absolutely reasonable for them to fire you.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the folks that were let go but did not actually participate, beyond maybe some emails, may have a case for reinstatement/damages.
Once some protestors were charged with criminal trespass, everyone involved - in even in organizing - could potentially be charged with conspiracy to commit criminal trespass. Particularly if they accessed somewhere they didn't have permission to enter and/or planned to stay even if directed to leave. It's the same legal logic being used to prosecute people (e.g. Trump) over Jan 6th. (notably, the recent SCOTUS ruling that largely nullified that approach was interpreting the disruption law, not the use o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the younger kids (college age) feel the need to rebel. that's universal.
however, they are extremely uninformed and are siding with the WRONG side.
islam has no ceasefires. they only have 'temporary reloading' periods. this is in their holy books, look it up. if you dare to find the truth about islam.
islam is not compatible with the west. the longer we keep putting off the big fight, the worse its going to be.
I have zero patience for so-called 'smart googlers' who cant even see that the islamic way of li
Re:insubordination (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, Israel wants the land that Gaza (and West bank) sit on, and wants the Palestinians that are there right now either gone, or dead.
If this is true, why did Israel give Gaza to the Palestinians, forcibly removing Israelis, in 2005? Wouldn't it have been easier to keep it than to give it away and go to war to take it back?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza [wikipedia.org]
If Israel just wants everyone gone or dead, why didn't they just bomb Gaza flat? Why do they bother "roof-knocking", setting up evacuation corridors, and sending their own troops into harm's way?
Is it a coincidence that Israel was in a cease-fire on October 6, only going to war after Hamas committed an act of war (killing over 1100 people, wounding many more, and taking 253 hostages)?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_hostage_crisis [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Basically, Israel wants the land that Gaza (and West bank) sit on, and wants the Palestinians that are there right now either gone, or dead.
If this is true, why did Israel give Gaza to the Palestinians, forcibly removing Israelis, in 2005? Wouldn't it have been easier to keep it than to give it away and go to war to take it back?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza [wikipedia.org]
If Israel just wants everyone gone or dead, why didn't they just bomb Gaza flat? Why do they bother "roof-knocking", setting up evacuation corridors, and sending their own troops into harm's way?
Is it a coincidence that Israel was in a cease-fire on October 6, only going to war after Hamas committed an act of war (killing over 1100 people, wounding many more, and taking 253 hostages)?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_hostage_crisis [wikipedia.org]
Shhhh, stop that, you're interfering with the HAMAS propaganda they're parroting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:insubordination (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you're being pedantic: "...someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter."
You're ignoring the context of TFA, TFS, and the whole discussion. Retaliation *in the context of the workplace* is specified by laws which GP was kind enough to link to. Google's firing of people does not meet this definition.
By your narrow, twisted view of retaliation any time someone takes cause-and-effect action based on a contract, employment agreement, etc. it would be retaliation ... which does not fit the dictionary definition or common-language usage of the word. Heck, arresting someone for murder would be retaliation which is nonsense.
TL;DR consequence != retaliation (and you're pedantic)
Re: (Score:3)
and you're pedantic
Can't say I disagree with you, my comment was absolutely being pedantic. I also occasionally moonlight as a grammar nazi. I've made peace with that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
and you're pedantic
I also occasionally moonlight as a grammar nazi.
HEIL WEBSTER!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By your definition, your reply is retaliation. As is my reply to you, and literally every post in this article.
Which is to say, your definition is completely, utterly useless.
As are you.
Re: (Score:2)
As are you.
I have no problem calling out someone for being an asshole, but it's always directed towards the action, not the person. And that, good sir (or ma'am, or whatever), was an asshole comment. I was being a smart ass, I fully expected to be modded down. I don't care, I've got plenty of karma to burn. But there's no reason to be a dickhead about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem calling someone an idiot, and it's always directed at the person, not the action.
You're an idiot.
A useless idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also 100% entitles to my correct and objectively true opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: insubordination (Score:3)
Yes.that is how justice works...?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a component of the notion talking about "protected activity".
Taking over an office location is, definitively, does not fall under the heading of "protected activity".
Without the "protected activity" part, it doesn't fall under the classification of "illegal retaliation" .
While it is still, technically a form of retaliation.
In the same way that being fired for blowing off work for a month is retaliation.
Re: (Score:2)
If I see you for defamation because you claimed I was a thief, that is indeed retaliation.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is retaliation in English, but it is not retaliation in legalese.
And only the latter matters when it comes to having something done about a firing.
I had an employer who did not pay the wages legally required by the state. The state was unwilling to do anything about my wage claim. Although what he did was technically grand theft (here in California, wage theft over a certain amount is now legally grand theft) they had no interest in prosecuting. This is why wage theft exceeds all other theft combined, it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There's a specific legal definition, that these firings (apparently) do not meet.
It is the only definition that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
"flagrant act of retaliation"
No, getting fired for insubordination is not retaliation.
I would say it's retaliation by definition. You could argue that retaliating against disruption of business is completely justifiable.
But ... if any of the fired employees had been originally hired back when Google's motto used to be "Don't Be Evil," they have a case that their terms of employment were violated.
No - it is a consequence of violating the terms of their employment. Consequence != retaliation. What nonsense world are we living in that people feel entitled to 'occupy' their bosses office in protest and cry it's retaliation they got fired ... instead of an entirely predictable consequence of their actions.
Also, companies can - and do - update the terms of their employment, employee handbook, etc. Furthermore, "Don't Be Evil" was a motto (not any legal terms of employment) and entirely subjective,
The s
Well, I guess the magic is gone (Score:2)
It has been mostly gone for a while, I think it is now thoroughly dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once investors hold a majority voting share in a company, the only magic is profit. If they do something that reduces profit, it's to avoid a large loss or set up for larger profit later on.
Moving next to an airport, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
These employees willingly took positions in a company while knowing full well what they did, and then decided to complain bitterly about their jobs, stop working, and prevent others from working.
The airport was there before you moved in, and bitching about the noise only reveals you as a whiny idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
The airport was there before you moved in, and bitching about the noise only reveals you as a whiny idiot.
Amusingly, when I first read that last sentence, I immediately thought what does the Moffett Field airport (which is right next to the Google Cloud HQ where the protest occurred) have to do with this?
Re: (Score:2)
And proper retaliaiton for military air base noise after you've bought your house directly underneath the air traffic pattern (this is a big thing near where I live) is to demand your sales agent/broker, seller, builder, all make you whole and solve your problem - no doubt by relocating you.
Thsi is such a big deal near where I live that now, if you are in the real estate sales business, even if you are not actually at work, but are in that city, even just visiting, you must carry an 8.5"x11" full color map
They got what they wanted (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost like Israel (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
pour encourager les autres
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... [wiktionary.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a source for that other than the organizer?
A bit harsh (Score:4, Funny)
Google said on Thursday it had terminated 28 employees after some staff participated in protests against the company's cloud contract with the Israeli government.
Surely firing them would be sufficient punishment?
OK (Score:2)
Protest is great! (Score:2)
Write rants, carry signs, sing songs, make your opinion known
But blocking roads or "Physically impeding other employees' work and preventing them from accessing our facilities" is totally unacceptable
Wrong way to protest (Score:2)
Gaza could cost Biden election (Score:2)
Retribution? (Score:3, Informative)
Good! Who cares? (Score:2)
I mean, maybe you should just not work for a company that has a mission of making a profit providing services or goods to a cause or group you fundamentally disagree with?
Personally, I feel like in most cases, you're better off just taking your paycheck to do the work someone is paying you to do. Most larger companies are involved in such a wide variety of things, you can sleep well at night knowing your employer accomplished as much "good" as "evil". (I remember all the people worked up about Monsanto, for
Re:Turnkey totalitarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Turnkey totalitarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
Free the hostages. Then you can start talking about the IDF.
This. Exactly.
All the nonsense of inventing reasons to cry "war crimes" meanwhile terrorists are hiding in (or under) schools, hospitals, homes and using women and children as human shields. Let's not forget they recruit children to fight in the first place and then add those same child fighters to the count of children killed in the conflict.
There certainly is an information war going though - one where idiots (and I don't call names lightly) literally are believing propaganda coming from a well-known terrorist group who openly calls for the eradication of Israel and all Jews, teaches their children exactly that in school, who also massacred ~1200 people and took 200+ hostages then launched tens of thousands of unaimed rockets at Israel. These are the people idiots keep defending because they cherry pick a data point out of a war.
The only thing worse than an armchair general is an armchair trench soldier. Might as well hand out demerits for not having polished boots while they're at it.
Re: (Score:3)
Terrorists exist on both sides of the conflict. Do not think that this conflict started 6 months ago. The conflict started nearly 8 decades ago, and was smoldering before then.
The Torah has "eye for an eye" as a *limit* on retaliation. Israel is acting like it says "100 eyes for an eye". Both sides have a minority of people who keep the flames stoked - as soon as the flames start to die down it gets fanned back up, settlers claim more land illegally, rockets get fired, they assassinate their own PM, etc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Turnkey totalitarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to talk about war crimes, let's start with the first war crimes: building military command bunkers under hospitals, clearly defined as a war crime by various treaties. Those same treaties also specifically allow Israel to attack those hospitals because Hamas has chosen to make them hard military targets.
But you don't, and won't - ever - talk about that, will you?
Re: (Score:3)
So far as I can tell, any civilians being killed in Gaza are, indeed, war crimes - committed by Hamas hiding behind them. IDF may well be doing some bad things, too, but the war crimes responsibility is entirely with Hamas. They hide behind civilians because it's a war crime, and they know that gullible fools - or collaborators - like you will ignore it, and try to get everyone to focus on Israel's actions - which are specifically allowed by those same treaties.
Don't want your civilians killed? Don't use th
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think it is IDF's moral responsibility to protect civilians?
Protecting civilians is their entire purpose. Protecting Israeli civilians. The current flare up started when Hamas terrorists killed over 700 Israeli civilians, and took 250 more hostage, after all. But you ignore that, don't you?
Protecting Palestinian civilians is secondary, at best. And when the Hamas terrorists are hiding behind those Palestinian civilians, it is Hamas who is committing the war crime. But you ignore that, as well.
Do you think they are doing reasonable job?
I don't know, and neither do you, since there is zero actual news coming o
Re: (Score:3)
But you don't, and won't - ever - talk about that, will you?
I absolutely will. Palestinians elected terrorist government that committed multiple war crimes and have a publicly stated goal of eradicating Israel. Israel is entitled to defend itself by retaliating proportionally. A lot of what happening right now in Gaza is well-deserved "find out" phase.
I would argue that Israel also elected a hard-line government (Netanyahu) that has repeatedly acted towards the Palestinians in a manner intended to subjugate them, limit their right to self-governance, limit their freedom of movement, etc.,.
Perhaps, after over half a century of Palestinians preaching - with guns and bombs - literal genocide, they're tired of it.
Israel has their share of sins to answer for, but the Palestinians begged for this. Many times.
Re: (Score:3)
But you don't, and won't - ever - talk about that, will you?
I absolutely will. Palestinians elected terrorist government that committed multiple war crimes and have a publicly stated goal of eradicating Israel. Israel is entitled to defend itself by retaliating proportionally. A lot of what happening right now in Gaza is well-deserved "find out" phase.
I would argue that Israel also elected a hard-line government (Netanyahu) that has repeatedly acted towards the Palestinians in a manner intended to subjugate them, limit their right to self-governance, limit their freedom of movement, etc.,.
Perhaps, after over half a century of Palestinians preaching - with guns and bombs - literal genocide, they're tired of it.
Israel has their share of sins to answer for, but the Palestinians begged for this. Many times.
But to play devil's advocate here, by that time, Israel had also been whittling away at their territory for decades, illegally taking land from Palestinians and giving it to Israeli settlers, all while denying the Palestinians any real say in the matter. They also occupied parts of Palestinian territory militarily until 2005, IIRC.
Don't get me wrong here. I agree that terrorism isn't an appropriate way to handle that situation, and I agree that Israel has a right to defend itself. But the Palestinians be
Re: (Score:3)
But to play devil's advocate here, by that time, Israel had also been whittling away at their territory for decades, illegally taking land from Palestinians and giving it to Israeli settlers, all while denying the Palestinians any real say in the matter. They also occupied parts of Palestinian territory militarily until 2005, IIRC.
I agree completely. As I said, Israel has a lot of sins to answer for. Apartheid is the correct word for how they treat Palestinians, with arrests for "looking Palestinian" and being held without any formal charges being common. And they've been condemned by the UN more than once for the land grabs, and rightly so.
Don't get me wrong here. I agree that terrorism isn't an appropriate way to handle that situation, and I agree that Israel has a right to defend itself. But the Palestinians being angry at Israel over the situation isn't *entirely* unreasonable, and Israel's repeated disproportionate responses create martyrs and enmity, which is a bad outcome.
The real problem is that both sides have a very strong vested interest in perpetuating the conflict. Israel needs that external threat to suppress their own internal dissent, or their political la
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They find out the hard way what "Go woke, go broke" means.
Right wing vitriol used at EVERYTHING they don't agree with.
The cancer starts in HR, so they go from hiring based on merit to hiring based on who is oppressed the most.
Nope. Starts with the shareholders.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is just sad and funny at the same time (Score:4, Interesting)
Cancel culture is almost primarily a left wing thing. The right has merely been working to catch up.
Bullshit. "Cancel culture" has been around a LONG time since before the term was coined.
The main difference is that current conservatives are butthurt that the weapon they've used numerous times in the past is now being used against them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Simply not true. The right, for all their flaws, mostly keeps their dogma to themselves (short of maybe a few religious crazies at funerals). I didn't even know Chick Fila was religious until the Left told me with a bunch of protests. Because they do what they're supposed to do: sell delicious chicken meat. They don't proselytize.
On the other hand, I can't turn around these days with
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not necessarily going to defend this protest, but criticism of Israel is hardly some "woke Commie" position (whatever the hell that even means). One can sincerely believe Israel's actions against Palestinians is unjust, without, say, wanting state control of the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
I am John Galt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'd put that proudly in my resume if I were the (Score:5, Insightful)
If I ran a company, I'd hire someone like that in a heartbeat.
This is probably one of many reasons you are not running a company. While I don't approve of Google selectively firing protesters of some causes while encouraging others, getting fired like that is a serious problem for the future employment as it puts 'troublemaker' and 'activist' mark on you. So the negative career consequences are real in this case.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's only a problem if you seek employment with companies that have no ethics.
Re:I'd put that proudly in my resume if I were the (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I'm living it. Perhaps I'm lucky, or perhaps it's because I'm late in my career and I have enough experience to have that luxury, but I definitely choose who I work for.
In fact, I have for a long time:
Back around 2000, I had an opportunity to work at Citrix. I didn't really know who Citrix was back then. but they were already big and definitely an attractive employer to land a job at.
They came to the offices of the company I was working for back then to hunt for potential recruits, because my company
Re: (Score:3)
I am not trying to bash you, and not trying to be overly cynical. I also try to follow my principles and have suffered (in lost opportunities) as a consequence. However, there is a limit to what I am able to achieve, as 'have nothing' is not option available to me as there are others that depend on my earnings.
Re: (Score:2)
Unethical companies won't want trouble makers.
Ethical companies don't want trouble makers.
Every single one of these people have never gone on to better jobs. They try to be a paid activist and crash and burn.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a problem if you seek employment with companies that have no ethics.
Or want to get things done instead of bow to every random and often misguided social activist cause.
These people were just pissing in the wind and are now crying because they lost their cushy jobs. Good riddance. If you want to hire troublemakers who are more interested in their social causes than the reason you hired them...well good luck to you.
Nah, HR never does their homework. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then when your evil twin takes your place at the helm, he'll fire them all
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't.
As an employer it's stupid to take sides like this. It's the reason why I was always one of the few businesses that *never* had political signs in my windows like my neighbors. I was there for one purpose: to make money. Politics didn't make me money. You don't alienate customers; and if you're fine with pushing away one group of customers because you personally disagree with them; then you're a horrible capitalist and I'm not afraid to say "if you want to pick and choose your customers than clea
Re: (Score:2)
Pride won't pay the rent, though.
Re: (Score:2)