Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses

Google Fires More Employees Over Protest of Cloud Contract With Israel (axios.com) 228

Google has fired another 20 workers for participating in protests against its $1.2 billion cloud computing contract with the Israeli government, according to an activist group representing the workers. From a report: In total, the company has now fired around 50 employees over sit-in protests held in Google offices last week that were part of yearslong discontent among a group of Google and Amazon workers over claims that Israel is using the companies' services to harm Palestinians. Google has denied those claims, saying Project Nimbus, the cloud-computing contract, doesn't involve "highly sensitive, classified, or military workloads relevant to weapons or intelligence services," and that Israeli government ministries that use its commercial cloud must agree to its terms of services and other policies.

No Tech For Apartheid, the group representing the workers, claimed in a statement that Google is attempting to "quash dissent, silence its workers, and reassert its power over them." "That's because Google values its profit, and its $1.2 billion contract with the Israeli government and military, more than people. And it certainly values it over its own workers," it said. The group said it will continue organizing until Google cancels Project Nimbus.
Further reading: Google To Employees: 'We Are a Workplace'.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Fires More Employees Over Protest of Cloud Contract With Israel

Comments Filter:
  • It's called work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by keltor ( 99721 ) * on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @10:11AM (#64417198)
    I get that people want to wear their politics on their sleeves and complain that their gigantic multinational employer does business with X, but ultimately you work somewhere and if you disturb the peace, you are going to be fired.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Jason Earl ( 1894 )

      I read an interview with one of the main protestors that got fired in the first wave. Their plan is to become a professional protestor. I suspect that pays better than being an average Googler.

      • Can't tell if trolling or really believe that.
      • Hey, if people get paid to hawk and peddle crap on the internet, why not to yell slogans?

        In either case, you should not have too strong opinions about what crap you peddle or yell. There's a German proverb that would fit really well here: Whose bread I eat, those songs I sing.

        And in this case, quite literally so.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          While true, you also have a moral responsibility from your choice of who to work for. The typical expectation is that if you do not agree with what your employer does, you first try to change culture there (by legal means, obviously), but then you leave. This is not a one-person-one-vote system, personal merit does count.

          • I am fortunately by now in a position where I can reject a job when it conflicts with my personal position on some things. I was offered a job for pretty much a fortune in a country whose politics I disagree with and I declined. I'm sure someone else will get this job and consider me a moron for rejecting what's easy money.

            But there are things in my life that ain't for sale. One of them is me.

            • I was offered a job for pretty much a fortune in a country whose politics I disagree with and I declined. I'm sure someone else will get this job and consider me a moron for rejecting what's easy money.

              Err...just out of curiosity, what country was this....and are they still taking resumes??

              For how much again??

              ;)

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      Just because they should realistically expect to put their job at risk doesn't mean they did the "wrong thing". The "disturb the peace" line as a reaction to the concept of protest is a bit disconcerting.

      Now if they were being obnoxious in the workspace chanting about injustice against palestine in some totally unrelated venue (e.g. if Google did zero business with Israeli government), I could see scoffing at the effort as noisy and disruptive to no end.

      However, they are directly protesting their own compan

      • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @11:01AM (#64417402)
        >Disruptively protesting in the workplace is pretty much exactly what their cause demands in this scenario.

        And firing employees who are disruptive to the workplace is exactly what is demanded in this scenario. That's what they're being fired for, not for protesting. They can protest all they want off-hours, away from the workplace.
      • Disruptively protesting in the workplace is pretty much exactly what their cause demands in this scenario.

        Sure, and they should expect that they're putting their jobs on the line for their cause. Without that risk, their protest isn't particularly meaningful. If they were to "win" by getting Google to cancel the contract, they'd actually have little effect because Google is almost certainly right that this contract has little to no effect on the war.

        Generating headlines by getting fired from their $500k/year jobs is the most effective thing these Google employees can do for their cause. So, good for them, the

    • by Ed Tice ( 3732157 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @10:44AM (#64417326)
      Not everyone feels comfortable working at every employer. I've had to answer many times in my life if I'm comfortable working on military contracts. If somebody doesn't feel good working at Google based on Google's clientele they certainly can (and should) express those concerns in a way that doesn't disturb the office. And then they can discuss it and find a solution which is likely an amicable parting of ways. There's nothing wrong with any of that.
      • by flink ( 18449 )

        The whole point of protest is to disturb the normal flow of things and disrupt the thing you are trying to stop. That's why people engage in civil disobedience: you go into it knowing that you are putting your freedom and/or job on the line because you believe strongly in the cause. "expressing those concerns in a way that doesn't disturb the office" is like saying "if you want to change the status quo then vote". That's fine and all, but it is the absolute minimum and probably won't change anything signi

      • If I cannot support what my employer does, I have to quit. Simple as that.

        Fortunately I'm not weighed down by useless crap like a conscience. Quite seriously, that seems to be a really big problem when it comes to earning money. I can slowly get why CEOs generally don't bother with that crap.

        • With an employer as large as Google who does so many things, there are always going to be parts that you can't support. But there are usually also mechanisms that let you choose not to work on that part. Demanding that the company stop engaging in certain business activities is a bit extreme when the situation is complex. But there are also many options short of quitting.
          • Then I cannot work for such an employer in the first place.

            Choose your battles. If you cannot support what your employer does, why do you support it? Just for the money? So in other words, your morals and standards are for sale.

            Good to know.

            • Because Google might do many things that you can/would/should support. Google Maps is incredibly helpful. Even if I didn't like Google's set of cloud customers I could still work on Google Maps with a clear conscience. The alternative is that you have a purity test for everything and everyone in your life that nobody can pass. That's more like carrying a picture of Chairman Mao around. You're never going to have 100% consensus with the world.
              • " Even if I didn't like Google's set of cloud customers I could still work on Google Maps with a clear conscience."

                Only if you're so dumb as to think those divisions don't both wind up on the same balance sheet and padding the same pockets.

      • Also, there is more to not wanting to work for a defense contractor than whether or not you think supporting the military is ethical. Working for a defense contractor, or a government contractor in general, is a goddamned miserable workplace experience. I made the mistake once in my career. ONCE. Never again.

        Every workplace misery you ever thought was stereotyped hyperbole right out of a Dilbert strip? In defense contracting it's a reality. Clueless PHBs? Lazy and unmotivated cow-orkers just taking u

        • Every workplace misery you ever thought was stereotyped hyperbole right out of a Dilbert strip? In defense contracting it's a reality. Clueless PHBs? Lazy and unmotivated cow-orkers just taking up space until their pension vests? Officious semi-peers and dotted-line managers who will make you go on a quest through the Black Gates into Mordor for them before coughing up the resources or information you need to do your job? 20-year obsolete maybe-supported hardware and software that is not only not fun to work on, but does nothing to further your career? Writing a page (or more) of documentation for every single line of code? Writing user-facing documentation down to the 8th-grade reading level? Multiple days of the week that are 100% booked, and sometimes double-booked with meetings? Getting lost in a maze of cubicles stretching as far as the eye can see? It. Is. All. 100% True.

          How much of that of sitting around and twiddling your thumbs is because someone at government agency A and someone at government agency B, both of whom have a significant amount of policy and direction control, decide that they need to pee in their respective corners to mark the territory and then decide who has control over what part of it? How much of it comes from the people assigned to the contract looking at the project, coming up with a list of requirements/needs, turning it over, and then the govern

        • I did an internship at the navy department in high school. I am partially aware of the things you describe. But Google Cloud isn't becoming a defense contractor at least as far as I can understand. They've simply decided that Israel isn't so evil that Google refuses to sell them the same services that they sell to pretty much everyone else. The two are a far cry apart.
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        From what I read they tried no disruptive protest, but didn't get any traction. At that point they decided that they were not happy working for Google if it continued to contract with Israel, so would try a disruptive protest. Either it would work, or they would be leaving anyway.

        I can't blame them for making that decision. Some of them have family in Palestine, now either starving refugees with no homes or infrastructure, or murdered. Others just couldn't stand to be any part of that, no matter how small.

    • I get that people want to wear their politics on their sleeves and complain that their gigantic multinational employer does business with X, but ultimately you work somewhere and if you disturb the peace, you are going to be fired.

      This is the truth. Unless you are shareholder or part of the executive, you are there to perform a job requested of you. Also, unless you are working for a cooperative, a business is typically a dictatorship by default. If you don't like it, then get out (there are other jobs out there), or put up.

      • I don't necessarily think it's "wrong" for these people to protest until they get fired, but I do think google has the right to fire them and I don't they should be able to sue over it.
    • Well, when you hire people based on their strong political opinions rather than their strong skill set, you should not be surprised when they actually use it.

      Duh.

  • by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @10:16AM (#64417220) Homepage

    Googlers are supporting a corporation that's violating privacy and enjoying monopoly or at least oligopoly power in many areas of business. Suddenly they get a conscience about something that's trendy and easy to virtue-signal.

    • by ddtmm ( 549094 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @10:30AM (#64417262)
      Couldn't agree more. Of all the things Google does, this is where they draw the line?
    • by Ed Tice ( 3732157 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @10:47AM (#64417340)
      Different people's consciences bother them in different ways based on their own life experiences and beliefs. I would have no objection to working at Google. Anyone who objects to Google's "violating privacy and enjoying monopoly" (to quote you not agree with you) has already chosen not to even apply there. The people objecting here are those who find the rest of Google's business to be morally acceptable when it comes to working there but can't square project Nimbus with their conscience. I don't know enough about the project to have an opinion one way or the other. But if they have a conscience about it they can ask to work on other projects or they can find other employment. And they shouldn't be criticized for doing so. Once they start engaging on workplace protests that interfere with the company's ability to do business they should expect to be terminated. If they thought some other outcome was on the horizon, they are a bit confused.
    • by flink ( 18449 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @11:25AM (#64417480)

      "violating privacy and enjoying monopoly" is bad and all, but it is in a whole other category from aiding and abetting a genocide.

      • by dskoll ( 99328 )

        I'd also be protesting if Google aided and abetted Hamas, which is the only actor in the conflict that actually has expressed genocidal intentions.

    • The degree to which this is happening is somewhat overstated by those who don't understand the details. There are actually very strong privacy protections in place. Most data is either limited to your account and your experience, or anonymized and aggregated.
    • Googlers are supporting a corporation that's violating privacy and enjoying monopoly or at least oligopoly power in many areas of business.

      Yes let's equate violating privacy with contributing to a regime very likely committing war crimes. Tooooootaaaly the same thing worthy of the same response. Fuck you for gaslighting the protestors.

  • by DewDude ( 537374 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @10:17AM (#64417222) Homepage

    They don't care. They don't' have to care. They have no responsibility to. People think a large corporation has responsibilities to people...but they don't. They've firmly held their responsibilities are to shareholders...something that's been upheld in court. In most states...employment is 100% at-will; you can be terminated by the employer at any time for any reason with no explanation. Companies can decide to not pay you; there's no law against it. You can take them to court to get your money...but at the end of the day, there is no law or puhishment for it and they are free to continue to do so until they fire you.

    Thinking a large conglormate is responsible is foolish. If you want responsible companies...start them. Don't let yourself get bought out. The actions that needed to be taken to prevent this were eliminated years ago.

    Workers can protest all they want...but in the modern capitalist world; the corporation just fires the problem and continues.

  • by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @10:35AM (#64417288) Journal

    From the No Tech For Apartheid [notechforapartheid.com] website:

    "We’re heeding the call from over 1000 Google and Amazon workers to rise up against the contract, known as Project Nimbus.Technology should be used to bring people together, not enable apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and settler-colonialism. Following in the footsteps of those who fought to divest from apartheid South Africa and won, it’s our responsibility to rise up in support of Palestinian freedom. The Amazon and Google execs who signed this contract can still choose to be on the right side of history."

    Frankly, the only reason groups like these continue to exist is because people believe their BS. Israel isn't engaging in "apartheid", they evacuated the Gaza Strip in 2005, and it has been run by Hamas ever since. They aren't engaging in "ethnic cleansing", they're not the ones stockpiling weapons and command centers in hospitals, schools, and homes, that's what Hamas is doing. Nor are they "colonizing" the Gaza Strip, they literally built a wall around it to separate themselves from it.

    I'm no Israel apologist, but BS is BS, it smells the same all over the world. It's a lot more important to use the brain God gave you than to be "on the right side of history". Stop listening to these guys.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      . Israel isn't engaging in "apartheid"

      they literally built a wall around it to separate themselves from it.

      apartheid:
      a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.

      Seems like walling off Palestinians would be consistent. Also, you have the West Bank situation, which the ICC/UN, France, UK, EU, and US have all described as a war crime (US temporarily said it wasn't, but switched back in February). In Gaza the objection is the disproportionate response, even though the settlements did stop, but the West Bank still suffers from the settlements and associated forced transfer of prope

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        They built the wall to protect themselves from Hamas, not to keep Palestinians in. Before Oct. 7th, people who lived in Gaza could commute to jobs in Israel.

      • Right though in case apartheid is both a physical barrier / ghettoization of palestinian land and the citizenship regulations and seizure of land that basically deny a ton of palestinians their familial home, right of return, israeli citizenship et al. That's not entirely true if you're just looking at the Gaza strip.

        The Israeli approached to migration (e.g. right of return for any jew), their treatment of people who are historically from israeli territory (who should be citizens), and their continued il
    • by sinij ( 911942 )

      I'm no Israel apologist, but BS is BS, it smells the same all over the world. It's a lot more important to use the brain God gave you than to be "on the right side of history". Stop listening to these guys.

      You are a censorship apologist, as you are calling for people to get fired over opinions. It does not matter if you think that what they believe is BS, in a free country you should not be fired for political beliefs.

      • by sonlas ( 10282912 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @11:14AM (#64417432)

        They didn't get fired over their opinions. They got fired because they brought them to work and actively disrupted it.

        People can have opinions, they can talk about it during lunch or the coffee break. But if you try to disrupt work and make everyone agree with you by being a bully, then you need a reality check.

        • by sinij ( 911942 )
          Read the title: "50 down, 950 to go". It is explicit call to fire anyone who signed a petition and not just sit-in people.
          • Then you should have quoted that part in your initial reply, to make it obvious that was the point you were referring to.

      • I'm no Israel apologist, but BS is BS, it smells the same all over the world. It's a lot more important to use the brain God gave you than to be "on the right side of history". Stop listening to these guys.

        You are a censorship apologist, as you are calling for people to get fired over opinions. It does not matter if you think that what they believe is BS, in a free country you should not be fired for political beliefs.

        Keep your political beliefs all you like, but don't disrupt work. If I had a "peaceful sit in" to play video games on company property, you'd support my instant firing. They were on company property, not doing their job and trying to discourage others from getting their work done. I don't see the injustice here. You want to collect a paycheck, you have to do the work...it doesn't matter if you're protesting your company or sitting in the bathroom and wanking off...you have a job to do if you want to col

      • I'm no Israel apologist, but BS is BS, it smells the same all over the world. It's a lot more important to use the brain God gave you than to be "on the right side of history". Stop listening to these guys.

        You are a censorship apologist, as you are calling for people to get fired over opinions. It does not matter if you think that what they believe is BS, in a free country you should not be fired for political beliefs.

        Back to corporations have no speech rights. What a brief interlude it was!

      • I'm calling for people to stop believing nonsense and to think for a couple of seconds before signing onto some political agenda. If there are in fact 950 more knuckleheads at Google who are planning to disrupt the workplace like the last 50, then everyone benefits if they get shown to the door.

      • by dskoll ( 99328 )

        They got fired for disrupting a workplace and refusing to leave when they were told they were trespassing. Not for merely "expressing opinions".

    • They are referring to ongoing Israeli actions in the West Bank, not Gaza.
    • Frankly, the only reason groups like these continue to exist is because people believe their BS.

      Frankly, you've swallowed a fair amount of BS yourself.

      Israel isn't engaging in "apartheid", they evacuated the Gaza Strip in 2005, and it has been run by Hamas ever since.

      They 'evacuated' because it wasn't really part of their vision of Biblical Israel, and it helped split the Palestinian Authority.

      They aren't engaging in "ethnic cleansing",

      They're just removing ethnic Palestinians from their communities in the West Bank (not to mention some literal talk of ethnically cleansing Gaza from Israeli Ministers [cnn.com].

      they're not the ones stockpiling weapons and command centers in hospitals, schools, and homes, that's what Hamas is doing.

      Hamas are definitely bad guys, but that's pretty much what any force does when fighting against a much stronger enemy.

      Nor are they "colonizing" the Gaza Strip,

      Not anymore, though they might again soon.

  • by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @10:55AM (#64417374) Homepage Journal

    The honorable thing to do when you don't agree with the ethics of your employer is to resign in protest, rather than be fired for being a nuisance.

    The former says that you have uncompromising integrity in how you act in all areas of life, and are willing to make personal sacrifices to do the right thing, while the latter suggests you're a bit unhinged and a potential nightmare employee.

    • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @11:04AM (#64417414)
      For a very long time Google attitude sent implicit messages to employees that on-the-job political activism is a job perk. These Google employees mistakenly believed that this applies to all political opinions, but they found out that criticism of Israel is not part of "safe to support" political cause. Had they picked a different sit-in subject, like demanding Google block Russia, they would still be happily employed.
    • They wouldn't have gotten headline if they'd resigned. The whole point of a protests is that you're meant to be disruptive. Disruptive to the point you get attention and goad people into taking actions that gets the issue even more attention. The protestors have clearly succeeded in both aims.
      • They goaded action, but not necessarily the action they wanted. Same thing for those who shut down bridges in Norcal.

    • It may be the honorable thing to do, but that won't have an impact on the company continuing to do it.

      The best way to affect change in any organization is from the inside, not the outside.

      And just like collective bargaining, individuals will have very little sway on a goliath like Google. It takes numbers to drive the desired change, and if you can't get the numbers behind you, the honorable path is still viable.

  • by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @11:10AM (#64417424)

    Write rants, sing songs, carry signs, contact elected representatives, vote for like minded candidates, express your opinion on social media, show up at government meetings where public comment is allowed, contact news organizations, or do any other peaceful thing you can think of

    Do NOT block roads or disrupt activity at work

    • Would you say the same ("Do NOT block roads or disrupt activity at work") if we were talking about the Nazi party forcing Jews to live in ghettos?

      Peace is a great idea when you're not getting bombed.

      • Go ahead. Block roads. Disrupt work. But don't collect a paycheque from the company you're disrupting. If you do, you're opting in for the blood money, so maybe you should shut up.

  • No Tech For Apartheid, the group representing the workers, claimed in a statement that Google is attempting to "quash dissent, silence its workers, and reassert its power over them." "That's because Google values its profit, and its $1.2 billion contract with the Israeli government and military, more than people. And it certainly values it over its own workers," it said. The group said it will continue organizing until Google cancels Project Nimbus.

    Uh, yeah. This is the modern world, where capitalism rules the roost and profit absolutely is the *ONLY* thing that matters. They could be throwing infants in a wood chipper, and so long as money came out the other end, the executives would sit around that wood chipper toasting each other and planning to buy another summer/vacation home. That's the world we live in. Thinking that you can grow a conscience and still play a part in the existing profit-above-all melee? Uh, no. That's not how it works. I hate t

  • You reap what you sow, and that goes both for the employees and Google. Another way to put it is that sometimes the rubber eventually meets the road.

  • Companies employ people to do tasks. If the people employed to do the tasks refuse to do the tasks, and then double-down by publicly denouncing the company, there's no reason on Earth why the company should keep them on the payroll. If these employees themselves, who have such strong anti-Israel opinions, hired people to serve them and then found their employed servants to be strong Israel supporters, they would certainly fire them

    Now to the dishonesty part:

    If you look into their group "No Tech for Aparthe

  • by peterww ( 6558522 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @12:31PM (#64417714)

    When Russia waged war on Ukraine, companies around the world pulled out of Russia, often at the insistence of their employees. The underlying reasoning was simple: waging war on an opponent just to gain their land, or control or kill their people, is wrong, and should be fought even at the level of boycotting products or companies.

    Favoritism and cultural allegiance shouldn't be an excuse to support an unethical government. I hope these workers continue to push for the change they want to see in the world.

  • Weren't the founders and top management of Google citizens of Israel?

    It dozen't seem all surprising from that perspective.

    These protesters should have gone back to writing code to surveil Americans, I guess?

The most important early product on the way to developing a good product is an imperfect version.

Working...