> Google says that each worker it fired actively disrupted its offices, while the workers dispute the claims, saying some of those fired did not even enter the company’s office on the day of coordinated demonstrations against the company.
Isn't this a pretty critical point that the Washington Post should have looked into a bit more?
They probably got the list of people to fire from some list of people who replied on some internal message board.
Far easier to prove involvement when there is a written record, rather than evidence of you entering a building (you might have other reasons to be there).
I guess you could "disrupt" the productivity of an "office" without physically being there, but ultimately at-will employment probably gives Google a lot of leeway here.
What's there to investigate? "Actively disrupted" is impossible to define. Google may consider it a disruption if you are organizing a protest, even if not participating in it, or if the protest hasn't happened yet. An employee may feel like their peaceful sit-in didn't disrupt anything. Ultimately Google is the one making the decision.
You can disrupt an office without entering the office. Just stand outside and block the entrance, yell at people trying to enter the office, or bang pots and pans and create a disturbance.
(I have no idea what happened at Google. The article is behind a paywall for me.)
I hope I'm not considered a troll for asking this question; I will ask on my main account and hopefully people will check my comment history to understand I am not intending to be belligerent or intentionally dumb.
But why is it that rainbow flags (pride, et al) are considered the pro-Palestinian side in the conflict.
I might be old but I distinctly remember a humanitarian outcry in the 00's because Palestinians were murdering not only Jews and Christians but also homosexuals[0].
I'm not sure of the Israeli stance to be perfectly honest, but it's surprising to me that the only time I had ever heard of LGBTQ+ rights with relation to the Palestinian people it has been with a strikingly deadly tone, yet it seems that in the US the political divide has fallen such that LGBTQ+ people are almost forced to ally with Palestine.
I'm genuinely curious how this happened.
caveat: I'm not interested in emotional responses, if you feel emotional reading this then please just ignore the comment completely, I am not inviting a flame war, this is genuine ignorance and curiousity.
See also YouTube happily selling millions of dollars in advertising every year to the Orbán regime and pals. If you don't have AdBlock or premium in Hungary you get five minutes of brainwashing before every video.
These are the same regime saying that the fact that gay people exist is propaganda and a threat to children. If Google actually gave a fuck they could start with that.
Any semblance of being progressive is horseshit if you're happy to do business with fascists overseas.
James Damore was fired from Google[0] when he went out of his way to ensure his politics were to be kept private. What on earth did these people think would happen if they didn't attempt to keep their politics private?
I think it's best to keep all politics, "right" and "wrong" (however you define it) out of business.
But businesses thought they can score some easy brownie points by supporting "good" politics (in any case the kind they thought makes them look better). Well someone turns around and does the other kind of politics - something the firm thinks makes it look bad, and suddenly it doesn't like flags and activism.
Google did nothing about Israeli co-workers at Google sending me messages such as "Do you support Hamas?" They targeted me because I +1ed a memegen post mourning civilians who have died in Gaza.
I'll even explicitly say this: They were on the search experience team.
Multiple of them were also managers. (Both Engineer Managers and Hiring Managers)
"Bring your whole selves to the office" can work pretty darn well (at least from the C-suite PoV) when the company is a (relative) plucky little startup, and you're trying to get the drones to work 80+ hour weeks for crap pay.
But when you're a corporate behemoth, with a "keep turning crank to keep making $billions" business model...then not so much.
Well to be fair I imagine your workplace isn't also wading into a contentious geopolitical conflict with billions of dollars. I don't think I would ever protest in the manner described at my job but I would probably quit over it. If you want your employees to stay out of politics then you should probably lead by example.
I used to have a co worker who always wanted to discuss his conspiracy theories at work. From "the moon landing didn't happen", "vaccination causes autism" to the "earth is flat" it just wouldn't end.
It was exhausting because I just wanted to show up and do my work and stay professional. I didn't even judge him for having those opinions. For all I cared he could do what he likes in private but it was infuriating that he did not realize that he was actively bothering by wanting to discuss controversial opinions at the workplace. I also remembered this guy as not really a very interested or efficient worker. He came to work to talk basically.
Years later, the guy now has 1K+ linked in connections, every bs certification imaginable and calls himself an "AI and futurism consultant". He may have learned that if he just talked about some other bs than before, he could make a lot of money.
New rule: as long as companies can donate infinite amounts of money to lobbyists and politicians, employees can organize around political issues within those companies.
If either of those is wrong, I’d say they both are.
If your goal is to change the companies behavior, then protesting and getting fired and getting a WaPo story is more effective than resigning in protest.
Doesn't it seem like there's quite a gulf between compliant silence and quitting?
I don't know much about these protests so I can't say whether I agree with them or not, but the general idea that there's a black and white choice here doesn't make sense.
Also, doesn't it seem likely that many of these people understood that they could be terminated or face other discipline for their participation in these protests? That is, many may have understood they were putting their jobs on the line, right? That's no small sacrifice.
Absolutely. Have the courage of your convictions to refuse to work for a company you find immoral.
I assume these people would have refused to work for an arms manufacturer or an oil company, but maybe they could try to change one of those from the inside.
I'd do the same if my employer helps a regime kill 74 children every day through precision airstrikes.
When Russia invaded Ukraine we saw a massive redrawl of companies, funny how this isn't happening with Israel at the same speed when the crimes are far worse.
I'm not defending this but as an important data point, in most states in the US it is entirely legal to fire people for political speech. This is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment restricts the government and extensions of the government. Whether you agree with this action or not, let's still deal with facts. Agree with them or not, they're taking a stand for something they believe in that comes at potentially great cost to them and you have to at least respect that.
Now I want to bring up Time's 2019 Person of the Year, Greta Thunberg. Remember her? The teenager who spoke out for climate action, something she was widely lauded for. You don't hear much about her now even though she's still active (eg [1]). Why is that? Because she started criticizing capitalism [2].
Why do I bring her up? Because she was praised while doing performative speech over climate change and sidelined when her criticism was at odds with the bottom line.
That's exactly what's happening at Google and most other companies. They're happy to put up rainbow flags and celebrate Pride because it's performative. It doesn't affect the bottom line. It's good PR in that way.
But these protestors were demanding action that would put Google at odds with the US government policy and that cannot be tolerated. We've seen this before. Google famously pulled out of China over censorship many years ago [3] but the bottom line meant they tried (and failed) to go back in years later [4].
For the record, what I've described above (with both Greta Thunberg and Google) is simply materialist analysis.
1. One of Google's largest engineering office is in Israel, so it has thousands of employees directly affected by the war. Obviously seeing fellow employees protest against their own country at work is at least a huge distraction. A Google employee entire family was kidnapped to Gaza, by the way.
2. Project Nimbus is a way to get cloud regions in Israel in exchange for government budgets. Although the IDF will get its share, it's naturally going to be extremely limited. There isn't going to be some killer AI running on GCP simply because you don't run classified data/software on public clouds.
The fact Israel does not even have a government cloud region means the defensive nature of the workloads are going to be extremely limited, and even if it had, intelligence would not be there.
3. The fact that you are sure Israel is a reincarnation of nazi germany, apartheid south africa and scare word, scare word, genocide, doesn't make it is so or also does not mean it is a popular opinion outside your twitter echo chamber. This might also not be a common opinion in your work place, even though people around you rather keep quiet.
There isn't going to be some killer AI running on GCP simply because you don't run classified data/software on public clouds.
We hear this disclaimer a lot -- but isn't the whole point of Project Nimbus is that it's effectively a private cloud environment? Per a recent press release:
As part of the "Project Nimbus", the cloud computing services will be provided from local cloud computing sites while the information will be processed and stored within the borders of the State of Israel under the provisions of Israeli law, strict information security guidelines, and under the guidance of the relevant authorities in the government.
Also, it doesn't have to be a genocide-as-a-service app like Project Lavender to be worrisome. It can also be some far more boring facial recognition tools making everyday life in the OTP incrementally more miserable, for example.
Google engineers reading this over your miso-roasted salmon & quinoa bowls are more than welcome to chime in with the relevant details.
In terms of protest visibility, the protesters could ask for nothing more than the ongoing drip of news articles on this.
I would think that the news articles have far more impact than booting the Israeli government off GCP. Getting kicked off GCP certainly hasn't done anything to stop Russia's genocidal war.
If we're going to do ad hoc sanctions, at least learn the lessons about what are good and bad sanctions. Doing partial sanctions has shown to be worthless.
[+] [-] latexr|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] overrun11|1 year ago|reply
Isn't this a pretty critical point that the Washington Post should have looked into a bit more?
[+] [-] londons_explore|1 year ago|reply
Far easier to prove involvement when there is a written record, rather than evidence of you entering a building (you might have other reasons to be there).
[+] [-] laweijfmvo|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] paxys|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] goatforce5|1 year ago|reply
(I have no idea what happened at Google. The article is behind a paywall for me.)
[+] [-] jsiepkes|1 year ago|reply
But as soon as Google's bottom line is involved they behave pretty predictable.
[+] [-] waihtis|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dijit|1 year ago|reply
But why is it that rainbow flags (pride, et al) are considered the pro-Palestinian side in the conflict.
I might be old but I distinctly remember a humanitarian outcry in the 00's because Palestinians were murdering not only Jews and Christians but also homosexuals[0].
I'm not sure of the Israeli stance to be perfectly honest, but it's surprising to me that the only time I had ever heard of LGBTQ+ rights with relation to the Palestinian people it has been with a strikingly deadly tone, yet it seems that in the US the political divide has fallen such that LGBTQ+ people are almost forced to ally with Palestine.
I'm genuinely curious how this happened.
caveat: I'm not interested in emotional responses, if you feel emotional reading this then please just ignore the comment completely, I am not inviting a flame war, this is genuine ignorance and curiousity.
[0]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-5-2003-1346_...
EDIT: Added a citation for my apparently outlandish statement.
[+] [-] chpatrick|1 year ago|reply
These are the same regime saying that the fact that gay people exist is propaganda and a threat to children. If Google actually gave a fuck they could start with that.
Any semblance of being progressive is horseshit if you're happy to do business with fascists overseas.
[+] [-] nailer|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jimbob45|1 year ago|reply
[0]https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/7/16111052/google-james-damo...
[+] [-] ImJamal|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] P_I_Staker|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rich_sasha|1 year ago|reply
But businesses thought they can score some easy brownie points by supporting "good" politics (in any case the kind they thought makes them look better). Well someone turns around and does the other kind of politics - something the firm thinks makes it look bad, and suddenly it doesn't like flags and activism.
To me this is the key hypocrisy.
[+] [-] aaomidi|1 year ago|reply
I'll even explicitly say this: They were on the search experience team.
Multiple of them were also managers. (Both Engineer Managers and Hiring Managers)
[+] [-] racional|1 year ago|reply
Either way, let's hear more reports from other Googlers, please.
[+] [-] evolve2k|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] onlyrealcuzzo|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] snird|1 year ago|reply
Politics essentially botched their Gemini AI release. The politics are beyond harming the company.
[+] [-] ParetoOptimal|1 year ago|reply
The "best" they can do is mirror status quo and avoid confrontation.
This is sometimes wrongly referred to as "neutrality".
[+] [-] gedy|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bell-cot|1 year ago|reply
But when you're a corporate behemoth, with a "keep turning crank to keep making $billions" business model...then not so much.
[+] [-] Spivak|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] sureglymop|1 year ago|reply
It was exhausting because I just wanted to show up and do my work and stay professional. I didn't even judge him for having those opinions. For all I cared he could do what he likes in private but it was infuriating that he did not realize that he was actively bothering by wanting to discuss controversial opinions at the workplace. I also remembered this guy as not really a very interested or efficient worker. He came to work to talk basically.
Years later, the guy now has 1K+ linked in connections, every bs certification imaginable and calls himself an "AI and futurism consultant". He may have learned that if he just talked about some other bs than before, he could make a lot of money.
[+] [-] dumdumdumdum|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] danielscrubs|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] johndoughy|1 year ago|reply
If either of those is wrong, I’d say they both are.
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|1 year ago|reply
It also feels uniquely selfish. "I love the money but I still want to protest!" If you feel so strongly then quit but that would require sacrifice.
[+] [-] sonofaplum|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jmull|1 year ago|reply
Doesn't it seem like there's quite a gulf between compliant silence and quitting?
I don't know much about these protests so I can't say whether I agree with them or not, but the general idea that there's a black and white choice here doesn't make sense.
Also, doesn't it seem likely that many of these people understood that they could be terminated or face other discipline for their participation in these protests? That is, many may have understood they were putting their jobs on the line, right? That's no small sacrifice.
[+] [-] lexicality|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] noduerme|1 year ago|reply
I assume these people would have refused to work for an arms manufacturer or an oil company, but maybe they could try to change one of those from the inside.
[+] [-] SadCordDrone|1 year ago|reply
If you cant come to terms with what your employer is doing, it's in the right of the either party to terminate the contract.
Morality is a subjective argument and non-sequiter here anyway.
[+] [-] CommanderData|1 year ago|reply
When Russia invaded Ukraine we saw a massive redrawl of companies, funny how this isn't happening with Israel at the same speed when the crimes are far worse.
[+] [-] okdood64|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] paul7986|1 year ago|reply
Politics is always a sh!tshow to be avoided personally and definitely at your place of work.
A few years ago Google bended to a small few looks like no more will they!
[+] [-] jmyeet|1 year ago|reply
Now I want to bring up Time's 2019 Person of the Year, Greta Thunberg. Remember her? The teenager who spoke out for climate action, something she was widely lauded for. You don't hear much about her now even though she's still active (eg [1]). Why is that? Because she started criticizing capitalism [2].
Why do I bring her up? Because she was praised while doing performative speech over climate change and sidelined when her criticism was at odds with the bottom line.
That's exactly what's happening at Google and most other companies. They're happy to put up rainbow flags and celebrate Pride because it's performative. It doesn't affect the bottom line. It's good PR in that way.
But these protestors were demanding action that would put Google at odds with the US government policy and that cannot be tolerated. We've seen this before. Google famously pulled out of China over censorship many years ago [3] but the bottom line meant they tried (and failed) to go back in years later [4].
For the record, what I've described above (with both Greta Thunberg and Google) is simply materialist analysis.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68749936
[2]: https://fortune.com/2023/02/13/gen-z-activist-greta-thunberg...
[3]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704266504575141...
[4]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/07/19/confirm...
[+] [-] labrador|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jolj|1 year ago|reply
1. One of Google's largest engineering office is in Israel, so it has thousands of employees directly affected by the war. Obviously seeing fellow employees protest against their own country at work is at least a huge distraction. A Google employee entire family was kidnapped to Gaza, by the way.
2. Project Nimbus is a way to get cloud regions in Israel in exchange for government budgets. Although the IDF will get its share, it's naturally going to be extremely limited. There isn't going to be some killer AI running on GCP simply because you don't run classified data/software on public clouds. The fact Israel does not even have a government cloud region means the defensive nature of the workloads are going to be extremely limited, and even if it had, intelligence would not be there.
3. The fact that you are sure Israel is a reincarnation of nazi germany, apartheid south africa and scare word, scare word, genocide, doesn't make it is so or also does not mean it is a popular opinion outside your twitter echo chamber. This might also not be a common opinion in your work place, even though people around you rather keep quiet.
[+] [-] racional|1 year ago|reply
We hear this disclaimer a lot -- but isn't the whole point of Project Nimbus is that it's effectively a private cloud environment? Per a recent press release:
As part of the "Project Nimbus", the cloud computing services will be provided from local cloud computing sites while the information will be processed and stored within the borders of the State of Israel under the provisions of Israeli law, strict information security guidelines, and under the guidance of the relevant authorities in the government.
Also, it doesn't have to be a genocide-as-a-service app like Project Lavender to be worrisome. It can also be some far more boring facial recognition tools making everyday life in the OTP incrementally more miserable, for example.
Google engineers reading this over your miso-roasted salmon & quinoa bowls are more than welcome to chime in with the relevant details.
[+] [-] epistasis|1 year ago|reply
I would think that the news articles have far more impact than booting the Israeli government off GCP. Getting kicked off GCP certainly hasn't done anything to stop Russia's genocidal war.
If we're going to do ad hoc sanctions, at least learn the lessons about what are good and bad sanctions. Doing partial sanctions has shown to be worthless.
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] salawat|1 year ago|reply