177
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
177 points (86.1% liked)
Technology
33578 readers
342 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I completely support their right to protest, having attended many myself, as does the constitution. However, they were on the clock and on private property. They should have organized a protest outside, during off hours, if they wanted to protect their jobs. Circulating a petition wouldn’t have been a bad idea either.
Edit: OP shared this interview in a thread further down. It’s a first-hand account from a former employee. The employee stated that they were warned several times about pending arrest and violation of workplace behavior. I respect their commitment to their cause, but it was with full understanding that they were arrested and subsequently terminated.
I disagree, I think protesting during working hours is kind of the point, same as a union protest during working hours. It affects the corps bottom line, the only thing they care about.
I agree that it hurts the company more. Unfortunately, then they can legally terminate you for refusal to work. Even worse, you won’t even be eligible for unemployment after hearing.
It would be legally protected if they were protesting compensation or working conditions, or if they organized their concerns through a union representative.
I don't think they're being fired for "refusal to work". There is a concept of "job abandonment" but one 9 hour period wouldn't count. Typically you need several days of no contact/no show before you have considered to have abandoned your job.
This is more about at-will employment: Google has a right to fire an employee at any time for almost any reason, or for no reason. There have been people getting fired for posting pro-Palestine content to linkedin, which is completely legal in the US.
This isn't a story of "employees overstepped a line and got fired" this is a story of "there is no line, companies can fire employees for almost anything and definitely for their political views regardless how respectfully they are expressed."
Also going on strike is basically the definition of "organized refusal to work"
Your last sentence is correct. A strike against workplace conditions or compensation is protected. This was neither. Refusal to work while on the clock is grounds for termination as well as disqualification for unemployment benefits. There needs to be acknowledgment by the employee that they are refusing to work, and that the result of continued action would be grounds for termination. It does not need to continue for nine hours, and is a different termination reason than job abandonment.
I’m 100% behind protesting, but you need to know how to keep the law on your side.
These are almost certainly saleried, exempt employees with no "timeclock".
They were fired for expressing a political opinion and doing so in a way Google did not like.
It is certainly legal for Google to fire them for this because it is legal for Google to fire them for almost any reason. But it's also pretty certian that there is no way in America to protest your employer in a way where the law would protect you from retaliation.
By “on the clock” I mean during compensated scheduled working hours. It does not matter if you are an hourly or salaried employee. They were removed and charged with trespassing after multiple warnings from security, and warned in advance of the policy violation of the protest according to this employee interview.
You are protected by law if protesting working conditions or compensation during scheduled working hours. If you protesting anything else, it can be done during free time in a public space without employer retaliation.
I have been part of many protests, and am in complete support of them. The most important thing when organizing a protest is knowing your rights so you can keep the law on your side.
Their company, their rules. A union protest is a work activity directly relating to their roles, relationships, and functions as employees, which a political protest is not.
Google can suffer the public consequences on their own, which may or may not affect their bottom line.
To be fair, if you read the interview with one of the workers, they tried many less disruptive approaches before turning to a sit in. I don't they risked their jobs without reason.
I’ve read two articles, but neither of them had that interview. Got a link?
https://www.thehandbasket.co/p/google-worker-fired-protest-israel-project-nimbus
Thanks. Interesting read. The employee stated that they were warned several times about pending arrest and violation of workplace behavior. I respect their commitment to their cause, but it was under full understanding that they were arrested and subsequently terminated.
So they were intentionally disruptive to their employer and you're upset they were fired? You think people should be able to show up, clock in and then protest their employer on company time on company property and face no repercussions?
I'm upset about the people supporting google's right to make money over any ethics. I'm upset at the idea that employees should have no say in what the company they work for does. I'm upset at people who think this is a good thing.
The specific repercussions they faced is another matter. But no, I don't think they were fair. Quote
So like, if you were in a restaurant and ordered food, but it never came because a couple of the servers were blocking food from being served because the company wasn't taking a strong stance against abortion, you'd think "these good people are taking a moral stand, good for them! The company better not take any action against them to make sure I get my food!"
Or for that matter, if Google stopped all cooperation with the IDF, the company's Jewish employees could (in fact should) disrupt business because Google was supporting terrorism?
It seems to me that you can only support forms of protest you'd be willing to accept when the other side uses them against you. Basically the golden rule.
I'm not sure why you think actively working with the IDF is a passive act, but not working with them is actively supporting terrorism, but it undermines any argument you're trying to make
Makes it easy to dismiss my argument without bothering to think about it, you mean. Just take abortion, then. Or "tax is theft", or right to bear arms, or any of a thousand other beliefs you probably don't agree with.
why yes, having an improper argument makes it easier to dismiss. This isn't like a typo or missed word that you can say I'm trying to weasle out of talking with you, it's a completely skewed perspective on the situation that makes it impossible for us discuss because we'd effectively be having completely different arguments.
Nice, you avoided having to think on a self-imposed technicality. Real intellectual rigor there.
Well, don't be, because it's not happening.
Also not happening.
Once again, not happening.
Blanket? Not at all. In this specific case I wish Google faced the repercussions rlinstead of the employees.