undefined | Better HN

0 pointslliamander8y ago0 comments

And is arguably walking a very fine line in doing so.

IANAL, but it is illegal for employers to use the threat of firing to compel employees to take (or avoid) a political course of action.

Furthermore, it is illegal for employers to punish employees for speaking up about issues the employee believes affect working conditions (which was largely the premise of the employees essay).

Google side-stepped the issue by firing him for statements which may (or may not) violate anti-discrimination policies that just so happened to be in his essay.

They left largely unchallenged (and it seems to me, rather reinforced) the central complaint. Namely that Google was fostering a politically stifling atmosphere.

0 pointslliamander8y ago0 comments

And is arguably walking a very fine line in doing so.

IANAL, but it is illegal for employers to use the threat of firing to compel employees to take (or avoid) a political course of action.

Furthermore, it is illegal for employers to punish employees for speaking up about issues the employee believes affect working conditions (which was largely the premise of the employees essay).

Google side-stepped the issue by firing him for statements which may (or may not) violate anti-discrimination policies that just so happened to be in his essay.

They left largely unchallenged (and it seems to me, rather reinforced) the central complaint. Namely that Google was fostering a politically stifling atmosphere.

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

kafkaesq8y ago· 5 in thread

I highly doubt that any judge (or sufficiently informed jury) would find that Google acted in response to any political activity on his part, per se.

lliamanderOP8y ago

The point is: the employee had concerns about working conditions at Google and how Google was pursuing it's goals. He even offered (what he believed) were useful suggestions. Other employees had similar concerns.

Instead of answering his concerns, they fired him because they thought his suggestions were offensive (or rooted in offensive ideology).

zimpenfish8y ago

> they thought his suggestions were offensive

Not only were they offensive, they had no grounding in reality and made it impossible for many people there to work with or trust him.

1 more reply

lliamanderOP8y ago

Perhaps not, but what was Google responding to? The central concern of the employee (as stated in his memo) was the political behavior by Google.

kafkaesq8y ago

Right, but I from what I understand the statutes that project against coercion on the basis of "political behavior" define it fairly narrow terms such as endorsing candidates, making donations and so forth. Which do not apply in this case.

And as to "organizing for better workplace conditions" - well yeah, there's some overlap, there. But his campaign went quite a ways beyond that, as well.

1 more reply

jessaustin8y ago

Truth in account name...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse