this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
177 points (86.1% liked)

Technology

34894 readers
778 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
[email protected]
177
The corporate boot licking of Google after firing the palestine protestors in insane (lemmy.ml)
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Why are so many people ok with a world where you have no say in what your employer does, and they can do whatever they want to suit their bottom line?

Though I wonder how much of this is actually corpophilia and how much is people hiding behind it because they don't want to say "I'm glad these people I disagree with got fired".

Here are some threads to show what I'm talking about:

r/technology

r/conservative (though this one feels like cheating)

r/news

r/bayarea

r/google

hacker news

washington post comments

etc..

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago

There's a weird implicit conservancy in tech circles around the dictatorial nature of corporate leadership.

It stems from this weird externalization of corporate decision making that just turns everything that happens at large companies into the machinations of the unknowable machine of capital.

"Of course they were fired, they protested in a way that disrupted the business, if the business is disrupted the machine must correct itself, and it did so by releasing the corporate anti-bodies of leadership to fire the disruptive element. Thus the machine is corrected. This is all logically sound, and thus impervious to moral inquisition."

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago

People who don't stand up for their beliefs are comforted by seeing those that did, punished. It's best for them personally if they're quite and obedient, and this is confirmation of that bias.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hacker news is full of people LARPing as corporate crisis management officers, or counsels for the defense. Every post you get about "company caught grinding up babies to fuel forever-chemical cancer machine" will get a ton of posts by people arguing that actually it's a net positive for the world and how could anyone be against such amazing innovation?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

They're neither crisis managers, nor counsels. The correct term is astroturfers. They all have some vested interests in doing so.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (4 children)

first of all, you lost me when you pointed to reddit.

second, they protested not just within the office, but in the personal office of one of the higher-ups. If you blockaded your CTO's office as a means of protesting world hunger, I don't think that would go well for you either.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago (2 children)

If my company was helping perpetuate world hunger and I blockaded their office, I hope to God you wouldn't be gleeful at me getting fired

[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Not gleeful - just fully understanding why.

I admire their principled stand. They had to know it would cost them their jobs but chose to do it anyway.

Their firing isn't a surprise and is fully reasonable by the company. I hope they get great jobs elsewhere, where their morals will be appreciated... But there are very few workplaces that give a damn about morals.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

At least we all agree that google is a piece of shit company.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Lets be clear, there's a difference between "reasonable" and "expected behavior" and it's an important one.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's both reasonable and expected.

We can discuss if a corporation deserves to exist but granted that it does: it is implicitly reasonable that it deserves to maintain its premises and staffing in a way that is conducive to business.

Now if you want to talk about corporate structures and the dissolution of capitalist enterprise that's a different story.

But in today's world and with today's rules it is entirely reasonable.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'd argue corporations should strive to represent their employees. Corporations don't deserve to maintain anything, they aren't people and have no ethical status either.

Nonetheless you're working double time to make sure the use of 'reasonable' with all its connotations is seen as acceptable here. Making sure everyone knows that you think this is normative.

We will not reach a common ground.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago

I'd argue corporations should strive to represent their employees.

That's not a corporation that's a co-op. I think cooperatives are great. Corporations less so.

Corporations don't deserve to maintain anything, they aren't people and have no ethical status either.

Ethical status isn't what I'm talking about here: I'm talking about legal protections for entities. A corporation is an entity and has legal protections.

Again we can discuss if capitalism should be the system we use but as long as it is then corporations will, by definition, have legal status and protections.

Nonetheless you're working double time to make sure the use of 'reasonable' with all its connotations is seen as acceptable here. Making sure everyone knows that you think this is normative.

It's absolutely mundane and normal. It's unnatural but not strange.

I'd rather the system didn't work like this: but it is entirely expected given the laws that govern the nation in which this occurred.

And that's by definition normative.

We will not reach a common ground.

You went from talking about concepts to directly attacking me. I wouldn't expect you'd ever come to a truce with someone you see as an enemy. I'm sorry you feel that way.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I hope to God you wouldn’t be gleeful at me getting fired

I wouldn't be "gleeful", but I can definitely see why the company was within their rights to fire you.

This is like those nutbags who shut down a highway to protest the environment or something, then accuse the police of being un-environmental when they're invariably arrested.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

Shutting down the highway when the planet is literally burning up seems like a very obvious sign of outrage and great restraint as to not get violent despite that outrage, dont you think?

Arresting protestors during a largely ignored crisis which they protest seems kind of inhumane, no?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

This is not at all like world hunger.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

I still have zero regrets after walking away from my very very old reddit account. I torched everything I ever said, ground it into ash, stomped on it again, and then deleted my account. I still have my /. account though.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Those offices are usually locked down anyway, on floors where the unwashed masses aren't granted access. Hell, if you want to even be on a call with someone like the CTO you'll have to reach out to three different entities, book a specific room, and reach out to that person's team of assistants to ensure everything is aligned.

If they got access to the CTO office they definitely broke in, or evaded security in some way. That alone at any company will get you fired, and probably arrested.

Source: Once attended a meeting with a SVP at a big tech company. I genuinely think it would be easier to meet the president.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's a fun coincidence to me that corpophilia is one transposition away from a literal scat fetish. They may as well be the same thing, honestly.

Democratize corporations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

I kinda made that word up lmao, it's not in the dictionary

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

I assumed that once we accept we're being extorted (work for us or fail to survive) it's a short step to acknowledge we don't get a say in what the company does.

Instead we acknowledge we're occupied like Vichy Paris and spit in the boss' coffee.

All the big companies were pro-torture and pro-containment and pro-overthrowing South American democracies and pro-great depression poverty (at least, pro-Hoover doing nothing about it and blaming it on public laziness). Go far enough back, and they're pro-monarchy. The Heritage society is actively working for just that.

Will the annihilation of the Palestinian people be enough to get the global public to scream enough! and act to overthrow the ownership class? Will they, then tremble before communist revolution? I doubt it. Even as civil rights are rolled back in the US and five-eyes nations, we carry on.

Even as industry pollutes the climate until it is uninhabitable, we carry on...

...Until the hour we don't. But I don't know when that will be, whether in days or decades.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

I agree with you. People are gleeful and smug about the firing. I'm proud of the people who stood up against a contract that will only bring death and destruction to the world and I am ashamed of those that smugly revel in their firing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Yeah, I don't understand a place in the world where I fit that allows that kind of shitty behavior. I have a direct line to the founder of the place I work at. He gives a shit and listens when I give voice to a problem.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Isn't that called "capitalism gone bad"? The principles of capitalism and that story about competitiveness is good but in a global economy where monopolies distort the market, by reflection you'll have bending of rules which thrives thanks to a political class that is driven not by ideals, but rather personal interests and ego. Those that have the poet will abuse it. I'm not surprised at all. What is worse is that peoples brains are becoming numb thanks to social media. We are not able to think for ourselves anymore.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, then they can legally terminate you for refusal to work.

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"

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I’ve read two articles, but neither of them had that interview. Got a link?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Spend 10 mins on Blind, and you'll see that once anonymous, people tend to be far more right-wing than you'd like to think.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago

I think it's much more likely that right wing people are much more willing to voice their opinions when anonymous, that than anonymity makes people right wing. I think generally people on the left are more than happy to have people aware of their morality, but people on the right want to keep it quite that they're assholes.