Google has had enough with workplace activism?

[SunsetBengal]

Is this a signal of a greater trend on the verge of commencing? It seems that Google, once thought of as a company that encouraged expression of personal opinions, has apparently decided that enough is enough and let go of several "activist" employees.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/google-firing-office-protesters-shows-tide-is-turning-as-bosses-are-losing-patience-with-activist-employees/ar-AA1nxEmv?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6fc948c1699a43838987b946c035724b&ei=374

Quote:Activist employees may be losing their grip on major businesses as some companies are starting to clamp down on workplace disruptions.

Following multiple anti-Israel protests at company headquarters earlier this month, Google fired 28 employees and issued a new announcement that emphasized a "Mission First" mindset.

"But ultimately we are a workplace and our policies and expectations are clear: this is a business, and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform, or to fight over disruptive issues or debate politics. This is too important a moment as a company for us to be distracted," Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote on Thursday.
Google’s apparent shift against politics follows other businesses' efforts to tamp down on employee activism in the workplace.

"Business leaders are sending a warning to staff: Dissent that disrupts the workplace won’t be tolerated," according to a report from the Wall Street Journal Sunday. "Bosses are losing patience with staff eager to be the conscience of their companies, especially as employees pressure them on charged issues such as politics and the war in Gaza, executives, board members and C-suite advisers say."

After years of woke capitalism and encouraging employees to bring their whole selves to the office, "The moves are a correction to the last several years, when corporate leaders often brooked dissent and encouraged staff to voice their personal convictions," the WSJ reported.

Hasan Ibraheem, a Google software engineer who was arrested and fired for taking part in the protest, remarked about how Google has changed from "the big company that was still fun and vibrant" where "you were allowed to express yourself."

"I wasn’t expecting that my labor would be going toward aiding a genocide, and that if I spoke up against that I would be instantly fired," Ibraheem told the WSJ.

"The perils of being ensnared in partisan politics is changing the calculus of how responsive companies should be to any issue that doesn’t directly affect business, some executives and corporate advisers say," the WSJ reported, pointing to Disney's battle with DeSantis and the backlash against. Anheuser-Busch InBev’s Bud Light.

Jonathan Bernstein, founder and chairman of Bernstein Crisis Management, explained to WSJ that while companies are struggling with workplace politics, leaders are "are very concerned about public backlash, especially boards of directors."

The New York Times launched an investigation into itself over whether staff members were leaking information regarding the war in Gaza to other media outlets. This followed several insider reports that claimed employees were fighting over how the war was being covered.

In 2023, Starbucks also announced a lawsuit against the union Starbucks Workers United for using its name and logo in a series of pro-Palestinian posts shortly following the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel.

Outside these companies, some people are congratulating Google’s efforts to tamper down on political infighting within its ranks.

"I'm glad to see Google taking a step in this direction," Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, who published a similar work memo in 2020, said.

He added, "Although I suspect a much bigger step is needed, including exiting a material percentage of staff who aren't aligned with this direction. Google is a gem of American innovation, and it's been sad to see it captured by activists, who have disrupted work and squandered their early lead in AI. A culture of merit and innovation is what made Google great, and I hope they can get back to it."

Fox News Digital reached out to Google for a comment.

[GMDino]

(04-24-2024, 08:31 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Is this a signal of a greater trend on the verge of commencing? It seems that Google, once thought of as a company that encouraged expression of personal opinions, has apparently decided that enough is enough and let go of several "activist" employees.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/google-firing-office-protesters-shows-tide-is-turning-as-bosses-are-losing-patience-with-activist-employees/ar-AA1nxEmv?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6fc948c1699a43838987b946c035724b&ei=374

I heard a brief story about this yesterday.  Seems they are moving from the original "campus" feel to more corporate which is the unfortunate evolution of a large company, IMHO.

They are firing people for bringing politics into the work place, from what I heard.

I suppose one could argue that there is no need to that if it is causing arguments and interfering with the work day, but it certainly is a flip from what they used to say and do and it takes away from the "image" of Google as a very progressive business.  If that was still their image...lol.

We try not to talk politics here and we're a small company, but we do have occasional discussions about topics.  We don't have a policy about it either.

[Belsnickel]

Corporations going to do corporation things.

[Goalpost]

The political stuff can/should be talked about at lunch, etc. Not while people are working...

[SunsetBengal]

(04-24-2024, 09:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: I heard a brief story about this yesterday.  Seems they are moving from the original "campus" feel to more corporate which is the unfortunate evolution of a large company, IMHO.

They are firing people for bringing politics into the work place, from what I heard.

I suppose one could argue that there is no need to that if it is causing arguments and interfering with the work day, but it certainly is a flip from what they used to say and do and it takes away from the "image" of Google as a very progressive business.  If that was still their image...lol.

We try not to talk politics here and we're a small company, but we do have occasional discussions about topics.  We don't have a policy about it either.

Why would anyone feel like they could expect to get paid their full salary to protest and disrupt the business environment without consequence?

[GMDino]

(04-24-2024, 09:34 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why would anyone feel like they could expect to get paid their full salary to protest and disrupt the business environment without consequence?

Eh, I suppose it depends on the company.

If I told my boss I was taking the day off to go to a protest he'd call me an idiot but let me go.

We have guys with giant Trump flags hanging from their workstations but no one has ever complained.

We did make the guy (who no longer works here) take down his self-made swastika.  Have to draw a line when visitors come in I guess.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2024, 09:34 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why would anyone feel like they could expect to get paid their full salary to protest and disrupt the business environment without consequence?

It is odd for someone to think they can protest on the clock and face zero repercussions.  When you choose the bosses office, and I don't mean your boss, I mean the boss, you're just asking to be fired.  Especially when they give you several chances to bounce and you don't take them.

(04-24-2024, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Eh, I suppose it depends on the company.

If I told my boss I was taking the day off to go to a protest he'd call me an idiot but let me go.

We have guys with giant Trump flags hanging from their workstations but no one has ever complained.

We did make the guy (who no longer works here) take down his self-made swastika.  Have to draw a line when visitors come in I guess.

A rather key distinction in your examples.  One, you said take the day off to protest, meaning you're not on the clock.  These people were on the clock.  Also, would the protest be you sitting in your bosses office as these clowns where?  Two, it is up to the employer, within applicable law, to decide how much political expression they allow at work.  At our work you can't do it at all.  If you choose to go over the line established by your employer you are setting yourself up for discipline up to, and including termination.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-24-2024, 11:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is odd for someone to think they can protest on the clock and face zero repercussions.  When you choose the bosses office, and I don't mean your boss, I mean the boss, you're just asking to be fired.  Especially when they give you several chances to bounce and you don't take them.


A rather key distinction in your examples.  One, you said take the day off to protest, meaning you're not on the clock.  These people were on the clock.  Also, would the protest be you sitting in your bosses office as these clowns where?  Two, it is up to the employer, within applicable law, to decide how much political expression they allow at work.  At our work you can't do it at all.  If you choose to go over the line established by your employer you are setting yourself up for discipline up to, and including termination.

I think that Google was right to take the high road by not expressing weather they agree or disagree with the cause being acted on, and implementing their "Mission First" policy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2024, 12:50 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I think that Google was right to take the high road by not expressing weather they agree or disagree with the cause being acted on, and implementing their "Mission First" policy.

That used to be the norm for businesses.  Of course they make political donations, all of them do, but on individual issues they used to stay silent.  If your product isn't directly related to the issue that's only good business sense.  For some reason that hasn't really been the case of late.  A return to that normalcy would be welcome..

[Luvnit2]

(04-24-2024, 08:31 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Is this a signal of a greater trend on the verge of commencing? It seems that Google, once thought of as a company that encouraged expression of personal opinions, has apparently decided that enough is enough and let go of several "activist" employees.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/google-firing-office-protesters-shows-tide-is-turning-as-bosses-are-losing-patience-with-activist-employees/ar-AA1nxEmv?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6fc948c1699a43838987b946c035724b&ei=374

It is a baby step.

I still believe their search engines lean left and why I stopped using google last year. 

[Dill]

(04-24-2024, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Eh, I suppose it depends on the company.
If I told my boss I was taking the day off to go to a protest he'd call me an idiot but let me go.
We have guys with giant Trump flags hanging from their workstations but no one has ever complained.
We did make the guy (who no longer works here) take down his self-made swastika.  Have to draw a line when visitors come in I guess.

We've been discussing something analogous on another thread.

If a company just manufactures widgets, how likely is it that employees
would protest a SCOTUS ruling on a woman's right to choose on their worksite?

Seems to me there is usually some kind of organic relation between company and protest.
E.g., What if the "company" is a news room?

Nowadays a lot of news organizations, from Fox to the NYT to NPR,
corporate to public, are dealing with employee "protests" of some sort or other.

In this case I'm curious as to why employees think that Google is participating in genocide,
if that was the basis of the protest. I'd want that answered before siding with bosses or workers.

Their mission statement is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Is that more like widget production or more like news reporting?

[SunsetBengal]

(04-24-2024, 07:19 PM)Dill Wrote: We've been discussing something analogous on another thread.

If a company just manufactures widgets, how likely is it that employees
would protest a SCOTUS ruling on a woman's right to choose on their worksite?

Seems to me there is usually some kind of organic relation between company and protest.
E.g., What if the "company" is a news room?

Nowadays a lot of news organizations, from Fox to the NYT to NPR,
corporate to public, are dealing with employee "protests" of some sort or other.

In this case I'm curious as to why employees think that Google is participating in genocide,
if that was the basis of the protest. I'd want that answered before siding with bosses or workers.

Their mission statement is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Is that more like widget production or more like news reporting?

I'm pretty sure that 15-20 years ago that the percentage of the population with the skills to be attractive to a company like Google represented a relatively small portion of the general population, which made the people working those jobs extremely valuable at the time. The volume of people with technical skills today is astronomical compared to the days when Google was making it's name. Now, they don't need to tolerate activist tantrums in the workplace, as people with tech skills are now (seemingly) a dime a dozen.

As to the bolded section, I'd say that those employees were likely looking to leverage their employer to steer support to one side of the issue in question. Apparently, Google has decided that information is a commodity for all people, and now that the power of algorithms has been exposed, doing such things as steering public opinion has more of a liability factor involved.  Furthermore, how would Google be "participating in genocide" simply by offering the same services to all people?

[Dill]

(04-24-2024, 07:35 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm pretty sure that 15-20 years ago that the percentage of the population with the skills to be attractive to a company like Google represented a relatively small portion of the general population, which made the people working those jobs extremely valuable at the time. The volume of people with technical skills today is astronomical compared to the days when Google was making it's name. Now, they don't need to tolerate activist tantrums in the workplace, as people with tech skills are now (seemingly) a dime a dozen.

So the labor market favors the employer.  All the more reason to think carefully before defining worker protests from the Boss's perspective.

I'm still curious as to how this applies to reporters, who also have bosses.  The recent NYT incident over rape reporting was mentioned in your article.

(04-24-2024, 07:35 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As to the bolded section, I'd say that those employees were likely looking to leverage their employer to steer support to one side of the issue in question. Apparently, Google has decided that information is a commodity for all people, and now that the power of algorithms has been exposed, doing such things as steering public opinion has more of a liability factor involved.  Furthermore, how would Google be "participating in genocide" simply by offering the same services to all people?

That's what I wondered, so I looked into it a bit more. 

Apparently the issue is that Google was selling something called "Project Nimbus" to the Israeli government and military,
which involved cloud computing and AI.  If that were used for management and surveillance of, say,
the population of the West Bank under military control, I can see why employees might want no part of that.

They were led by a group called "No Tech for Aparheid" which is also protesting Amazon.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-fires-workers-protest-israel-contract-project-nimbus-rcna148333
https://apnews.com/article/google-israel-protest-workers-gaza-palestinians-96d2871f1340cb84c953118b7ef88b3f

[SunsetBengal]

(04-24-2024, 07:48 PM)Dill Wrote: So the labor market favors the employer.  All the more reason to think carefully before defining worker protests from the Boss's perspective.

I'm still curious as to how this applies to reporters, who also have bosses.


That's what I wondered, so I looked into it a bit more. 

Apparently the issue is that Google was selling something called "Project Nimbus" to the Israeli government and military,
which involved cloud computing and AI.  If that were used for management and surveillance of, say,
the population of the West Bank under military control, I can see why employees might want no part of that.

They were lead by a group called "No Tech for Aparheid" which is also protesting Amazon.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-fires-workers-protest-israel-contract-project-nimbus-rcna148333
https://apnews.com/article/google-israel-protest-workers-gaza-palestinians-96d2871f1340cb84c953118b7ef88b3f

Likely a product that they would be willing to accept money for from just about anyone who could afford it?

[Dill]

(04-24-2024, 07:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Likely a product that they would be willing to accept money for from just about anyone who could afford it?

Likely that.  Selling to someone who was going to put the product to a very unethical use.

I remember university students protesting when university research was used in military applications during the Vietnam War,
especially those which appeared to be used against civilians.

And the disinvestment movement which eventually brought down Apartheid in South Africa. 

[SunsetBengal]

(04-24-2024, 07:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Likely that.  Selling to someone who was going to put the product to a very unethical use.

I remember university students protesting when university research was used in military applications during the Vietnam War,
especially those which appeared to be used against civilians.

And the disinvestment movement which eventually brought down Apartheid in South Africa. 

Universities sell educations, are they responsible who who purchases them and uses those educations for nefarious purposes in life?

[Dill]

(04-24-2024, 08:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Universities sell educations, are they responsible who who purchases them and uses those educations for nefarious purposes in life?

If all universities did was "sell education," Vietnam era students would not have protested the war research. 

But as for the education part, you asked a good question. What if the university grants some student a degree in chemistry,
and he uses it to make bombs which kill innocent people? I'd say no liability in that case, since 1) no possible way to
predict how that "education" would be used, and 2) preventing such education would likely do more harm than good.

Rather different, though, if the university is selling education to people who will use it to oppress another ethnic group,
and that is known ahead of time. 

[*michaelsean*]

It’s one thing to discuss politics with your coworkers. This is entirely different, and I’m sure someone had their phone out so they could put it on social media and show how awesome they are.

[Dill]

(04-25-2024, 12:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It’s one thing to discuss politics with your coworkers. This is entirely different, and I’m sure someone had their phone out so they could put it on social media and show how awesome they are.

People put their jobs on the line to show how awesome they are?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-25-2024, 08:05 PM)Dill Wrote: People put their jobs on the line to show how awesome they are?

I seriously doubt those payasos thought they'd actually lose their jobs.  Odd that we haven't seen a repeat of these protests at Google since.  You think they weeded out all the idiots?  Or did all of them left realize it's time to STFU while at work?