Google has had enough with workplace activism?

[*michaelsean*]

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

They didn’t think for a second they’d be fired. But yeah they probably would. The lure of social media fame is insane these days.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-25-2024, 08:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They didn’t think for a second they’d be fired.  But yeah they probably would. The lure of social media fame is insane these days.

More likely is that the one's who lost their jobs *consider themselves martyrs to the cause*, sucks to be them as who is going to see them as valuable employees now.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-25-2024, 08:49 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: More likely is that the one's who lost their jobs *consider themselves martyrs to the cause*, sucks to be them as who is going to see them as valuable employees now.

That's a common theme on the pro-Hamas side.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Blooming idiots.

“To reiterate, every single one of those whose employment was terminated was personally and definitively involved in disruptive activity inside our buildings. We carefully confirmed and reconfirmed this,” the Google spokesperson said.

Do what you want on your own time, at work if you have objections, take it up with the boss in an email/petition etc but don't do stupid sit-ins and refuse to work. You are paid to work not protest. Besides the sit-ins and so forth make for a hostile environment so that the companies can be sued. So another reason to say "bye".

[CJD]

I don't blame Google. If something is disrupting productivity, you eliminate it.

The basic concept of capitalism is that every decision made is in the interest of maximizing profits (often at the expense of many other things) and, ideally, eliminating risks.

Corporations are really good at the first part.

[Dill]

(04-29-2024, 08:14 AM)CJD Wrote: I don't blame Google. If something is disrupting productivity, you eliminate it.

The basic concept of capitalism is that every decision made is in the interest of maximizing profits (often at the expense of many other things) and, ideally, eliminating risks.

Corporations are really good at the first part.

The bolded is the scary part. Corporations are really good at that too.

The frightening thing is how fast people adopt the corporate viewpoint in these conflicts
involving labor and politics.

People get in place quickly behind the boss.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-29-2024, 09:58 AM)Dill Wrote: The bolded is the scary part. Corporations are really good at that too.

The frightening thing is how fast people adopt the corporate viewpoint in these conflicts
involving labor and politics.

People get in place quickly behind the boss.

Are you defending the Google people that were fired? 

This is not a labor conflict. 

[HarleyDog]

(04-25-2024, 08:49 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: More likely is that the one's who lost their jobs *consider themselves martyrs to the cause*, sucks to be them as who is going to see them as valuable employees now.

Worse yet, they are now victims, as they will see it. Victims for standing up for what they believe in.

(04-29-2024, 01:08 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Blooming idiots.

“To reiterate, every single one of those whose employment was terminated was personally and definitively involved in disruptive activity inside our buildings. We carefully confirmed and reconfirmed this,” the Google spokesperson said.

Do what you want on your own time, at work if you have objections, take it up with the boss in an email/petition etc but don't do stupid sit-ins and refuse to work. You are paid to work not protest. Besides the sit-ins and so forth make for a hostile environment so that the companies can be sued. So another reason to say "bye".

HR is a nightmare. Trying to maintain an atmosphere where ALL workers respect one another is a difficult task. Googles actions are not so much unsupportive to anyone. They are in a catch 22. So, what do you do in this case? Eliminate the problem so you can return to a balanced workforce (which in not so many words, is the law).

(04-29-2024, 09:58 AM)Dill Wrote: The bolded is the scary part. Corporations are really good at that too.

The frightening thing is how fast people adopt the corporate viewpoint in these conflicts
involving labor and politics.

People get in place quickly behind the boss.

No, they don't. People want to work without all the chaos. Letting a few characters disrupt the workplace and make people uncomfortable is not good for the other employees. I guarantee that 100% of the company's employees don't agree with the protest message. This is pretty simple really when you think about it. Any fewer actions from Google could have created lawsuits for promoting a hostile workplace. It's not people taking the corporation's side. Google is doing the right thing for their employees and business, and also because a few thousand protestors across the college, and the few employees, don't speak for the rest of the country or company..

[Dill]

(04-29-2024, 06:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Are you defending the Google people that were fired? 

This is not a labor conflict. 

Yes.

But I'm also adding that often the same thing happens during labor conflicts.

Americans take the side of corporations for the same reasons: they don't want "chaos"
and businesses have to make a profit, workers have a right to work etc.

There is a rank order of priorities in this case as well that I don't agree with.
Labor shouldn't always be dissed for taking ethical stands against corporate greed.

In the late '30s, San Francisco longshoremen refused to load scrap Iron to Japan,
while the Imperial army was raping and butchering its way across China.
Then in the 60s they refused to load cargo heading to or from South Africa, and supported
divestment.

In '85 they were still doing it, and prompted Berkeley students to protest for
divestment as well. Many Americans, of course, were against that. Certainly Reagan was.

So this sort of protest isn't exactly new.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-29-2024, 10:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes.

But I'm also adding that often the same thing happens during labor conflicts.

Americans take the side of corporations for the same reasons: they don't want "chaos"
and businesses have to make a profit, workers have a right to work etc.

There is a rank order of priorities in this case as well that I don't agree with.
Labor shouldn't always be dissed for taking ethical stands against corporate greed.

In the late '30s, San Francisco longshoremen refused to load scrap Iron to Japan,
while the Imperial army was raping and butchering its way across China.
Then in the 60s they refused to load cargo heading to or from South Africa, and supported
divestment.

In '85 they were still doing it, and prompted Berkeley students to protest for
divestment as well. Many Americans, of course, were against that. Certainly Reagan was.

So this sort of protest isn't exactly new.

I understand what you are wanting to say, but this instance is not the same. 

I will stick up for employees (and I think most will agree as well), not being paid Overtime Correctly, or forced to miss lunches/breaks or other workplace law violations including OSHA violations and so on. In most of those types of cases, the Corp knows what they are doing is wrong but choose to do it, so I don't feel bad about the hammer coming down on them.

This instance is not a Law Violation of any kind other than the activists were disrupting the general workforce and creating a hostile environment. If you were a Jew working there, and they were protesting AT YOUR PLACE of EMPLOYMENT INSIDE None the less, not outside on their own some place where you can avoid, you can't avoid going to your place of employment. 

What Law did Google violate by firing them?