Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

I encourage folks to start surveilling Google employees in public who take part in civil disobedience for progressive issues, and demand they be fired. Companies exist to get work done, and CA is an at will state.

This won't get fixed ("its okay to fire someone if they don't align with my opinions") until everyone has had their proverbial nose bloodied.

Disclaimer: Progressive myself.

View on HN

It sounds like you don't understand why he was fired. Hint: it wasn't because of his beliefs per se. It was more likely because of his repetition of gender stereotypes that impeded his ability to work effectively with his peers.

> It was more likely because of his repetition of gender stereotypes

I keep hearing this line parroted, but that's not how the situation played out, and you either are inadvertently or maliciously being disingenuous.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but there are facts, and those facts aren't congruent with the narrative.

How are the facts incongruent with the narrative you object to?

Generally people who support this guy focus on only the bits of fact the memo author relied on: they ignore the context and his application of alleged facts. That's what you did, for example.

> they ignore the context and his application of alleged facts.

You're projecting what isn't there. Again, part of the problem.

No, I'm not projecting anything.

It is ok to fire someone if they don't align with the company's opinions in CA. It really is.

Advertisement: Progressive myself.

To check the full extent of CA's reasoning: Is it ok to fire someone who fights for LGBT, black or women's rights, because it doesn't align with a company's opinions?

It is.

If they do it on company time perhaps, otherwise you have no case at all.

Your opinions and beliefs aren't just on company time, and that's what this gentleman was fired for; his beliefs after presenting research that accompanied his reasoning.

Gulag indeed!

That's the best part! You don't need a case because all employment is at-will.

Just enough dirt, or supposed dirt, to frame a person in a negative enough light that the company considers them persona non grata.

It's a real problem that you can't tell the difference between what people do on their own time outside of work, and what they do at work, in a work forum.

If JD had posted his diatribe online on his own personal blog, there'd be a lot of discussion about it but he'd probably still be employed at Google.

The problem is that he posted his diatribe on a company forum. Legally, he forced the company to fire him and refute his words or else be treated as adopting his words as their own. (And yes, that is how workplace harassment laws work in the US. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Congress, not Google.)

> The problem is that he posted his diatribe on a company forum. Legally, he forced the company to fire him and refute his words or else be treated as adopting his words as their own. (And yes, that is how workplace harassment laws work in the US. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Congress, not Google.)

So, correct me if I'm wrong: You're saying that any comments, writings, or ideas Google leaves up on their internal message boards is them providing implicit support or endorsement of said writings? Because it seems like if that's the case, obtaining the contents of those forums or message boards would provide ample work for a stable of employment lawyers for years.

Take note Google employees who are currently feeling fearful and "non-compliant" with Google's corporate stance. Maybe its time to sit down with an employment attorney who works on contingency while rolling through online forum posts.

Brendan Eich was fired for things he did outside of work. There are plenty of cases of request for retaliation on the professional environment for things done outside of the professional environment (for example, the OpalGate).

> If JD had posted his diatribe online on his own personal blog, there'd be a lot of discussion about it but he'd probably still be employed at Google

Not so sure:

"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to participate within them."

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22violations+of+this+code+outside...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com