I wish there was more negative backlash when Google retaliated against James Damore
The privilege to speak up against the status quo is important. Especially when you have less power, and even if your opinion is unsavory to some
The privilege to speak up against the status quo is important. Especially when you have less power, and even if your opinion is unsavory to some
Is it possible that Damore witnessed specific instance(s) of an explicit bar-lowering (or a trend for one team/manager) but no general policy at Google?
I am asking out of curiosity, I don't want to skewer or stick up for Damore.
In the summary: "we conclude that the memorandum included both protected and unprotected statements and that the Employer discharged [Damore] solely for [Damore's] unprotected statements. Therefore, the employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act"
In the Action:
"The Board has acknowledged that it has a duty to balance an employee’s statutorily-protected rights against an employer’s legitimate right to enforce its workplace rules and managerial prerogatives"
"In furtherance of these legitimate interests, employers must be permitted to “nip in the bud” the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a “hostile workplace,” rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action."
An earlier decision they quoted in the ruling: "In view of the controversial nature of the language used and its admitted susceptibility to derisive and profane construction, [the employer] could legitimately ban the use of the provocative [language] as a reasonable precaution against discord and bitterness between employees and management, as well as to assure decorum and discipline in the plant"
To me this sounds like they are saying that Google indeed retaliated, and it was legal for them to do so
We could have a big discussion about the definition of the word retaliation, and under a lot of very reasonable definitions it's fine to me if we don't call it "retaliation"
The point is, Google is an organization that acts and reacts within a hugely complex system. I wish it was more acceptable for their employees to critique them, even if these critiques are largely received as taboo
In your view, what action could they have taken other than "letting him do whatever he wanted" that would not have been retaliation?
Retaliation has the legal definition of a negative job action in response to a protected activity.
They explicitly found they did not do that.
Trying to redefine retaliation to include a negative job action in response to an unprotected activity makes the definition of retaliation include any negative job action in response to anything.
Well said.