Hacker News Reader

Comment by reactordev | Hacker News Reader

Rule number one of being a rebel. Don’t do it at work. Protest all you want in the public streets where you have freedom of assembly. You do NOT have that freedom within a corporate office building. Regardless of employer. A few firings and maybe they’ll get the message to take it outside.

I empathize with people wanting to speak out over something they are passionate about. I do this often. Just know your venue and know your audience. Bridges take a while to build…

View on HN

At almost every company I've worked over the years, I had to go through countless mandatory annual trainings that effectively says expressing opinions on non work related subjective political topics with coworkers/employer is not advisable, risky and can be grounds for termination in extreme cases.

Either these people genuinely believed there was scope for discussion, or believed their opinion/choice of topic is a PR minefield that their employer wouldn't dare take action or they really wanted to get fired.

I'm not from the US. So, unless I'm missing some cultural context, their actions like political activism at work (unless related to labor issues and laws) are unthinkable atleast in my country.

Those trainings are mandatory but usually done via an edutech platform that is basically just a QuickTime movie. Ethics, compliance, corporate policy, it’s just a 30 minute video you play while you do something else and then click the obvious multiple choice answers for 100%. Then forget everything in a week.

Lately it’s been those 2D animations using canned software and AI voice over because that’s cheaper than actually giving a damn. Animaker I believe.

This was most certainly work related. It was about a Google contract which is 100% related to Google and workers at Google.

But a company isn’t a democracy. They don’t have a right to protest it.

If they as employees refuse to work (what they’re paid to do), then the employer has every right to fire them. They aren’t forming a union or something.

This is not universally so, but as far as I can see in the US it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

I don’t follow.

You’re saying that there are countries where there could be an employee that does all this stuff (refusing to din their day to day job) and potentially politicizes the public image of the company and the company couldn’t fire them?

Not talking about fairness or morality. Just legality.

These aren’t whistleblowers either.

It's a stretch to call it work related for the person protesting. If it were, the simple act of not working would be sufficient protest against the opposed work.

What country and what company made you undergo these "countless" training sessions? I suspect you are making stuff up.

it was front and center in every US non-FAANG employee handbook and sexual harassment training I went to.

No thanks. I'm not really keen on doxxing myself.

But hey, if you are an IT employee and haven't had to go through those annoying trainings I'd be surprised and a little jealous.

Well, if you aren't keen on doxxing yourself you shouldn't use arguments that require the reader to trust you. Internet is full of liars who claim to be everything from astronauts, to law professors, to IT employees who have gone through "countless mandatory annual trainings that effectively says expressing opinions on non work related subjective political topics with coworkers/employer is not advisable". I have not gone through "those annoying trainings" and since you can't offer a single shred of evidence for their existence...

> Internet is full of liars who claim to be everything from astronauts, to law professors,

And bitter people too I suppose.

I'm honestly shocked you're skeptical about this

Because I'm very used to well poisoners and their lies. As in this case, the liars can't offer any corroborating evidence and implicitly demands that you should disprove their lies. Which of course is impossible. Eventually, the lies become so entrenched because they aren't questioned that people like you become shocked when others disbelieve them.

I work for the US government. The trainings are real. I don’t remember this exact verbiage but similar for sure. The grounds of harassment basically constitute whatever the claimed victim feels to be so. For example, (and this is from training), saying goodmorning, commenting on hair, not saying good morning or not repeating back, and more. I just skip through but it’s an in depth asynchronous training supplemented by multiple live events.

Edit: and lest I be accused of harassment, good morning or -silence- to everyone according to your preference!

Ps Also our calendars are provided by the equal employment opportunity office and have helpful quotes each month on what is harassment and what is going to happen to you if you do it!

PPS in addition to multiple asynchronous trainings and live events and calendars it’s also plastered all over the buildings, bathrooms, and break rooms.

PPPS we also get emails regularly from top level secretaries and directors and I think there may be dedicated months as well to increase awareness.

Final: I sound bitter here but I agree harassment is bad but the level of psychological programming makes my stomach turn. Anyways yes it’s real.

Even if what you claim is correct (which I doubt and you aren't going to offer any evidence), it is irrelevant since you are working in the US and they are not. Moreover, their claim was about "expressing opinions on non work related subjective political topics" while yours is about what constitutes harassment. And this is perhaps what they experienced too. They are told that when someone says "hi" they should reply with "hi", but on the Internet this is blown way out of proportions to be about how every job they ever been at tried to stifle political speech.

Extremely common in corporate America. I had to click through more of them than I can count, luckily the service my employer did it through would let you skip to the end of the videos and blow through it faster. I don't understand why routine CYA being done is so hard to believe.

United States. Every 6 months, mandatory courses exactly as GP described. If you refuse, you don't have a job. This is so absolutely normal for most tech and finance companies, and has been for years, that I'm utterly astonished that you believe the GP is making it up. Hell, even my fast food working niece has to do these courses!

>> Rule number one of being a rebel. Don’t do it at work

By doing it at work, they are risking high paying jobs, putting their careers at risk. In public.

Risking something for a protest is the whole point. To the extent that they do that with their eyes open, risking high paying jobs, they are heroes.

If they do that thinking the people who control Google will be fine with that and they will still keep their jobs, they are, well, without jobs.

Their actions achieved nothing of consequence. I don't see how that makes them "heroes", even from the point of view of someone that supports their views.

>> Their actions achieved nothing of consequence

They drew attention to their cause, you're talking about them. You're talking about their cause.

>> even from the point of view of someone that supports their views

What views of theirs do you support, exactly?

There is such a thing as bad publicity.

Tell that to Kristi Noem...

There's such a thing as bad publicity for Google also.

there's also the fact that google will just keep being used by nearly everyone. at the same time, for the now fired employees, having "was a google employee" in their resumes will help them land a new job

So long as they never mention why they are a former Google employee. Instead of a current one.

This is accurate. HR doesn't want protesters on staff, and HR often googles candidates, checks social media, etc.

They may find sympathy at some businesses, but the larger the company, likely the less of that.

I think it really depends on the company. There are a lot of companies out there with a wide range of values. Some might even consider this a quality that they want in a candidate (it will certainly eliminate them from consideration for some companies though).

That’s true! Some might even be more inclined to hire you based on your stance on the matter and that you protested. Good point. Just saying it’s not the best light to show why you were let go. I stick to the canned “We were over-resourced and so there were layoffs” is an easy blanket statement.

I doubt the majority of companies will consider it desirable even if they happen to be in political agreement with you --- because people's beliefs change over time.

> They drew attention to their cause, you're talking about them. You're talking about their cause.

You almost got it. We are talking about them… but not about their cause.

And therein lies the gold: they found a cause that they can use to scream look at me me me.

Sadly for them, I don't know any of their names, couldn't care who they are, and their protest will vanish from the news cycle in a few hours ... forever.

I suspect this is the same for everyone, even those who may be discussing Google's response.

So they may have wanted a "me me me" response, or they may have legitimately wanted to raise awareness, but it's a pretty large fail for a now strongly narrowed career path.

> Their actions achieved nothing of consequence.

They accomplished me never responding to Google recruiter emails and informing others in my network to avoid Google where they can be fired for happening upon a protest at work.

That might make them Google's heroes.

I would say google is more than okay with that.

Then they shouldn't be suing imo. Suing implies they think they shouldn't have been fired, which means their risk was not intentional. So they're not heroes.

In a just world they wouldn't have been fired for speaking out for what they did.

That's purely based on personal opinion though. I'm sure you could find people with the opposite opinion, that in a just world they would be able to go to work and do their job without having political debates forced on them.

Or alternately, one could easily say that in a just world a person would leave their when they disagree with the company rather than making a spectacle out of it.

You can find people who disagree with me about allowing mixed race couples, but it isn't meaningful to say that it's "purely based on personal opinion". You might as well also comment on how I used air to breath while writing it.

No one was stopped from going to work. There were no "political debates" going on, much less "forced" on people.

I swear you guys are just making stuff up to get mad at. I feel like there are real problems you could be worried about, like the people in Rafah. Instead I see a lot of chuffing about a gathering of noisy people. Whatever makes you feel good about your time on earth, I guess.

I had seen reports that there were people disrupting others trying to work in the office. I also expect that those protesting weren't talking about the weather, they would have been raising the issues they are there to protest.

Call it what you want I guess, but that is IMO stopping work and engaging in political debate.

I'm not sure why you reach for a straw man argument about air or mixed race couples, neither of those are relevant here at all and just make your argument weaker.

Edit: also to be clear, I'm not sure who the "you guys" you're referring to are and I'd rather not be lumped in with some larger group for my opinion on one specific situation. I'm also not looking to be angry about anything and am in no way angry about this. I can have opinions without it throwing my mood out of whack.

Then cite those "reports". Otherwise you are just contributing to the misinformation.

Most articles circulating widely have included quotes from Google that the protesters that have been fired were physically disrupting those at work. I didn't expect that to be a contentious reference without a source, but sure here's one - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/google-fires-more-worke...

To be clear, I'm well aware those are quotes from Google's PR department. I'm not taking them as true and was primarily building off other comments here. I think I covered that well by making sure I including "if true ..." caveats, not sure what else you'd want from me here other than to agree with you.

"We continued our investigation into the physical disruption inside our buildings on April 16, looking at additional details provided by coworkers who were physically disrupted,"

So that is what Google, one party to the conflict, claims. Not something independent sources have verified. I'm pretty sure the protestors deny that anyone was "physically disrupted". Edit: You have updated your comments. My point is that it is unfair to default to believing Google and disbelieving the protestors.

The only update I made above was an explicit "Edit:" note a couple comments up, but that was before you commented here. I haven't changed any context or points I raised, in case that was a concern.

And again to be clear, I'm intentionally not trusting only Google and I called that out when I included a source (as requested). I don't think I've been misleading or unfair here, I'm not quite sure what you're taking issue with at this point.

> I swear you guys are just making stuff up to get mad at. I feel like there are real problems you could be worried about, like the people in Rafah. Instead I see a lot of chuffing about a gathering of noisy people. Whatever makes you feel good about your time on earth, I guess.

This is a bit revealing. If you can't see anything but "us vs them" that's fine, but many people are a lot more objective and less trival than that. And that's why we'll win.

(Kidding about the last part. That's tribal lunacy.)

Yes, employees should be fired for trespassing.

There's no philosophical dilemma here. Each participant in the conflict is using the tools at their disposal to get what they want.

The protestors want change from the company. So they protest. The company wants to shut them up. So they fire everyone.

The protestors still want change, now plus compensation. So they sue. Not suing makes no sense, as it concedes defeat and gets them no closer to their goals.

> Suing implies they think they shouldn't have been fired

Not necessarily. Unfortunately law suit as media event is a thing now.

> Risking something for a protest is the whole point.

I can think of a number of protests that didn’t involve risking one’s career, livelihood, or life - that were pretty successful outside the workplace. Inside the workplace, it’s not a public venue and you don’t have the right to occupy offices and sit ins and disrupt work while expecting the company to pay you for that time.

Get realistic. They aren’t heroes. They are trespassers. Disruptive ex-employees that cost the company money. Now if they did this right outside Google offices on the streets, that’s a different story all together. That’s a public place. However, many states have at-will employment so if the company feels you no longer represent their interests, you’re done. Bye. Doesn’t matter the cause.

Sure, agree, but what about the employee in the article who wondered onto the 10th floor to check out the protest. That person wasn't actively protesting. And that person gets fired. That's not right.

Guilty by association. Again, at-will employment means they can justify it however they want to and it’s totally legal. Unless the individual is part of a union…

No, at-will employment means they don't need to justify it, however, should they decide to - then the "justification" needs to be true and legal.

> Rule number one of being a rebel.

Don't work for the Empire.

Let me fix this for you

> Rule number one of being a rebel

Work for the Empire. Just don't be surprised when you get fired, but complain about it anyway, because why not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com