Why are so many people ok with a world where you have no say in what your employer does, and they can do whatever they want to suit their bottom line?
Though I wonder how much of this is actually corpophilia and how much is people hiding behind it because they don’t want to say “I’m glad these people I disagree with got fired”.
Here are some threads to show what I’m talking about:
r/conservative (though this one feels like cheating)
etc…
There’s a weird implicit conservancy in tech circles around the dictatorial nature of corporate leadership.
It stems from this weird externalization of corporate decision making that just turns everything that happens at large companies into the machinations of the unknowable machine of capital.
“Of course they were fired, they protested in a way that disrupted the business, if the business is disrupted the machine must correct itself, and it did so by releasing the corporate anti-bodies of leadership to fire the disruptive element. Thus the machine is corrected. This is all logically sound, and thus impervious to moral inquisition.”
People who don’t stand up for their beliefs are comforted by seeing those that did, punished. It’s best for them personally if they’re quite and obedient, and this is confirmation of that bias.
Hacker news is full of people LARPing as corporate crisis management officers, or counsels for the defense. Every post you get about “company caught grinding up babies to fuel forever-chemical cancer machine” will get a ton of posts by people arguing that actually it’s a net positive for the world and how could anyone be against such amazing innovation?
They’re neither crisis managers, nor counsels. The correct term is astroturfers. They all have some vested interests in doing so.
It’s a fun coincidence to me that corpophilia is one transposition away from a literal scat fetish. They may as well be the same thing, honestly.
Democratize corporations.
I kinda made that word up lmao, it’s not in the dictionary
first of all, you lost me when you pointed to reddit.
second, they protested not just within the office, but in the personal office of one of the higher-ups. If you blockaded your CTO’s office as a means of protesting world hunger, I don’t think that would go well for you either.
If my company was helping perpetuate world hunger and I blockaded their office, I hope to God you wouldn’t be gleeful at me getting fired
Not gleeful - just fully understanding why.
I admire their principled stand. They had to know it would cost them their jobs but chose to do it anyway.
Their firing isn’t a surprise and is fully reasonable by the company. I hope they get great jobs elsewhere, where their morals will be appreciated… But there are very few workplaces that give a damn about morals.
At least we all agree that google is a piece of shit company.
Lets be clear, there’s a difference between “reasonable” and “expected behavior” and it’s an important one.
It’s both reasonable and expected.
We can discuss if a corporation deserves to exist but granted that it does: it is implicitly reasonable that it deserves to maintain its premises and staffing in a way that is conducive to business.
Now if you want to talk about corporate structures and the dissolution of capitalist enterprise that’s a different story.
But in today’s world and with today’s rules it is entirely reasonable.
I’d argue corporations should strive to represent their employees. Corporations don’t deserve to maintain anything, they aren’t people and have no ethical status either.
Nonetheless you’re working double time to make sure the use of ‘reasonable’ with all its connotations is seen as acceptable here. Making sure everyone knows that you think this is normative.
We will not reach a common ground.
I’d argue corporations should strive to represent their employees.
That’s not a corporation that’s a co-op. I think cooperatives are great. Corporations less so.
Corporations don’t deserve to maintain anything, they aren’t people and have no ethical status either.
Ethical status isn’t what I’m talking about here: I’m talking about legal protections for entities. A corporation is an entity and has legal protections.
Again we can discuss if capitalism should be the system we use but as long as it is then corporations will, by definition, have legal status and protections.
Nonetheless you’re working double time to make sure the use of ‘reasonable’ with all its connotations is seen as acceptable here. Making sure everyone knows that you think this is normative.
It’s absolutely mundane and normal. It’s unnatural but not strange.
I’d rather the system didn’t work like this: but it is entirely expected given the laws that govern the nation in which this occurred.
And that’s by definition normative.
We will not reach a common ground.
You went from talking about concepts to directly attacking me. I wouldn’t expect you’d ever come to a truce with someone you see as an enemy. I’m sorry you feel that way.
I hope to God you wouldn’t be gleeful at me getting fired
I wouldn’t be “gleeful”, but I can definitely see why the company was within their rights to fire you.
This is like those nutbags who shut down a highway to protest the environment or something, then accuse the police of being un-environmental when they’re invariably arrested.
Shutting down the highway when the planet is literally burning up seems like a very obvious sign of outrage and great restraint as to not get violent despite that outrage, dont you think?
Arresting protestors during a largely ignored crisis which they protest seems kind of inhumane, no?
This is not at all like world hunger.
I still have zero regrets after walking away from my very very old reddit account. I torched everything I ever said, ground it into ash, stomped on it again, and then deleted my account. I still have my /. account though.
Those offices are usually locked down anyway, on floors where the unwashed masses aren’t granted access. Hell, if you want to even be on a call with someone like the CTO you’ll have to reach out to three different entities, book a specific room, and reach out to that person’s team of assistants to ensure everything is aligned.
If they got access to the CTO office they definitely broke in, or evaded security in some way. That alone at any company will get you fired, and probably arrested.
Source: Once attended a meeting with a SVP at a big tech company. I genuinely think it would be easier to meet the president.
I assumed that once we accept we’re being extorted (work for us or fail to survive) it’s a short step to acknowledge we don’t get a say in what the company does.
Instead we acknowledge we’re occupied like Vichy Paris and spit in the boss’ coffee.
All the big companies were pro-torture and pro-containment and pro-overthrowing South American democracies and pro-great depression poverty (at least, pro-Hoover doing nothing about it and blaming it on public laziness). Go far enough back, and they’re pro-monarchy. The Heritage society is actively working for just that.
Will the annihilation of the Palestinian people be enough to get the global public to scream enough! and act to overthrow the ownership class? Will they, then tremble before communist revolution? I doubt it. Even as civil rights are rolled back in the US and five-eyes nations, we carry on.
Even as industry pollutes the climate until it is uninhabitable, we carry on…
…Until the hour we don’t. But I don’t know when that will be, whether in days or decades.
I agree with you. People are gleeful and smug about the firing. I’m proud of the people who stood up against a contract that will only bring death and destruction to the world and I am ashamed of those that smugly revel in their firing.
Yeah, I don’t understand a place in the world where I fit that allows that kind of shitty behavior. I have a direct line to the founder of the place I work at. He gives a shit and listens when I give voice to a problem.
Isn’t that called “capitalism gone bad”? The principles of capitalism and that story about competitiveness is good but in a global economy where monopolies distort the market, by reflection you’ll have bending of rules which thrives thanks to a political class that is driven not by ideals, but rather personal interests and ego. Those that have the poet will abuse it. I’m not surprised at all. What is worse is that peoples brains are becoming numb thanks to social media. We are not able to think for ourselves anymore.
Spend 10 mins on Blind, and you’ll see that once anonymous, people tend to be far more right-wing than you’d like to think.
I think it’s much more likely that right wing people are much more willing to voice their opinions when anonymous, that than anonymity makes people right wing. I think generally people on the left are more than happy to have people aware of their morality, but people on the right want to keep it quite that they’re assholes.
I completely support their right to protest, having attended many myself, as does the constitution. However, they were on the clock and on private property. They should have organized a protest outside, during off hours, if they wanted to protect their jobs. Circulating a petition wouldn’t have been a bad idea either.
Edit: OP shared this interview in a thread further down. It’s a first-hand account from a former employee. The employee stated that they were warned several times about pending arrest and violation of workplace behavior. I respect their commitment to their cause, but it was with full understanding that they were arrested and subsequently terminated.
I disagree, I think protesting during working hours is kind of the point, same as a union protest during working hours. It affects the corps bottom line, the only thing they care about.
I agree that it hurts the company more. Unfortunately, then they can legally terminate you for refusal to work. Even worse, you won’t even be eligible for unemployment after hearing.
It would be legally protected if they were protesting compensation or working conditions, or if they organized their concerns through a union representative.
Unfortunately, then they can legally terminate you for refusal to work.
I don’t think they’re being fired for “refusal to work”. There is a concept of “job abandonment” but one 9 hour period wouldn’t count. Typically you need several days of no contact/no show before you have considered to have abandoned your job.
This is more about at-will employment: Google has a right to fire an employee at any time for almost any reason, or for no reason. There have been people getting fired for posting pro-Palestine content to linkedin, which is completely legal in the US.
This isn’t a story of “employees overstepped a line and got fired” this is a story of “there is no line, companies can fire employees for almost anything and definitely for their political views regardless how respectfully they are expressed.”
Also going on strike is basically the definition of “organized refusal to work”
Your last sentence is correct. A strike against workplace conditions or compensation is protected. This was neither. Refusal to work while on the clock is grounds for termination as well as disqualification for unemployment benefits. There needs to be acknowledgment by the employee that they are refusing to work, and that the result of continued action would be grounds for termination. It does not need to continue for nine hours, and is a different termination reason than job abandonment.
I’m 100% behind protesting, but you need to know how to keep the law on your side.
These are almost certainly saleried, exempt employees with no “timeclock”.
They were fired for expressing a political opinion and doing so in a way Google did not like.
It is certainly legal for Google to fire them for this because it is legal for Google to fire them for almost any reason. But it’s also pretty certian that there is no way in America to protest your employer in a way where the law would protect you from retaliation.
By “on the clock” I mean during compensated scheduled working hours. It does not matter if you are an hourly or salaried employee. They were removed and charged with trespassing after multiple warnings from security, and warned in advance of the policy violation of the protest according to this employee interview.
You are protected by law if protesting working conditions or compensation during scheduled working hours. If you protesting anything else, it can be done during free time in a public space without employer retaliation.
I have been part of many protests, and am in complete support of them. The most important thing when organizing a protest is knowing your rights so you can keep the law on your side.
Their company, their rules. A union protest is a work activity directly relating to their roles, relationships, and functions as employees, which a political protest is not.
Google can suffer the public consequences on their own, which may or may not affect their bottom line.
To be fair, if you read the interview with one of the workers, they tried many less disruptive approaches before turning to a sit in. I don’t they risked their jobs without reason.
I’ve read two articles, but neither of them had that interview. Got a link?
Thanks. Interesting read. The employee stated that they were warned several times about pending arrest and violation of workplace behavior. I respect their commitment to their cause, but it was under full understanding that they were arrested and subsequently terminated.
deleted by creator
I’m upset about the people supporting google’s right to make money over any ethics. I’m upset at the idea that employees should have no say in what the company they work for does. I’m upset at people who think this is a good thing.
The specific repercussions they faced is another matter. But no, I don’t think they were fair. Quote
Yeah, this was retaliation, like completely indiscriminate—people who had just walked by just to say hello and maybe talk to us for a little bit. They were fired. People who aren’t affiliated with No Tech For Apartheid at all, who just showed up and were interested in what was going on. And then security asked to see their badge and they were among the 28 fired.
They had to reach out after the fact to tell us, hey, I was impacted by this.
So like, if you were in a restaurant and ordered food, but it never came because a couple of the servers were blocking food from being served because the company wasn’t taking a strong stance against abortion, you’d think “these good people are taking a moral stand, good for them! The company better not take any action against them to make sure I get my food!”
Or for that matter, if Google stopped all cooperation with the IDF, the company’s Jewish employees could (in fact should) disrupt business because Google was supporting terrorism?
It seems to me that you can only support forms of protest you’d be willing to accept when the other side uses them against you. Basically the golden rule.
I’m not sure why you think actively working with the IDF is a passive act, but not working with them is actively supporting terrorism, but it undermines any argument you’re trying to make
Makes it easy to dismiss my argument without bothering to think about it, you mean. Just take abortion, then. Or “tax is theft”, or right to bear arms, or any of a thousand other beliefs you probably don’t agree with.
why yes, having an improper argument makes it easier to dismiss. This isn’t like a typo or missed word that you can say I’m trying to weasle out of talking with you, it’s a completely skewed perspective on the situation that makes it impossible for us discuss because we’d effectively be having completely different arguments.
deleted by creator
Blanket? Not at all. In this specific case I wish Google faced the repercussions rlinstead of the employees.
