Good! Check your political beliefs at the gate when you walk in. If you don't like what your employer is doing, you are free to quit. It's a 2-way street.
Every 2 weeks your employer settles their debt to you. This is a transactional relationship. If you choose to accept a paycheck, you have to accept the rules and regulations that come with working at that place.
If the company is doing something illegal, you are welcome to file a whistleblower complaint and take it up with the authorities.
Most people are not fully free to quit, having rent to pay, a work visa to maintain, or other circumstances.
Most software jobs are not paying their workers a salary for them to become soulless robots. They are paying you to produce code, and to have expertise on the matters at hand.
In a sense, you're getting paid so that you can tell your employer "No, this feature isn't quite right, it's easier to code this way".
This black-and-white "if you accept a salary to code, you also must turn off your brain and become a mindless automaton for your owners, or else quit" is ridiculous, and reality will always have more complexity.
You're of course welcome to willingly turn yourself into a robot slave in exchange for money, but I will remain a free opinionated human, regardless of whether I am taking a paycheck or not, and if the company does not want a human, they can fire me and try to replace me with someone like you, or with an AI.
disagree, strongly. you present a false dichotomy. you can be a human with a soul and disagree (strongly) with your employer and still take their salary to do your job. it's not your job to decide how the software you build is used - there's several democratic governments, shareholders, company officers, etc. that get to decide that. when you are an employee that is the deal you made when you decided to work for them.
> Most software jobs are not paying their workers a salary for them to become soulless robots. They are paying you to produce code, and to have expertise on the matters at hand.
agree. totally true. notice how they are specifically not paying you to protest global political issues in their executive offices.
> I will remain a free opinionated human, regardless of whether I am taking a paycheck or not, and if the company does not want a human, they can fire me and try to replace me with someone like you, or with an AI.
again, totally understandable and fine.
however, these people are not just "opinionated". they decided to stage a "protest". that is NOT what they were being paid to do. and they decided to protest their own employer. on that employer's property. you are free to have your own opinion about your employer, his politics, his customers, etc. you are not free to stage a takeover and make a public protest about it on his property. you are not free to disagree publicly and embarrass or harass him and then expect he will not hire someone else next week instead of you. if you don't like it: buy a majority position or run for office. if you really can't stomach it, then the only ethical thing to do is quit - you can demonstrate your conviction by sacrificing yourself. but you have no right to injure/annoy/bother anyone else about your political ideas at work.
from a pragmatic standpoint, that was stupid. from a practical standpoint, it will do nothing to help their cause, quite likely damage it instead. it doesn't demonstrate good ethics, "having a soul" or anything like that. it demonstrates incredible immaturity, entitlement, and naivete.
Why is any of this true? All you're doing is setting the meta-rules, but who gave you this special freedom to define the rules for others?
I mean, that's the conceit of your argument. It's the rhetoric of political belief which is why "check your beliefs at the door" is a completely disingenous argument. The very argument you and others offer is foundationally a political belief - a belief about what are freedoms - masquerading as something everyone should uncritically accept as given. That's the lie that you are telling to yourself and others.
it is a belief. it's a belief in actual freedom - one where we are free to decide whether to do business or not with who we choose. if we choose to contract with a FANG for lots and lots of money, but we have "sell our soul" and promise not to harangue the CEO in the mens' room, that's OK. if we choose not to promise that, for much less $$, that's also OK.
and checking your beliefs are the door is a strawman. you're allowed to have beliefs. you're even allowed to voice them, discuss them in a professional way. they do not have to be hidden. but you cannot harass/annoy/intimidate/etc. but if you still do not like those rules, that's fine too! don't sign up for them - leave.
if you were really principled in your beliefs, you would NOT "check them at the door" - you would not work there nor participate. but you can't have it both ways AND then claim moral high ground too.
Sit-in protests have been long established as a legitimate expression of political speech for decades. "harassment/annoyance/intimidation" have also always been considered legitimate (up to the point of violence, usually) and no political action has ever had any effect in which the protestors kept their place and politely made certain never to upset the status quo.
Read MLK's letter from the Birmingham Jail[0], and his opinions on white moderates telling black protestors where and when and how they should conduct themselves. You're backing the wrong side, here. It may be correct in a purely legal sense that American companies can fire anyone for any reason, but it isn't necessarily just when they do so to punish nonviolent political protest.
sorry, but a peaceful sit-in in a public place or semi-public-place (shop, college etc.) is one thing.
in this case they were:
- not-peaceful. damaging property. antagonizing people.
- in a private space. in a private office in a private space.
- in the employ of the very people they were protesting. OK, even if they had the right to be there (which they did not), the company still has the right (moral and legal), actually imperative, to fire them.
i don't agree that you need to "check your opinions at the door" at work. you can put up a poster or a flag. you can wear a t-shirt. within reason. you CANNOT harass your employer or other employees.
would you say the same: "it isn't necessarily just" [to be fired] if it were 24 KKK members protesting hiring H1Bs in otherwise exactly the same manner? if you can't, it isn't a protest, it's thuggery.
Comparing this to Civil Rights protests is disingenuous.
Google is a company. They are lawfully transacting with a US ally. The employees violated the terms of their employment and Google has no legal obligation to keep those employees.
If the employees want to change the law to add Israel to a sanctioned blacklist they can go protest the US government and they won't be arrested or fired. Their rights to political protest are protected.
It's really not that complicated. Employees are allowed to have their political beliefs. Believe whatever you want to believe, while doing the job you are paid to do. Their employer can choose to fire them if they behave unprofessionally. That's what happened.
If you have rent to pay or a visa then the reality of the world is that you should think twice before you cause a disruption and deface the property of your own employer. This does not make you a robot, but rather a pragmatic person. We have freedom of speech here but it does not mean free from consequences - something the right has been struggling with as of late and it seems now the left also.
It's fairly easy to google. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
So is free from government consequences not people that can form a mob, not other entity that has power over an individual. To me it just sounds like you privatize social credit score from authoritarian government. "You are free to speak and the government can't knock on your door but by god the rest of the people will dox you and make sure that you can't find a job ever and be a homeless for the rest of your life(short one I hope).". There is no freedom of speech in america or any were. Freedom of speech is dead.
Are you that daft that you truly believe you can say anything you want with no social or other consequences? You can't walk down the street insulting people and not expect society to disapprove of that - and the consequences that come with it. Being ostracized, losing your job, etc.
Yes, that would be freedom. Losing your job is a little to harsh for insulting people on the street. If you didn't do it on the job or job related then you should not lose your job. If you insult me now and I find out who you are and call your company they should not fire you for insulting me.
Yeah I get that, but just plain old belief of right and wrong regardless of your feelings or political opinions, that's what justice stands for, not the murky thing we have made it now to serve the elites
Hamas is wrong, that's my idea of justice. I suppose your idea is the opposite, how do you think this should be settled in a workplace? Maybe it shouldn't be settled in the workplace.
My idea isn't even remotely related to right or wrong about Hamas or the other party, you need to break it down to the root problem as to why does an organization like Hamas exist? When you get to that point you have your answer and you can get to justice from there.
Your idea of why Hamas exists in the first place, or rather what Hamas really wants to achieve will be different than mine, so we will reach different conclusions.
If I went to my boss's office, refused to leave ... for ten minutes let alone ten hours ... and harangued him with my opinions of how he is completely unethical in choosing to do business with some very lucrative customers, it couldn't be confused with anything other than quitting. I wonder if there was a different expectation among the Googlers sitting in.
They managed to successfully do this thing - change company policies - in the past, they didn't perceive the change in tone and morals of the company in the last 10 years.
I'm skeptical that the consensus among employees is that Google should abandon this project and make less money.
I am part of a union where a few people showed up to a meeting to endorse a resolution on IP. The resolution passed at the meeting, and they then set an email message to the rest of the union (thousands of people) saying they wanted to hear from more people than just those that could show up on the weeknight meeting. Presumably the resolution failed because I never heard about it again.
The union made no message of any kind on the issue, which is good by me since I do not work for a company that has any business making international political endorsements.
I have no idea what the polling would be if you asked all Google employees, but it doesn't mean much to me that 28 people out of 25,000 in SF have this opinion.
Civil disobedience is a legitimate tactic. If you oppose something, you can protest against it. Openly, under your own name. And accept the consequences. Getting fired in this case.
To the same end, when you hire human beings anticipate them standing up for what they believe in and occasionally inconveniencing your immoral business practices. Humans on both sides, opinions and your right to voice them on both sides.
From my experience, the best performing companies foster a culture of ownership. Owning the features/products you work on, the team you work with, and, to some extent, the company as a whole. The other limit is a completely detached and mercenary workforce. This is also a part of the reasoning behind ESOPs.
The fact that those people didn’t feel like they had any other way of voicing their disagreements with the company’s direction (and having them heard), does not bode well for the long term future of Google. Loosing passionate people that care deeply enough about your company to criticize it is seldom a good thing.
> Check your political beliefs at the gate when you walk in.
Did you know, that's actually a political belief. I'm happiest when my coworkers who agree with you practice what you're preaching. That is, I'm glad if you're able to keep that drek to yourself on the job.
In truth you need to check political beliefs that aren't in line with the company's. My previous job, many were very vocal supporters of Israel and that tolerated, support for suffering Palestinians was not. It needs to wholesale. Accept all political discourse or none.
Some corporates in sillicon valley have (had? wanted to have?) an aura of being more than just money making corporations. Mission, values, we're diffferent, we're the familly, don't be evil, all that crap. I guess some employees took the company bullshit seriously?
You can easily blame the company for bullshitting the employees, too. :)
> Check your political beliefs at the gate when you walk in
Why? How? It’s unreasonable to suddenly flip a switch and turn off your beliefs when you walk through a gate.
> Every 2 weeks your employer settles their debt to you. This is a transactional relationship.
Agreed but this doesn’t mean…
> If you choose to accept a paycheck, you have to accept the rules and regulations that come with working at that place.
…that you don’t have a say in your company. A company is the sum of the individuals that contribute to it. Some have more sway, especially in leadership, but that doesn’t mean folks can’t band together and influence their work place.
> If the company is doing something illegal, you are welcome to file a whistleblower complaint and take it up with the authorities.
Individual contributors have moral obligation that they are conscious of their contributions. Some groups drill this in: Doctors enforce this through the Hippocratic oath, Canadian engineers have the Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer.
However, I believe the obligation applies to everyone. Otherwise, imagine all the atrocities individuals can contribute to by just following orders[0].
That’s not adulthood. What you’re describing is impossible. You can’t suddenly change your beliefs as you enter or exit a gate. You can choose to suppress your opinions, and you may be okay with that. But that’s the same thing.
Every 2 weeks your employer settles their debt to you. This is a transactional relationship. If you choose to accept a paycheck, you have to accept the rules and regulations that come with working at that place.
If the company is doing something illegal, you are welcome to file a whistleblower complaint and take it up with the authorities.