Tech workers and Google leadership have both been very naive. Tech workers for believing that they can have influence within a company when it really matters, Company leadership for going along with it, and maybe even believing it by themselves at times.
Unless the CEO gets a mandate from the board and shareholders saying that It's OK to take financial hit because employer activism inside the firm is so important, it's all patronizing and empty talk.
There are only few ways employers can do political action inside a big company when labor laws are weak.
1. Quitting.
2. Unsanctioned agitation (getting fired if caught)
3. Sabotage (risking getting charged if caught)
The normal way is to act as a private citizen outside the company.
A union formed on the basis of supporting one side of controversial global political issues with no direct connection to the wellbeing of the union workers seems like it would be on pretty questionable footing
I didn't mean that workers form a union specifically just for this. But rather than they form a union for their own protection in general, and then stand in solidarity with others.
This would be far from the first time it happened. Some notable examples:
- The 1984 refusal of US and Canadian dockworkers to unload South African cargo in protest of the apartheid government
- The 2019 The NYT Taxi Workers Alliance's work stoppage to protest a Muslin Ban
- The 2020 work stoppage from the ILWU in support of BLM
I tried my best to not editorialize the title and still make it fit. Full original title is, "Sundar Pichai tells Google staff he doesn’t want any more political debates in the office after firing 28 employees over Israeli contract protest".
I agree with the stance that companies like Google, Meta, et al are taking. Politics, like religion, should be strictly a personal matter and not be used to push a personal belief onto a larger group. As the GP noted, one is free to leave their employer if they don't agree with the latter's policies; they can't (and shouldn't be allowed to) force their viewpoints on others.
Tech workers and Google leadership have both been very naive. Tech workers for believing that they can have influence within a company when it really matters, Company leadership for going along with it, and maybe even believing it by themselves at times.
Unless the CEO gets a mandate from the board and shareholders saying that It's OK to take financial hit because employer activism inside the firm is so important, it's all patronizing and empty talk.
There are only few ways employers can do political action inside a big company when labor laws are weak.
The normal way is to act as a private citizen outside the company.Or, obvious #4: form a union and stand in solidarity.
A union formed on the basis of supporting one side of controversial global political issues with no direct connection to the wellbeing of the union workers seems like it would be on pretty questionable footing
I didn't mean that workers form a union specifically just for this. But rather than they form a union for their own protection in general, and then stand in solidarity with others.
This would be far from the first time it happened. Some notable examples:
- The 1984 refusal of US and Canadian dockworkers to unload South African cargo in protest of the apartheid government
- The 2019 The NYT Taxi Workers Alliance's work stoppage to protest a Muslin Ban
- The 2020 work stoppage from the ILWU in support of BLM
It happened in the past in Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Dalfram_dispute)
Union workers on the docks refused to load Pig Iron which was being sent to Japan, this was whilst Japan was committing atrocities in China.
I tried my best to not editorialize the title and still make it fit. Full original title is, "Sundar Pichai tells Google staff he doesn’t want any more political debates in the office after firing 28 employees over Israeli contract protest".
I agree with the stance that companies like Google, Meta, et al are taking. Politics, like religion, should be strictly a personal matter and not be used to push a personal belief onto a larger group. As the GP noted, one is free to leave their employer if they don't agree with the latter's policies; they can't (and shouldn't be allowed to) force their viewpoints on others.
Byline date: April 22, 2024
I sure hope they shut down industryinfo, that hive of scum and villany.