Nothing wrong with Google helping to secure our national borders and security. It’s a good business move and a good patriotic move.
I hate politics. But I hate misrepresentation of facts just as much.
What people fail to realize is:
1. that Trump inherited the Obama/Biden program of separating children from families. Lumping it all on one admin is ignorant.
2. that policy is actually not evil. It helps protect children from people who are not their parents actively exploiting them. A cnn interview with border patrol on this issue was quite eye opening.
3. Illegal entering a country is a criminal act. When you go to jail, your family does not Join you. It would be horrible to put the children back on the other side of the border subject to weather, starvation, dehydration, and exploitation by adults. So they are housed, nourished, and protected until the wrongs can be righted. It’s a difficult thing. But far from “evil.”
That said, these guys have a right to express a dissenting opinion and peacefully protest.
But if they were abusing their job responsibilities to do so, well, Google is not “evil” in firing them. They were “evil” in exploiting their employers Time and resources to accomplish their personal agenda.
Sounds like an entitled/frivolous lawsuit if there was one. They can disagree with their employer. But they still have to fulfill their job description. Snd when you violate that, there are consequences. Hopefully they learn from this.
That said, these guys have a right to express a dissenting opinion and peacefully protest.
But if they were abusing their job responsibilities to do so, well, Google is not “evil” in firing them. They were “evil” in exploiting their employers Time and resources to accomplish their personal agenda.
It'll be interesting to see all of the details in the case. In my eyes, a company which states this in its code of conduct:
And remember… don't be evil, and if you see something that you think isn't right – speak up!
should be supportive of people questioning things and raising concerns (even if management disagrees). At the very least, they should have had managers address the concerns of this group before taking further action.
Not to take Google’s side here but wouldn’t it be “evil” to not include someone. I mean what border patrol is doing is wrong in my opinion. But maybe border patrol doesn’t think that. Wouldn’t it be “evil” if google decided not to include them, just because they have a different idea of what is right?
So it comes down to what you’d do in a similar position. I don’t know for certain what I would do, but I do know that I wouldn’t go on a public campaign to shame the company for not living up to my personal concerns. Every company has public messaging that is aspirational, like claiming to be a “great place to work.” You know what, some of those companies turn out to be very shitty places to work. If that bothers you, hit the road and don’t look back. Or you can press the issue and get fired. But again, making a big public stink about it isn’t going to move the needle either way, and certainly not in your favor. Like is too short. Time to move on.
LOL. Imagine if the pioneers of the civil rights movement, or women's suffrage -- or prohibition! -- had a similar attitude: "Oh well, what can we do?" Nah. Make a public stink if you think it's something that matters to you. Maybe it will move the needle some. Maybe it will help down the line. Who knows. But giving up won't do anything, that's for certain.
… If that bothers you, hit the road and don’t look back. Or you can press the issue and get fired. But again, making a big public stink about it isn’t going to move the needle either way, and certainly not in your favor. Life is too short. Time to move on.
Well, I am deeply grateful for Martin Luther King and the countless brave souls like him that everyday stands up and speaks their minds—challenging the status quo ߙﰟｦlt;div>
—without them, development; change; optimism wouldn’t exist. Neither would individuality!
I share your gratitude for Martin Luther King.
I also share your enthusiastic support for individuality, which includes making choices about what battles you’re going to fight and taking individual responsibility for being an agent for change in the battle. These individuals were and still are completely free to pursue avenues to voice their displeasure with those they disagree with, which appeared to be the CBP in this particular case. However, individuality kind of goes out the window when the vehicle you are proposing to conduct your attack involves compelling your employer to put their ass on the line by taking drastic action against a high profile paying customer, especially one with megatons of political backlash armed and at the ready.
When Martin Luther King took on a cause he placed himself and his physical being on the front line and directly in harm’s way. He was willing to sacrifice everything, including himself, for the cause, got pummeled on many occasions, and paid the ultimate price. These three ex-Google employees wanted their employer to place the company and its shareholders in harms way by ostracizing a specific customer. What was the risk to the employees had Google complied with their wishes? Pretty low I’d say.
My whole point here is that the real battle being fought is over who within a company gets to decide which customers a company is able to serve with its products and services. These former employees wanted to have a say in those decisions. Google obviously disagreed, found fatal flaws in their tactics, or decided to try to work with certain customers as partners rather than to alienate them totally by ostracizing/canceling them.
In some ways this scenario played out in favor of the employees who were fired if indeed their primary objective is to bring attention to the social cause that they are championing. By breaking Google’s rules and getting canned they can now bring more media attention and personal time to the plight of the truly aggrieved, those victimized by the abhorrent CBP policy, which I assume is what they are in this battle for?
All of these millennial or Gen Z snowflakes are torpedoing their careers. They are going to wake up 10 years from now wondering how the f* everything up so bad
Wow. Imagine someone caring more about doing the right thing than caring about a job. You must not know the high tech sector, because doing something like this absolutely would not tank someone's overall career. It would more than likely just help filter their job search FOR them, eliminating companies they wouldn't want to work for anyway, and guide them to companies that would be a much better ethical fit.
All of these millennial or Gen Z snowflakes are torpedoing their careers. They are going to wake up 10 years from now wondering how the f* everything up so bad
God forbid anyone actual cares about anything except themselves. I'm hoping the movement towards ethical Capitalism, which there's a fair bit of support for even at the investor level these days, gains some momentum from cases like this.
All of these millennial or Gen Z snowflakes are torpedoing their careers. They are going to wake up 10 years from now wondering how the f* everything up so bad
God forbid anyone actual cares about anything except themselves. I'm hoping the movement towards ethical Capitalism, which there's a fair bit of support for even at the investor level these days, gains some momentum from cases like this.
People can care about what they want. People can do what they want. When they are in work, they need to do their job. If they don't like the company then leave and find one that aligns better w/their morals.
Imagine that "doing what they want" is "doing the right thing". When they're working doesn't mean forgetting who the hell you are. Put another way: use the line that corporations use with you: it's just business. But yes, you do your job by following the mandate that the company REQUIRED YOU TO SIGN OFF ON. Google required it. They signed it. It was a condition of employment. And Google fired them for it. That's the lawsuit.
I feel bad for people who say that keeping your head down and going with the flow and not making waves is the right thing to do OR ELSE things will get really bad in the world. HUH? How does that actually make any kind of sense? I applaud people doing the right thing. People who make sacrifices in doing the right thing used to be applauded universally. Now, it's people in the cheap seats who wouldn't ever step up that not only chirp about it, but try to make themselves the moral ones.
"If you see something you think isn't right, speak up!"
That corporate statement to employees should probably be taken down in light of the fact so many younger people today are self-professed social justice warriors or political activists who, rather then just going to work and getting paid for their labor, seek to use their company as a platform for political activism.
For example a large number of Americans support the Biden Admin on border protection policy, while about an equal number support the Trump Admin's policies. And that split is pretty much 50-50 across the US. So rather than get involved in that huge political mess, companies need to be more careful about encouraging their employees to get involved in social and political issues because the current polarization in American politics will always spark heated disagreements and fighting.
While some may argue the actions of corporate America are unethical (e.g., sales to the border patrol, in this particular case), it can also be argued that taking money from those corporations in the form of salary and then using your work environment to promote political change/activism too is unethical.
All of these millennial or Gen Z snowflakes are torpedoing their careers. They are going to wake up 10 years from now wondering how the f* everything up so bad
Wow. Imagine someone caring more about doing the right thing than caring about a job. You must not know the high tech sector, because doing something like this absolutely would not tank someone's overall career. It would more than likely just help filter their job search FOR them, eliminating companies they wouldn't want to work for anyway, and guide them to companies that would be a much better ethical fit.
It certainly reads a lot better than "bushwalking" or some other such sort of true thing we all put on resumes to show we are rounded interesting people.
All of these millennial or Gen Z snowflakes are torpedoing their careers. They are going to wake up 10 years from now wondering how the f* everything up so bad
Nothing wrong with Google helping to secure our national borders and security. It’s a good business move and a good patriotic move.
I hate politics. But I hate misrepresentation of facts just as much.
What people fail to realize is:
1. that Trump inherited the Obama/Biden program of separating children from families. Lumping it all on one admin is ignorant.
2. that policy is actually not evil. It helps protect children from people who are not their parents actively exploiting them. A cnn interview with border patrol on this issue was quite eye opening.
3. Illegal entering a country is a criminal act. When you go to jail, your family does not Join you. It would be horrible to put the children back on the other side of the border subject to weather, starvation, dehydration, and exploitation by adults. So they are housed, nourished, and protected until the wrongs can be righted. It’s a difficult thing. But far from “evil.”
That said, these guys have a right to express a dissenting opinion and peacefully protest.
But if they were abusing their job responsibilities to do so, well, Google is not “evil” in firing them. They were “evil” in exploiting their employers Time and resources to accomplish their personal agenda.
Sounds like an entitled/frivolous lawsuit if there was one. They can disagree with their employer. But they still have to fulfill their job description. Snd when you violate that, there are consequences. Hopefully they learn from this.
That said, these guys have a right to express a dissenting opinion and peacefully protest.
But if they were abusing their job responsibilities to do so, well, Google is not “evil” in firing them. They were “evil” in exploiting their employers Time and resources to accomplish their personal agenda.
It'll be interesting to see all of the details in the case. In my eyes, a company which states this in its code of conduct:
And remember… don't be evil, and if you see something that you think isn't right – speak up!
should be supportive of people questioning things and raising concerns (even if management disagrees). At the very least, they should have had managers address the concerns of this group before taking further action.
Completely agreed. The article seems to hint that the employees were using their work time to further their personal interests. I think that’s probably the dividing line. It’s great to have causes. And to fight for them. A great way to do good but also to learn along the way. Just be sure you honor your employers who pay you to do something that might not be in that same field of interest.
Sounds like these guys had a cause, whether right or wrong, and Google had a different opinion, which it’s also entitled to. And these guys started using their employer to pay them for pursuing personal interests. Never a good idea. The different ideology concerning googles contract is not wrong in and of itself. But if they were getting paid by Google to do one thing snd instead used that time to do something else, then they are the ones in the wrong. Not Google. And trying to use the “don’t be evil” line against them for simply terminating a poor performing employee who just so happens to also not like googles business dealings is a normal and healthy thing for the company to do. They aren’t getting fired for their opinion. They are getting fired for not doing their job.
All of these millennial or Gen Z snowflakes are torpedoing their careers. They are going to wake up 10 years from now wondering how the f* everything up so bad
Tech career über alles, eh? I'm sure there were some who said, "Those snowflakes really f* up by quitting their lucrative jobs at the Zyklon B production facility."
Lots of people, some with well-paying jobs, go through life without any principles or integrity. My guess is that they are the ones who are going to wake up 10 years from now wondering how the f* everything up so bad.
That said, these guys have a right to express a dissenting opinion and peacefully protest.
But if they were abusing their job responsibilities to do so, well, Google is not “evil” in firing them. They were “evil” in exploiting their employers Time and resources to accomplish their personal agenda.
It'll be interesting to see all of the details in the case. In my eyes, a company which states this in its code of conduct:
And remember… don't be evil, and if you see something that you think isn't right – speak up!
should be supportive of people questioning things and raising concerns (even if management disagrees). At the very least, they should have had managers address the concerns of this group before taking further action.
Completely agreed. The article seems to hint that the employees were using their work time to further their personal interests. I think that’s probably the dividing line.
We don't really know the details of what happened and how it was handled yet, so it's all speculation at this point.
One thing which does raise a red flag for me is the fact that they were fired for "leaking company information". If they were using company time to protest, one would think that they would be fired for not fulfilling the requirements of their contract of employment (or whatever the legal term for not doing your job is). But perhaps they grew disgruntled and truly did leak confidential information as a way to get back at the company. We'll find out in the trial.
All of these millennial or Gen Z snowflakes are torpedoing their careers. They are going to wake up 10 years from now wondering how the f* everything up so bad
Sad but true.
Ideals are great to have. But one of them should be to honor a contract. If your employer hires you to do a job, then do the job with all your heart amd earn that honest wage.
If you want to question their business dealings or other matters, go ahead. But do so using proper channels. Don’t try to bite the hand thst feeds you amd do it respectfully. Also do it on YOUR time. Not theirs. Otherwise… you get fired. Rightfully so.
"If you see something you think isn't right, speak up!"
That corporate statement to employees should probably be taken down in light of the fact so many younger people today are self-professed social justice warriors or political activists who, rather then just going to work and getting paid for their labor, seek to use their company as a platform for political activism.
For example a large number of Americans support the Biden Admin on border protection policy, while about an equal number support the Trump Admin's policies. And that split is pretty much 50-50 across the US. So rather than get involved in that huge political mess, companies need to be more careful about encouraging their employees to get involved in social and political issues because the current polarization in American politics will always spark heated disagreements and fighting.
While some may argue the actions of corporate America are unethical (e.g., sales to the border patrol, in this particular case), it can also be argued that taking money from those corporations in the form of salary and then using your work environment to promote political change/activism too is unethical.
Have to agree. Or at least qualify what you mean by “not right,”
there should be clearly defined parameters. Otherwise some people will go off the deep end with their own pet beliefs on everything from the color of something to politics, to how they feel the world should bow to their whims. That’s most likely what’s meant by the statement to begin with. They just never imagined the liberties people would take with it.
While some may argue the actions of corporate America are unethical (e.g., sales to the border patrol, in this particular case), it can also be argued that taking money from those corporations in the form of salary and then using your work environment to promote political change/activism too is unethical.
You got an important detail wrong. They believed that the actions of the border patrol were unethical. They didn't believe Google was unethical, but believed that selling software to the border patrol would make them an accomplice to those unethical actions, and so they spoke up about the fact that they disagreed with it (something which Google's code of conduct encourages them to do).
So no, the way you're trying to frame it as them being hypocritical (drawing a salary from an unethical company while protesting that very thing) is wrong.
That said, these guys have a right to express a dissenting opinion and peacefully protest.
But if they were abusing their job responsibilities to do so, well, Google is not “evil” in firing them. They were “evil” in exploiting their employers Time and resources to accomplish their personal agenda.
It'll be interesting to see all of the details in the case. In my eyes, a company which states this in its code of conduct:
And remember… don't be evil, and if you see something that you think isn't right – speak up!
should be supportive of people questioning things and raising concerns (even if management disagrees). At the very least, they should have had managers address the concerns of this group before taking further action.
Completely agreed. The article seems to hint that the employees were using their work time to further their personal interests. I think that’s probably the dividing line.
We don't really know the details of what happened and how it was handled yet, so it's all speculation at this point.
One thing which does raise a red flag for me is the fact that they were fired for "leaking company information". If they were using company time to protest, one would think that they would be fired for not fulfilling the requirements of their contract of employment (or whatever the legal term for not doing your job is). But perhaps they grew disgruntled and truly did leak confidential information as a way to get back at the company. We'll find out in the trial.
…Google said that the three had each leaked information, and had used "systematic searches" for information "outside the scope of their job."
the last part sounds like using company time and resources for something that wasn’t their job. That’s taking employer money snd not doing what the employer pays for. Terminable.
Leaking information is worse. Especially if they leaked it in hopes of building political pressure against the company that employs them. As if that somehow justifies the espionage. Talk about malicious. Prosecutable.
Put them both together and it’s “bye Felicia.” No need for trial. Basic “bad employee conduct” 101. People like that have no business calling others hypocrites for a “don’t be evil” slogan.
Hopefully a decent judge is in charge tosses this out before any more money is wasted on it.
Google is not on trial for doing business. And that’s all this amounts to. Google took on a contract. Good for them. These few may have disagreed with it, but that doesn’t mean Google was wrong. What clearly is wrong is industrial espionage from the inside and plain old not doing your job.
All of these millennial or Gen Z snowflakes are torpedoing their careers. They are going to wake up 10 years from now wondering how the f* everything up so bad
God forbid anyone actual cares about anything except themselves. I'm hoping the movement towards ethical Capitalism, which there's a fair bit of support for even at the investor level these days, gains some momentum from cases like this.
Bare minimum is enough. Excessive stress and we end up in socialism. I lived in it so, do not get me started. The outcomes are terrible on human lives so, as they say about something else "good socialist is..." I am not going to finish, but you can guess. And as far as ethical Capitalism that is what Carl Marx should have done instead of his dumb pile of garbage he wrote in "Capital" and published in 1853 just after capitalist revolution took place around the world and it did not have human face for many decades. then 20 century came with tens of millions dying form socialism of different forms starting from national socialism (Nazi) in Germany.
And my relatives escaped from the Ukraine to Canada in the 1930s when the Russian government annexed their farm lands (and caused Holodomor). It doesn't mean we should go to the opposite extreme and have blind faith in Capitalism. One can find many examples of similar human atrocities performed in the pursuit of profit (slavery being the example most close to home). How about we truly look at the world with a critical eye and with a level of compassion for others instead of having blind belief in economic systems?
And yet it was the capitalist countries that banned slavery and even went to war to end it.
back on topic, why are these dudes surprised that they got fired for indulging in politics on company time without their bosses’ agreement? And clearly, they accessed info on what companies Google was doing business with, which was not part of their job description and would certainly be considered commercially sensitive information. Game set match to Google.
Comments
1. that Trump inherited the Obama/Biden program of separating children from families. Lumping it all on one admin is ignorant.
2. that policy is actually not evil. It helps protect children from people who are not their parents actively exploiting them. A cnn interview with border patrol on this issue was quite eye opening.
should be supportive of people questioning things and raising concerns (even if management disagrees). At the very least, they should have had managers address the concerns of this group before taking further action.
I also share your enthusiastic support for individuality, which includes making choices about what battles you’re going to fight and taking individual responsibility for being an agent for change in the battle. These individuals were and still are completely free to pursue avenues to voice their displeasure with those they disagree with, which appeared to be the CBP in this particular case. However, individuality kind of goes out the window when the vehicle you are proposing to conduct your attack involves compelling your employer to put their ass on the line by taking drastic action against a high profile paying customer, especially one with megatons of political backlash armed and at the ready.
When Martin Luther King took on a cause he placed himself and his physical being on the front line and directly in harm’s way. He was willing to sacrifice everything, including himself, for the cause, got pummeled on many occasions, and paid the ultimate price. These three ex-Google employees wanted their employer to place the company and its shareholders in harms way by ostracizing a specific customer. What was the risk to the employees had Google complied with their wishes? Pretty low I’d say.
My whole point here is that the real battle being fought is over who within a company gets to decide which customers a company is able to serve with its products and services. These former employees wanted to have a say in those decisions. Google obviously disagreed, found fatal flaws in their tactics, or decided to try to work with certain customers as partners rather than to alienate them totally by ostracizing/canceling them.
In some ways this scenario played out in favor of the employees who were fired if indeed their primary objective is to bring attention to the social cause that they are championing. By breaking Google’s rules and getting canned they can now bring more media attention and personal time to the plight of the truly aggrieved, those victimized by the abhorrent CBP policy, which I assume is what they are in this battle for?
Wow. Imagine someone caring more about doing the right thing than caring about a job. You must not know the high tech sector, because doing something like this absolutely would not tank someone's overall career. It would more than likely just help filter their job search FOR them, eliminating companies they wouldn't want to work for anyway, and guide them to companies that would be a much better ethical fit.
Imagine that "doing what they want" is "doing the right thing". When they're working doesn't mean forgetting who the hell you are. Put another way: use the line that corporations use with you: it's just business. But yes, you do your job by following the mandate that the company REQUIRED YOU TO SIGN OFF ON. Google required it. They signed it. It was a condition of employment. And Google fired them for it. That's the lawsuit.
I feel bad for people who say that keeping your head down and going with the flow and not making waves is the right thing to do OR ELSE things will get really bad in the world. HUH? How does that actually make any kind of sense? I applaud people doing the right thing. People who make sacrifices in doing the right thing used to be applauded universally. Now, it's people in the cheap seats who wouldn't ever step up that not only chirp about it, but try to make themselves the moral ones.
That corporate statement to employees should probably be taken down in light of the fact so many younger people today are self-professed social justice warriors or political activists who, rather then just going to work and getting paid for their labor, seek to use their company as a platform for political activism.
For example a large number of Americans support the Biden Admin on border protection policy, while about an equal number support the Trump Admin's policies. And that split is pretty much 50-50 across the US. So rather than get involved in that huge political mess, companies need to be more careful about encouraging their employees to get involved in social and political issues because the current polarization in American politics will always spark heated disagreements and fighting.
While some may argue the actions of corporate America are unethical (e.g., sales to the border patrol, in this particular case), it can also be argued that taking money from those corporations in the form of salary and then using your work environment to promote political change/activism too is unethical.
Lots of people, some with well-paying jobs, go through life without any principles or integrity. My guess is that they are the ones who are going to wake up 10 years from now wondering how the f* everything up so bad.
One thing which does raise a red flag for me is the fact that they were fired for "leaking company information". If they were using company time to protest, one would think that they would be fired for not fulfilling the requirements of their contract of employment (or whatever the legal term for not doing your job is). But perhaps they grew disgruntled and truly did leak confidential information as a way to get back at the company. We'll find out in the trial.
there should be clearly defined parameters. Otherwise some people will go off the deep end with their own pet beliefs on everything from the color of something to politics, to how they feel the world should bow to their whims. That’s most likely what’s meant by the statement to begin with. They just never imagined the liberties people would take with it.
So no, the way you're trying to frame it as them being hypocritical (drawing a salary from an unethical company while protesting that very thing) is wrong.
the last part sounds like using company time and resources for something that wasn’t their job. That’s taking employer money snd not doing what the employer pays for. Terminable.
back on topic, why are these dudes surprised that they got fired for indulging in politics on company time without their bosses’ agreement? And clearly, they accessed info on what companies Google was doing business with, which was not part of their job description and would certainly be considered commercially sensitive information.
Game set match to Google.