“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

fly_agaric wrote: »

Google is a wealthy corporation, a massive centre of power in the West. It is just pushing the current (most popular) creed/ideology that is espoused by the "masters" (the way the people in charge used to be god fearing Christians once upon a time); they can't have one of their minions going and rubbishing the holy faith in a document that comes out in public.
I suppose the theories and scholarship behind these ideas came out of the left but f-me I just have a very very hard time accepting it when I see the likes of Google (or MS, or Apple or any other of these massive tax clever tech MNCs) described as "left wing"!

It's yer classic entryist tactic. You find a polarizing issue that has traction and use that as a trojan horse for your own agenda. The workers party and the socialist party both have used this in Ireland in the past. Bannon and Breitbart use it too.

The whole feminism/minority cause is as close as you'll get to an article of faith across the liberal middle class so it was perfect for this. It also has the benefit that the university radicals who espouse it are absolved of their own privilege (wealth) through this issue.


Companies are absolutely terrified of being accused of discrimination against women and minorities. The media are guaranteed to run with it. That's why you saw a concerted effort to push the idea (regardless of the reality) that there is a lack of diversity in the technology sector as the tech demograph are so sensitive about it. As a result you now you have entire depts of social justice warrior types across the sector dictating policy. Anyone who questions the bat **** craziness at the heart of their ideology can be witch hunted like this schmuck

The thing is ordinary people eventually cop onto these loons

wes wrote: »

You actually think that Google didn't consult there army of lawyers, when firing this guy? He doesn't have a leg to stand on, especially when he is based in a "at will" state. I don't need to be an expert, to understand that a big company wouldn't take a decision like this without consulting there lawyers. Its common practice.

Again read up on at will employment:


I don't need to be an expert to understand the above, and you have yet to provide on what grounds what Google did was illegal. Just vague stuff about "clever legal" teams.
.

lol, remember what phrase I used when I said the guy has a case: Discussion of terms of employment. Guess what kiddo?

The benefit of having a few miles on the clock is that you've been around the employment law block a bit so you can spot the spoofers like your good self


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html?recirc=taboolainternal

"First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions. The purpose of the memo was to persuade Google to abandon certain diversity-related practices the engineer found objectionable and to convince co-workers to join his cause, or at least discuss the points he raised.

In a reply to the initial outcry over his memo, the engineer added to his memo: "Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired." The law protects that kind of "concerted activity."

Second, the engineer's memo largely is a statement of his political views as they apply to workplace policies. The memo is styled as a lament to "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.
Danielle Brown, Google's newly installed vice president of Diversity, Integrity, & Governance, made it clear that the engineer's memo does not reflect "a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages."
An employee does not have free reign to engage in political speech that disrupts the workplace, but punishing an employee for deviating from company orthodoxy on a political issue is not allowed either. Brown acknowledged that when she wrote that "an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions."

Third, the engineer complained in parts of his memo about company policies that he believes violate employment discrimination laws. Those policies include support programs limited by race or gender and promotional and hiring scoring policies that consider race and gender. It is unlawful for an employer to discipline an employee for challenging conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the discrimination laws. In other words, the engineer doesn't have to be right that some of Google's diversity initiatives are unlawful, only that he reasonably believes that they are.
Brown is correct that an employee has no right to engage in workplace discourse that offends anti-discrimination laws; employees may not engage in unlawful harassment under the guise of protected concerted activity or political grievances.
The lawful response to this software engineer's memo, however, appears to be continuation of the dialogue he started rather than termination of his employment."

Commentary by Dan Eaton, a partner with the San Diego law firm of Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek, where his practice focuses on defending and advising employers. He also is a professor at the San Diego State University Fowler College of Business where he teaches classes in business ethics and employment law. Follow him on Twitter @DanEatonlaw.