i***a
发帖数: 4718 | 1 By firing engineer, Google shows what you can say — and what you can't —
at work
BY TRACEY LIEN
August 8, 2017, 8:40 p.m.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-94287890/
In a country known for its reverence of free speech, in a state strict with
labor codes, in an industry steeped in libertarian and progressive ideals,
if an employee has something to say, he should just be able to say it, right?
Not quite, as one Google employee learned the hard way when he was fired
Monday after writing and internally circulating a memo in which he
criticized the company's diversity efforts as unfair and discriminatory.
When the memo became public, women and under-represented groups in tech
decried it and Google denounced it. But by Monday night, after Google fired
the engineer, claiming he’d violated the company’s code of conduct, the
conversation shifted. Some in tech were incredulous that someone could lose
his job for expressing dissent. People took to Twitter: Whither free speech?
The thing about free speech
One thing many misunderstand about the 1st Amendment is that it only
protects the public’s right to free speech from government censorship —
meaning it doesn’t apply to the relationship between private employers and
employees.
“The 1st Amendment is actually irrelevant because the language says, ‘
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,’ so it only
restricts what Congress may do,” said Matt Oster, an attorney with Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin. “An employer is pretty free to restrict
what its employees may say, as long as it doesn’t run afoul of other rules
.”
It’s a different story for government workers, who get 1st Amendment
protections in the workplace because their employer is, well, the government
. But for employees of non-government organizations, there is no blanket
free speech protection.
So what protections do employees have?
Employees have protections under the National Labor Relations Act and, in
California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, among other laws. These
acts protect certain classes from discrimination based on categories such as
gender, race, sexual orientation and national origin. Specific to
California, political affiliations are also a protected class, which means
an employer cannot take disciplinary action against an employee for his or
her membership in a political organization, or for holding certain political
views.
There are also other laws in California that carry non-retaliation
provisions, which means if someone makes a complaint about work conditions
— whether it’s workplace discrimination or unpaid overtime — an employer
cannot fire him or her for expressing those opinions.
“The person complaining doesn’t even have to be right,” Oster said. “
They only have to make their complaint in good faith.”
In the case of James Damore, the sacked Google employee, he accused Google
in his 10-page memo of resorting to discriminatory practices in its quest to
diversify its workforce. He argued, among other things, that creating
programs and mentoring opportunities for women or people of certain ethnic
groups creates a “high priority queue” for “diversity candidates,” and
that the company shows more scrutiny toward “any set of people if it’s not
‘diverse’ enough,” but doesn’t show “that same scrutiny in the reverse
direction.”
He also accused the company of alienating people with conservative views.
Whether an abitrator or jury will determine that Damore's complaints qualify
for protection under California labor laws is yet to be seen.
“I have a right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my
working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is
what my document does,” he said in an email interview with the New York
Times.
Damore told Associated Press on Tuesday that he was fired for “perpetuating
gender stereotypes,” and that he considers his termination illegal because
he had already filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board.
He also said he was exploring his legal options.
What’s Google’s case?
While Damore could argue that his termination was a violation of the
National Labor Code or the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Google could
counter that he wasn’t fired for views protected under the labor code,
legal experts said.
Employment attorneys were quick to point out that in his own memo to
employees, Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai acknowledged that parts of
Damore’s memo were “fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority
of Googlers disagree with it,” potentially setting the company up to defend
itself against accusations of quelling unpopular opinions.
Instead, Pichai focused on the “portions of the memo” that violated the
company’s code of conduct, such as when Damore stereotyped women by stating
that women on average were more neurotic and prone to anxiety, making them
less compatible with tech’s work environment.
Google’s options
Once Damore’s memo went public, Google had two options, said Adam Galinsky,
a professor of management at the Columbia Business School: stand by the
employee, or fire him.
“The most important thing was some decisive, strongly worded action had to
be taken by Google because of the firestorm this created,” Galinsky said.
Despite the potential for Damore to take legal action, Galinsky believes the
company did the right thing, particularly in light of the cultural shift
taking place in Silicon Valley, where discriminatory behavior is
decreasingly tolerated.
But in addition to taking a moral stance, employment attorneys believe
Google took a wise legal stance, too.
“The company has a responsibility to take appropriate, corrective action,
and an employer has an obligation to prevent any conduct that creates a
hostile work environment,” said Genie Harrison, an employment law expert at
Genie Harrison Law Firm.
“It’s a fair business decision, because imagine if they retain him, they
send him to some kind of sensitivity training, they bring him back to the
workplace, and two months from now the guy is working with female employees
and he says something sexist,” Harrison said. “Those women are going to
have robust potential cases against Google, because they will argue that
Google knew that he was sexist and didn’t take appropriate action [to
prevent him] from doing it again.”
Damore supporters took to Twitter to debate Google's decision, describing it
as a case of political correctness gone wild, and painting Google as an
authoritarian organization that didn't allow for dissenting or unpopular
views. Some techies also thought the memo, in which Damore wrote that
biological differences between men and women are the reason some women might
not excel in the tech profession, made fair points.
"You don't fire a biologist for noting that the SRY protein could result in
social/cognitive differences as if he were promoting harassment," Eric
Weinstein, the managing director of Thiel Capital, said on Twitter.
Things might have been different
Damore published the memo on Google’s internal platform. If he, or any
employee, for that matter, had published his memo externally, in his own
time, on his own website, without using any of Google’s resources, things
might have played out differently, employment attorneys said.
That’s because California has a statute in the labor code that says an
employer cannot discipline an employee for conduct that is not illegal, and
takes place outside of working hours, not on work premises, and not using
work equipment.
Would there still be a kerfuffle about the memo? Probably. But Google would
probably have a harder time firing him.
If Damore moves ahead with a legal case, his fate, as well as those of his 3
,411 words, will ultimately be decided by an arbitrator or a jury.
“It’s not like there’s a black-and-white test you can use to say if this
sort of thing is protected or not,” said Eve Wagner, a partner at law firm
Sauer & Wagner. “This definitely falls in a gray area. It’ll be an
interesting case to follow.”
[email protected]
Twitter: @traceylien | a**********t
发帖数: 631 | 2 LA Times tried very hard to be balanced, yet the article still shows its
bias when it comes to quoting of "expert opinion". | a********9
发帖数: 3813 | 3 看看LA Times 下面的分析
"While Damore could argue that his termination was a violation of the
National Labor Code or the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Google could
counter that he wasn’t fired for views protected under the labor code,
legal experts said."
有 Google could counter 这句话 ， Google 本身就已经输了。
这种解雇人， 如果不是100%的有理， 就得赔人钱 让他走。
到了 could counter 的地步。 这官司就没完没了啦。
with
right?
【在 i***a 的大作中提到】
: By firing engineer, Google shows what you can say — and what you can't —
: at work
: BY TRACEY LIEN
: August 8, 2017, 8:40 p.m.
: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-94287890/
: In a country known for its reverence of free speech, in a state strict with
: labor codes, in an industry steeped in libertarian and progressive ideals,
: if an employee has something to say, he should just be able to say it, right?
: Not quite, as one Google employee learned the hard way when he was fired
: Monday after writing and internally circulating a memo in which he
| a********9
发帖数: 3813 | 4 ”Whether an abitrator or jury will determine that Damore's complaints
qualify for protection under California labor laws is yet to be seen.“
笑死人了， 现在Google 要等待 abitrator or jury 来决定它开除员工是否合法了。
任何个公司开除人，只要有一点风险，都会拿钱封口。
Google 的CEO 劈柴 就是个大草包 。
with
right?
【在 i***a 的大作中提到】
: By firing engineer, Google shows what you can say — and what you can't —
: at work
: BY TRACEY LIEN
: August 8, 2017, 8:40 p.m.
: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-94287890/
: In a country known for its reverence of free speech, in a state strict with
: labor codes, in an industry steeped in libertarian and progressive ideals,
: if an employee has something to say, he should just be able to say it, right?
: Not quite, as one Google employee learned the hard way when he was fired
: Monday after writing and internally circulating a memo in which he
| n****g
发帖数: 14743 | 5 公司大了，神马地方都漏风
【在 a********9 的大作中提到】
: ”Whether an abitrator or jury will determine that Damore's complaints
: qualify for protection under California labor laws is yet to be seen.“
: 笑死人了， 现在Google 要等待 abitrator or jury 来决定它开除员工是否合法了。
: 任何个公司开除人，只要有一点风险，都会拿钱封口。
: Google 的CEO 劈柴 就是个大草包 。
:
: with
: right?
| r***i
发帖数: 9780 | 6 呵呵，这个开除恐怕不是ceo直接干的
开个员工还不至于让ceo来决定吧
十有八九是底下负责的左渣下黑手结果搬起石头砸了自己脚
因为以前左渣们搞这种运动式样的政治正确封人嘴从来都是无往不利
【在 a********9 的大作中提到】
: ”Whether an abitrator or jury will determine that Damore's complaints
: qualify for protection under California labor laws is yet to be seen.“
: 笑死人了， 现在Google 要等待 abitrator or jury 来决定它开除员工是否合法了。
: 任何个公司开除人，只要有一点风险，都会拿钱封口。
: Google 的CEO 劈柴 就是个大草包 。
:
: with
: right?
| s******s
发帖数: 2721 | 7 根据这个报道，貌似很有可能是CEO干的：
https://www.recode.net/2017/8/10/16125452/google-sundar-pichai-fire-james-
damore-diversity-memo
【在 r***i 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，这个开除恐怕不是ceo直接干的
: 开个员工还不至于让ceo来决定吧
: 十有八九是底下负责的左渣下黑手结果搬起石头砸了自己脚
: 因为以前左渣们搞这种运动式样的政治正确封人嘴从来都是无往不利
| a**********t
发帖数: 631 | 8 The problem with this incident is that more people are now aware that you
can no longer trust this company to distribute information to you and handle
all your private data. With so many SJWs working there, you never know
someday in the future whether they will use your private data against you,
as long as such act justifies their "progressive" course. | i***a
发帖数: 4718 | 9 So what protections do employees have?
Employees have protections under the National Labor Relations Act and, in
California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, among other laws. These
acts protect certain classes from discrimination based on categories such as
gender, race, sexual orientation and national origin. Specific to
California, political affiliations are also a protected class, which means
an employer cannot take disciplinary action against an employee for his or
her membership in a political organization, or for holding certain political
views.
这个反diversity的Damore 最后却是要拿保护diversity的法律来替自己辩护，够讽刺
的。
这家伙和Milo 有的一比。
handle
【在 a**********t 的大作中提到】
: The problem with this incident is that more people are now aware that you
: can no longer trust this company to distribute information to you and handle
: all your private data. With so many SJWs working there, you never know
: someday in the future whether they will use your private data against you,
: as long as such act justifies their "progressive" course.
| F**o
发帖数: 871 | 10 反diversity 不是不准别人说话。google的做法，是在公司内实行政治准入。不符合公
司领导层的观点，在这里是保守派的观点，说出来就会被开除。google应该改名为
liberal-google，在搜索主页上注明："we do not serve conservatives".
: So what protections do employees have?
: Employees have protections under the National Labor Relations
Act and,
in
: California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, among other
laws.
These
: acts protect certain classes from discrimination based on
categories
such as
: gender, race, sexual orientation and national origin. Specific
to
: California, political affiliations are also a protected class,
which
means
: an employer cannot take disciplinary action against an employee
for
his or
: her membership in a political organization, or for holding
certain
political
: views.
: 这个反diversity的Damore 最后却是要拿保护diversity的法律来替自己
辩护，
够讽刺
【在 i***a 的大作中提到】
: So what protections do employees have?
: Employees have protections under the National Labor Relations Act and, in
: California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, among other laws. These
: acts protect certain classes from discrimination based on categories such as
: gender, race, sexual orientation and national origin. Specific to
: California, political affiliations are also a protected class, which means
: an employer cannot take disciplinary action against an employee for his or
: her membership in a political organization, or for holding certain political
: views.
: 这个反diversity的Damore 最后却是要拿保护diversity的法律来替自己辩护，够讽刺
| | | p**j
发帖数: 7063 | 11 楼主有阅读障碍是不是？白男有个屁diversity保护？
as
political
【在 i***a 的大作中提到】
: So what protections do employees have?
: Employees have protections under the National Labor Relations Act and, in
: California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, among other laws. These
: acts protect certain classes from discrimination based on categories such as
: gender, race, sexual orientation and national origin. Specific to
: California, political affiliations are also a protected class, which means
: an employer cannot take disciplinary action against an employee for his or
: her membership in a political organization, or for holding certain political
: views.
: 这个反diversity的Damore 最后却是要拿保护diversity的法律来替自己辩护，够讽刺
| i***a
发帖数: 4718 | 12 Specific to California, political affiliations are also a protected class,
which means an employer cannot take disciplinary action against an employee
for his or her membership in a political organization, or for holding
certain political views.
再给有阅读障碍的你贴一遍。这事跟白男和种族有个屁的直接关系。
【在 p**j 的大作中提到】
: 楼主有阅读障碍是不是？白男有个屁diversity保护？
:
: as
: political
| i***a
发帖数: 4718 | 13 Google人家也要做生意。
【在 F**o 的大作中提到】
: 反diversity 不是不准别人说话。google的做法，是在公司内实行政治准入。不符合公
: 司领导层的观点，在这里是保守派的观点，说出来就会被开除。google应该改名为
: liberal-google，在搜索主页上注明："we do not serve conservatives".
:
:
: So what protections do employees have?
:
: Employees have protections under the National Labor Relations
: Act and,
: in
:
: California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, among other
: laws.
| p**j
发帖数: 7063 | 14 这里哪个词跟diversity有关系？楼主又暴露自己是英文白痴了。
,
employee
【在 i***a 的大作中提到】
: Specific to California, political affiliations are also a protected class,
: which means an employer cannot take disciplinary action against an employee
: for his or her membership in a political organization, or for holding
: certain political views.
: 再给有阅读障碍的你贴一遍。这事跟白男和种族有个屁的直接关系。
| F**o
发帖数: 871 | 15 正直的公司专注做生意，不是搞政治。现在两大科技公司，google 和facebook的领导
层，都在涉入政治斗争，站在liberals 一边。看看手机版google news，头上经常左边
华盛顿邮报，右边纽约时报置顶。它咋不改名anti-trump News呢。美国50%的保守派不
是顾客？
: Google人家也要做生意。
【在 i***a 的大作中提到】
: Google人家也要做生意。
| a********9
发帖数: 3813 | 16 你丫这个弱智 是不是看不懂英文啊 。
他是寻求对political affiliations 的保护， 和diversity 无关。
你能不能不要这么丢人现眼啊。
as
political
【在 i***a 的大作中提到】
: So what protections do employees have?
: Employees have protections under the National Labor Relations Act and, in
: California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, among other laws. These
: acts protect certain classes from discrimination based on categories such as
: gender, race, sexual orientation and national origin. Specific to
: California, political affiliations are also a protected class, which means
: an employer cannot take disciplinary action against an employee for his or
: her membership in a political organization, or for holding certain political
: views.
: 这个反diversity的Damore 最后却是要拿保护diversity的法律来替自己辩护，够讽刺
| a********9
发帖数: 3813 | 17 Google要做生意 ，就不要违反法律。
发信人: iviva (not again), 信区: USANews
标 题: Re: LA Times关于Google memo事件的全面分析
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 11 23:08:23 2017, 美东)
Google人家也要做生意。
【在 F**o 的大作中提到】
: 反diversity 不是不准别人说话。google的做法，是在公司内实行政治准入。不符合公
: 司领导层的观点，在这里是保守派的观点，说出来就会被开除。google应该改名为
: liberal-google，在搜索主页上注明："we do not serve conservatives".
:
:
: So what protections do employees have?
:
: Employees have protections under the National Labor Relations
: Act and,
: in
:
: California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, among other
: laws.
| i*****9
发帖数: 3157 | 18 确实不是呀，fiscal conservative 的显然受广告驱动的冲动消费比较少呀。
：正直的公司专注做生意，不是搞政治。现在两大科技公司，google 和facebook的领导
：层，都在涉入政治斗争，站在liberals 一边。看看手机版google news，头上经常左
边华盛顿邮报，右边纽约时报置顶。它咋不改名anti-trump News呢。美国50%的保守派
不是顾客？ | n********d
发帖数: 7676 | 19 保守派一般都不用谷歌。丢不起那人。还是百度好。 | F**o
发帖数: 871 | 20 其实美国政府应该考虑折分google. 比如搜索业务和视频业务。公司太大垄断，顶层
少数人的政治站队破坏性太大。关键它还是对外通过自己的垄断地位，比如搜索排名来
推行自己的观点，对内通过招聘解雇来排除不一致的观点。 | a**********t
发帖数: 631 | 21 Damore 可以用保护 whistle blower的法律提起诉讼。他自己说向HR complain过
potential illegal practice in diversity hiring，然后被炒。 | a**********t
发帖数: 631 | 22 而且你所谓的反diversity是左媒给他扣的帽子。他文章里面讨论了公司如何创造更多
的适合女性的工作职位来增加diversity。 |
|
