
Google Staffers Share Stories of ‘Systemic’ Retaliation - mastazi
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/google-staffers-share-350-stories-of-systemic-retaliation
======
lfcc
Perhaps I'm still too naive and innocent, but I don't think this represents
the overall reality of the company. A lot of people participated in the
protests mentioned and only two statements of retaliations were given (edit:
or at least leaked to the media), with "more than a dozen" shared during the
meeting in question. Given the sheer size of the company, if there was
"systemic" retaliation I'd expect these to be in the order of a few hundreds,
or many dozens at the least.

In addition, we're only seeing this from the perspective of those who feel
they were retaliated against because of those protests, with absolutely no
additional context or perspective of the managers/execs/peers (which I think
we will never obtain for rather obvious reasons).

Personally, I have found Google to have a really open culture of
communication. You're generally free to give your opinion. I'd be much more
afraid of retaliation from peers due to something I said being considered
offensive by some of them, than by an executive or my manager due to speaking
out against the way the company does things (which happens all the time and by
large amounts of employees). Of course that's just one experience and I may
have been lucky with my own team.

disclaimer: I recently joined Google but I'm only aware of these incidents
from media publications such as this and everything above is just my personal
opinion on the incident.

Edit: Added that "more than a dozen" other stories were shared in the meeting
according to the article, as I had originally missed that.

~~~
hobs
For each reporter - how many people do you think did not report? Do you
honestly think ALL people reported? If its not dozens unreported per one
report (or more) I'd eat my hat.

In my history of corporations, almost all bad behavior goes unreported because
those in power are doing the bad thing. It seems like Google is not different
in this respect.

~~~
falcolas
> For each reporter - how many people do you think did not report?

For group discussions with no negative impact, there tends to be a 1-9-90
rule. 1% of the group is highly active, 9% are somewhat active, 90% are
passive.

I believe it's safe to assume that similar ratios can be found in incidents
like this - 1% or fewer will go public, 9% will go to their colleagues, and
90% will suffer in silence.

~~~
rmc
> _For group discussions with no negative impact_

And remember, we're talking about _cases of negative impact_.

------
geodel
Google workers again showing that they do not plan to understand how google
really makes money because their salaries depend on not understanding it.

~~~
ergothus
...or they are trying to convince Google to find a different means of making
money.

~~~
cloakandswagger
And will destroy the company in the process.

They already sunk a large military contract and are setting their sights on AI
in general. If Google accedes to all the various pet issues of individuals
working there then they won't have a business anymore.

This is the risk of appeasement. Google (and every company for that matter)
should try a new stance: If you fundamentally disagree with the areas and
methods that our leadership has chosen for our business, then find a new place
to work. Working for a company while using it as a staging ground for a coup
against it is unacceptable.

~~~
crispyambulance

        > Google (and every company for that matter) should try a new stance...
    

The "stance" you describe is not a new stance at all. It is a very old one--
as old as working-for-the-man itself.

Perhaps it was pipe dream to actually believe the "don't be evil" pledge?

Whatever the case, the outrage of the dissents does seem cloyingly naive and I
find it difficult to feel sorry for them. Maybe it's time for people to learn
that "mega-corps" aren't exactly the best place for idealists after all.

It might be a good thing for google to shed some talent to the wind and see
what comes of it. Who knows, it might lower housing cost and seed many more
start-ups and small businesses with new people.

~~~
repolfx
New stance _for Google_.

As for "don't be evil" that became useless a long time ago, it was just an
invitation for everyone to describe their pet hate as "evil" even when that
was clearly over the top. When I worked there I routinely saw trivial things
like reskins of Gmail be described as evil (because we're ignoring feedback
from users who didn't like it!). The word became debased to the point that it
was worthless to even have such a slogan.

All the current issues are morally debatable at best, and simply not evil at
worst. Even if you consider the US military hopelessly bloated, for example,
is their view that the USA shouldn't have an army to defend itself at all? If
not, why not, and how is it consistent with wanting Google to not be involved
in such matters?

~~~
crispyambulance
I come to a similar conclusion as you but from an opposite side.

It really is morally indefensible that Google provide technology for military
drone warfare (for example). If someone working at Google finds that ghoulish,
it is their responsibility to speak up about it and leave (or be fired) if
that's what it comes down to. Lucky for them, they probably have plenty of job
prospects and don't "need" Google.

Similarly for the military, they're perfectly capable of funding and staffing
their own research centers on novel ways to incinerate human beings. Does a
surveillance capitalism platform really need to do that for them?

------
juanbyrge
I don't know the specifics here but I wonder if this is a
correlation/causation issue. If a bunch of people walked out, and afterwards
some of them feel mistreated for whatever reason, it seems easy to assume it's
retaliation. It could very well be some completely separate issue (reorg,
change in priorities, etc..). Google management is really in a bind here.

~~~
elliekelly
How often does a reorganization or "change in priorities" cause management to
force healthy and capable employees to take sick leave? Particularly at a
company with an unlimited sick leave policy.

It seems to me they're trying to "encourage" these people to leave rather than
fire them because that _would_ look like retaliation. Google management isn't
in bind, they're using the same playbook that has gotten them into trouble
time and again.

~~~
manfredo
About half the ex Google employees I've spoken to recently talk about projects
starting and getting cancelled frequently and often with little warning. It
would be suspicious if these events were limited to the people that protested,
but that doesn't seem to be the case. Not to mention, while raising complaints
about sexual assault would be protected, criticizing Google's decisions to do
military contracts and open in China are not. If the company doesn't like what
you're saying, and it's not specifically in one of those protected categories,
then the company can fire you.

~~~
elliekelly
You're absolutely correct that a company can fire you for expressing an
opinion but I think there's an important distinction that's often missed in
the discussion because these are white collar employees.

If an employee had simply made a public statement critical of government
contracts they could be fired for cause and it would be a non-issue (from a
legal perspective, at least). But where Google runs into retaliation trouble
isn't with _what_ the employees have said but with _how_ they're saying it: in
a group.

Employees have an affirmative _right_ under the NLRA to join together and
engage in "concerted activity" to advocate for their interests and to do so
_without interference or coercion_ from their employer.

It doesn't matter whether the employees are critical of sexual harassment or
the food in the cafeteria, if two or more of them are making the statement
jointly then the matter is far more complicated because the employees have
additional rights.

~~~
manfredo
> Employees have an affirmative _right_ under the NLRA to join together and
> engage in "concerted activity" to advocate for their interests and to do so
> without interference or coercion from their employer.

For discussing working conditions like better pay, better benefits, etc. Not
for getting on a soapbox and proclaiming that your employer is being morally
bad. Yes, it absolutely does matter whether the employees are talking about
sexual harassment vs. making moral criticisms of Google.

~~~
elliekelly
> Not for getting on a soapbox and proclaiming that your employer is being
> morally bad.

Criticizing management (for example, for soliciting and accepting government
contracts) and advocating for change to company policy (for example, to no
longer sell controversial technology to government entities) is well-
established protected concerted activity.

Additionally, political speech (for example, "we don't support selling
controversial technology to government entities") is also protected when there
is a direct nexus between the political speech and the employees' interests
"as employees." (The NLRB was feeling lazy the day they came up with that
definition...)

Recently the NLRB ruled that a company wrongfully fired employees in
retaliation for missing work to attend a pro-immigration protest. IIRC the
company hadn't even taken any actions against the employees (or in general)
that could be considered "anti immigration" but their group attendance of the
protest was protected concerted activity.[1] And the employees in that case
missed their shifts at work (generally a fireable offense) _and_ they weren't
even criticizing management - they were criticizing the federal government.

[1] [PDF Download]
[https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d458270d0e8](https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d458270d0e8)

~~~
manfredo
You should read your link in greater detail. The NRLB recommended taking the
employer to court in that case, but we'd have to see how that case plays out
to know whether firing employees for skipping work to attend a protest is not
legal. The NRLB is quasi-judicial, their word is not law.

------
erentz
I'm sure Google has never been perfect, but it used to sound like a great
place to work free from much of the bullshit that goes on in other companies.
I envied those that got to work there for that reason. I'm sure it's still a
long way from turning into an Amazon or Microsoft, but I hope it takes some
active measures to avoid sliding down that slope.

~~~
JeremyBanks
Is Microsoft still a bad place to work? My impression was that they've gotten
their act together over the past decade, and they're near the top of my list
for the next time I look for a job. Their strategy and execution seem a lot
better from the outside, but I don't personally know any employees to verify
what it's like to work there.

(I can personally attest to Google being a demoralizing catastrophe of
mismanagement, and many of the colleagues I most respected while I was there
have left in frustration or in protest.)

~~~
erentz
It definitely improved over the past few years. But a lot of the people who
made it to the top under the old system of bullying and undercutting your
peers are still in positions managing people, so you can still see a lot of
capriciousness, bullying, politicians hiring politicians, retaliation, so on.
Stack ranking is meant to be long gone but you still see managers handing out
zero ratings to teammates that clearly don’t deserve it.

~~~
danbolt
A few millennial classmates of mine (graduated ‘15 or so) say similar things
about the company culture. The previous systems in place and the existing old
guard have affected their experience working there too.

------
whoevercares
That’s what happens When Google hired Wall Street executives to manage their
actual business: all sort of politics and purging. Reducing cost by most
primitive capitalism means(just look at the quality downturn of google
cafeteria)

~~~
cobookman
Google's Cafe food has actually increased over last 4 years I've been at
Google.

MK Snacks are better. Coffee Better.

Its less cost cutting and more about logistics. You can't buy Mom & Pop
created chocolate for 60k Bay area employees spread across 100 offices. We'd
be consuming > 100% their supply. Most of the changes are around streamlining
our logistics in the bay area to single suppliers.

As for w-street's changes, its not all negative. E.g. When I First joined
google I heard of a team spending 10mil on an experiment by buying custom
hardware to test form factor...the same experiment could have been done with a
1000$ foam/clay/3d printed mockup. People like Ruth have tought many teams in
google to be more frugal.

~~~
rossjudson
Dear cobookman. You are batshit insane. I haven't seen a snack in an MK that I
actually wanted to eat in over a year. I am pretty sure many of the same
packages have been there for that entire year. I may start marking them with a
sharpie to confirm my suspicions.

~~~
cobookman
What office? Main campus in MTV is meh. But SFO / snv / the few smaller
offices in redwood City and Palo Alto have some great snacks.

I'd also recommend checking out the playa Vista office in the spruce goose
hanger.

------
cubaia
It's troubling that individuals developing AI applications at Google don't
have a voice to raise ethical flags or whistleblow.

~~~
cubaia
Well, forget about AI ethics.

I actually personally know someone who was retaliated at Google for raising a
basic OSHA violation..

~~~
jrockway
> I actually personally know someone who was retaliated at Google for raising
> a basic OSHA violation..

People are still complaining about not enough bathroom stalls? That issue has
gone on for so long that I feel like the original person that decided that was
an OSHA violation might be wrong. OSHA has had plenty of time to step in and
assess penalties, their lack of action is suspicious.

------
powera
There's a key difference being over-looked here.

Rank-and-file employees have strong legal protections against retaliation for
unionization efforts. Employees in management roles do not.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Google to attempt to transition union
organizers out of a management role.

Of course, "management" is a term that is extremely vague inside Google; at
least historically "Tech Leads" would not have been considered managers, so
there could be an extremely low proportion of the company in a managerial
role.

~~~
chrisseaton
> I think it's perfectly reasonable for Google to attempt to transition union
> organizers out of a management role

I wouldn't have thought managers would be welcome in a union in the first
place? Doesn't a union represent workers _against_ management?

~~~
duxup
In established US unions often anyone in a management role is not allowed in
the union.

Having said that unionizing activities are widely protected so ... talking
about a union and such is allowed broadly so it would come down to what the
actual established union rules would be.

------
idlewords
It's shocking to me that Googlers are using internal/workplace email to
organize. These discussions should be moved to a place that is outside
Google's reach—have them on Signal, Slack, ProtonMail, whatever. This in is
the 0.1% of cases where it's really ill-advised to be using Google tools for
organizing.

~~~
rmbryan
Can anyone think of a reason the organizers would have decided to use
workplace email for this?

~~~
silversconfused
It's honest. It's transparent. It's trusting. And it's protected by the law
and could easily accounted for during discovery for a lawsuit (not a lawyer,
do not play one on tv either).

~~~
idlewords
Being transparent and trusting towards your employer is fine as long as your
efforts are ineffective. Once they start to have an impact, it helps not to be
totally reliant on your opponent for your ability to hurt them.

Legal protections are not very helpful in a context where the other party has
unlimited legal resources and time is not on your side.

------
malvosenior
I know this isn't a popular opinion here, but the reality is that Google has
created a hotbed for activism, espoused very political opinions internally,
hired Twitter activists, played with identity politics, fired people for right
of center political discussion...

Now they are having their dirty laundry aired in the media (the same media
that is aligned with the social activists they've been courting). This was the
inevitable outcome of playing these games and they have absolutely reaped what
they've sown. Hopefully this will be a lesson other companies can learn from
and we'll start to see a return to "business" instead of
"activism+business+social media outrage".

------
username223
> the company’s lawyers urged the U.S. government to give companies more
> leeway to reign in rebellious employees from organizing over workplace
> email.

I'm all for tech workers organizing (or dare I say "unionizing"), but it seems
like a no-brainer to use non-work email. There are plenty of other free
options, including Gmail. If Google retaliated against an employee for
something they sent from a personal Gmail account, they would be in a whole
lot more trouble.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
It's likely you're missing why they're using work email: It's a way to
broadcast and promote the concerns to people who aren't already part of their
organized action. From what I've read, there's an incredibly large number of
not-work-related email lists internally at Google, they have somewhat of their
own private little Internet world there.

So "organizing" with their work email wasn't about "the organizers talking to
each other", it was about getting people to join the Walkout.

~~~
username223
You're right, I was forgetting about how Google is its own internet world. The
meat-space protections for labor organizers could reasonably apply to email
lists, and sending a message to some internal list is easier than putting up
flyers in the cafeterias.

Still, internal not-work-related mailing lists seem like a bad idea for all
involved. For an example that cut the other way, see jwz's "Bad Attitude" list
at Netscape, which got subpoenaed by Microsoft:

[http://www.wired.com/1998/09/microsoft-subpoenas-bad-
attitud...](http://www.wired.com/1998/09/microsoft-subpoenas-bad-attitude/)

------
0815test
This is old news. Wasn't there a prominent case of a Google developer alleging
that they were fired in retaliation for protected activity relating to
political beliefs as well as work conditions? I'm happy that this kind of
stuff is being taken more seriously this time around, but let's acknowledge
priority and credit, where credit is due.

~~~
diddid
that was my first thought as well

------
manishsharan
Unionize ! Unions are not just about pay. They are also an effective shield
against retaliation by management.

~~~
lr4444lr
Indeed. I never tire of the hypocrisy in how these allegedly "progressive" and
"left-leaning" tech companies resist unionization.

~~~
mikeash
Are they allegedly progressive and left leaning? I thought libertarianism was
the unofficial state religion of the SV elite.

~~~
lr4444lr
The top brass are probably as you say. The rank and file, at least as I read,
are quite sympathetic to causes and issues we'd generally say are politically
supportive of union formation. Why haven't we seen any serious effort from
within? Maybe it's not so bad over there. Maybe these "retaliation" stories
are few and far between, and we're only hear the employee's side of the story.

~~~
bradlys
SV in itself is this: I support things as long as it benefits me or doesn't
change my life.

e.g. Let the immigrants in! (But don't build any housing because then they
could afford it here) Global warming is real and we should do something! (Ok -
let's mandate solar panels on all /newly/ built homes) etc.

People here are very much self interested.

------
skybrian
It sounds like the issue is people in some sort of management or leadership
role who are also leading protests in the same area (AI ethics)? This isn't
exactly a conflict of interest, but it sounds like a conflict of something?

------
mruts
I’m not sure this is a problem. Of course a company is going to retaliate
against employees that are protesting instead of working. What did the
protestors honestly expect? That they would get promoted?

If I ran a company, and my employees were protesting decisions that I thought
were in the best interest of shareholders, I would first listen to them. If
after listening I still believed the course of action was correct I would have
no other choice but to punish/fire them. It’s not the protestors’ job or
responsibility to go around the company again and again instead of proper
channels.

At some point, your morality and the morality of corporations and capitalism
will always conflict. Is Google going into China a decision I like. No, it’s
not. Would I maybe be upset if I was a developer on a censored search engine?
Of course.

But is it the right thing to do for the shareholders? Yes! Of course. China is
a huge market and represents massive potential for Google. They have a moral
responsibility to maximize profits for their investors and that should always
be the primary mandate for companies (unless they are a B corp, like Etsy).

This will naturally conflict with personal morality, as it should, but
cognitive dissonance is always a given. The only question is whether you
recognize and accept or deny it’s constant presence in everything.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
The company also has a legal responsibility not to retaliate against workers
for engaging in concerted action. The obligation to maximize profit is
subordinate to the obligation to follow labor laws.

~~~
mruts
Only when following those laws in more profitable than breaking them.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Absolutely not. There is no precedent for a corporation being legally required
to maximize profits to the extent of breaking the law.

