I don’t see how allowing workers to use workplace email to organize can be equated to coercing speech. Worker protections in the U.S. are quite poor in relation to the EU. I see no evidence that further limiting worker rights would be good for the people.
It does get a bit absurd when extended. Can you not speak to someone in company buildings? On company property?
The logical rule seems like if if the communication doesn't have a direct impact on company operations (e.g. flooding email servers so other mail cannot be processed), then it's protected.
And the quote to the effect of 'This was a legal defense, not a position Google endorses' is... odd.
Most companies, even in the EU, say that workplace systems are for performance of job duties only. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily legally enforceable, but either way it’s a much more nuanced argument than it’s being portrayed as.
If I have a right to use company systems to organize a strike, how do they then account for those messages in their normal record keeping and compliance procedures? Do they also have to retain them for x years along with everything else? If they have some kind of mandatory audit procedure how do they separate those emails out so that they aren’t reviewed on a regular basis? If someone sexually harasses someone in what is not specifically a workplace communication but do it over company email how does that impact their liability? How does it impact what materials may have to be handed over for any kind of other lawsuit?
If I were going to protest the company who is actually paying me presently I would never do it using their email system so for me it’s a moot point, but it’s not quite as cut and dry as an evil corporation trying to restrict the rights of workers.
Google has never, as far as I know, required that work email systems be used for performance of job duties only. They certainly want work usage to be primary, and in some countries and circumstances they claim more rights to intellectual property created using work systems that they otherwise wouldn't claim, but they do allow incidental personal use.
In my experience working there in the past (before these cultural issues became a main focus), it was a major perk to, for example, be discussing a news item about a quantum computing device on a suitably targeted mailing list and have someone with quantum physics expertise chime in. :) Also informal peer-to-peer financial planning advice and many other topics.
Note I haven't worked for Google or Alphabet since early 2015 and certainly am not speaking for them here.
And I’ve never worked for Google or Alphabet. The company has nothing to do with it, this is about a supposed moral issue that should (I hope) apply to every company, not just them.
Your initial argument in the post I was replying to seemed to be based on the assumption that Google forbade non-work use of work email; I was simply saying they don't, so the nuances around those bans don't apply. That's all I was addressing.
Here's what I don't understand -- why would I use work email for organizing purposes? Even if there were very clear laws in place prohibiting employers from stopping me, wouldn't organizers be paranoid that their employer would find out and position themselves accordingly, making the unionization drive likelier to fail? I just don't see why anyone would choose to use an employer-owned communications channel to organize something that will inevitably be fought aggressively by their employer.
Google owns the email system. Why can't they limit its usage by its own employees? Companies do that all the time. Employees have no rights to do whatever they want with someone else's infrastructure.
I don’t know the history of union organizing in the U.S. but I believe unions have a right to try to organize at a business and can do so on the business’ property. Can people trying to organize use a bulletin board? Can they post flyers on company property even though it’s owned by the company? I think the answer is yes. It seems to me the principle involved is that workers can use to some extent property owned by the company for the purpose of organizing.
