Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Kapture1]

Yeah, if you read the complaint about the memo itself, how it was written, how it was posted, how many different people commented on it and offered insight...and actually read his memo....it's blatantly obvious what happened.

I didn't know (until now) that he had written the memo in response to a "diversity retreat" (lmao) that called for feedback -- he submitted it internally, received feedback and positive comments (including from HR!), edited the memo to incorporate the feedback, submitted it to another internal board, same process -- then, eventually, to a large internal board that eventually leaked it.

As I said, I don't know how strong his claims are. I'd be surprised if he can get the class certified (which means he loses) and Google can plausibly pass this off as firing someone for ideas, which they're free to do -- however, California apparently protects, to some degree, freedom of political association. In most states, you can get fired for disagreeable political beliefs, but in California that's apparently not true.

Whatever. The larger point is the "Google culture" -- which I wish was a caricature or farcical, but is, unfortunately, the future (and in some states, the present).

At first I thought "private company, they can do what they like" but then I learned about California State law against restricting political activity


Highlight
CODE TEXT
LABOR CODE - LAB
DIVISION 2. EMPLOYMENT REGULATION AND SUPERVISION [200 - 2699.5] ( Division 2 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )
PART 3. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES [920 - 1138.5] ( Part 3 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )

CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )

1101.
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

(Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.)

“[P]olitical activities,” the California Supreme Court has stated, “cannot be narrowly confined to partisan activity,” but instead cover any activities involving the “espousal of a candidate or a cause”



this and of course Federal Labor Law which under section 7 state that employers are barred from prohibiting employees from organizing a union - nor can they interfere with "concerted activities" aimed at improving the workplace.

Also Title VII, but I think the truth is there is no civil rights protections against work place discrimination for conservatives, as crazy as that sounds.

[iam416]

Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics

I don't know enough about California law to opine on this language, but my guess is that companies have some leeway to prevent politics at work, but they can't fire people for political actions outside of work. Further, I'm not sure what "engage" and "participate" mean -- espouse opinions, donate money, work for a campaign? What? However, I do think that if you allow political opinions at work then you sort of have to allow them all (under CA law).

this and of course Federal Labor Law which under section 7 state that employers are barred from prohibiting employees from organizing a union - nor can they interfere with ""concerted activities" aimed at improving the workplace.

Probably weak sauce. This argument sort of turns the Act on its head a little.

Also Title VII, but I think the truth is there is no civil rights protections against work place discrimination for conservatives, as crazy as that sounds.

It's not crazy at all. The workplace can be a place of close association. If you don't want to work with people with opposite political beliefs then that's your right. PROG firms ought not be forced to hire Trumpians and vice versa. The Federal government has no place in regulating discrimination against opinions by private firms (it becomes a 1st A issue if it's public firms doing the discriminating)

California, of course, has decided that it does have a role in that regard.

Anywho, the larger purpose of the Complaint is to put the facts out there. And, if they're lucky and get get past various initial hurdles, then they get discovery on Google and get gads more stuff like they put in the Complaint.

[Kapture1]

It's not crazy at all. The workplace can be a place of close association. If you don't want to work with people with opposite political beliefs then that's your right. PROG firms ought not be forced to hire Trumpians and vice versa. The Federal government has no place in regulating discrimination against opinions by private firms (it becomes a 1st A issue if it's public firms doing the discriminating)

the notion of being fired over political beliefs is strange to me. I work at a family business, we have been hiring people for over 60 years, and the thought of firing someone because of their political beliefs never crossed my mind, even in an At Will state

[THE_WIZARD_]

I wouldn't hire any of you fuckers...except maybe Geezer and Krapture...and maybe Talent just to have someone to blame shit on...

[iam416]

Thank you for your support.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Hey every office needs a janitor...

[Kapture1]

back on Google, it's scary that these people are in charge of what you see

[Kapture1]

and some of the stuff in the filing are pretty jaw dropping

"cheesy White Males" are not allowed to speak at conferences. Approved by Google HR

[Kapture1]

[THE_WIZARD_]

I said many years ago that someday Google would rule the world...we are getting close...

[Kapture1]

Conservative blacklists are widespread

[Kapture1]

[Kapture1]

Identifies as an expansive ornate building lol

[Kapture1]

[Kapture1]