LordKiran
Veteran Member
Kind of my whole point? If worker protections were better, such that this employee couldn't be fired for expressing his views off-the-job you wouldn't have this problem to begin with.
- - - Updated - - -
Your blame is misplaced.
PC didnt get that man fired, Google's legal ability to protect its reputation by firing employees who potentially tarnish this reputation is why this happened.
The bigger question is why it could potentially tarnish Googles reputation. That would require that a lot of people are against free speech and are aggressively PC.
Read the memo. It's well reasoned and well written. He's tried his best to write it as well he could without causing unnecessary offence. But still keeping to what he believed was true.
Nah. I think you're dead wrong. It's PC that got him fired.
I say it's a lack of worker protections and means of redress that allows Google (And other companies) to get away with firing people who express personal opinions while off the job. At one point I was willing to rationalize this to the company's benefit, but now I think corporations being able to stiffle the speech of its employees outside of the job by holding their continued employment over said employee's heads is completely counter to our shared values of personal freedoms (one such being, freedom of speech)
I understand there is an argument to be made that Goggle's right to associate freely also includes disassociation, but I don't think that should extend to an individual's expression or speech that has nothing to do with said business. Remember, Google doesn't have to prove or show that this man damages their brand, it only has to be a potential possibility, after that it all comes down to finding some pretext or another.
There was a story a while back about a woman who was fired from a news agency because she protested as part of occupy wallstreet (I'll try to find it.)
http://theweek.com/articles/480795/occupy-wall-street-should-npr-host-fired-protesting
Okay she wasn't a newsie but still, point stands. She was fired for exercising her rights to assemble and speak out against her governing institutions. That should be illegal no matter what your field is.
It wasn't off the job. The contentious memo he wrote was sent to and discussed with other Google employees. Google apparently encourages employees to have all sorts of conversations using a variety of company forums. Which makes it a very different issue. So the motive for dismissal can only be very narrow since this guy was not only authorised but encouraged by Google to have discussions with other employees. So the point is whether what he wrote somehow broke Google's rules. Which should give him much more leverage in court and may foretell trouble for Google.
EB
Hrmm, I hope he does sue, if only so we can see what happens next. If what you say is true then that definitely makes a case to be made for PC being the root cause for his firing.