Google Urged the US To Limit Protection for Activist Workers (bloomberg.com)

Google, whose employees have captured international attention in recent months through high-profile protests of workplace policies, has been quietly urging the U.S. government to narrow legal protection for workers organizing online. From a report: During the Obama administration, the National Labor Relations Board broadened employees' rights to use their workplace email system to organize around issues on the job. In a 2014 case, Purple Communications, the agency restricted companies from punishing employees for using their workplace email systems for activities like circulating petitions or fomenting walkouts, as well as trying to form a union. In filings in May 2017 and November 2018, obtained via Freedom of Information Act request, Alphabet's Google urged the National Labor Relations Board to undo that precedent.

Citing dissents authored by Republican appointees, Google's attorneys wrote that the 2014 standard "should be overruled" and a George W. Bush-era precedent -- allowing companies to ban organizing on their employee email systems -- should be reinstated. In an emailed statement, a Google spokeswoman said, "We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses" against meritless claims at the NLRB.

Comments

How 1984 of them

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoda thunk a bunch of rich white 1%ers who push "progressive" ideals is also all about stifling any dissent?

Re: How 1984 of them

[cayenne8]

I hate to say it, but I kind of agree with Google on this one.

Hey, if you want to organize protests, etc....do it on your own time, or at the very least, do it on your own private email, etc.

I mean, why should a company essentially pay you to protest them or let you use their facilities and servers to promote things that are against the best interests of the company or it's shareholders (you know, the folks that own the company)?

Sure you have the right to protest me or oppose me, but I shouldn't have to foot the bill for you too should I?

Re: How 1984 of them

[Tom]

I mean, why should a company essentially pay you to protest them or let you use their facilities and servers to promote things that are against the best interests of the company or it's shareholders (you know, the folks that own the company)?

Because it works.

I come from a country with strong employee protection laws, including the right to organize inside the company, and even laws regulating how to organise, how to elect representatives to speak for the employees, and rights and protections for those representatives, including extensive use of company facilities and even money to pay for what they need (training, lawyers, etc.)

The result is much more peace within the workplace, because there are accepted ways to bring your grievances to the attention of management. There are ways to force management if they don't comply with the law, without going to an external court and putting all the internal dirt into public.

It may not be perfect, but even most companies agree that it beats being hit by multi-million dollar lawsuits every few years.

Ah, the royal 'we'

[ChoGGi]

"We're not lobbying for changes to any rules." Rather, she said, Google's claim that the Obama-era protections should be overturned was "a legal defense that we included as one of many possible defenses"

Thems weasel words Google.

Google has to be broken up

[WCMI92]

This is one reason why. Among many.

disagree

[supernova87a]

I support a company's right to be able to regulate the internal use of their software and tools that they provide and pay for. Just because a certain message might be (at the moment) a popular one doesn't mean it gets more privileges or gets to assume the use of someone's resources without question.

Freedom of speech, and US regulations about labor organization communications, don't imply the right to disseminate messages in any way without regard to the rights of others or in any channel you may encounter. People are free to speak to each other, and they're free to publish documents, papers, blog posts, news articles using their resources.

Google is right to do this, and they should learn to act even more like a professional business. They already brewed themselves a shitstorm by inviting their employees to discuss and debate controversial political topics on internal forums as if it's some kind of college campus. It's coming back to bite them in the ass.

Re:disagree

[sinij]

I support a company's right to be able to regulate the internal use of their software and tools that they provide and pay for.

Do you understand scope of Google control over modern communications?! If you let them do it, they can very effectively censor any attempt to organize - it won't be searchable by Google, you won't be able to email to @gmail, you won't be able to make Youtube videos.

Re:Americans take corporate dick in the ass

[KixWooder]

I want insurance and healthcare completely disconnected from employment. I don't get my homeowners or car insurance via my employer and neither should health insurance.

Re:Americans take corporate dick in the ass

[TheGratefulNet]

but I do NOT want the overreaching, poorly managed Federal Govt in charge of it.

you are pathetic and insincere.

SOMEONE is in control. you dislike the government. fine, I mostly agree with you there, but who else should control this? currently its the insurance companies and they are allowed mostly free control of this industry. they are entirely profit driven. the government is not; so that's a plus in the gov's favor. both have competancy issues, so that's a moot point for both.

does our current system work? not really. therefore, we have only 1 choice: CHANGE IT and make it less of an industry and more of a SERVICE to mankind.

other countries do this. almost all do, in fact. the US is a 3rd world hellhole when it comes to this issue.