zlacker

>>tech-h+(OP)
I don't really understand why it's surprising to anyone that they would face "internal retaliation" after exposing their employer as evil and boycott worthy to the entire world. By publicizing it to the degree that they did and attaching their name to it, they were putting their interests over the company. If my company started doing business practices that I didn't approve of, I would try my hardest to change the direction from the inside out or I would leave and then criticize. I don't understand the desire to stay with a company and accept paychecks while simultaneously publicly denouncing and leading protests against them.

>>charli+Cf
It's literally illegal. There are laws against retaliation against whistleblowers. That is why it is surprising.

> I don't understand the desire to stay with a company and accept paychecks while simultaneously publicly denouncing and leading protests against them.

Because you don't want to see the thing you worked so hard to build misused to build killer robots and "war minds"? Seems reasonable to me. Google's got a different mission and sometimes the leadership forgets it, and needs to be reminded.

>>KirinD+zh
>Because you don't want to see the thing you worked so hard to build misused to build killer robots and "war minds"? Seems reasonable to me. Google's got a different mission and sometimes the leadership forgets it, and needs to be reminded.

The question is not why would you publicly protest actions of your employer. The question is why would you expect, or even want, to work there while you do.

Also, do whistleblower laws protect you from retaliation if what you're blowing the whistle on isn't illegal?

>>joey_b+Lk
The two women who claimed retaliation were organizers of the women's march. The common thread between them is that they were organizers of that event.

The claims of retaliation fell shortly after that.

>>KirinD+tm
But nothing Google has done in these cases is illegal. The protestors just didn't like it, so that shouldn't be protected actions.

>>repolf+Ts
This is untrue. You're not actually reading the salient facts. Radical reduction in job responsibility and opportunity IS retaliation.

>>KirinD+kw
> Radical reduction in job responsibility and opportunity IS retaliation.

Is that generally illegal in the US? if not then what specifically does the retaliation have to in response to to become illegal?

e.g I would expect negative retaliation in response to poor quality work or slacking off etc, and would expect it to be legal. This person's actions would be considered intentional bad PR, so what specifically about retaliating to it is illegal?

(Genuine question)