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
See my other comment. But yes, it is true.

You cannot be "retaliated against" if you aren't engaging in revelations of illegal behaviour. These people were not doing the latter, when you look at the details. They were merely protesting against things they didn't like, but which aren't illegal, and in one case, didn't exist at all (Google underpaid men, not women).

If there's no illegal behaviour, there's no whistleblowing, and if there's no whistleblowing, then reducing "job opportunity" (which is of course not a right) is just ordinary corporate performance management in response to an employee behaving badly.