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
What did she do that is protected under the various whistleblower protection laws? https://www.whistleblowers.gov/sites/wb/files/2019-06/whistl...

I don't think that objecting to your company's AI work for DoD or plans to comply with Chinese internet search regulations fall under any of them.

What did the "Open Research Group" at Google actually build?

>>Merril+3j
So many arm chair lawyers on HN. The parent is wrong. It's illegal because it violates the NLRA, not whistleblower protections.

"Protected concerted activity".

If you want a good primer, "Labor Law for the Rank and Filer" is a good one.

>>seriou+ao
Isn't a "protected concerted activity" an activity that is done for "mutual aid and protection"? It may be closer, but I don't see a case being made under NLRA either.