“Google issued a stern warning to its employees, with the company’s vice president of global security, Chris Rackow, saying, “If you’re one of the few who are tempted to think we’re going to overlook conduct that violates our policies, think again,” according to an internal memo obtained by CNBC.”

  • @thingsiplay@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    5911 months ago

    Isn’t it illegal to fire protesting workers? At least here in Germany its illegal as far as I know. But it must be a protest event (which it seems to be).

    • Toes♀
      link
      fedilink
      8211 months ago

      My understanding is that in America, you’re only allowed to protest in ways that don’t interfere with capital interests.

        • Queue
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2511 months ago

          South Park would probably be on the side of Google and other corporations, Matt and Trey are diehard libertarian capitalists.

          • livus
            link
            fedilink
            2111 months ago

            I never really forgave them for the original ManBearPig climat change denialism.

          • @ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1511 months ago

            I’d recommend to watch later episodes. They’ve pretty much abandoned the 90s libertarian edge-lord moments and explicitly disclaimed and apologized for it. They’ve had quite a few “wow, we were the problem” fourth-wall-breaking moments in recent years.

      • @quatschkopf34@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        811 months ago

        Yes, I don‘t think such protests would fall under the general protesting laws as they have nothing to do with your working conditions.

    • Scrubbles
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1811 months ago

      Oh no, here in America we have FREEDOM. the freedom to work! We have something called “right to work” which means we have the RIGHTS to work and quit a job with no contracts. We also gave up every single worker protection for these supposed rights, but since it was named right to work we are meant to believe it’s good for us

      • Whimseymimple
        link
        fedilink
        1011 months ago

        I think you’re talking about “at-will” employment, which allows the employer or employee to terminate employment for no reason at any time. Only Montana doesn’t have that (unfortunately for the rest of us), and employers must show good cause for termination after a set probationary period. “Right-to-work” means that you can’t be required to join a union or pay fair share fees as a requirement of employment. 26 states have this on the books.

        I live in a state with both laws, and it sucks as much as you’d imagine… (mainly because it’s fairly indicative of other issues throughout the state).

        • The Doctor
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          I think yinz missed the sarcasm in the comment you’re replying to.

      • @t3rmit3@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        9
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        You’re confusing At-Will employment with Right-to-Work.

        Right to work laws make it illegal to require union membership for employment at a place with a union.

        At-Will Employment makes it legal for the employee or employer to terminate employment at-will.

        They’re both bad, you just got them mixed up. :)

      • BraveSirZaphod
        link
        fedilink
        311 months ago

        That is not at all what right to work means.

        I get the frustration, but if you’re going to criticize a thing, it’s a lot more effective if you actually know what the thing is.