[dmarchand90]

I think the subtle, yet important, difference is that she said she would quit by a certain date and they terminated her immediately.

Given her role is likely just for PR it seems rather foolish not to at least give her two weeks notice or something.

[yulaow]

In her group email she also asked other employees to stop working in any other related project.

I mean, I don't see how google could NOT terminate her after such an event. I am in a nation with extremly strong worker protection law but that action alone would be enough to fire you on the spot.

[tinalumfoil]

Reading the comments here I feel like HN lives in a completely parallel universe. The number of employees who have the ability to threaten to quit and not immediately get fired are very very few. Even at the executive level you can't just make ultimatums for your employment and expect that they won't consider just firing you. Even if you're the representative of a union speaking on behalf of thousands of employees you need make sure you have enough leverage before making demands like that.

This not some crazy conspiracy that she got fired. It would be noteworthy if someone who did what she did didn't get fired.

[beisner]

The reality is that the research organizations at big tech companies have always been a very different kind of labor relationship than typical rank-and-file business units. Many of the senior or otherwise high-profile researchers at FAANG companies would otherwise be professors or academics, in positions where there is essentially unbridled academic freedom and no expectation of separating personal convictions and principles from the academic environment.

Google lured many of these researchers away from academic roles, with the tacit promise that they would be able to continue their research - and at times political - endeavors relatively unencumbered. Google has built a research empire on this promise, which has been responsible in part for their continued dominance in various markets.

My point here is that these researchers have a lot of leverage. Advocating for action within an organization, counter to the current immediate goals of management, is only taboo (and thus “fireable”) in most companies because workers have almost no leverage, generally speaking. Not because it’s some inherently “bad” thing. If Google becomes seen as a place that fires researchers for advocating for their beliefs, especially in a capacity that they’ve been explicitly hired to do, then I think a lot of researchers would - and rightly should - reconsider whether such an environment is consistent with their values as academics and, often times, activists. Google’s research group is enormously valuable to the company, and there’s only so much reputational damage of this nature the organization can sustain before academics decide to take their talents elsewhere.

[romanoderoma]

> with extremly strong worker protection law

Serious question: what makes them strong if employers can't organize a simple strike?

[yulaow]

You can organize a strike BUT this is absolutely not the way you do it.

You have to follow strict procedures, work with your union and go into one or more formal negotiating tables with all the representatives of all the interested parts before even thinking about giving an ultimatum like that. And for sure you cannot communicate in that way using directly your work email

[romanoderoma]

But can you or can't you be fired for that?

Because in my country you can't be fired for using the work email for that.

Communicating with other workers using their work email is absolutely allowed, courts ruled about it several times [1].

I usually receive trade unions (there are several of them) communications on my work email from the unions' work email, because they have been authorized by the company to send them.

In this case she wrote directly to workers using work email, but having no union or labor protection laws it doesn't make any difference whether she could or couldn't, she could be fired anyway without having to provide any reason.

In countries where there are strong laws protecting workers she would have written to the union members and they would have done the same thing: write directly to the workers.

Of course she did it at Google so it is different, but here the strict procedures to call a strike are only necessary if a public service that requires continuity risk to be interrupted, otherwise unions are only required to alert the company that the strike is going to happen, but have no requirement whatsoever on how to organise it.

Which sound logical to me,strong protection means IMO freedom to collectively counter the actions of the company, if that's not allowed the protection is not strong.

[1] Court of Catania, Labor Section, February 2, 2009 "The RSU employee can send trade union communications by e-mail to the employees of the company during their working hours and to their company e-mail address using his personal e-mail address"

[thu2111]

In many countries you do need a vote for a strike to be organised. You can't just spam people with a request to stop working. Strikes are a powerful tactic that have evolved a lot of formality around them to try and ensure the outcomes aren't totally destructive. Italy is a rather unusual exception to this. Perhaps it's a contributing factor to the long stagnation of the Italian economy.

[romanoderoma]

> Perhaps it's a contributing factor to the long stagnation of the Italian economy

Perhaps.

But doesn't explain stagnation in Japanese economy where there are no Italian unions.

Or why France did much better despite having even stronger work protections laws than Italy and wilder strikes (the gilet jaunes for example) or those happened last year against the pension reform where the workers of public transportation went on strike - for weeks - without even announcing it.

Even countries like Germany, Singapore, Switzerland and Finland are doing worse than Pakistan in the GDP growth race.

My point was than if there are stronger work protection laws somewhere else and the laws of your country are weaker, they are not very strong, they are moderately strong.

[lostjohnny]

> but that action alone would be enough to fire you on the spot.

They are not as strong as you think then.

In countries where there are strong work protections law striking is a right, you don't get paid for the time you don't show up at work but you can obviously convince an entire department or an entire company workforce to go on strike, without consequences.

Without it the protection is not strong, it means an entire company against the individual worker, which is obviously unfair (regardless of what you think about work protections law, Google against a single human being it's an unfair battle, that's why "strong protection" means that the worker deson't have to fight alone and can call other workers to join the fight).

[yulaow]

As I said in another sibling post, you cannot strike that way. You have to follow procedures to organize a legit strike.

If I wrote an email like that not only my union would not protect me, they would most probably tell me the employer took the right decision because I put at risk other employees positions (if they followed my reccomandations to stop working just because I said it)

[pontus]

You can't hand in your resignation effective at a future date. That's not how it works. If you resign, you resign. It's then up to the employer whether or not to hold you to whatever notice period is set out in your contract. Many places will not do so and release you effective immediately.

Of course, if you leave on good terms, your superiors might look at you kindly and work with you to meet not just their needs, but also your needs. That's why it pays to be humble and generous in your interactions with other people.

[iab]

I think that would have been the civilized thing to do. But that is the exception, not the rule in the bay; I.e once you have made your intentions known, and are perceived as someone who could cause damage in the interim, you are out straight away. Feels like a natural consequence of at-will employment.

[peeters]

This isn't at all unusual when someone is quitting on bad terms, is it?

[telltruth]

If employee is found using company resources inappropriately (in this case, mailing list to rant) then you can't give that employee 2 weeks notice. Google will then have to consider possibility that she will abuse their mailing lists.

[zomglings]

Google has internal mailing lists dedicated solely to rants (and related discussions) and others on which rants are certainly well accepted.

Google exercises a subjective standard to determine whether or not an employee is using mailing lists inappropriately (e.g. James Damore).

Source: ex-google

[rafiki6]

This is par for the course at most companies with IP to protect. If you quit they just walk you out.

[krzyk]

In the US, in countries with more worker protections it is not. (unless they pay you for that 2-week, month, 3-month period when you aren't working for them, but they can't remove you from worker list).

[rafiki6]

Yes this is correct. The primary difference in at will employment is that I also am not required to give my employer notice, whereas in the countries you mentioned I am.

[romanoderoma]

That's not true.

You can as an employer walk away whenever you want, you just don't get the salary for the difference between the notice and when you left.

Example: if you have to give 30 days notice (very common in Italy) and leave on the spot, after your resignation have been accepted, you have to give the company the equivalent of 30 days of pay.

Which is exactly the money they should give you aniway if you stayed for the entire notice time.

But usually the employer and company find an agreement before coming to that.

[ystad]

What's the point of the two week notice in this case?

[chippy]

as I understand it, she was on vacation at the time

[refurb]

In California you get paid for accrued vacation when you are terminated. She's not out any money, so why keep her on as an employee while she's out?