I think the part of that sentence you conveniently left out of the quote is the most critical. One would be wise to not talk about matters of which they know nothing about, especially if it harms their employer. I think this SV tendency to speak and rally against their employers at every turn is cutting off your nose to spite your face and comes from a place of extreme privilege.

> One would be wise to not talk about matters of which they know nothing about, especially if it harms their employer.

Hmmm...

  After Google interviewed a candidate for an executive job
  last year, that person sent a follow-up email to Sundar
  Pichai ... the candidate asked about the antitrust implications
  of a potential merger.

That's an absolutely valid question for a executive candidate to be asking their potential employer, considering concerns over recent years. However:

  An antitrust question to Mr. Pichai was seen as inappropriate,
  raising questions about the candidate’s judgment.

Not being able to ask material questions about the very environment they're being asked to perform in, is frankly bizarre.

Hopefully the candidate chose a better place.

I feel like the judgment is asking about antitrust in an email. Leaving a paper trail on this either way is definitely poor executive judgement.

> I feel like the judgment is asking about antitrust in an email. Leaving a paper trail on this either way is definitely poor executive judgement.

Poor executive judgement in an organization that has something to hide.

It could also have been inappropriate if the “executive “ position being applied for was significantly beneath the CEO. The article does not say why it was in appropriate.

It’s frustrating to see it suggested that highly intelligent members of the civic community (Google employees for example) “know nothing about” antitrust policy or law.

Regular citizens definitely do know lots about that and represent a voice we need to hear. We should not at all be silent and leave that solely to attorneys or Congress - that’s what gets us into the problem where the laws are selectively enforced in exchange for political favoritism and regulatory capture.

It's fine (and a good thing) for everyone to have a deep understanding about how the rules work and to have opinions about how the rules _should_ work. This is true whether you are talking about the current state of anti-trust laws and how they are interpreted by the courts, or the current state of patent laws and how they are interpreted by the PTO and the courts. It's complicated, though, and there are a lot of side effects when you make changes to what is in effect a very complex system. What might work well for one industry might not work well for other industries, and "I know justice and morality when I see it" works about as well as "I know obscenity when I see it".

The real problem though is that most people don't have this deep understanding, and what's worse, don't realize that they are really clueless. This is especially true with software engineers, who think they can understand everything. (About the only more arrogrant people are physicists at certain national labs who are sure they can design cluster file systems, since after all, it all resolves down to F=ma, and they know physics. :-)

The problem is that law and regulations make the x86 instruction architecture look regular, orthogonal, and logical. And having software engineers trying to draw legal conclusions --- applying the facts to the rules as they current stand --- is about as scary having lawyers designing a storage stack. (There are of course exceptions; I know of some lawyers who started out in computer science, and then went to law school, and there are also some computer programmers who have learned enough about law to understand how little they actually know, but at least know when to call in the specialists.)

But sure, we should know lots about public policy issues, and dive down deep enough so that each of us can understand the tradeoffs --- and in general, there are always tradeoffs to pretty much any public policy preference. Trying to make assertions without paying any attention to nuance will get you something like a certain US politician currently up for re-election. (And to be fair, the reason why the law has so many exceptions and irregularities is due to trying to work around the downsides of the obvious simple rules.)

The distinction here is that Google employees are not legally banned from speaking as a private citizen about the company they work for. They just won't be employees of Google for much longer after Google finds out.

I don't like that any more than you do. Corporations have far too much power in the US, and way more control over the lives of ordinary citizens than they should. But, there's nothing against the rules here. And, that's the way big corporations like it.

Note that Google employees are still free to donate money or otherwise assist organizations calling for Google to be broken up. While Google may not like this, it's highly unlikely they'll ever find out about it.

> While Google may not like this, it's highly unlikely they'll ever find out about it.

if you donated or is affiliated with _any_ political cause, and google fired you for that reason, then they've committed illegal discrimination against you.

However, this political affiliation/activism needs to be conducted outside working hours, lest it be associated with google's official public stance or incur liabilities. You actions as an employee could be misrepresented as the position of google, and they are well within their rights to restrict how you represent yourself during office hours, and they should also be allowed to prevent you from mis-representing yourself too (i.e., you cannot use your position as an employee to act as an agent of political activism or affiliation unless authorized by the owners of google).

> if you donated or is affiliated with _any_ political cause, and google fired you for that reason, then they've committed illegal discrimination against you.

I believe that's only the case in California and a handful of other states.

For instance: "Can an employer fire or discriminate against an employee based on political beliefs? You may be surprised to learn that, for many employees, the answer is yes." [0]

---

[0]: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...

> The distinction here is that Google employees are not legally banned from speaking as a private citizen about the company they work for. They just won't be employees of Google for much longer after Google finds out.

A distinction without a difference, the intended effect is still the same: discouraging people from speaking out.

> I don't like that any more than you do. Corporations have far too much power in the US, and way more control over the lives of ordinary citizens than they should. But, there's nothing against the rules here.

Then surely the focus should be on changing the rules and pushing back what little we can, not making excuses about how it is technically not illegal.

Speaking out about legal violations is not only allowed, it's protected by whistleblowing laws. It's an adversarial process, but legally protected.

What Google frowns upon, and will terminate an employee legally for, is speculation outside of that legally-protected space. So going to the SEC with evidence Google is acting bad? Legally protected. Circulating in an email "hey, is thing X that team Y is doing monopolistic?" No, and you'll get canned for having that discussion in an unprivileged environment without legal counsel present.

Look, I'm not making an excuse. I'm telling you how it is. The problem here is that big corporations have captured the political process in this country. Your representatives in Washington probably don't represent you; they're responsive to the people who fund their campaigns, and, unless you're a billionaire or something, that's not you.

> ... such a nefarious, un-american thing ...

Well, TBH, "banning employees from using certain everyday terms because they have specific legal usages and the company can be sued for $$$ if the words were taken out of context" is one of the most American things I can think of.

Manager at a multi-national corporation. This definitely isn’t unique to the US. If anything, it’s more ubiquitous in regions with higher degrees of regulation.

The whole thing has been taken out of context here. It’s basically just “here’s how you avoid saying anything that can be taken out of context and used against us”.

If you are freedom absolutist then you have to agree that Google has a freedom of association right to fire you if they don't like the things you are saying.

It's funny how the people who adamantly oppose any restrictions on "freedom" don't realize "freedom" cuts both ways - if you have the unlimited freedom to do what you want then other people also have the unlimited freedom to punish you if they don't like what you are doing.

While I don't entirely agree with the poster above, I think there can be a notable difference in freedoms that your post ignores. People and corporations are two separate groups, and you may want more freedoms for either or even both. Like, I'm for individual freedoms, but companies have the potential for more abuse than a single person not liking you does, and so they should be far harsher regulated (and they are, though some may want more/less) in how they behave towards individuals.

If I, as an employee of google, say a bunch of stuff about google antitrust, it doesn't matter how often I say I'm speaking "not in my capacity as an employee of google."

It will be reported as "google employee says <>". It _will_ be taken as a statement that is believed by "google employees".

They're free to make those statements.

And Google is free to fire them for doing so.

'Tis quite American sounding, to me.

Worked at numerous small companies. General stance by lawyers is if you write down a legal issue without consulting them first, they will have you fired six ways to Sunday. It is a big de.

Freedom.. absolutely.!! An employee is free to find another employer.

Outside of California, they do.

Except James Damore wasn’t one but got labeled so anyway. It’s not okay to selectively allow or prohibit speech. Everyone should be able to say anything. It’s just words.

You can say anything you like.

What you're actually asking for is that people can say anything they like without repercussions of any kind.

That's a different thing. ...and, legally, it's been a thing (see 'libel laws') that freedom of speech does not guarantee for a long time.

/shrug

So you cannot say anything you like.

Or by that reasoning you could say anything you liked in the Soviet Union when Stalin was the big cheese but of course there were repercussions. Once upon a time we were taught there was a /fundamental/ difference between freedom, justice and Stalin's Soviet reigime that we were (and still are) dead against. The difference, which is a significant one right now, is not fundamental. It is just a difference of degree of those repercussions.

Interesting isn't it?

He used company resources and an internal forum so that doesn't fit under OP's description of being "a private citizen representing the opinions of yourself."

And he was fired for creating a hostile work environment for his colleagues. Not for his private views.