Do you think Google was right to have forced arbitration for sexual harassment or should employees be allowed to sue Google for sexual harassment in a court of law?

Was management "doing it right" by prohibiting such suits or did the employees have a point?

I don't think any company should have forced arbitration for regular employees for anything, but the right place to lobby for a fix to the arbitration problem is Capitol Hill, not memegen.

> the right place to lobby for a fix to the arbitration problem is Capitol Hill, not memegen.

So, remembering that employees successfully organized to get Google management to end mandatory arbitration, whereas such requirements are still permitted by law, - that was the wrong approach, and employees should have continued waiting (and still waiting today) for congress to act?

Who determines the "right" place?

The "right place and time" to fight corporate power usually turns out to be the most ineffective place and time anyone can think of. It's such an odd and consistent coincidence!

Organizing in a way so that workers are represented and heard in the company's leadership is not being toxic, mate

It absolutely is toxic. If you're not in leadership, you don't need to have a voice in leadership. If you want to make the move to leadership, gain the respect of your superiors. You won't make it there by being a toxic employee.

See you in the gulag, comrade!