> Unions just spread hatred and anything they say could be classified as hate speech.

Man, companies really hate negotiating wages/benefits with a party that has equal power. Reminds me of:

    Michael Scott : I am a victim of a hate crime. Stanley knows what I'm talking about.
    Stanley : That's not what a hate crime is.
    Michael Scott : Well, I hated it, a lot, okay.

Sorry, it was an tongue in cheek comment not appropriate for HN. I believe the problem with censorship through the veneer of hate speech should be obvious. Only way to hinder corporate and state censorship being extended is if the factions that supported it come to their senses. They are far greater in numbers than those that thought it through.

Oops. I'm rarely stumped by lack of a "/s" but that one got me!

They don't need to. These companies have self-sufficient intelligence operations, and they employ seasoned experts. At an outfit like Google, and that may involve too many people overriding checks to be worth the risk of a leak. It's hard to say, I've never worked for Google.

The Pinkertons are still active in union-busting, and they are retained by shiny "Great Place To Work"-type businesses. They're just covert now. When somebody is giving off too many pre-crime vibes at that kind of business, HR can easily get rid of them for unrelated reasons, and gaslight them into thinking it was their fault all along.

Never talk to HR. They are the secret police.

>Never talk to HR. They are the secret police

Like the police, they serve a function. talk to HR when you would talk to the police. When someone else is doing something illegal to you, and after you made sure that you have no exposure.

They'd be secret police if anyone believed that HR's job wasn't to protect the company.

Lots of people are naive about HR's real purpose. In my experience people see them as neutral arbiters, and go to them for help with personnel issues never thinking that they're seen as potentially threatening to the organization.