Tech News

New Document Reveals More About Google Anti-Union Strategy

Just released the document illuminates GoogleAttempts to end the protests, including the alliance, between its staff. In a lawsuit filed Friday, the National Labor Relations Board instructed Google to provide a lawyer representing a group of current and former employees related to his “Project Vivian” and to hire a consulting firm that advises. employers are struggling with union efforts.

Google set up Project Vivian to ban workers from the union after a spate of violence erupted in late 2018. In the process, Michael Pfyl, Google’s chief legal officer, explains Project Vivian’s goal, “Properly motivating employees and ensuring that conflicts are resolved. it’s hard. “Pfyl’s comments are unclear, which also shows attempts to use the media to quietly spread Google’s views on the workplace.

The judge, Paul Bogas, ordered Google to comply with certain subpoena sections on Project Vivian-related documents, as well as Google’s recruitment of IRI Consultants, an anti-consortium company. In November, Bogas issued a similar order to other documents relating to Vivian and IRI; subpoena covers over 1,500 documents.

Subpoena is part of an NLRB lawsuit filed by seven Google employees and former employees in December 2019. . Google’s contractors, I am writing a petition calling for the company to terminate its relationship with US government agencies involved in the eviction of refugees and the separation of families. Paul Duke, one of the dismissed employees who filed the lawsuit, said the arrangement was one way to try to establish a common ground.

Responding to allegations by former employees that they had been fired in return for repairing the workplace, a Google spokesman wrote, “The content here is not about the contract. what the staff found.

Mr Duke denied allegations that he and his colleagues had violated security regulations, saying the documents were made available to all engineers and that the company was later labeled “should know.”

In opposition to the subpoena, Google claimed that it was an opportunity to represent the judiciary as well as a “professional opportunity,” which protects the content of the pending trial. Bogas denied most of the allegations, calling the alternative “compassionate, hypocritical.” Commenting on efforts to portray a collective decision as a case, and why he was privileged, he wrote, “The respondent could not simply speak of a new attempt by colleagues to be ‘cases’ — like gold-plated grass – which makes them wear. each of its anti-union campaigns. ”

The Bogas law reflects the efforts of Google executives, including Christina Latta’s corporate technology, to “get” the keywords to spread the word about how the workplace works, and to encourage Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google employees to stay united. The law states that in an internal message from Google Human Resource Director Kara Silverstein told Latta he liked the idea, “but to make it happen ‘there should be no fingerprints and not Google’s.” According to the law, IRI later provided an op-ed idea to Latta; it is not known if the article was published.


Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button