The recent termination of 28 employees by Google, who were protesting against the tech behemoth’s cloud deal with the Israeli government, has rekindled the debate about the company’s shift from its unconventional roots.
Silicon Valley’s top-tier companies have a history of promoting a campus-like environment, encouraging employees to bring their unique ideas to work and make a positive impact on the world. However, employees who believed in this vision are now facing a harsh reality.
The 28 terminations were a response to sit-in protests staged by these employees at Google’s offices in Silicon Valley and New York City. The bone of contention was Google’s $1.2 billion 2021 Cloud contract with the Israeli government, named Project Nimbus. The protesters believed that Google’s involvement in this project was detrimental to the Palestinians residing in Gaza. The sit-ins led to the arrest of nine employees.
In an internal communication, CEO Sundar Pichai emphasized that while Google promotes open discussion, it is primarily a workplace with clear policies and expectations. He stressed that Google is not a platform for personal agendas or disruptive debates.
Google has also defended Project Nimbus, stating that the contract does not involve high-risk, classified, or military tasks related to weaponry or intelligence services.
Google, in its formative years, was lauded for fostering a university-like ambience, conducive to free-thinking. The company encouraged dissent, believing that open dialogue sparked innovation.
“A lot of Google is organized around the fact that people still think they’re in college when they work here,” former CEO Eric Schmidt was quoted saying to “In the Plex” author Steven Levy in the 2000s.
However, what worked for a relatively small organization has proven challenging for a workforce nearing 200,000. Changes in political and societal norms have also led to a divergence in views between Google’s leadership and its employees.
Google has been a hotspot for employee-led protests in the past.
- In 2018, many of its employees voiced their opposition to Project Maven, a Defense Department initiative that aimed to use AI for the Pentagon’s image-recognition needs. Some employees resigned, arguing against the use of their research for drone targeting.
- Another point of contention was the Dragonfly project, an attempt to customize Google’s search engine to meet the Chinese government’s requirements. This project was eventually shelved in 2018.
The company has also made headlines for the termination of AI researchers Margaret Mitchell and Timnit Gebru (Google claims Gebru resigned).
The recent terminations have been viewed not as a disagreement but as a violation of rules and security. Google’s VP of Global Security, Chris Rackow, in a memo shared online, condemned the disruptive behavior of the protesting employees.
“Behavior like this has no place in our workplace and we will not tolerate it… If you’re one of the few who are tempted to think we’re going to overlook conduct that violates our policies, think again,” Rackow wrote.
Since 2021, the Alphabet Workers Union, a minority union, has been representing some Google employees, although it lacks collective bargaining power. The union expressed its disapproval of Google’s decision to terminate protesting employees.
Posts on social media and discussions on Google’s internal message boards reveal divided opinions on the terminations.
- A section of observers, often older or more conservative, supports Google’s decision, arguing that the workplace is not the right platform for political activism.
- Conversely, a more progressive, youth-oriented segment views the protests as a matter of conscience and the terminations as a betrayal of Google’s founding principles.
If a company conditions its employees to view themselves as eternal students, it shouldn’t be taken aback when some of them decide to stage protests. However, if you’re an employee of a highly profitable corporation with numerous government clients, you shouldn’t be astonished when it prioritizes business interests over individual expression.
