Hacker News Reader

Comment by overrun11 | Hacker News Reader

> Google says that each worker it fired actively disrupted its offices, while the workers dispute the claims, saying some of those fired did not even enter the company’s office on the day of coordinated demonstrations against the company.

Isn't this a pretty critical point that the Washington Post should have looked into a bit more?

View on HN

They probably got the list of people to fire from some list of people who replied on some internal message board.

Far easier to prove involvement when there is a written record, rather than evidence of you entering a building (you might have other reasons to be there).

I guess you could "disrupt" the productivity of an "office" without physically being there, but ultimately at-will employment probably gives Google a lot of leeway here.

What's there to investigate? "Actively disrupted" is impossible to define. Google may consider it a disruption if you are organizing a protest, even if not participating in it, or if the protest hasn't happened yet. An employee may feel like their peaceful sit-in didn't disrupt anything. Ultimately Google is the one making the decision.

You can disrupt an office without entering the office. Just stand outside and block the entrance, yell at people trying to enter the office, or bang pots and pans and create a disturbance.

(I have no idea what happened at Google. The article is behind a paywall for me.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com