Yeah I didn't even at first take it to mean "the company can retaliate". I assumed the manager was referring to unrest & animosity at people undeservedly making more money than others.
And before anyone says that Google is too profitable an organisation for this to be an issue, remember that PLCs have shareholders who can demand that costs be cut in order to increase profits. If you have a pension, you could indirectly be that shareholder.
They're just asking for insight into why this could be a problem (think 3rd grade, "Do you know why this is wrong?") and she shoots back aggressively. I think her inability to produce any sort of thought besides oppression shows that she probably isn't able to handle issues like this.
(edit: politeness)
Whether or not it's legal for her to discuss those things, it's also legal for her employer to be upset that she's making the work environment more difficult for others.
The problem with these noble issues is that there's a view that you can do no wrong as long as you're fighting for what's right. She clearly sees herself as some Snowdenesque whistle-blower, and she's surprised that it's cold in Russia.
I guess I'm not done, because I am compelled to point out that this is completely false. That's the entire point of all of the legality around the protection of these discussions under United States law: that, no, your employer cannot be "upset" at you for choosing to exercise that right.
Yes they can absolutely be unhappy that their employees are causing a problem, that's why they tried to discuss it with her. But they didn't do anything to her for it.
When your employee does something that is entirely legal and protected, you don't have a "discussion" with them. You nod, say "OK", and you do absolutely nothing else, because nothing you do in response to it, as it pertains to that employee, can be anything other than hostile--and hostility of your direction. Not the employee's, not now and not ever.
In any event, it seems to me that it was good advice given the context.
I'm skeptical, given the vastly divergent goals of employer and employee. I'm borderline-dismissive at Google scale, where there's no meaningful employer/employee relationship to be found at most levels of the hierarchy (and a relationship with a manager isn't the same thing). Of course, there are models of organization (co-ops and the like) where one can have a mutualistic relationship with the other stakeholders, but--these aren't that.
> What if the "discussion" was intended entirely in the interest of the employee?
The interest of the employee just happens to involve not rocking the boat, not ensuring that everybody's got an accurate picture of the market, and depressing workers' negotiation position so that the company can profit? To me the possibility of this what-if is so remote as to be laughable.
It's good to know that my employer can never question anything I do legally without being hostile, though.
But I cannot envision a situation where the question "do you realize what could happen?" is not implicitly suggesting that the realization to be made is one of company harm--and thus, yes, threatening.
Everyone can respond how it is legal, their right, etc, but the fact that you are now known as a troublemaker won't bode well for you.
The corporation exists solely at the sufferance of the society that grants it its charter. Someday maybe we'll remember this instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.
The world is not black and white, no matter how naive folks here believe it to be.
The world is not black-and-white. This is. I do not understand, Steinbeck notwithstanding, the steadfast desire to take the minimal power of the worker out of the worker's hands.
It seems that you're advocating a 'punishment as deterrent' strategy for society along the lines of capital punishment. "If you violate the rules even slightly, you will be executed." Is that a good strategy for encouraging lawfulness while preserving efficacy? And is law the perfect (or the best) mechanism for encoding moral behavior?
It determines the values of your society. Fuck with the powerless at your own, extreme risk. If your values are more important than your spreadsheets, then the violation of the rights of the weak must take precedence. And, for me, it does; I'm proud to say that I've been pretty on-point about hewing to that in my adult life, even when balancing managerial responsibilities to an employer.
We can argue about the level of impact that must be assessed; I'll bend on something like the revocation of a charter for this (though there are plenty of corporate crimes for which it's a fair response). But suppression of worker rights should involve a very, very harsh penalty that makes the company not simply think twice from, but recoil in utter fear about, doing so again. (Perhaps a personal consequence to the actor involved; I don't really believe in the fictional person of the corporation and I'm okay with holding its agents responsible for its bad behaviors.)
> It seems that you're advocating a 'punishment as deterrent' strategy for society along the lines of capital punishment.
Essentially, yes, but there's a multiplier involved that makes this comparison fuzzy. Organizations, which are not people, should be held to significantly higher standards of moral rectitude than any individual due to their geometrically (even exponentially?) greater power and ability to impact others. Impacts that would be "small" on the individual scale are seismic at Google-scale, and the punishments must reflect this.
I think there are better strategies for encouraging lawfulness (and, more important, ethical behavior) at the individual scale, and even at the societal level. But the modern corporation's entire schtick is being above that society--look how many useful idiots speak positively of the "amorality" of a corporation. If an appeal to the better nature of which people celebrate its non-existence, I'm okay with giving fear a go. I mean, we already live in the cyberpunk dystopia of the eighties, minus the mohawks and shoulderpads--at this point, inaction is acceptance.