NLRB says Google engineer memo was "so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive
| Submissive faggotry | 02/17/18 | | crawly canary cuckold kitty | 02/17/18 | | Exciting dragon pervert | 02/17/18 | | maize sound barrier | 02/17/18 | | Hairraiser incel home | 02/17/18 | | maize sound barrier | 02/17/18 | | Submissive faggotry | 02/17/18 | | Exciting dragon pervert | 02/17/18 | | Vigorous field yarmulke | 02/17/18 | | Exciting dragon pervert | 02/17/18 | | sticky gaping | 02/17/18 | | Exciting dragon pervert | 02/17/18 | | Submissive faggotry | 02/17/18 | | Hairraiser incel home | 02/19/18 | | yapping piazza | 02/17/18 | | Sexy Pit Really Tough Guy | 02/17/18 | | maize sound barrier | 02/17/18 | | Splenetic Hall | 02/17/18 | | Exciting dragon pervert | 02/17/18 | | Sexy Pit Really Tough Guy | 02/17/18 | | crawly canary cuckold kitty | 02/17/18 | | Sepia free-loading house masturbator | 02/19/18 | | Splenetic Hall | 02/17/18 | | Excitant lay antidepressant drug | 02/17/18 | | mustard chad | 02/17/18 | | Ebony Stage | 02/17/18 | | maize sound barrier | 02/17/18 | | Hateful aromatic wrinkle | 02/17/18 | | charismatic mint hospital | 02/17/18 | | Offensive cyan affirmative action theater | 02/17/18 | | Pungent spot pisswyrm | 02/17/18 | | Razzmatazz khaki skinny woman | 02/17/18 | | Bonkers Anal Meetinghouse | 02/17/18 | | Purple maniacal lodge | 02/17/18 | | Henna rough-skinned crackhouse becky | 02/17/18 | | nubile filthy office | 02/17/18 | | cream aphrodisiac quadroon gay wizard | 02/17/18 | | Disgusting federal trailer park | 02/17/18 | | frozen glassy state | 02/19/18 | | Sepia free-loading house masturbator | 02/19/18 | | contagious insecure headpube national | 02/17/18 | | Exciting dragon pervert | 02/17/18 | | bearded jet stag film | 02/17/18 | | Exciting dragon pervert | 02/17/18 | | bearded jet stag film | 02/17/18 | | sienna market | 02/17/18 | | nubile filthy office | 02/17/18 | | Exciting dragon pervert | 02/17/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 17th, 2018 11:04 AM Author: Submissive faggotry
that it was ok to fire him
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/google-firing-of-damore-was-legal-u-s-labor-panel-lawyer-said
Google’s firing of an engineer over his controversial memo criticizing its diversity policies and “politically correct monoculture” didn’t violate U.S. labor law, a federal agency lawyer concluded.
Statements in James Damore’s 3,000-word memo “regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive” that they fell outside protections for collective action in the workplace, an associate general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board wrote in a six-page memo disclosed Thursday.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3895770&forum_id=2#35424059) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2018 11:12 AM Author: Exciting dragon pervert
he's put people on the NLRB who have already rolled back a lot of Obama NLRB precedent in just a few months.
in fact, this decision came from the NLRB's current general counsel, who has openly declared that he wants to roll back nearly everything the NLRB has done since 2009.
from what i have read, when they terminated him google was careful to rely ONLY on portions of the memo that were incendiary and arguably could constitute sex discrimination/harassment. they may have consulted with a labor lawyer before firing the guy (or they got lucky in not citing other portions of the memo).
if correct, this is not a controversial decision. the NLRA only protects concerted activity regarding "protected" subjects (pay, working conditions, etc.) if google truly only relied on shit like "WOMEN ARE BAD AT SCIENCE!" in the memo, the NLRA shouldn't protect statements like that anyway. (if you disagree, then you are in agreement, in principle, with the shitlibs Obama packed the NLRB with, who wanted to extend NLRA protection to almost any conduct no matter how tenuously related to working conditions affecting employees as a group.)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3895770&forum_id=2#35424089)
|
|
Date: February 17th, 2018 6:58 PM Author: nubile filthy office
Serious question from a non-lawyer who knows zero about these issue.
Is the truth of the statement any kind of defense / work in his favor in any way? Or does that not matter at all b/c you could still be extremely disruptive with the truth...
The word "discriminatory" in that sentence though bugs me b/c for some reason it makes it seem like discriminatory implies untruth.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3895770&forum_id=2#35427137) |
|
|