The global walkout on Thursday last week by Google workers, a response to Alphabet Inc’s reported protection of executives accused of sexual misconduct, might be a harbinger of something new in employer-employee relations: empowered workers’ moral-political protest directed as much against the general culture as against management.
Although the walkout is connected in a broad sense to workplace conditions, this is not the trade union strike of old. Google’s workers are mainly professionals: engineers, not laborers. They have well-paid, high-prestige jobs at a company known for recruiting top employees. Not all of the thousands of workers who walked out were personal victims of workplace sexual harassment.
Nor did the signs and slogans associated with the walkout suggest that Google’s workers feel oppressed as a class. The protest, in sum, was not about the classic struggle of labor against capital or oppressive management.
Rather, the Google walkout seems to have been about values, specifically the value of moral condemnation of workplace sexual harassment. The precipitating event was not, say, reports detailing that there have been widespread instances of sexual harassment at the company. That seems to have been the motivating force behind the McDonald’s global walkout in September.
The news that fueled the Google walkout was the New York Times report that the company had protected a series of very senior men associated with the company and accused of inappropriate sexual conduct connected to the workplace, offering them lucrative severance packages or keeping them on.
The charges resonated with the #MeToo movement. The walkout therefore needs to be understood partly in that specific context. Google’s employees were signaling to management that they feel serious unhappiness with the corporate and general culture in which the instances of harassment occurred and were, essentially, covered up.
Google’s sophisticated employees understood that their walkout would be covered in news media worldwide. They probably also understood that the Times story on its own would motivate Alphabet’s senior leadership to change internal sexual harassment policies.
The employees were therefore doing more than requesting workplace changes like the dropping of mandatory arbitration for contract-related disputes, or that the company’s chief diversity officer report directly to chief executive officer Sundar Pichai.
The Google employees who walked out were taking a public, collective stand in the broader conversation about sexual harassment. They were able to make that statement in part because they were Google employees, whose actions would make news and whose cultural prestige put significant weight into their protest.
Management seems to have interpreted the protest in this way.
In an e-mail, Pichai said that the problem of harassment “had persisted for far too long in our society” and he promised his employees “the support you need” in connection with the walkout.
In essence, Pichai was trying to get behind the walkout. That might have been clever corporate management, but it was also a recognition that the walkout did not need to be interpreted as criticism of Alphabet so much as an act of societal protest.
This aspiration on the part of employees to take collective action in furtherance of global political goals is important.
To be sure, it is part of a growing trend among tech companies for employee petitions protesting policies the employees do no like.
However, Google’s employees went a step further with their walkout — and the accommodating response from management might contribute to it. It is now possible to imagine employees at other companies staging similar walkouts.
The immediate impetus could be upsetting news about their own companies, but that is not even necessary. One could easily imagine, for example, employees at other tech companies staging future walkouts in solidarity with the Google employees — even without precipitating events at their own companies.
The most apt analogy may be student walkouts and protests, which do not necessarily reflect dissatisfaction with their own educational institutions. The national student walkout over gun control in March is a good example.
If students can walk out over a political-moral issue with solidarity and support from many of their teachers, there is no reason employees cannot do the same.
Unlike the general strikes of the 1920s, the goal of such symbolic walkouts would not be to paralyze industry to win important structural victories for workers. There would be relatively little economic cost, if any. As a consequence, management might well support the walkouts, the way school administrators frequently do.
The consequence for companies whose employees walk out in a show of political-moral solidarity with some national or international issue is rather that the company could come to be identified with a particular political position. When that position is sufficiently universal or does not harm the company in some consumer market, or is strongly shared by management, there is reason to expect management acquiescence.
Things would be much trickier for management if employees were taking positions that the companies do not want to associate with themselves, but that would probably represent a different stage in the possible future development of this new practice.
Noah Feldman is a professor of law at Harvard University. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers