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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US