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.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this