The Alphabet Workers Union filed a lawsuit against Google with the National Labor Relations Board after Google management asked workers not to talk about the ongoing antitrust case against Search.
According to a copy of the lawsuit filed and viewed in August, the union accuses Google of adopting an “overly broad policy” for discussing the case with employees The edge. On August 5, shortly after U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta issued his ruling that Google has an illegal monopoly, Kent Walker, president of global affairs, sent an email (also reviewed by). The edge) and instructs employees to “please refrain from commenting on this case both internally and externally.” At the start of the trial last fall, Walker sent a similar message: Business Insider reported at the time.
That could be a problem for Google if the NLRB concludes that Walker's policy could weaken protected concerted activity: actions by two or more employees together that are protected by labor law, such as discussing working conditions. “I could certainly imagine that the case would ultimately impact working conditions,” said Charlotte Garden, a professor specializing in labor law at the University of Minnesota. The DOJ has since suggested that eliminating Google's anticompetitive harms could mean something as drastic as a split of its Android and Chrome businesses – something that could plausibly lead to significant changes for workers in those units.
“We respect Google employees’ right to discuss their terms of employment.”
Still, Garden says there are some employee discussions about the case that may not be protected, such as considering how management should respond to the government. The NLRB will also weigh Google's legitimate business interests — perhaps including controlling the course of its own litigation or authorizing only certain spokespeople to speak about it on behalf of the company — and how likely management's statements are to constitute protected conversations between employees scare off.
“We respect Google employees’ right to discuss their terms of employment,” Google spokesman Peter Schottenfels said in a statement The edge. “As usual, we simply ask employees not to discuss ongoing litigation on behalf of Google without prior approval.”
Even if Walker's email did not contain an outright ban on discussing the antitrust case, the NLRB could still find it a violation if it concluded it was likely to stifle employee speech, Garden says . The board will assess how employees did and would likely interpret the email – either as general guidance that would not be enforced, or as a line not to be crossed or risk getting into trouble or forgoing future opportunities, she says. To accomplish this, Garden explains, the NLRB would examine employees' own reactions and interpretations of the policies and examine how the company has responded when employees have violated such policies in the past.
“I believe that the company has a history of silencing or retaliating against workers when they speak about their working conditions or make complaints.”
Stephen McMurtry, a senior software engineer at Google and communications chair of the Alphabet Workers Union, sees his employer's previous actions as a warning. “I believe the company has a history of silencing or retaliating against workers who speak out about their working conditions or complain to the company about things they believe are wrong or unethical. So even though it's a kind of corporate 'please refrain,' I think we can all see what has happened to some of our colleagues in the past who have raised concerns about various issues.”
McMurtry referred to the massive strike in 2018 in the wake of the #MeToo movement. Two of the organizers claimed retaliation for their roles in the demonstration (which Google denied) and ultimately left the company. Another former Google engineer shared The edge In 2019, she was fired for creating a browser pop-up for employees informing them of her workplace safety practices. A Google spokesman at the time did not confirm the employee's termination, saying it had fired someone who “abused privileged access to modify an internal security tool” but that it was not about the content. “It doesn’t seem so far-fetched that it could happen in this situation,” McMurtry says.
McMurtry doesn't really know what his colleagues think about the outcome of the case and what remedies might impact their work because he says it's not really talked about. He doesn't even have much of an opinion on the remedies the DOJ has proposed so far, but says it would be easier to come to an informed opinion about the likely impact on workers if he could talk about it with his colleagues.
The case could take a while to resolve, if the NLRB even decides to take it up. Garden says a regional office would first investigate the charges to decide whether to proceed – although many cases are resolved before then. NLRB spokeswoman Kayla Blado said The edge that his Oakland office is investigating the indictment filed Aug. 15. The NLRB says it typically takes seven to 14 weeks to determine the merits of a charge, which could lead to a trial before an administrative law judge if the government decides to pursue the charge. Meanwhile, Google and the Justice Department are expected to return to court in April to argue over what remedies the judge should take to address Google's anticompetitive effects.