The Alphabet Workers Union filed a complaint against Google with the National Labor Relations Board after Google management asked workers to “refrain” from speaking about its ongoing search antitrust case.
The union accuses Google of issuing an “overly broad directive” on discussing the case with employees, according to a copy of the indictment filed in August and seen by The edge. On August 5, just after US District Court Judge Amit Mehta issued his decision finding that Google has an illegal monopoly, global affairs president Kent Walker sent an email (also reviewed by The edge) instructing employees to “refrain from commenting on this case, both internally and externally.” Walker sent a similar message at the start of the trial last fall, Insider business information reported at that time.
That could be a problem for Google if the NLRB concludes that Walker's directive could curb protected concerted activity: actions by two or more employees together that are protected by labor law, such as discussing working conditions. “I can certainly imagine that there would be ways that the case would ultimately affect working conditions,” says Charlotte Garden, a professor at the University of Minnesota who specializes in labor law. The Justice Department has since suggested that remedying Google's anticompetitive harms could mean something as drastic as a breakup of its Android and Chrome businesses, something that could plausibly result in significant changes for workers in those units.
“We respect the right of Google employees to discuss their terms and conditions of employment”
Still, Garden says there are some discussions employees could have about the case that might not be protected, such as reflecting on 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 specific spokespersons to speak on behalf of the company) and the likelihood that management's statements would chill protected conversations between the parties. employees.
“We respect the rights of Google employees to discuss their terms and conditions of employment,” Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels said in a statement to The edge. “As is standard practice, we simply ask that employees not discuss ongoing litigation on behalf of Google without prior approval.”
Although Walker's email did not include an outright ban on speaking about the antitrust case, the NLRB could still consider it a violation if it concludes it would likely chill employee speech, Garden says. The board will evaluate how employees interpreted and likely interpreted the email, either as general guidance that would not apply or as a line that should not be crossed or risk getting in trouble or giving up future opportunities, he says. To do that, Garden explains, the NLRB would examine employees' reactions and interpretations of the directives and how the company responded when workers went against those directives in the past.
“I believe that the company does have a history of silencing or retaliating against workers who speak out about their working conditions or file complaints”
Stephen McMurtry, a Google software engineer and communications president for the Alphabet Workers Union, sees his employer's past 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 file complaints with the company about things they consider wrong or unethical. So even if the language is kind of a corporate 'please refrain,' I think we can all see what happened to some of our coworkers in the past who expressed concerns about different issues.”
McMurtry pointed to the 2018 mass strike in the wake of the #MeToo movement. Two of the organizers technology/google-walkout-employees-retaliation.html”>claimed retaliation for his role in the protest (which Google denied) and ultimately left the company. Another former Google engineer said The edge In 2019, she was fired for creating a browser pop-up for employees informing them of their workplace protections. A Google spokesperson at the time did not confirm the employee's firing, saying they had fired someone who “abused privileged access to modify an internal security tool,” but that it was not about its content. “It doesn't seem so far-fetched that this could happen in this situation,” McMurtry says.
McMurtry doesn't really know what his coworkers think about the outcome of the case and what solutions could affect their jobs because he says it's not really discussed. He doesn't even have an opinion on the remedies the DOJ has suggested so far, but he says being able to talk about it with his coworkers would make it easier to come to an informed opinion about the possible effects on workers.
The case could take a while to resolve, if the NLRB decides to even take it up. Garden says a regional office would first investigate the charge to determine if it should move forward, although many cases are resolved before that happens. NLRB spokesperson Kayla Blado said The edge that his Oakland office is investigating the charge, which was filed Aug. 15. He The NLRB says it typically takes seven to 14 weeks to determine the merits of a charge, which could start a case before an administrative law judge if the government decides to pursue it. Meanwhile, Google and the Justice Department will return to court in April to discuss what remedies the judge should impose to address Google's anticompetitive effects.
