Employment of more than 20 additional employees were reportedly terminated by Google amidst sit-in protests at Google’s offices in New York and California. This action was followed after the said protests were held against the company’s involvement in Project Nimbus, bringing the total number of fired employees to nearly 50, as per a report by The Verge.
The protests were triggered by Google’s $1.2 billion cloud computing project with the Israeli government, Project Nimbus, which has been facing backlash for its alleged involvement in activities perceived as supporting apartheid.
According to a spokesperson from No Tech for Apartheid named Jane Chung, some of the terminated employees were deemed as “non-participating bystanders” by Google, suggesting they were dismissed for merely being present during the protests.
Earlier, the company had terminated 28 employees following the sit-in demonstrations, which also resulted in the arrest of nine Google employees, as reported previously. Google’s head of security, Chris Rackow, had condemned the protests in a memo, describing the behavior as “unacceptable” and “extremely disruptive.”
Rackow emphasized that Google’s policies do not tolerate conduct that disrupts colleagues or creates an unsafe environment. He warned against any further violation of company policies.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai also addressed the issue, reminding employees of the company’s commitment to fostering open discussions while maintaining a professional environment. Pichai emphasized that Google is a business and not a platform for personal activism or disruptive debates over political issues.
“We have a culture of vibrant, open discussion that enables us to create amazing products and turn great ideas into action. That’s important to preserve,” Pichai said. However, he cautioned against behavior that disrupts coworkers or compromises workplace safety.
The termination of additional employees has sparked renewed debate over the limits of employee activism within large corporations like Google, where tensions often arise between organizational goals and individual expressions of dissent.
