Workplace politics can be as minimal as the usual office power play or complex enough to land a company like Google in controversy. Back in April, Google decided to part ways with over fifty of its staff who openly denigrated the firm’s cloud computing agreement with the Israeli government. The termination was prompted by internal demonstrations carried out by these staff on the 16th of April in Google’s Silicon Valley and New York premises.
Google entered into a contract in 2021 known as “Project Nimbus” with Amazon. The venture avails the Israeli government with $1.2 billion worth of cloud services. This deal has, however, sparked debate since its officialisation. Google has repeatedly assured critics that the contract solely offers cloud services to the Israeli government and isn’t intended to facilitate military actions or surveillance. Nevertheless, several employees and human rights guards are sceptical of these assurances, fossered by previous traces of undeclared ties between the Israeli government and its military.
It’s notable that Israel is a major inventor of companies which produce top-grade surveillance tools. An example is the criticized Pegasus software which infiltrates cell phones. Its inappropriate use against world leaders, European MPs, journalists and activists has been recorded. The New York Times also revealed the excessive utilisation of advanced facial recognition technologies against Palestinians within the last year.
When the contract was signed in 2021, workers from both Google and Amazon promptly established a group named “No Tech For Apartheid” to oppose the contract. The group expressed that this agreement would aid additional surveillance and illegitimate data gathering on Palestinians, and further the progression of Israel’s unlawful settlements on Palestinian territory. It was this group that organised the Google demonstrations which led to the sackings.
Google justifies these firings by branding the actions as disruptive. However, the protesters refute this, claiming that their actions were not disruptive, and Google even dismissed personnel who merely spoke to them.
The true usage of the Project Nimbus contract remains inconclusive, unless a thorough investigation and disclosures from insiders occur. Withal, both Google and Amazon have drawn connections to doubtful surveillance and law enforcement exertions in the past.
Amazon and Google have been providing various services to several government bodies, including the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Pentagon. These services range from offering footage from Amazon’s Ring doorbell cameras to American police departments, to supplying technology for drone activities. Amnesty International voiced concern against the extensive, pervasive surveillance carried out by these tech giants, Google and Facebook, which they argue poses a significant threat to global human rights.
These are the other aspects of the phenomenon known as surveillance capitalism – a system employed by large technology corporations like Google – and involves aiding governments, surveillance and law enforcement agencies by providing specific technologies and services. While corporate defenders may argue otherwise, such actions are inherently Political.
Further, their significant role in lobbying activities reveals an inextricable link with politics at all levels of government – local, national and EU. In 2023 alone, a total of 651 tech companies dedicated €113 billion to lobbying efforts towards EU officials – an increase of 16.5 per cent compared to €97 million in 2021. Ten companies contributed to an incredible one-third of this spending, with Google ranked fourth and Amazon also being a significant contributor. The same year witnessed Google’s parent company, Alphabet, investing $14.5 million in lobbying in Washington, DC.
In essence, despite Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s comments that the workplace is no place for politics, the financial and operational activities of these technology giants tend to suggest otherwise.
In a section ironically dubbed “Mission First,” Google’s Pichai talks about fostering a varied and dynamic discourse within the company. However, he insists on Google remaining primarily a place of employment, where the established guidelines and expectations are respected. Moreover, any actions that could potentially hamper the work environment or risk employees’ safety, are strongly discouraged. Additionally, it ought not be used as a personal stage or as a battleground for contentious issues or political debates.
Apparently Google is not seen as a commercial medium themselves. As though their services are devoid of political implications, not creating disruption, and are ‘safe’. Pretending as if Google doesn’t voice its political opinions, nor implements surveillance nor plays a part in advancing others’ political activities.
“Distraction is not an option, at such a critical juncture for us as a company,” he further asserts. A circumstance that follows more than €20 million in political lobbying in the US and EU over the previous year. Apparently, there’s workplace politics, and then, there’s the more serious matter of – ‘Workplace Politics’.