Googlers: The New Union?

        The recent organized walkout by thousands of Google employees around the world to protest the company’s cozy conduct toward managers accused of sexual harassment is an important reminder that non-union employees are legally protected when taking joint action against their employer. Traditionally, collective action has been the purview of unions, however, as demonstrated by the Googlers, formal organizations may no longer be necessary for employees to organize and press workplace demands. Instead, social media now serves as a means to rally groups around important causes, including those that are work related.

      With the Googlers, we may be seeing the beginning of coordinated action outside the arduous process of traditional union organizing. Given Google management’s response, in which it supported the protestors and committed to taking their concerns seriously, employees may learn that many issues ignored in the past may be ripe for change through organic collective action. This may have serious consequences for companies and unions alike.

      As an observer and practitioner in the field of labor and employee relations for some 40 years, I cannot recall a similar instance where non-union employees at numerous job sites of a single company around the globe walked off the job to protest company policies. While sexual harassment and unequal treatment were the core issue for Googlers, employees can just as easily take similar action regarding the entire spectrum of human resource issues where they work.

      Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), employees may join together for mutual aid and protection regarding wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. In essence, with some determination and a Twitter account, they can rally co-workers to withhold their labor in order to push for change. This tactic is similar to how many Millennials respond to social injustice outside work. They organize through social media and then follow-through with direct street action and protest. As Millennials now make up a large percentage of the workforce, it is not unreasonable to expect they may extend these techniques to where they work.

      Employers are left with difficult choices when confronted by such action and should carefully think through their response. For instance, any adverse action taken against protesters could violate the NLRA and result in reinstatement and back pay for those fired because of the walkout. This is true for those terminated immediately, or within a reasonable period of time following the walkout. Also, failing to take concerns seriously could cause a long-term rift with individuals the company depends on for product innovation, delivery, and service. Being portrayed as a company that lacks empathy for what is important to its workers may result in a brain drain that will be difficult to fill as potential replacement workers may avoid working for the company. Additionally, sympathetic customers may side with workers and boycott the company’s products. Finally, as unions are not completely dead, though they only represent some 7% of private sector workers, they may be re-energized by the walkouts, and try to connect with and offer support for protesters with the goal of bringing them into the traditional union fold.

      Time will tell if this tactic expands, but employers should begin planning their response before they become the target of their employees’ collective action. Ferreting out concerns through opinion surveys, reviewing policies for their impact on employee needs, greater transparency when dealing with sensitive corporate issues, and less tolerance for rewarding wrongdoers with generous severance payments, are all things employers should consider. Given recent events, it certainly seems that while Baby Boomers may have stood silent in the face of objectionable corporate behavior, Millennials may not be so passive.