Labor

After the Trump Administration announced that it would begin to unwind an Obama-era program that shields younger undocumented immigrants from deportation, Microsoft vowed to defend its workers in court. Microsoft's president and chief legal officer, Brad Smith, said that the company is committed to protecting its 39 employees who have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status, also known as “dreamers.” “If Congress fails to act, our company will exercise its legal rights properly to help protect our employees,” Smith wrote. “If the government seeks to deport any one of them, we will provide and pay for their legal counsel.” Smith added that Microsoft will explore whether it can intervene directly in any such deportation case. “In short, if Dreamers who are our employees are in court, we will be by their side.”

Various unions have lined up against the Sinclair/Tribune merger, concerned, among other things, that the meld's synergies will mean job losses. Asking the Federal Communications Commission to deny the $3.9 billion merger were the Communications Workers of America, the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians and The News Guild.

"A merger between Sinclair and Tribune would reduce viewpoint diversity and competition, harm localism, and reduce jobs," the unions told the FCC in asking it to deny the application for license transfers. "Sinclair has been a leader in joint service and shared service agreements," they told the FCC. "These agreements result in fewer stations producing news, less time devoted to local news, and also fewer broadcast station employees and journalists. The primary cost-saving in these models is the reduction of employees through the elimination of locally-originated programming at one or more of the affected stations by duplicating (or triplicating) the same programming."

The tech industry's top CEOs are demanding President Trump and Congress continue a program that protects young undocumented immigrants from being deported. "Dreamers are vital to the future of our companies and our economy," the CEOs wrote in a letter posted on FWD.us, an immigration advocacy organization. "With them, we grow and create jobs. They are part of why we will continue to have a global competitive advantage." The letter was signed by Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Apple's Tim Cook, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai, Hewlett Packard Enterprise's Meg Whitman, Microsoft's Satya Nadella and Netflix's Reed Hastings, among 350 others. Tech investors and board members, including Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett and General Motors' Mary Barra also signed the letter.

So how, exactly, do we define “public interest technology”? Depending on context and conversation, the phrase can refer to a field, a profession, a methodology, a solution, or an aspiration. In turn, each of those has its own definition. Public interest technology, the field, is a space funders and foundations want to bring into being, but one still in the process of making itself. In its final definition and at its heart, public interest technology is an aspiration. It’s the hope that one day, the norm, not the exception, will be 21st-century technology and tools integrated horizontally, vertically, and daily into solving 21st-century problems faced by the public. It’s the move toward measurable, sustainable, long-lasting impact and equal access to modern solutions to improve modern daily life. It’s a small phrase for big dreams.

The technology sector has been on edge, waiting to see if the new administration will make the reforms needed to spur innovation and startup activity, or whether it will make policy changes that end up stifling it. There are a few key areas of tech policy that are top of mind for tech CEOs and other industry participants, including four key issues: Expanding tech talent, intellectual property protection, artificial intelligence and automation, and network neutrality. Current Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is arguing to end internet service providers’ status as common carriers (on par with utilities), and instead “reestablish” market forces in regulating the internet. His view is that this would increase infrastructure investment and innovation among the aging broadband networks. This is not surprising, given President Trump’s view on this as a “top-down power grab,” drawing analogies to the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine.

A law firm representing James Damore, who was fired from Google earlier in Aug for writing a controversial internal memo, is asking other former and current employees to come forward with “illegal employment practices” at Google. A blog post from Damore's firm specifically solicited those who had been reprimanded for “refusing to comply with the political orthodoxy at the company” or had faced retaliation over their political views or whistleblowing. “On behalf of current firm clients, Dhillon Law Group is investigating Google’s employment discrimination against employees on the basis of their political views and other protected characteristics, as well as retaliation against employees for complaining about these violations of labor laws,” the firm wrote in a blog post on its website.

President Donald Trump’s relationship with the American business community suffered a major setback Aug 16 as the president was forced to shut down his major business advisory councils after corporate leaders repudiated his comments on the violence in Charlottesville (VA) this weekend. President Trump announced the disbanding of the two councils — the Strategy & Policy Forum and the Manufacturing Council, which hosted many of the top corporate leaders in America — amid a growing uproar by chief executives furious over President Trump's decision to equate the actions of white supremacists and protesters in remarks he made Aug 15. But those groups had already decided to dissolve on their own earlier in the day, apparently.

Earlier Aug 16, the chief executives of Campbell Soup and the conglomerate 3M resigned from the manufacturing council. “Racism and murder are unequivocally reprehensible and are not morally equivalent to anything else that happened in Charlottesville,” Campbell Soup chief executive Denise Morrison said. “I believe the president should have been — and still needs to be — unambiguous on that point.”

A federal district court judge on Aug 14 said that LinkedIn cannot block a startup company from accessing users' public profile data. Judge Edward Chen in the northern district of California granted hiQ labs, an employment startup, a preliminary injunction that forces LinkedIn to remove any barriers keeping hiQ from accessing public profile information within 24 hours. HiQ’s operations depend on its ability to access public LinkedIn data. The company sells analytics to clients including eBay, Capital One and GoDaddy that aim to help them with employee retention and recruitment. LinkedIn contends that hiQ’s services threaten its users’ privacy. Even though their information is already public, LinkedIn argued that users might not want to have employers tracking changes on their profiles, for example if they are seeking a new job. In his order, Chen argued that LinkedIn’s argument was flawed.

America's largely romantic view of its giant tech companies — Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. —is turning abruptly into harsh scrutiny. Silicon Valley suddenly faces a much more intrusive hand from Washington, based on rapidly accumulating vulnerabilities. Today's conditions — populist rage in the country, combined with growing suspicion of corporate behemoths — closely mirror those that gave us Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting of oil and steel at the turn of the 1900s, and the progressive reforms that ushered in today's antitrust protections.

When I showed a draft of this item to my tech colleagues at Axios, they pointed out that many of the giants have been trying to recalibrate their Washington operations for the Trump era: Facebook hired a former top Senate aide to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Google, with long Democratic ties, did "an about-face" to woo Republicans after the election. Amazon hired a lobbyist with close Trump ties, Brian Ballard. A key executive at one of the targeted companies told me: "It's the attitude and the mood of the country, underscored by the election. It's hit in so many different directions, including the institutions of news and the institutions of higher learning."

[Commentary] I was fired by Google Aug 7 for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company’s code of conduct and “cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

My 10-page document set out what I considered a reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument, but as I wrote, the viewpoint I was putting forward is generally suppressed at Google because of the company’s “ideological echo chamber.” My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument? If Google continues to ignore the very real issues raised by its diversity policies and corporate culture, it will be walking blind into the future—unable to meet the needs of its remarkable employees and sure to disappoint its billions of users.

[Damore worked as a software engineer at Google’s Mountain View campus from 2013 until this past week.]