Connect with us

Published

on

Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google
Anindito Mukherjee | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Several hundred Google employees have signed and circulated a manifesto opposing the company’s vaccine mandate, posing the latest challenge for leadership as it approaches key deadlines for returning workers to offices in person.

The Biden administration has ordered U.S. companies with 100 or more workers to ensure their employees are fully vaccinated or regularly tested for Covid-19 by Jan. 4. In response, Google has asked its more than 150,000 employees to upload their vaccination status to its internal systems by Dec. 3, whether they plan on coming into the office or not, according to internal documents viewed by CNBC. The company has also said that all employees who work directly or indirectly with government contracts must be vaccinated — even if they are working from home.

“Vaccines are key to our ability to enable a safe return to office for everyone and minimize the spread of Covid-19 in our communities, wrote Chris Rackow, Google VP of security, in an email sent near the end of October.

Rackow stated the company was already implementing requirements, so the changes from Biden’s executive order were “minimal.” His email gave a deadline of Nov. 12 for employees to request exemptions for reasons such as religious beliefs or medical conditions, and said that cases would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The manifesto within Google, which has been signed by at least 600 Google employees, asks company leaders to retract the vaccine mandate and create a new one that is “inclusive of all Googlers,” arguing leadership’s decision will have outsized influence in corporate America. It also calls on employees to “oppose the mandate as a matter of principle” and tells employees to not let the policy alter their decision if they’ve already chosen not to receive the Covid-19 shot.

The manifesto comes as most of the Google workforce approaches a deadline to return to physical offices three days a week starting Jan. 10. The company’s notably outspoken employees have previously debated everything from government contracts to cafeteria food changes. 

A spokesperson for Google said the company stands behind its policy. “As we’ve stated to all our employees and the author of this document, our vaccination requirements are one of the most important ways we can keep our workforce safe and keep our services running. We firmly stand behind our vaccination policy.”

The mandate dilemma

Vaccination is a dilemma not only for Google, but for corporate America in general. The Covid-19 virus has contributed to 772,570 deaths in the U.S., according to Johns Hopkins data. Despite proven effectiveness in providing a high level of protection against hospitalization and death, the country is struggling to persuade millions of people to get their first dose, as more than 60 million Americans remain unvaccinated.

In July, CEO Sundar Pichai announced the company would require vaccinations for those returning to offices. In October, Pichai said that the San Francisco Bay Area offices, near its headquarters, are up to 30% filled while New York is seeing nearly half of its employees back. He added at that time that employees who don’t want to get vaccinated would be able to continue working remotely. 

The company has taken other steps to convince employees to get vaccinated as well. For instance, Joe Kava, vice president of data centers at Google, announced a $5,000 vaccination incentive spot bonus for U.S. data center employees, according to the manifesto.

In an email cited in the manifesto and viewed by CNBC, Google VP of global security Chris Rackow said that because of the company’s work with the federal government, which “today encompasses products and services spanning Ads, Cloud Maps, Workspace and more,” all employees working directly or indirectly with government contracts will require vaccinations — even if they are working from home. Frequent testing is “not a valid alternative,” he added.

The authors of the manifesto strongly disagree.

“I believe that Sundar’s Vaccine Mandate is deeply flawed,” the manifesto states, calling company leadership “coercive,” and “the antithesis of inclusion.” 

In a subhead titled “Respect the User,” the authors write that the mandate of “barring unvaccinated Googlers from the office publicly and possibly embarrassingly exposes a private choice as it would be difficult for the Googler not to reveal why they cannot return.”

The author also argues the mandate violates the company’s principles of inclusiveness.

“Such Googlers may never feel comfortable expressing their true sentiments about a company health policy and other, unrelated sensitive topics. This results in silenced perspective and exacerbates the internal ideological ‘echo chamber’ which folks both inside and outside of Google have observed for years.”

The manifesto also opposes Google having a record of employees’ vaccination status.

“I do not believe Google should be privy to the health and medical history of Googlers and the vaccination status is no exception.” Google has asked employees to upload their vaccination proof to Google’s “environmental health and safety” team even if they already uploaded it to One Medical, one of Google’s benefits providers, according to internal documentation.

The author then tries to argue the vaccine mandate may be the start of a slippery slope, paving the way for other intrusive measures — a common line of argument among people opposed to the mandates.

“It normalizes medical intervention compulsion not only for Covid-19 vaccination but for future vaccines and possibly even non-vaccine interventions by extension. It justifies the principle of division and unequal treatment of Googlers based on their personal beliefs and decisions. The implications are chilling. Due to its presence as an industry leader, Google’s mandate will influence companies around the world to consider these as acceptable tradeoffs.”

The group has sent these concerns in an open letter to Google’s chief health officer Karen DeSalvo, the document states.

In Google’s most recent all-hands meeting, called TGIF, some employees attempted to bring more attention to the vaccine question by getting fellow employees “downvote” other questions in an internal system called Dory, according to an internal email chain viewed by CNBC. The goal was to ensure their questions would gain enough votes to qualify for executives to address them.

Google’s health ambitions

The pushback against vaccine mandates poses a new challenge for Google’s leadership at a time when it is trying to target the healthcare industry among its growing business ambitions — particularly for its cloud unit. 

In August, Google disbanded its health unit as a formalized business unit for the health-care sector and Dr. David Feinberg, who spent the past two years leading the search giant’s health care unit, left the company. Nonetheless, Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian has routinely mentioned healthcare sector as a key focus area and DeSalvo, an ex-Obama administrator whom Google hired as its first health chief in 2019, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last month the tech giant is “still all in on health.”

The company has tried to capitalize on the broader fight against Covid in several ways. In the first half of 2021, the company spent nearly $30 million on at-home Covid tests for employees from Cue Health, which went public in September at a $3 billion valuation. Shortly after, the company announced a separate partnership with Google’s cloud unit to collect and analyze Covid-19 data with hopes of predicting future variants. Google also teamed up with Apple for an opt-in contract tracing software in hopes of tracking Covid-19.

Continue Reading

Technology

We’re looking to further trim this drug stock and exit this entertainment giant

Published

on

By

We're looking to further trim this drug stock and exit this entertainment giant

Continue Reading

Technology

JPMorgan Chase wins fight with fintech firms over fees to access customer data

Published

on

By

JPMorgan Chase wins fight with fintech firms over fees to access customer data

An exterior view of the new JPMorgan Chase global headquarters building at 270 Park Avenue on Nov. 13, 2025 in New York City.

Angela Weiss | AFP | Getty Images

JPMorgan Chase has secured deals ensuring it will get paid by the fintech firms responsible for nearly all the data requests made by third-party apps connected to customer bank accounts, CNBC has learned.

The bank has signed updated contracts with fintech middlemen that make up more than 95% of the data pulls on its systems, including Plaid, Yodlee, Morningstar and Akoya, according to JPMorgan spokesman Drew Pusateri.

“We’ve come to agreements that will make the open banking ecosystem safer and more sustainable and allow customers to continue reliably and securely accessing their favorite financial products,” Pusateri said in a statement. “The free market worked.”

The milestone is the latest twist in a long-running dispute between traditional banks and the fintech industry over access to customer accounts. For years, middlemen like Plaid paid nothing to tap bank systems when a customer wanted to use a fintech app like Robinhood to draw funds or check balances.

That dynamic appeared to be enshrined in law in late 2024 when the Biden-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized what is known as the “open-banking rule” requiring banks to share customer data with other financial firms at no cost.

But banks sued to prevent the CFPB rule from taking hold and seemed to gain the upper hand in May after the Trump administration asked a federal court to vacate the rule.

Soon after, JPMorgan — the largest U.S. bank by assets, deposits and branches — reportedly told the middlemen that it would start charging what amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars for access to its customer data.

In response, fintech, crypto and venture capital executives argued that the bank was engaging in “anti-competitive, rent-seeking behavior” that would hurt innovation and consumers’ ability to use popular apps.

After weeks of negotiations between JPMorgan and the middlemen, the bank agreed to lower pricing than it originally proposed, while the fintech middlemen won concessions regarding the servicing of data requests, according to people with knowledge of the talks.

Fintech firms preferred the certainty of locking in data-sharing rates because it is unclear whether the current CFPB, which is in the process of revising the open-banking rule, will favor banks or fintechs, according to a venture capital investor who asked for anonymity to discuss his portfolio companies.

The bank and the fintech firms declined to disclose details about their contracts, including how much the middlemen agreed to pay and how long the deals were in force.

Wider impact

The deals mark a shift in the power dynamic between banks, middlemen and the fintech apps that are increasingly threatening incumbents. More banks are likely to begin charging fintechs for access to their systems, according to industry observers.  

“JPMorgan tends to be a trendsetter. They’re sort of the leader of the pack, so it’s fair to expect that the rest of the major banks will follow,” said Brian Shearer, director of competition and regulatory policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator.

Shearer, who worked at the CFPB under former director Rohit Chopra, said he was worried that the development would create a barrier of entry to nascent startups and ultimately result in higher costs for consumers.

Source: Robinhood

Proponents of the 2024 CFPB rule said it gave consumers control over their financial data and encouraged competition and innovation. Banks including JPMorgan said it exposed them to fraud and unfairly saddled them with the rising costs of maintaining systems increasingly tapped by the middlemen and their clients.  

When Plaid’s deal with JPMorgan was announced in September, the companies issued a dual press release emphasizing the continuity it provided for customers.

But the industry group that Plaid is a part of has harshly criticized the development, signaling that while JPMorgan has won a decisive battle, the ongoing skirmish may yet play out in courts and in the public.

“Introducing prohibitive tolls is anti-competitive, anti-innovation, and flies in the face of the plain reading of the law,” said Penny Lee, CEO of the Financial Technology Association, told CNBC in response to the JPMorgan milestone.

These agreements are not the free market at work, but rather big banks using their market position to capitalize on regulatory uncertainty,” Lee said. “We urge the Trump Administration to uphold the law by maintaining the existing prohibition on data access fees.”

Continue Reading

Technology

Founder Eric Gillespie fired from Govini board after child sex solicitation arrest

Published

on

By

Founder Eric Gillespie fired from Govini board after child sex solicitation arrest

Anton Petrus | Moment | Getty Images

Govini has fired Eric Gillespie from its board of directors after the founder was charged with attempting to solicit sexual contact with a minor online.

“The actions of one depraved individual should not in any way diminish the hard work of the broader team and their commitment to the security of the United States of America,” the defense software startup said in a release late Wednesday.

The company said the 57-year-old had no access to classified information since stepping down as CEO nearly ten years ago.

On Monday, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office charged Gillespie with four felonies, including multiple counts of unlawful contact with a preteen.

A judge denied bail for Gillespie, who lived in Pittsburgh, citing flight risk and public safety concerns.

At the time, the Pentagon officials told CNBC that they were investigating the arrest and possible security risks.

Read more CNBC tech news

Last month, the Arlington, Virginia-based startup surpassed $100 million in annual recurring revenue and announced a $150 million growth investment from Bain Capital.

Govini has a more than $900-million contract with the U.S. government and deals with the Department of War.

Gillespie, who is viewed as an expert in government transparency, was named to the Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee during the Obama administration in 2014.

He previously worked as an executive at business intelligence platform Onvia.

He is a graduate of Miami University and Harvard Business School.

Continue Reading

Trending