Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 293 posts

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#111

Post by m0zg »

dekhn wrote: post #102
m0zg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> overly expansive ownership claim Yeah, that particular clause gave me a looong pause before signing their contract, in fact I even seriously considered taking one of the other offers I had. This is why you see all those "happens to be owned by Google" disclaimers on open source projects. This means the person wrote this code on their own time, yet it's owned by Google anyway, which IMO is total employee-hostile bu…

I agreed to that contract and open sourced many thousands of lines of code owned by Google, but still available to me and the rest of the world via github. I don't see the problem. If you could demonstrate your project didn't overlap google business then you could do your own project.

People seem to not quite get this, so I'll try to be as clear as I can.

Google should not have the ability to claim ownership on unrelated work that does not use company time or resources unless _I_ _voluntarily_ relinquish such ownership. Google should have no business whatsoever interfering with what I do on my own personal time. Nor should I have to make anything open source. Nor should I need to ask anyone's _permission_ to utilize my own time as I see fit. You can get these terms with other companies, if you ask for them.

The only exception I think is reasonable is if my project discloses Google proprietary information in any way, or directly competes with Google, in which case Google should be able to terminate my employment.

This would be fair. What Google is doing now is slimy AF.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#112

Post by eropple »

dragonwriter wrote: post #110
eropple wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an argument (and 'dragonwriter, if I have the measure of him, is illustrating it rather than advocating it) that a salaried employee has no "own time" except insofar as their time is not required by the employer. They can quit if they want time that the employer does not deign to grant them. In my more cynical moments I think this is the prevailing view in American tech.

Well, I'm somewhere in between illustrating and advocating (EDIT: “advocating” here as “advocating as legally true” rather than “advocating as desirable”); I'm generally dubious that there is a meaningful legally cognizable boundary of “own time vs. work time” as opposed to “own activity vs. work activity” for salaried employees paid for work product, as opposed to employees paid for hours of work. If you are working…

Sure, and employers actively (and probably to our, as workers, detriment) cause that conflation to make it harder to understand what that worker is allowed to do with their lives.

Criticizing the notion of "own time" when the people who effectively have the power, and the greater share of organization (both extant and allowed), perpetuate that notion seems like a less-than-useful use of time.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#113

Post by jonas21 »

Datenstrom wrote: post #48
m0zg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> overly expansive ownership claim Yeah, that particular clause gave me a looong pause before signing their contract, in fact I even seriously considered taking one of the other offers I had. This is why you see all those "happens to be owned by Google" disclaimers on open source projects. This means the person wrote this code on their own time, yet it's owned by Google anyway, which IMO is total employee-hostile bu…

Doesn't California law protect people from employers stealing code you write on your own time? I recently turned down an offer in CA despite thinking I read something along those lines taking it as a sign of toxic culture. Another place had such a policy but gladly agreed to drop it.

This is the relevant California law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

It says that if you do the work on your own time, with your own equipment, and without using any of your employer's trade secrets, the employer can't claim ownership of it unless it relates to the their business or R&D.

I think the issue is that large companies like Google do so many things that almost anything involving software or the internet would relate to their business and not be covered by the law.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#114

Post by kodablah »

kelnos wrote: post #87
ergothus wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying unions won't work...I'm saying they weren't involved in this case. This case doesn't look particularly repeatable WITHOUT unions.

I think that was the point. The original parent was making a tongue-in-cheek reference to how tech workers seem to resist the idea of forming a union, but occasionally band together to do union-like things informally, in an ad-hoc, not-particularly-reliable fashion.

I read it as "see, didn't require forming a union to get something done in the tech industry"

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#115

Post by massivecali »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #84
defen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the right to surveillance on personal property Wait, what? I don't think I've seen that before, what does this mean exactly?

Well, I can't quote my copy as I'm under NDA from sharing it, however if you have a copy that you signed then carefully read the section about "equipment that you use to access your google work account".

Isn't there something similar in all Terms when loading something like Outlook Exchange etc. onto your personal phone with your work email? You basically sign over all privacy and content for them to do as they please with no granularity.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#116

Post by kodablah »

ergothus wrote: post #99
perfmode wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't it look repeatable?

Rephrasing from my original comment: Because Google worried about a very supply-limited audience (tech workers, including related non-programmers). Most fields, the ones paying their employees far less and with far fewer perks, don't share that restraint. If these other fields had their current crop of (non-unionized) workers get disgusted, the companies would just get different employees. There's no shortage of comp…

So, would you say it is particularly repeatable in this industry? I.e. that while those other industries need unions due to lack of leverage, this one may be different?

(of course one instance is too small of a sample size to support either direction on its own)

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#117

Post by srkmno »

s17n wrote: post #104
srkmno wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason "auxiliary" workers get a raw deal in this country is that health insurance is dealt through employers via a terrible WW2 era tax incentive. If companies didn't get on the hook for providing health insurance they would directly employ more people instead of using contractors. So this is why I'm worried about labor unions in tech and the private sector in general; they are never the solution, and their lack…

The point of unions is to get workers a better deal through collective bargaining. In a company that's growing rapidly, it doesn't make sense for either the employees or the owners / management to worry too much about how the pie is getting divided up. As companies mature and growth slows, employees who aren't unionized are inevitably going to get screwed. In an industry where corporate profits can exceed $1000000 pe…

So they can kill these companies faster?

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#118

Post by snowflakeandrey »

joshuamorton wrote: post #78
jahn716 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the exact same reaction. Shouldn't this worry the employees the most?

I work at Google and have absolutely no clue what he's referring to. My best guess is that it has something to do with the permissions you give Google if you add a work profile/account to your phone. But that isn't required.

That makes a lot of sense, and a legitimately personal decision. Some people don't want to share root access on the personal phone with their employer. Other people don't want to carry a separate phone for work.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#119

Post by ChuckMcM »

m0zg wrote: post #98
dragonwriter wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This means the person wrote this code on their own time What is “your own time” as a salaried employee payed for work product not hours on the job site?

You don't understand. Google claims ownership even on the stuff that you do on _your own_ time, like nights and weekends, without using _any_ Google resources. Even if this stuff is in no way related to what you do at work.

Disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice. I've dealt with this part of the code as both an employee and an employer.

California labor law section 2870

(a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except ...[1]

It then goes on to carve out some exceptions. The one that Google leans on is this one:

(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer;

Google argues that they anticipate researching and developing anything you might be interested in working on so its theirs. In my case I pushed legal to say, in writing, that even if I wrote an iOS kitchen timer application on my own time with my own equipment, then Google would own that app. My attorney suggested that if I sued them they would likely lose, but if I sued them they would stop employing me anyway, so if I really wanted to go into the Kitchen Timer app business I should just quit rather than risk Google making a claim to my IP that I would have to pay expensive legal fees to get invalidated.

This section of the code has been litigated many times and the general consensus is time that you are both not at work, and you aren't required to be at work, can be considered "your own time" by this statute.

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

Post reply on HN