Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's quite a stretch to call this a political issue.
Unionization is definitely a political issue.
In the US. Decidedly not in other countries, where it is just something you do.
Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize
281–290 of 779 posts
Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize
#282Spiers' account of what happened: https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for...
Thanks for the link. This section caught my attention: > I was interrogated about separate other organizing activities, and asked (eight times) if I had an intention to disrupt the workplace. The interrogations were extremely aggressive and illegal. They wouldn’t let me consult with anyone, including a lawyer, and relentlessly pressured me to incriminate myself and any coworkers Sounds more foxconn than Google to me.…
I don't understand this "wouldn't let me" stuff. Pull out your phone and call someone. Some random person in a meeting room at Google isn't the police. You aren't in custody. If you're uncomfortable then walk out. If anyone at my employer was the least bit aggressive to me I would immediately walk away.
Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize
#283> Kathryn Spiers, who worked as a security engineer, updated an internal Chrome browser extension so that each time Google employees visited the website of IRI Consultants — the Troy, Michigan, firm that Google hired this year amid a groundswell of labor activism at the company — they would see a pop-up message that read: “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.” So basically, the Go…
I agreed with this at first, but according to her medium post ( https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for... ) "Part of my job was to write browser notifications so that my coworkers can be automatically notified of employee guidelines and company policies while they surf the web" If this is true and her job is literally to create javascript notifications of company policy, then I think it's entire…
You're right. It literally links to (what appears to be) an internal company document. go/nlrbnotice
Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
When a cop pulls speeders but strongly focuses on one demographic group, even though each pull is justified in that the one pulled was violating the law, the pattern that emerges shows a greater level of injustice and the actual reasoning used is quite different than the stated reasoning because the stated reasoning is not consistently being applied. In this particular case, does Google consistently apply the stated…
That justice isn't equally applied doesn't excuse the perpetrator. If you're speeding over the limit and the cops pull you over, you still deserve the fine, simply because that's the law. This doesn't mean that the cops themselves are innocent of any wrongdoing, but the two issues are separate. And of course civil disobedience can be justified if the law or its application are unjust, but using it as an excuse after…
>That justice isn't equally applied doesn't excuse the perpetrator.
If you can prove it isn't being applied fairly it can result in rewards that more than cancel out any such penalty. Such discrimination cases can be hard to prove but can result in significant rewards magnitudes greater than the ticket fine.
Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it part of the security teams mission to insure legal compliance to workplace laws? I’m part of my company’s “architecture team” but that doesn’t mean I have the right (even though I do have the access) to spin up an X1 AWS instance at work with 2TB of RAM. If my immediate manager said it was okay, I would have sense enough to get it confirmed by my CTO.
Company management does not typically go out of its way to disseminate right-to-unionize speech. They are legally prevented from stifling such speech. And apparently, their alleged labor violations were serious enough that the NLRB mandated as part of their settlement that Google must post more material informing workers of their right to unionize [0]. But my overall point is not that I think her alteration was appro…
A former company I worked for was under a consent decree. Their legal team had to come up with remedies that were acceptable by the government to address them - not their security team.
I was the dev lead responsible for writing software that would be used by the department that was most impacted by the decree. Should I have taken it upon myself to create pop ups informing them to be careful about compliance? Legally, I probably couldn’t have been fired but would that have displayed good judgement?
When you are part of certain departments or positions, you have more access and therefore are expected to have better judgement.
Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly bold and perhaps ill-advised, but I would hardly characterize this as "injection" > Spiers told NBC News that she was inspired to create a digital notification because “a poster in the cafeteria is not the best way of reaching the majority of Googlers.” > The message included a link to a statement that the NLRB required the company to post for employees following the settlement of a complaint that was filed…
Prefixing this by saying I am not siding with Google (since people make assumptions). The standard approval process sounds like most merge review processes on any engineering team. There's a sort of assumed good-faith for this process. The fact that 2 coworkers were fine with your change doesn't mean it was made in good-faith and was within the bounds of normal types of changes. Any engineer with the freedom to make…
I think the punishment is warranted for the fact that it is an internal security tool. I don't know of any large company that would allow this kind of code commit without that level of punishment being taken. She was trying to be sincere in her actions but comes off as completely naive that what she was doing was a serious violation. I don't see her winning this to any degree and at 21 it will be a big learning lesson.
Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize
#287> Kathryn Spiers, who worked as a security engineer, updated an internal Chrome browser extension so that each time Google employees visited the website of IRI Consultants — the Troy, Michigan, firm that Google hired this year amid a groundswell of labor activism at the company — they would see a pop-up message that read: “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.” So basically, the Go…
Yikes. That is straight up black hat shit. What ever happened to posters and bullhorns?
Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize
#288It sounds like she coopted a security tool to spam users with a political advocacy message.
Hard to see why she shouldn't be fired for that.
Of course she has the right to express that message, and it seems to be factually correct. But that doesn't mean she can use a security tool to spam people.
Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize
#289I'm not anti-union, but come on, modifying an internal security tool to display a politically motivated message? That would get you in trouble anywhere. Also.. managers are humans. You can't provoke people in such a way and not expect a response.
Speaking of provocation: I suspect she might have done this to intentionally get fired. It wouldn't be the dumbest play, she's super young (21), if she doesn't want to code anymore she could use the exposure to parlay this into a new career, and if she does want to still code, she probably made some new supporters and her detractors will factor in youthful indiscretion. Wild speculation sure, but, you just read a big press article about it... Where do you think the tip came from? This isn't the kind of move you make if you intend to stick around at a place.
Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know 0 large companies who would tolerate what you just described from a security team member.
She’s young and probably a bit naive. I think it’s absolutely a reprimand-worthy offence, and I certainly understand that a security engineer maybe shouldn’t inject code like she did, but that’s why there are reviewers, but they ok’d it. I don’t think it’s something she should have been fired over. I made dumb mistakes early in my career too, after all. Should she have done it? No, absolutely not. Not like that anywa…
Probably a bit naive?
Security tools, and especially extensions that run with full browser access, are in an exceptionally trusted position. Employees who can inject code into arbitrary websites can in effect get administrator access to anything in the company, as Google is run almost entirely off of web apps of various kinds. It's actually hard to get more trusted than that: without a doubt this woman effectively had a greater level of access than Sundar Pichai or other senior executives.
If there's one thing you don't screw around with in any firm, its mis-using administrator access. Mis-use here means doing things that aren't related to your job description. You just don't do it! What she did would be like a logs engineer deleting internal access logs to cover up activity by political allies, or a GMail engineer spying on conversations between executives. It's complete madness to think you can abuse such a high level of trust in such a direct way and get away with it!
I used to have a certain type of Google account system administrator access. The way I used it was watched very closely, and deservedly so. Eventually it was removed because Google built better security systems that could restrict employee access more, and in my team were happy about this (for one, it meant we were less likely to be hacking targets). The idea of anyone abusing this sort of access for political reasons was unthinkable.
I honestly can't believe people here are defending this kind of behaviour. If Googlers feel it's OK to abuse root@chrome for unionisation related purposes, what else might they start doing? What about people perceived as 'bad'? Google needs to explain what happened here pronto, because apparently she was able to get this change through code review? So she had internal allies who approved her abuse of access? That is tremendously worrying.
Google is very rapidly burning the trust it requires for its business models to function. How can anyone trust the firm when 21 year old activists are able to manipulate Chrome for political causes and Google's own security procedures are unable to stop them?