Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize • Hacker News Board

Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize

#571

Post by codegeek » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

helen___keller wrote: post #265

cj wrote: post #5

> 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…

She said "So when I heard that Google had hired a union busting firm and started illegally retaliating against my coworkers, I decided to make sure that my coworkers knew about the posting."

This was purely a Moral decision on her part and not reasonable in my opinion to tag it as part of her job. She was not happy with how google was retaliating against her co-workers (right or wrong) and she took action using her own judgement. She did this not because this was part of her job but because she wanted to get back at google for their behavior (again right or wrong, thats not the point here).

Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize

#572

Post by lacker » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

boomlinde wrote: post #382

ramblerman wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being in charge of the infrastructure does not mean you are in charge of the content. Those are well defined roles. Specially in a company of that size. She didn’t just make a judgement call. She went way outside her role imo.

> She didn’t just make a judgement call. She went way outside her role imo. That's not so much a matter of opinion as of what her role is, exactly. I don't know. Do you?

The article says she's a security engineer. It would be pretty unlikely for a security engineer's job to include messaging employees about HR rules. It sounds more like this engineer modified a security tool to spam a bunch of coworkers with pro-union popups.

Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize

#573

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

helen___keller wrote: post #321

ramblerman wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? So if I hire you to email out my monthly company statement it’s reasonable that you add some of your own thoughts to said email.

It wasn't her thoughts it was company policy, or to be specific it's required by law that this notice to be posted in the workplace. It's was her personal judgment that it should be posted in a chrome add-on rather than only by poster like is typical in most workplaces. But assuming her job was to maintain an add-on that informs employees of company policy, and assuming her job typically lets her act with personal ju…

[deleted]

Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize

#574

Post by jdauriemma » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

TechBro8615 wrote: post #498

gvx wrote: post #378

I'm constantly baffled by how anti-union many Americans are, how willing to give up their rights.

I’m constantly baffled how Europeans, who get paid 50-60% as much as Americans, and have almost no innovative companies of their own, think their system is somehow better.

Can you define "their system" in plain language? Are you referring to unionization in particular, or are you framing a broader narrative?

Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize

#575

Post by lnanek2 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

ninly wrote: post #31

cj wrote: post #5

> 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…

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…

Let me preface this by saying I think what she posted is true, employees have a right to unionize.

That said, it seems kind of strange, if this was a better way to post something than the cafeteria, that she added it to the union buster's site, though. Wouldn't only execs and management hiring the union busters go there? Seems like it was a way to argue back with the execs who hired the union busters by essentially defacing the union busters site?

She probably pissed off a high level exec who hired the union busters in the first place and was fired by their order. She was making all the management who visited their site see her notice, and some management obviously support the union busters since they hired them in the first place...

Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize

#576

Post by ralusek » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #318

Touche wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but California is an at-will state. Again, IANAL, but my educated understanding is that you can fire someone for any reason as long as the reason is not illegal. Lastly, IANAL.

Organizing is protected by law. Firing for organizing is intimidation.

Is using whatever mechanism is available to you, including company privileges, in order to organize perfected by law? As a customer support person, would you be able to add "you have the right to sue Google," simply because they did have the right, and I felt like it? Am I allowed to write a script that helps draft automated verbiage to assist you in suing Google?

Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize

#577

Post by ummonk » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:39 PM UTC

ramraj07 wrote: post #76

I was initially tempted to side with Google, a code review process is not just rigorous enough for catching features being sneaked in. However, it looks like the sole purpose of the extension is to warn employees about security issues in websites, and this engineer coopted that to show a union forming message. The final paragraph suggests that there's legal precedence for doing this: “You’re allowed to put posters up…

I don't think it was just security issues, but policy issues in general, so co-opting it was perfectly reasonable.

Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize

#578

Post by TheFrizz » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:39 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #403

tdfx wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love that a site full of engineers is pretending that getting a pull request approved by colleagues is the same thing as getting management's approval for a new, most likely controversial feature. Google is clearly trying to squash union organizing at the company but let's not pretend this employee was correct in her actions. Google being evil and this employee being in the wrong are not mutually exclusive.

The employee was not correct in doing her legal obligation to inform people of their right to organize in an app designed to inform employees about various rights and things as they browse the web? Which she had the authority to do because it's literally what she was hired to do? Can you explain how this makes the employee wrong if they follow the law and their company fires them for doing so?

A writer hired to write the wording on Google's websites could submit a change that rot13s every word on Google's web properties. This would not be against the law, additionally it would be exactly what the employee was hired to do. But the employee should be fired all the same.

Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize

#579

Post by scarmig » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #567

scarmig wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The extension is intended to inform Googlers of applications that are not approved for corp data, not just generic "employee guidelines and company policies." This is so you don't e.g. upload PII into a random unsecured S3 bucket. Yes, it's company policy, but this is more like running into a meeting and then interrupting it so you can start reciting NLRB policy than it is posting a flyer. Worse, it misappropriates a…

>Yes, it's company policy, but this is more like running into a meeting and then interrupting it so you can start reciting NLRB policy than it is posting a flyer. True, but it seems kind of shady to come down harder on an employee based on the content of the interruption, and that content notifying of the right to organize. Like, imagine there's a documentation page for http cookies. Consider two scenarios: A) Rogue…

I'm sympathetic to this. But the fact that it's a security tool being misused is what I think made for the very harsh reaction. Two scenarios:

A) Rogue employee messages a bunch of internal email lists about having the right to organize

B) Rogue employee configures a security extension to issue a popup saying "Happy Birthday Sundar!" every time an employee visits google.com on June 10.

I am confident that A) wouldn't result in any formal adverse action (they'd mostly get a pile of nasty responses about spamming internal lists), and I am confident that B) would at the least earn the employee a reprimand and plausibly get them fired.

Re: Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize

#580

Post by unreal37 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

wool_gather wrote: post #383

uxp100 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is one article talking about subway construction costs in NY. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-... It's not just unions, but here is a taste: There are “nippers” to watch material being moved around and “hog house tenders” to supervise the break room. Each crane must have an “oiler,” a relic of a time when they needed frequent lubrication. Standby electricians and plumbers are to be on…

The "oiler" thing sounds stupid, sure, and overstaffing in general is a fair concern. But, devil's advocate, how much time and money would be wasted if an essential machine broke and there wasn't a mechanic standing around ready to spring into action? How many people would be seriously or fatally injured in a year without a helper on those "An extra person is required..." tasks? I don't know the answers. Some of them…

I think if there's a money saving argument, you wouldn't need to put that in the union contract.

Companies will want to save money and you don't need to force them to save money.

It's clearly a "job saving" argument and not a "money saving" one.