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

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

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 779 posts

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

#591

Post by [deleted] »

dunkelheit wrote: post #586
cousin_it wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confirming this. The extension says it's for information security and privacy policy.

This is what I suspected and thanks for confirming this. The fact that she wrote that her job is to notify the employees "of employee guidelines and company policies" and chose to withhold the critical bit that it was specifically security policies she was responsible for looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead. I totally support googlers' right to unionize but it seems that some employees are in an all-out war wi…

[deleted]

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

#592

Post by anarchodev »

scarmig wrote: post #579
SilasX wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

It's incredible watching tech people in this thread assert that she wasn't fired for union agitation but if she was, that's okay too because she should have known not to be "inflammatory."

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

#593

Post by geofft »

scarmig wrote: post #512
helen___keller wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

In her account, she says,

> For example, someone changed the default desktop wallpaper during the walkout last year so that the Linux penguin was holding a protest sign. The company has never reacted aggressively in response to a notification such as this in the past. It’s always been a celebrated part of the culture.

Is this accurate? If it's culturally acceptable to change everyone's desktop wallpaper (including of those who were anti-protest) to a pro-protest image, it seems reasonable that this falls in the lines of culturally acceptable too.

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

#594

Post by helen___keller »

scarmig wrote: post #512
helen___keller wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Thanks for this. With stories like this it's always hard as an outsider to really discern what's going on.

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

#595

Post by bduerst »

gnopgnip wrote: post #380
jefftk wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She did it exactly according to internal policy. I don't think this person or the other organizers should have been fired, but code review is not the same as organizational approval. (Disclosure: I work at Google, speaking only for myself)

It doesn't really matter if google would approve. There are a lot of activities that would not be organizationally approved, but are protected concerted activities and it would be unlawful to fire someone for.

GP was referring to approval for code review and organizational approval of security extension notifications, not the right to organize or unionizing activities.

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

#596

Post by Animats »

This is an old labor issue, but it used to revolve around handing out union flyers at work and posting on company physical bulletin boards.[1] That's generally allowed by law for labor activity, even if the employer doesn't like it. How this translates to online activity isn't entirely clear yet. But courts will make that analogy.

An employer who tried to pull this in 1970 would have had a picket like outside the door the next day. Union truckers wouldn't deliver to their loading dock.

[1] https://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources-publication/employers...

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

#597

Post by CharlesColeman »

scarface74 wrote: post #532
CharlesColeman wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So that means she should be able to inject her opinion on any site that she doesn’t like? Just to be clear: her "opinion" is "don't take actions that would cause the company to break federal labor law."

Is she part of the company’s legal team?

> Is she part of the company’s legal team?

If that's was an actual requirement, can you make or point to a statement in an official Google capacity that states the notices displayed by the tool she maintained had to be written or pre-cleared by Google's legal team? If you can, was the requirement for legal team involvement established practice and not some post-hoc rationalization for her firing?

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

#598

Post by [deleted] »

anarchodev wrote: post #592
scarmig wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's incredible watching tech people in this thread assert that she wasn't fired for union agitation but if she was, that's okay too because she should have known not to be "inflammatory."

[deleted]

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

#599

Post by scarface74 »

ummonk wrote: post #590
scarface74 wrote: post #202

Earlier 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.

Many startups have a culture where you could spin up an X1 AWS instance with 2TB of RAM if you need it, without having to go and get approval. Similarly, Google has a culture where engineers make various changes to internal tools without needing approval from higher ups.

Well, according to the post, obviously not....

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

#600

Post by FussyZeus »

omegabravo wrote: post #204
FussyZeus wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because adding harmless code and stealing plane tickets, hotel fare, and maybe a rental car are the same thing. How do you think old-school labor organizing went down? Do you think the bosses stood there smiling as employees handed out flyers at lunch? Google shouldn't have a say in how employees unionize. They have every reason, literally EVERY SINGLE REASON to sabotage it at every stage to make it as ineffective as…

They are merely pointing out that despite the action following one standard procedure, it is still possible to be against the rules.

And a fox has every reason to make a "rule" that dogs can't go in the henhouse. That's why we don't let foxes guard henhouses.
Post reply on HN