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

621–630 of 779 posts

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

#621

Post by sgslo »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #585
jdauriemma wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’m referring to unionization, since this is the topic of the post, but also the broader idea of top-down market regulation that includes provisions for workers rights and taxation of externalities, driven by generally left-leaning, anti-capitalist sentiment. In general, it seems Europeans expect more of their government than Americans do. Historically, Americans have tended to be more distrustful of their government…

No change to the American system is being proposed. They are instead advocating that workers use the rights they have already been assigned, the same rights that have been exercised in many other American industries (electrical, auto, steel, etc) to form unions.

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

#622

Post by scarmig »

geofft wrote: post #604
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…

> I am confident that B) would at the least earn the employee a reprimand and plausibly get them fired. Yikes! That sounds like a dangerous place to work. If an employee with legitimate, assigned access to such a tool makes a change through normal procedures (not bypassing required code review or anything) and it's still a fireable mistake - well, I'm glad I don't work there.

So, let's walk through the reasoning here.

Data is simultaneously Google's greatest strength and its biggest liability. If an employee uploads data to a not-known-to-be-secure third party, it can literally cost Google billions of dollars depending on the data locality. Or, it could plausibly cause a severe security breach (if e.g. an employee uploads a security token into a third party decoder).

And so the security team builds an extension in order to very loudly alert employees when they're on one of these known-to-be dangerous domains. And, as it happens, the implementation of the loud popups could make it a general browser notification platform whenever an employee visits a particular domain.

Is it a good idea for teams to start using it as a general notification platform?

No, not on any level. On top of being annoying for employees, it breaks the security UX. When someone sees one of these popups, they know they're important and that they should be very wary of whatever they're doing. But if it starts being a popup that can be triggered by anyone in the company who can convince themselves that they're providing value by sending out the popup, people start ignoring it. And there's no going back at that point, because employees have been trained to ignore the popup because of it staying stupid shit like "Happy Birthday Sundar!" and "Read these NLRB rights!" and "You can go grab a burger at the cafe today!" Everyone's been made worse off, and the original security problem has come back.

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

#623

Post by fzeroracer »

BickNowstrom wrote: post #583
fzeroracer wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subverting internal security systems by going through the usual approvals process for a code review? When it was her job to add notices to the tool she was working on? And arguing that she deserves to have her career sunk because of it entirely? What absolute extreme bullshit. By your own arguments if a security engineer was advocating for increased security against management, they would be considered an activist an…

She was doing activism, not work. She knew damn well that she could not push without a code review, so she basically threw two colleagues under the bus (they were reprimanded). She will get work somewhere else, but, to me, it does not look good to be fired for abusing internal security tooling, with the huge responsibility that security engineers have. Burning bridges and making a stink about it was her own choice, a…

She did not abuse any sort of security tooling. She was working on a application designed to serve notices both security and legal to Google users. She added this notice because as part of being legally compliant with the law people have to be informed of their right to unionize.

The rest of your argument is massive projection because she did nothing of the sort. She added a notice which linked to internal Google documentation which was reviewed by her peers and by any account incredible benign. Acting like this was some severe security violation is out of line.

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

#624

Post by odshoifsdhfs »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #228
Maxion wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like a lot of astro-turfing going on here. Why would any sane person be against unions?

> It feels like a lot of astro-turfing going on here. Why would any sane person be against unions? Going to work without a union is like going to court without a lawyer. Are there incompetent lawyers? Does it cost money to hire a lawyer? Of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't a stupid idea to try to represent yourself pro se. Unfortunately, workers in the US have been the subject to the equivalent of a fifty year…

If you want that metaphor, going to court with a union is more like having one lawyer trying to get the best deal for 5 of his clients, even if one is innocent and the other 4 guilty, he would decide instead for a plea deal where all 5 do minimal time. 4 get better off, 1 is fucked and can't really do anything about it.

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

#625

Post by throw_m239339 »

whiddershins wrote: post #51

I see contradictory impressions about what this article is even saying. My contribution is that it’s foolish to react too quickly to a story like this. If the headline were accurate, it would be such an obvious own-goal on the part of Google HR, it beggars belief. I think the wise course is to wait until more details are made public before getting worked up about it.

Of course we should wait for more facts to comment or try to think about the situation, but we don't live in a era of reason anymore.

All I have to say is that it will be interesting to see a drastic change in culture in the coming years at Google. Google did foster an "open" culture for more than a decade and now that their own employees are coming after the higher ups, they are trying to squash the rebellion they encouraged? they were fine as long as other employees or other businesses were getting the short hand of the stick...

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

#626

Post by uxp100 »

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…

The article directly compares the NY subway project to a french one, and finds that it was cheaper and had a quarter of the staffing. So since we've established time and money is not being wasted by not employing 4x the people, all you have to do is check and see if French public construction is more dangerous than the US, and you'll know if elevator operators and underground break room guards are important safety roles.

In the public sector, unions and engineering firms/management contractors are not at odds as they are in the private sector, they collaborate to rip off the public.

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

#627

Post by nothal »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #494
username90 wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but what other option does a company have, when someone makes it clear that they refuse to behave properly? You could tell them to stop instead of firing them after the first offense.

How are you supposed to trust someone to follow the rules in the future if they won’t even acknowledge they broke them?

How can you expect anyone to be anything but defensive of their actions when you essentially fire them on the spot?

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

#629

Post by lr »

scarmig wrote: post #622
geofft wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am confident that B) would at the least earn the employee a reprimand and plausibly get them fired. Yikes! That sounds like a dangerous place to work. If an employee with legitimate, assigned access to such a tool makes a change through normal procedures (not bypassing required code review or anything) and it's still a fireable mistake - well, I'm glad I don't work there.

So, let's walk through the reasoning here. Data is simultaneously Google's greatest strength and its biggest liability. If an employee uploads data to a not-known-to-be-secure third party, it can literally cost Google billions of dollars depending on the data locality. Or, it could plausibly cause a severe security breach (if e.g. an employee uploads a security token into a third party decoder). And so the security t…

You obviously didn't read her blog post where she stated the following:

"This kind of code change happens all the time. We frequently add things to make our jobs easier or even to just share hobbies or interests. 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."

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

#630

Post by matwood »

Alex3917 wrote: post #564
matwood wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology makes a lot of these good intentioned laws hard to interpret. You cannot be fired for telling your co-workers that they are allowed to unionize. What if you work for a call center, commandeered an auto-dialer, and called every co-worker in the company with the same message? What about a popup on every page of an internal company website? Is someone allowed to stand up in the middle of the office with a meg…

> What if you work for a call center, commandeered an auto-dialer, and called every co-worker in the company with the same message? The law already covers situations like this, in terms of whether or not employees are allowed to use the internal technology tools of their employers in order to organize.

So what does the law say?
Post reply on HN