Live data from Hacker News

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

nbcnews.com

641–650 of 779 posts

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

#641
post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And if the outcome of a trial produces otherwise, would you be willing to retract such baseless claims?

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

#642
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…

Agreed -- so under my rubric, if Google were consistently firing people for all off-topic messages slipped into the security UX, then that would be a non-political firing. But if they came down harder on "oh don't forget NLRB" than "Happy Birthday, Sundar", then that seems political and "fired for notifying co-workers..." seems accurate.

(I don't know enough of the history of Google's firings and this kind of violation to know either way.)

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

#643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter? If she used Google resources in a manner not company-approved, and if labor law doesn't recognize using a resource like that as a protected communications channel, like they would a company break room announcement board, why should Google be subject to a neutrality test? I support unionization, but I don't see what legal ground she has to stand on here.

The firing might hold in court, but to be frank there is no way she would get fired over something like this if it was not related to unionization or other anti corporate messages. Google is typically very lenient on harmless offences like this which is why the firing is a surprise.

>Google is typically very lenient on harmless offences

I know somehow who got fired from Google for taking a half gallon on milk home, because it was late and he didn't feel like swinging by the grocery store.

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

#644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How on earth is being notified of your legal rights "advocacy"?

So this individual could have posted the 2nd Amendment in there and it wouldn't be advocacy? /s

Is a sarcastic response a good faith argument?

I have a poster here in my home office that was mailed to me by my employer's HR department. It advises me of all my rights under state and federal labor laws: equal opportunity, workplace safety, minimum wage, etc. In my mind, it is not at all inappropriate to advise employees of their rights. In fact, the only reason I have this poster is because state and federal labor laws require such notices. Those laws and those requirements are written in the blood of all the serfs, children, and laborers who couldn't earn living wages or who were forced to work at a tender age or who were injured due to corporate malfeasance. The freedom of association is likewise recognized as a right inherent to all people, and its protections were likewise bought with blood. We should all be reminded of our rights and the reasons we safeguard them. An employer who tries to interfere with its employees' freedom of association only seeks to exploit them. If it treated its employees well, it wouldn't need to worry about organized labor—and its employees wouldn't need to organize in the first place.

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

#645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I know I'd be highly annoyed if I got a "Don't post copyrighted material" popup every time I visited Stack Overflow. It's the law, but it doesn't mean I want an addon nagging me about my legal obligations. In the same way, I know I have a right to vote, but I definitely felt it was annoying when I had a coworker who would regularly spam us to remind us to vote. It's not necessarily Political, but it's advocac…

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're saying telling people facts about reality they should know is advocacy, and advocacy is somehow inherently political? By extension of this logic teaching children math is a political act.

So, teaching anything is certainly advocacy in the literal sense. Your math teacher is an advocate for you learning math, and the importance of math. I wouldn't say that's political advocacy, because most people would agree that the rules and facts around of algebra generally aren't something that's commonly debated by governments.

That said, if I was taking a world history class, and my teacher spent the whole class for a year exclusively going over US war atrocities and rights abuses, I think you could argue that would be political, even if it was all factual and correct. They chose to present a set of facts that leads people towards a specific ideology and worldview that influences how they observe politics and the government.

Telling people truths can still be political. Having a popup at work, or a chat message, that informed me of a political candidate's policy positions would be "telling people facts about reality they should know", but is definitely political advocacy. Just because that candidate happens to be in favor of workers rights, or union power, or parental leave, doesn't mean that it's now a relevant work topic.

In a perfect world, everyone would know all their rights and all the laws that are relevant to them, but most people don't. Trying to impose that I take time at work to inform myself about them is thus innately political advocacy. That's not to say that it's a bad thing - I appreciate folks who remind people to vote/registration deadlines, or post informative information about relevant local laws, but it doesn't mean it's not political advocacy to do so when you're doing it in a targeted manner.

It's possible to both think that what this person did was political activism, and to believe that it probably shouldn't have been punished this hard.

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

#647
post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can read her own words to see it wasn't in good faith: https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for... > Recently Google was forced to post a list of rights that we have in the workplace. 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. She was mad at her employer and…

I agree with Drakonka that it's dystopian when being moderately assertive talking about labor rights is viewed as a reason to fire someone. Especially when these kinds of notifications have a history of being used to tamely spread information before ("Happy Birthday Sundar!" popping up when any employee visited google.com). Reminds me more of the rules for posting on a bulletin board. Edit: "Happy Birthday Sundar!" d…

The issue isn't about discussing labor rights it's about abusing security tools for political purposes. A bulletin board is not a good analogy. A bulletin board is non-invasive. This tool creates pop-ups on people's browsers. Normally, these notifications are security or privacy warnings so displaying personal messages here gives it a false sense of authority. Furthermore, it looks like she used an e-push to do this:

> "She misused a security and privacy tool to create a pop-up that was neither about security nor privacy," Hansen wrote. "She did that without authorization from her team or the Security and Privacy Policy Notifier team, and without a business justification. And she used an emergency rapid push to do it."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/engineer-says-go...

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

#648
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…

This isn't the first time either. Just before the walkout, a group of employees force-changed everyone's desktop background to an advertisement for the walkout. That particular change, while obnoxious, was harmless --- but that change could have been anything , including very difficult to detect spyware. It's essential that company-wide code and configuration changes occur only with official approval and process. Emo…

Is that true? Amazing if so. I had not heard this before.

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

#649

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…

> 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.

Unless she was asked to do it by management, it was her thoughts. As much as the title makes this seem like David v Goliath this is really just employer v disgruntled former employee.

No matter your thoughts on "its required by law... Blah blah blah" it's not up to her to enforce the law on behalf of an employer. Google has the right to post or not, statements of its choosing. In fact it's absolutely within Google's right to ignore this law, doesn't mean there won't be consequences but it they can do it.

This is so cut and dry I'm surprised she found a lawyer willing to take the case. It's staggering there's even a discussion ok HN about this.

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

#650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd disagree. Another post shows stellar performance reviews, so if this is considered a mistake, it should be remedied and she should be reprimanded. Outright firing seems heavy handed

My take on this is that she was trying to ruffle feathers, and she succeeded. I suspect her firing took into account that intent. Putting myself in the shoes of whoever decided, I can only think that factor would have weighed heavily against her. She might be naive enough to believe that this was actually protected concerted activity, but I don't think so. I'm not sure I think firing her was the right play, but I als…

The article quotes a law professor who says that it probably is protected activity, so I'm not sure "naive" is the correct word.
Post reply on HN