31–40 of 772 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities" is not a personal political opinion, it is the law.
I think the point here is "...used internal security tools...", Not the particulars of the message she was pushing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Are you suggesting we cannot criticize politicians on this website because it might be insulting to their supporters?
This is very obviously NOT what they are suggesting. They are suggesting you should "Please refrain from insults", as is clearly stated in their comment. Insult != Criticism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Are you suggesting we cannot criticize politicians on this website because it might be insulting to their supporters?
I think it's fine to criticize constructively . Calling people names is not likely to lead to constructive conversations and can be dehumanizing.
>Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities,” the notification read I remember that case. Yeah - she deserved to be fired. She used an internal security tool to push her personal political views. How could that not be a fire-able offense?
An analogous situation seems like if the company had a big cork board for safety/security messages and someone posted a paper with that sentence on it next to something the company posted that was perceived as anti-union.
It's unclear to me if that other scenario is protected or not: I understand that you're legally protected when posting notices informing your peers of certain rights on company property, but presumably you couldn't stick such notices just anywhere.
> Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. What does this mean? Was this for an IRI portal on Google's intranet, or did they display the pop-up if the public website was being visited by a Google employee? How was it determined that the visitor was a Google employee?
>Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities,” the notification read I remember that case. Yeah - she deserved to be fired. She used an internal security tool to push her personal political views. How could that not be a fire-able offense?
"Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities" is not a personal political opinion, it is the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A little more than that even. They have the right to participate in concerted activities. But those activities must usually be performed in a way that would not impact the business during working hours. Unionization and voting etc must usually be performed off-site.
> Unionization and voting etc must usually be performed off-site. Sounds like a non profit startup opportunity, to provide tools to empower workers to unionize and vote remotely. With remote normalizing, as long as you stay off corp gear (stay off corp gear for any activities not directly related to your employment!), your employer isn't going to know you're working towards organizing, preventing them from interferin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point here is "...used internal security tools...", Not the particulars of the message she was pushing.
If that was the point, then why was the other bit included in such obvious service to the "point"?
Such is life. On Tracker, Danger, News.
> Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. What does this mean? Was this for an IRI portal on Google's intranet, or did they display the pop-up if the public website was being visited by a Google employee? How was it determined that the visitor was a Google employee?
* Employer says "hey, we have all these convenient corporate app, wouldn't it be nice to be able to check work messages and work docs on your mobile? Just install our app to "corp-ify" your phone"
* Employer now views your mobile device as containing sensitive company IP and therefore they have the right to snoop on anything on your phone.
If you install corp on your phone, Google views it as a right to rootkit your phone, view all your private messages, etc. I learned this the hard way. Whether this is ethical, or legal, I don't know, but it's one of those things that seem obvious to some and not obvious to others.
If your employer expects you to use a mobile device at work, have them pay for your phone and only use it for work purposes, assume that HR can view EVERYTHING on your phone, because they can, especially at a company like Google that has both deep mobile expertise and insane paranoia around things like IP protection and stopping whistleblowers.