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

Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 772 posts

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#181

Post by throwsofaraway »

black_puppydog wrote: post #174
throwsofaraway wrote: post #168

We all keep saying "she" to refer to Kathryn Spiers. Spiers is a trans person. I think it's relevant to mention this as a fact, as I find it misleading (my personal belief) to keep referring to Spiers as "she" in HN comments. I think some commenters wouldn't have done so if they were aware that Spiers is a trans person. Not a big deal, of course, but I know this type of factual information gets censored out quite a l…

Really? You're gonna go there? The fact you made a throwaway for this tells me you know exactly that this has no bearing whatsoever on the case. If it did, it would just add to the scandal.

This is currently in the "court" of public opinion, so how can you so definitively say it has no bearing on it whatsoever?

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#182

Post by CadellFastro »

throwsofaraway wrote: post #168

We all keep saying "she" to refer to Kathryn Spiers. Spiers is a trans person. I think it's relevant to mention this as a fact, as I find it misleading (my personal belief) to keep referring to Spiers as "she" in HN comments. I think some commenters wouldn't have done so if they were aware that Spiers is a trans person. Not a big deal, of course, but I know this type of factual information gets censored out quite a l…

Well Kathryn is a she. The fact that she is trans is entirely irrelevant to the story. It is not misleading to refer to her as "she," as that is her gender.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#183

Post by zobzu »

manfredo wrote: post #49
JeremyBanks wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she had injected a BitCoin miner, for personal profit, that would have been an entirely different situation, wouldn't it?

Abusing your position as a developer and turning your software into a political soapbox is not much better. People are trying to spin this as some sort of union busting move. I don't see it, this behavior is unacceptable regardless of what message is being spread. Would it have been fine if she added a message to say "Affirmative Action is racist" when people browsed information about Proposition 16 on the 2020 Calif…

A better way to think of it in my eyes is, employer pays you to write an app that shows cats. You start and you're like, yeah, no fuck that, and you write an app that shows dogs instead. Employer comes back to you and says "we pay you to show cats, since you don't wanna do it we'll find someone else".

Sucks but seems logical to me.

That's unrelated to the claims of spying and illegal procedures of course, that the new article claims. Very curious to see what they did that was illegal / what kind of spying they would have done. But right now its just claims.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#184

Post by black_puppydog »

throwsofaraway wrote: post #181
black_puppydog wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You're gonna go there? The fact you made a throwaway for this tells me you know exactly that this has no bearing whatsoever on the case. If it did, it would just add to the scandal.

This is currently in the "court" of public opinion, so how can you so definitively say it has no bearing on it whatsoever?

Because the court of public opinion has no bearing on the legal courts. Again, if it did: bad.

Sorry, not gonna engage further. Still haven't seen how this is relevant. Have fun trolling.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#185

Post by Miner49er »

macspoofing wrote: post #6

>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?

Companies had to allow communication tools to be used for collective action when she was fired for this. The NLRB overturned that 5 year precedent a day or two after she went public about being fired.

https://www.post-gazette.com/business/career-workplace/2019/...

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#186

Post by throwsofaraway »

CadellFastro wrote: post #182
throwsofaraway wrote: post #168

We all keep saying "she" to refer to Kathryn Spiers. Spiers is a trans person. I think it's relevant to mention this as a fact, as I find it misleading (my personal belief) to keep referring to Spiers as "she" in HN comments. I think some commenters wouldn't have done so if they were aware that Spiers is a trans person. Not a big deal, of course, but I know this type of factual information gets censored out quite a l…

Well Kathryn is a she. The fact that she is trans is entirely irrelevant to the story. It is not misleading to refer to her as "she," as that is her gender.

I'm just stating a fact that is true about Spiers. It's up to the people who read the story to decide if it's relevant or not, why should you be the judge of that?

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#187

Post by giantg2 »

Miner49er wrote: post #171
giantg2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...presumably you couldn't stick such notices just anywhere." Nor use company resources/infrastructure to distribute it.

Actually, when she was fired, this was not the case. The NLRB ruled a day or two after she went public about being fired that company communications couldn't be used for this type of thing. Before that companies had to allow it. https://www.post-gazette.com/business/career-workplace/2019/...

Ah, so this was before they amended the rule allowing communication to be restricted.

I wonder what the restrictions were before. It specifically says emails were allowed. But I wonder if a person maintaining an intranet site could post a banner on it with the same message. I'm guessing not since it isn't designed for that type of communication. I'm not sure where the plugin would fall. Seems like the message didn't fit the intended plugin scope.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#188

Post by thrwaway2day »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #169
codekansas wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably in this scenario the employee was one of a small group of people that was responsible for maintaining the cork board, and used it for their political beliefs

> political beliefs Informing employees of their legal right to organize isn't a political belief.

Would you feel the same way if she added a banner that suggested her fellow employees exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#189

Post by khazhoux »

janesvilleseo wrote: post #46
ditonal wrote: post #40

One thing that happens in SV is: * 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 vie…

100% agree. People laugh at me why I carry two phones but this is the main reason. If my employer needs me to have a mobile phone they are paying for separate device and plan. It’s a little silly I need to carry 2 phones around but it makes my life so much more convenient. Unknown call on my work phone guess I’ll answer. If it’s on my personal then it’s spam. Leave company, no need to update or port my number. Want t…

Ditto. I find it bizarre that there's people who use the same device to span pictures of their weekends and their kids, as photos of whiteboards with highly-confidential trade secrets. Tawdry jokes with friends and family alongside messages from your manager.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#190

Post by arminiusreturns »

brundolf wrote: post #124
ditonal wrote: post #40

One thing that happens in SV is: * 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 vie…

1) This is why I never have and probably never will work at a giant company, because those tend to be the ones that think this way (and have the resources to do something about it) 2) This is why I only ever sign into Slack on my phone, not my work email. It neatly compartmentalizes work stuff, and isn't subject to the device-wide security policies that you sometimes have to agree to when signing into company email.

Same here. I have been on the other side of the equation too, having to impliment and admin MDM, and every time it made me feel dirty knowing the power it really gave me over an employees personal phone. The worst part about it, especially the more I have adventured into SV land, is how often the culture pretends "we dont do that sort of thing" but being the kind of person who knows lots of lawyers, I read the legal docs and yep, sure enough, the handbooks and vast array of other docs all talk about it in the fine print. So there are employees that balk when I tell them why I don't use company email on my personal phone... and I get a bit frustrated that these are the people who ought to understand this sort of thing!

I will always want separate phones for employers that want to use MDM on the device, or else I just won't do any work on the phone... which unfortunately in some companies is looked down on. Glad I'm in a better environment these days (mdm exists on the sly, but I am not pressured to use email outside work hours) That said, this is also why I don't want to shift into the management path either, because that changes once you are in mgmt.

Post reply on HN