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

251–260 of 772 posts

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

#251

Post by MereInterest »

sneak wrote: post #248
MereInterest wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it great when even something as huge and life-changing as a job is subject to a contract of adhesion with no negotiation allowed? I'm sure glad to live in such a free country with great worker rights. (Sarcasm intended.)

If you don't like the way Google does business, you are free to not do business with them, either as an employee or customer. I don't understand your snark.

If you don't know the way Google does business, because you don't know the terms of the contract, then you cannot make an informed choice. You are not free to choose unless you have information to guide that choice.

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

#252

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

willcipriano wrote: post #211
MereInterest wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it great when even something as huge and life-changing as a job is subject to a contract of adhesion with no negotiation allowed? I'm sure glad to live in such a free country with great worker rights. (Sarcasm intended.)

I have no idea how those contracts are enforceable. Quit your job, move across the country and then on your first day here are nine contracts to sign, no you can't take them home we need them now. If you don't sign you are unemployed and we want that relocation money back. I used to ask potential employers when I got deep into interviews with them. "Is there any way I can see all the contracts I would need to sign on…

I learned this the hard way, and now insist upon a contract before agreeing to move to a company (i.e. I dont tell my previous job or give a start date until I see a contract).

So far, it hasn't been a problem.

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

#253

Post by youeseh »

willcipriano wrote: post #211
MereInterest wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it great when even something as huge and life-changing as a job is subject to a contract of adhesion with no negotiation allowed? I'm sure glad to live in such a free country with great worker rights. (Sarcasm intended.)

I have no idea how those contracts are enforceable. Quit your job, move across the country and then on your first day here are nine contracts to sign, no you can't take them home we need them now. If you don't sign you are unemployed and we want that relocation money back. I used to ask potential employers when I got deep into interviews with them. "Is there any way I can see all the contracts I would need to sign on…

I'm guessing that you've only worked at / interviewed at large firms. They're large and your prospective role there wasn't senior enough for them to afford you special treatment.

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

#254

Post by joshuamorton »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #230
jedberg wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not. Legal doesn't want to deal with everyone having a different employment contract. Google has always leaned towards being ok with a ton of false negatives to avoid false positives. They'd rather give up 10 good hires than make one bad one. This is just an extension of that. They don't want any exceptions and they aren't willing to make any.

Oh I "understood" it, California is a "Right to Work" state and signing the agreement was clearly a requirement of working and by not signing the unchanged agreement, it was a voluntary action of elimination etc etc. So Google was well within their rights to rescind their job offer as they did. That said, it was at a time where Google was complaining bitterly about how hard it was to hire engineers, and their much va…

California is not a Right to work state. It is an At-will employment state (as are all states). "Right to Work" laws concern union contracts requiring all employees to pay union dues.

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

#255

Post by syntaxing »

What's even crazier is that I have coworkers (that are paid very well) that install the "management" software on their personal phones so that they get the cellphone stipend. The other option is to get a work phone but then they'll miss out on the money...Blows my mind why they would allows their employer to install spyware on their phone for a couple hundred dollars extra a year.

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

#256

Post by munk-a »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #230
jedberg wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not. Legal doesn't want to deal with everyone having a different employment contract. Google has always leaned towards being ok with a ton of false negatives to avoid false positives. They'd rather give up 10 good hires than make one bad one. This is just an extension of that. They don't want any exceptions and they aren't willing to make any.

Oh I "understood" it, California is a "Right to Work" state and signing the agreement was clearly a requirement of working and by not signing the unchanged agreement, it was a voluntary action of elimination etc etc. So Google was well within their rights to rescind their job offer as they did. That said, it was at a time where Google was complaining bitterly about how hard it was to hire engineers, and their much va…

> If the HR rep was speaking truthfully, then I would have expected to Google legal to just adopt the updated text in this agreement and all future agreements. It literally got tweaked at least once a year so the problem of "multiple agreements" wasn't really a problem.

I'm definitely not defending the actions of Google here but I do understand them - it's quite likely this HR rep couldn't legally agree to this contract modification and it's entirely possible that when it was forwarded to legal they didn't have the power to approve this change without consulting up the legal ladder and possibly passing the question by upper management.

To contrast, if this person had said "I can't agree to that clause for my personal property but I am happy to be issued and exclusively use (for business purposes) a phone from you folks." - that problem has a solution that's pretty negligible in cost when compared to the cost of employing someone and it doesn't go against the contract they've been asked to get people to sign on to.

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

#257

Post by qmarchi »

YokoZar wrote: post #151
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?

> 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? If you read the next sentence in the linked article, the NLRB disagrees: 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 activiti…

The trick is that there's an auditable trail of things that she did. Notably, she bypassed restriction in our code change system which would've required review. The policy around bypassing that is explicitly to only be used in emergencies.

Again, reasonable for her to be fired.

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

#258

Post by willcipriano »

youeseh wrote: post #253
willcipriano wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea how those contracts are enforceable. Quit your job, move across the country and then on your first day here are nine contracts to sign, no you can't take them home we need them now. If you don't sign you are unemployed and we want that relocation money back. I used to ask potential employers when I got deep into interviews with them. "Is there any way I can see all the contracts I would need to sign on…

I'm guessing that you've only worked at / interviewed at large firms. They're large and your prospective role there wasn't senior enough for them to afford you special treatment.

I've only worked at small to mid sized firms. Either way, Knowing what the agreement is before I agree is special treatment? I'm not asking to modify the contract, merely to see it before I give notice and upend my families life.

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

#259

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

MaximumYComb wrote: post #247
willcipriano wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea how those contracts are enforceable. Quit your job, move across the country and then on your first day here are nine contracts to sign, no you can't take them home we need them now. If you don't sign you are unemployed and we want that relocation money back. I used to ask potential employers when I got deep into interviews with them. "Is there any way I can see all the contracts I would need to sign on…

It sounds legally like coercian. There are some porn producers who are going to jail for a very long time (their whole life) over this. Recruit girls for a photoshoot, tell them a couple days out that it's a porn shoot but it's for private collections, etc. When the girls arrive they're railroaded into signing documents, in a strange city with no money in their pocket, etc.

I'm surprised that the parent post was downvoted, because AFAICT it's a valid comparison. Is there something I'm missing?

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

#260

Post by munk-a »

sneak wrote: post #248
MereInterest wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it great when even something as huge and life-changing as a job is subject to a contract of adhesion with no negotiation allowed? I'm sure glad to live in such a free country with great worker rights. (Sarcasm intended.)

If you don't like the way Google does business, you are free to not do business with them, either as an employee or customer. I don't understand your snark.

This is helpful information - the next time I'm working on promoting my website I'll remember that it's entirely optional whether my business thrives or I go destitute due to refusing to be indexed by their search index.

Your statement is accurate when a healthy market and competitors exist but you are not free to avoid doing business with Google since they have an insane amount of market control.

Post reply on HN