Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by hiddencost » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #276

black_puppydog wrote: post #262

The whole thread here seems to revolve around whether or not Spiers should have been fired for what she did. And while I have a clear opinion on that and had fun sparring with y'all here about it, can we also talk about how unionization is actually something that we need to think about as a profession / group of professions? The days where "being in IT" made you a rockstar that could command a premium in individual n…

> The days where "being in IT" made you a rockstar that could command a premium in individual negotiations are, best I can tell, way in the past. Are you kidding? Salaries have never been higher in tech. Senior engineers make more than $400k (sometimes way more) at Google and other large companies. It is likely that engineers at FAANG companies would make less money if they join a union, because the union would level…

Uh, no. Nope. Google has been suppressing wages progressively for years. They made an illegal no poach agreement with their peers that led to one of the largest settlements in history.

Just this past cycle they pushed down compensation for top performers. There was an internal slide deck someone found where they laid out plans to reduce pay by slowing down promo to senior levels.

A union would mean the ability to negotiate as a group rather than just taking whatever Google decided to offer us.

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

#302

Post by throwaway667555 » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

alacombe wrote: post #292

throwaway667555 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person redlined a contract instead of spending +$2000/yr (out of a likely $250,000+ salary) on a second personal phone. Such short-sidedness is a bad trait in an employee. Second, their protest is laudable. But their decision was consciously: "the legal department of this $xxx billion company (that spends $xx million maintaining this employment contract template) will bend to my will, or I will {quit OR relent}".…

> The person redlined a contract instead of spending +$2000/yr (out of a likely $250,000+ salary) on a second personal phone. Such short-sidedness is a bad trait in an employee. This isn't a solution, but a covert work-around.

Upon re-reading, I too wonder if Google means they'll rootkit any employee phone that comes onto company property. I hope they only rootkit phones with proprietary data on them.

Also, super important context: Of all the companies in the world, which ones would have employees, say, designing a rootkit to exfiltrate trade secrets, or for fun, or...? Google, certainly. So I get Google's position, as long as you're allowed a personal phone free of corporate intrusions.

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

#303

Post by hinkley » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #196

ChuckMcM wrote: post #191

True story, a person I know who was offered a job at Google got the employment agreement (prior to arriving which was pretty standard at the time) and read that bit about "allowing Google to protect it's IP by installing a rootkit" and they red lined it to change it "May only access Google related information and no personal information." When they showed up HR started with "But that isn't how we use it, we would nev…

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.

If the security folks don’t get to dictate corporate strategy, why do the legal folks? I mean, is this company making widgets for money, or legal briefs?

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

#304

Post by mnouquet » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

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…

> 100% agree. People laugh at me why I carry two phones but this is the main reason.

I technically carry 4 phones...

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

#305

Post by lucian1900 » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

Asooka wrote: post #299

black_puppydog wrote: post #262

The whole thread here seems to revolve around whether or not Spiers should have been fired for what she did. And while I have a clear opinion on that and had fun sparring with y'all here about it, can we also talk about how unionization is actually something that we need to think about as a profession / group of professions? The days where "being in IT" made you a rockstar that could command a premium in individual n…

The problem I have with trade unions is that those usually start mandating how work is performed, rather than just acting as protectors of workers' rights. As a silly example, an IT Union could mandate that we all use tabs for indentation. In general the idea of unionising is appealing, but I don't want to end up in such a degenerate situation. I want an organisation that will protect my rights as a human being while…

Unions are democratic organisations, the whole point of them is for workers to gain power together. You’ll only get tabs enforced if the majority of workers agree that’s a useful rule to have.

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

#306

Post by lucian1900 » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #276

black_puppydog wrote: post #262

The whole thread here seems to revolve around whether or not Spiers should have been fired for what she did. And while I have a clear opinion on that and had fun sparring with y'all here about it, can we also talk about how unionization is actually something that we need to think about as a profession / group of professions? The days where "being in IT" made you a rockstar that could command a premium in individual n…

> The days where "being in IT" made you a rockstar that could command a premium in individual negotiations are, best I can tell, way in the past. Are you kidding? Salaries have never been higher in tech. Senior engineers make more than $400k (sometimes way more) at Google and other large companies. It is likely that engineers at FAANG companies would make less money if they join a union, because the union would level…

Collective employment agreements mandate minimums, not maximums.

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

#307

Post by milesvp » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #276

black_puppydog wrote: post #262

The whole thread here seems to revolve around whether or not Spiers should have been fired for what she did. And while I have a clear opinion on that and had fun sparring with y'all here about it, can we also talk about how unionization is actually something that we need to think about as a profession / group of professions? The days where "being in IT" made you a rockstar that could command a premium in individual n…

> The days where "being in IT" made you a rockstar that could command a premium in individual negotiations are, best I can tell, way in the past. Are you kidding? Salaries have never been higher in tech. Senior engineers make more than $400k (sometimes way more) at Google and other large companies. It is likely that engineers at FAANG companies would make less money if they join a union, because the union would level…

Maybe. This is how I've felt about unions since the grad students tried to unionize at my university, and all the hard science grad students would have lower salaries if the union came to fruition. So it's an effect that I would expect in general if good devs get grouped in with non devs. However, a former roomate's father owned a construction company and I was talked to him about unions once. I took the stance that he must be frustrated about unions as a business owner, and he said "no way". He said he loved the 3 unions he had on site because without them he wouldn't have access to the best talent. Apparently if you're a skilled tradesman you have a much higher earning potential in a union than out of a union, so the most skilled will be in a union.

Now that said, that's the current equilibrium in the construction world. I have another anecdote from a former employer that had to deal with unions, and unions were a pain for that company to work with. I think the owner would have happily squashed the union if he could, but this was in a shrinking industry that had a glut of talent. Definitely a different equilibrium there.

So you could very well be correct that unions would pull down salaries for high paid devs in the short term, and even in the long term. I'm just not as convinced as I was when I was younger.

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

#308

Post by silverpepsi » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #264

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think they'd offer the guy a job still, but without the contract changes, instead of immediately pulling out. It sounds like he was firm, but given a chance to take the job without said changes, he may still have accepted. Geez. It is unreasonable and in bad faith to completely like a candidate and then reject them for merely asking for a contract change.

It sounds like he didn't just ask for a contract change: He simply crossed it out and expected them to take it. I'm honestly surprised people do that. I always go with the assumption that a job offer comes with the implication that you agree to the legal stuff as you are signing it: If you don't, you have refused the job. If you don't agree to something that has been updated, you have quit. The only thing that might…

Haven't you ever thought it odd that the document is entirely authored on one end and hence entirely nothing but a list of terms advantageous to one party? From this perspective, a single deletion is a pathic barely countable concession at best.

Imagine B2B contracts were written this way...whatever company has the bigger ego authors every last word and walks away the moment a detail is questioned. You could only afford negotiation tactics at that abuse level if you literally have customers begging it the alter of death to buy your product at a willingness to surrender all in order to make it happen. Plus they would sign but still hate you can hope to end the relationship with 0 loyalty the moment an alternative appeared on the market.

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

#309

Post by smeyer » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

madrox wrote: post #294

This headline is super confusing. I interpreted it as meaning Google spied on people and then fired them. However, what the article itself seems to be saying is that Google fired people for spying on others. The spying was, "for reviewing other employees’ calendars." The NLRB then found that illegal. At least, that's how I'm interpreting this article. Otherwise there's no actual explanation of what spying actually oc…

>Google violated US labor laws by spying on workers who were organizing employee protests, then firing two of them, according to a complaint to be filed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) today.

This part of the article seems pretty clear. It also sounds like one of the fired employees did something involving looking at other people's calendars, but that the core reason that they were fired was for union-related activities.

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

#310

Post by shkkmo » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

outworlder wrote: post #167

suifbwish wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you could just get really drunk and lose your phone. Happens all the time. The phone company will verify you called for a replacement and the bar will verify you got trashed.

IANAL, but isn't that obstruction of justice and/or contempt of court?

Yes, probably. That would presumably be why this suggestion includes details that would make proving your intent difficult.