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

311–320 of 772 posts

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

#311

Post by throwaway667555 »

MereInterest wrote: post #298
throwaway667555 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some details of an offer & acceptance of employment are trivial and not worth spoiling good will. Me: "Hey manager, can I make an expense report for this work phone?" No matter the response, I'm ok with it, because I make Google money, and that's policy. I should work towards becoming management if I want that to change. But I probably have better things to do than such a trivial disagreement. I wish corporations wer…

I think I'd agree that it is a weird spoiling of goodwill, but would put this one entirely as Google's fault. Requesting a minor change to a contract the first time you see it is the expected behavior, not an outlier. That's the entire point of contracts, in order to come to a meeting of the minds. This is the equivalent of haggling at a flea market, and being thrown out as a result.

I'd agree if this redline didn't require several departments to sign off costing $x million. Internal developers, internal security ops, legal, and C-suite coordinating these departments.

Also Google is very special in that their employees are extremely sophisticated and curious, so they need ~complete~ control of any electronics that access their networks.

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

#312

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

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…

They assumed his assumption. Waltzing in and saying "Hey, I made this change", discussing it, and saying "okay, it seems we are aligned" is all part of the negotiation dance. G would have every right to ponder his suggestion for a few days, then respond to it.

We don't reject candidates for asking for more compensation; this should've been treated the same way. G could've said, "Sorry, we don't wish to change that contract term. What else can we do?" but, per the story, they pulled the plug entirely.

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

#313

Post by jsty »

ezoe wrote: post #218
janesvilleseo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Even better. I have zero phone. Do you really need a phone in 2020? No. I refuse to own a computer I can't write a code running on it and distribute it freely.

I didn’t know HN implemented RFC 2549

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

#314

Post by shkkmo »

crocodiletears wrote: post #173
shkkmo wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is entirely reasonable to expect civility. If you can't mention someone's name and remain civil, you should refrain from discussing that individual on this site.

Only really works if he topic is fully irrelevant within domain of the discussion. Personally, I consider the compulsion many people have to put a pound of contempt into every ounce of contrition they grant Trump's administration to be childish, and honestly quite alarming for its ubiquity. But if we want to get to a point where people who vociferously oppose trump are willing to tolerate reasoned dialogues consideri…

> Only really works if he topic is fully irrelevant within domain of the discussion.

If you can't discuss a topic civily, you should not discuss it here.

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

#315

Post by thraway12 »

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.

how do you know it's just an extension of that?

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

#316

Post by jbay808 »

munk-a wrote: post #256
ChuckMcM wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contr…

> To contrast, if this person had said[...]

I mean, Google could also have made that their response, rather than terminating the relationship right there.

"We're sorry we can't change the contract; would it work for you to use a work phone? We can pay for that."

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

#317

Post by colejohnson66 »

dheera wrote: post #246
colejohnson66 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US centric, but courtrooms don’t have time to hear about the technicalities that show something isn’t possible. They only care that they think it’s possible. Judges aren’t programmers and the law isn’t black and white like code. Also, you can’t just not respond to a deposition or refuse to hand over your phone as evidence in a crime. That’s obstruction of justice and possibly contempt of court. Basically, you can sit…

Make phones that self-destruct all data if the device is handed over. It should be hardcoded to do so and that should not be an editable setting by the user. The primary reason for this would be against thieves, but it would work against courts as well, and the user wouldn't have a choice.

Again. Destruction of evidence is a crime. Even if it’s not a choice for the user, the usage of such a feature would be a crime. And also again: the law and the courts don’t care about technicalities, no matter your opinion on that matter.

People here are choosing to make things harder for themselves by coming up with ideas to skirt the law, but it doesn’t work and will only make the police go harder on you. The law (and precedent) is not on your side in this battle.

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

#318

Post by thraway12 »

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.

Wasn't Google party to an implicit CARTEL agreement not to compete amongst hiring tech talent?https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage...

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

#319

Post by codekansas »

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.

It was the parent comment's language. I was more taking issue with the "cork board" metaphor

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

#320

Post by ardy42 »

munk-a wrote: post #256
ChuckMcM wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contr…

> 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.

I'd be kinda surprised if legal couldn't approve a change like that. Isn't it the bread and butter of legal departments to review all kinds of contracts (with customers, vendors, etc.)?

Post reply on HN