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

321–330 of 772 posts

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

#321

Post by birdyrooster »

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…

Parent comment read like some externalized imposter syndrome, but I agree unions are useful for extracting more value from employers. What isn't to love about that?

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

#322

Post by caconym_ »

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…

Those high salaries aren't the result of individual negotiations, though. FAANMG+ companies pay very well, but salaries for the vast majority of engineers are determined by black box formulas, and in cases where blocs of employees think there's something unfair about their compensation (for instance, people in one location being paid more than people in another) there's absolutely nothing they can do about it. The scale of these companies is such that even senior engineers have an essentially nonexistent negotiating position.

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

#323

Post by munk-a »

jbay808 wrote: post #316
munk-a wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

Absolutely - and it seems likely their rejection may not have been due to the contract change request but due to the fact the potential employee rocked the boat... Which is quite not okay in my eyes.

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

#324

Post by cj »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #259
MaximumYComb wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In the context of starting a job at Google, I highly doubt you sign your employment contracts the day you show up for work.

Typically employment contracts are signed and settled well before you enter the building as an employee.

I would be surprised if the OP’s anecdote regarding the Googler pulled on the 1st day is in line with reality.

Edit: apparently I’m wrong, the downvotes were deserved! I run hiring at my company and we send people all contracts at the same time that we send the offer letter. No surprise paperwork on Day 1. I’m surprised to hear other companies wait until the start date to sort out legal

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

#325

Post by wolco2 »

throwaway667555 wrote: post #266
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.)

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}".…

Sounds like google is doing something bad if they need to enforce this.

The power inbalance you speak of is why unions are probably needed.

You were a special snowflake in the 90s/early 2000s now you are a cog.

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

#326

Post by hinkley »

thomasahle wrote: post #215
khazhoux wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We use the same mind, same hands, same eyes for all of those things as well. People view and use their phone as an extension to their body. I don't think it's possible to change that.

It’s a tool, like any other. If you use a tool for work or even a serious hobby, you are quite likely to end up with two or more of them.

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

#327

Post by whimsicalism »

milesvp wrote: post #307
twblalock wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Unions have very different relationships with different employers.

I was friends with a Teamsters organizer and he told me that in fields like construction and warehousing, they would ask the Teamsters to organize the place because it was better labor discipline.

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

#328

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#329

Post by wolco2 »

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.

And they are free to complain about the treatment they got.

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

#330

Post by cortesoft »

munk-a wrote: post #291
qmarchi wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, as a Google employee, they do. If you don't want to run corp software, you can easily just request a corporate phone and that's that.

It is unfortunate (and a reflection of the power imbalance in US employment) that Google doesn't simply offer a corporate phone as a matter of practice - it benefits both the employee and the employer in the long run (with dishonest actions put aside).

Some people don't like carrying two phones.
Post reply on HN