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

351–360 of 772 posts

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

#351

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

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…

I think there's a difference between "intent" and "only intent". I don't think Google's M.O is to snoop through all its employees' phones, trying to find reasons to fire everyone.

BUT, I don't doubt that if someone high up at Google wants to fire you (like they know you're union organizing - for example), then they /could/ query your data and /possibly/ find an excuse.

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

#352

Post by bigbob2 »

sneak wrote: post #269
munk-a wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can run most types of businesses without Google, or even in being in Google's index at all.

Whether or not you realize it your vendors probably do business with Google, so that statement isn't really true.

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

#353

Post by wnevets »

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…

>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.

and they would be even higher if google and apple didn't conspire to force them lower.

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

#354

Post by nullc »

thraway12 wrote: post #318
sneak wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes. Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay.

Apple's involvement was particularly egregious: they threatened to destroy adobe with spurious patent litigation unless they participated. Google executives also explicitly acknowledged that there actions were illegal and directed staff to keep discussions about it out of email.

The companies basically got a slap on the wrist: the settlement was a tiny fraction of direct saving the cartel members enjoyed from wage fixing. Almost no incentive to not do it again, just next time don't leave emails explicitly acknowledging your criminal activities.

Their actions didn't just hurt their own employees, they depressed wages industry wide. After the scheme stopped these companies reset their pay scales. I got a substantial increase in pay even though I was not working for a participating company and worked on the clear other side of the country (I worked for a company HQed in Sunnyvale and who heavily competed in that job market).

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

#355

Post by gowld »

jayd16 wrote: post #227
inetknght wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't misunderstand. A deposition won't care whether things are separated by a software wall. A deposition will want everything on the device. So it's better to just not mix the two at all.

Does a deposition care when you say you didn't use your personal phone for work? Why wouldn't they ask for your so-called personal phone?

Depositions don't assume you are honest.

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

#356

Post by sneak »

thraway12 wrote: post #318
sneak wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes, and the penalties they faced for their illegal behavior were terribly low. They were almost even lower, but the judge threw out the original settlement.

It's astounding to me that people would continue to want to work there, given that it is now public knowledge that Google will try to cheat you out of wages.

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

#357

Post by ampdepolymerase »

dheera wrote: post #237
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact: If a judge orders you to surrender your phone because it might contain evidence relating to a case, it doesn't matter how you've segregated data on your phone. Sometimes businesses literally put some services on different physical boxes in case a court sees fit to collect the entire machine. If you had a bunch of other VMs on it... shrug .

We need an OS that self-destructs all data if surrendered, and that should be a hardcoded feature of the OS. Something like a fingerprint scanner that needs to be scanned at least once every 24 hours or all data gets erased.

Only if it is a state owned (diplomatic) device. Without diplomatic protection, you can be can be charged with, depending on jurisdiction and circumstance, anything from evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, to contempt of court. Technical hacks to human problems are only viable when you are shielded by sovereignty.

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

#358

Post by trhway »

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…

>That said, it was at a time where Google was complaining bitterly about how hard it was to hire engineers, and their much vaunted hiring process would only offer 1 in 10,000 applicants.

my understanding that is just a propaganda. They would do very low offers much more frequently than that, and the people like me and some others i know of would just not take those offers.

>a candidate who had made it through the gauntlet

it seems like they actually have special low complexity interview track for low offers - so called "benchwarmers" - and i found nothing special about their interview for the resulting L5 offer.

So, it seems that Google really has an excess of people, and thus until a new hire is an unique star in his field it is just an easy replaceable cogs which is much simpler and cheaper to drop than to deal with its even slightly different shape.

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

#359

Post by waheoo »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #252
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 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.

Isnt this job switching 101? you don't have a new job until you've signed. Your notice doesn't happen until you have signed.

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

#360

Post by gowld »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #317
dheera wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you sure? This is a nuanced issue. Ehat counts as "usage". Intentionally destroying evidence is a crime, but broadly automatically destroying data before you have any knowledge of an allegation is not. (Otherwise, thinks lke GDPR would be illegal in the US)
Post reply on HN