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

361–370 of 772 posts

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

#361

Post by Broken_Hippo »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #312
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

Asking or negotiating is different: Crossing something out and handing it back isn't the same.

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

#362

Post by marricks »

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…

Sounds like a great time to consider the differences between positive and negative liberty.

Negative liberty: no one can get in my way of doing whatever I want! Google has the right to rootkit my life and I have the right to ignore it and work at a bodega because all tech giants eventually agreed this is a good practice for them

Positive liberty: corporations can't infringe on my right to a private life and must protect my liberty to be a free unconstrained being

I don't know about you but I'd much prefer a world where everyone is guaranteed certain freedoms than one where big companies can use positive liberty arguments to exploit people in new and novel ways.

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

#363

Post by jason0597 »

wolco2 wrote: post #325
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}".…

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.

A cog being paid $160k or more

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

#364

Post by waheoo »

throwaway667555 wrote: post #311
MereInterest wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just fill your personal device with dick pics.

They'll stop looking pretty quick.

Only partially joking.

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

#365

Post by benlivengood »

cj wrote: post #324
DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comp…

The only paperwork I saw in 2014 before my first day was an offer letter (no contract per se; CA is an at-will state), NDA, relocation offer (always ask for one; it's rarely offered) and a list to fill out of prior inventions. The rest does get signed in noogler orientation.

The benefits (to Google) of being a giant company with at-will employment.

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

#366

Post by brendoelfrendo »

black_puppydog wrote: post #159
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

I find it funny how people assert that she used it for her political "beliefs" (when the message was simply informing people of their rights) but seem to take at face value Google's assertion that they acted on this because she (ab)used the infrastructure, as opposed to what she used it for.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that a similar circumvention of company policy for non-labor union purposes would not have been met with immediate termination. Unless Google can say that this was normal punishment or was part of a pattern of behavior, it's kinda hard for it not to look like retaliation.

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

#367

Post by YokoZar »

qmarchi wrote: post #257
YokoZar wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Again, reasonable for her to be fired.

The NLRB is where decisions like this are argued. They weighed the evidence, with a much fuller view than any of us here, and came to the conclusion that the firing was illegal.

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

#368

Post by waheoo »

silverpepsi wrote: post #308
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aff…

This is essentially the same outcome.

They start relationships with everyone poorly and they pay the price.

There is a reason stuff like the danmore debacle can even happen.

They're a huge echo chamber.

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

#369

Post by waheoo »

ardy42 wrote: post #333
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It sounds like he didn't just ask for a contract change: He simply crossed it out and expected them to take it. I believe that's how one typically asks for contract changes. https://blog.pandadoc.com/what-is-contract-redlining-and-con... : > The term “redlining” commonly refers to the editing and negotiation process during document and business contract management where contributors mark text and track changes coll…

That is exactly how it works.

I've changed every contract I've ever signed like this.

Usually those bullshit lines about employer owning all code I write, even on the weekend type stuff.

I've only had to walk from one job over it. Bullet dodged.

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

#370

Post by kelnos »

cj wrote: post #324
DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comp…

That's pretty normal, at least in tech in CA. Every job I've taken in the past 15 years has had documents I was required to sign on my first day as a condition of starting employment. Most also had some other documents I had to sign to accept the offer, but those were not comprehensive.
Post reply on HN