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

451–460 of 772 posts

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

#451

Post by ahelwer »

chii wrote: post #444
ahelwer wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an employee I might have $100k in MSFT stock after five years. Those buybacks gave me what, a few hundred/thousand bucks at most? Come on. For such a supposed math-literate profession this objection is weirdly common. If you get cash you can turn around and buy company stock. Nobody is stopping you. Unions would also certainly see the value in employee ownership of stock, which broadly aligns with ideas of workers…

> contributed nothing to its creation. no, they contributed capital. This capital came from somewhere - e.g., they took a risk and borrowed it. Or they took their own saved capital from their own past working life (or inherited, which is just the past working life of their parents). When speaking of labour and value creation, the concept of capital is often seen as "nothing", and is certainly wrong. Without capital,…

If you buy a share of a publicly-traded company you are not "investing" in the company, "contributing capital", whatever. The company does not use your money to build out its infrastructure; generally they don't see a dime of it. There are a few exceptions like with Tesla who issue new shares to cash in on their inflated stock price, but this is generally rare. Most companies are doing the opposite: buying more of their stock, not selling it.

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

#452

Post by throwaway2048 »

philsnow wrote: post #400
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.

It's more like trying to haggle over the price of some bananas at Safeway.

maybe if bananas cost six figures people would negotiate over them.

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

#453

Post by leftyted »

r0p3 wrote: post #440
leftyted wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of Google exploiting its programmers is an insult to actual exploited labor. These aren't coal miners. There's no factories. The programmers where I work have too much power. We're exploiting the company. If I don't feel like writing code, I just do github stuff and answer questions. In fact that's what I did yesterday and the day before. No one notices or cares because, among other things, they couldn't rep…

Having "lefty" in your name with such a poor understanding of labor exploitation is funny.

Working at Google while complaining about "labor exploitation" is like being a rich white kid in a Che shirt

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

#454

Post by lopmotr »

munk-a wrote: post #260
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.

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.

I face that Google search risk for my business but all businesses have risks. If not from Google, from regulation changes, Covid-19 lockdowns, competitors, disruption of the market like Uber/AirBnB, etc. If you don't want risk, don't be a businessman. Get a normal job like everyone else.

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

#455

Post by chii »

stuwon wrote: post #112
manfredo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you have a right to participate in unionization and politics. But you don't have a right to alter company software to spread your political message. There's a big difference between holding a "Vote X" sign on a street corner on your own time, and using your position as a developer to put up "Vote X" signs on your company's website.

But developers at Uber and Lyft can spam drivers and riders with "Tap to support Prop 22" every time they want to use their apps with no consequence? I don't see how anyone can get upset with employees notifying fellow employees of their legal rights when the same tech companies will abuse their platforms to literally broadcast their political beliefs. https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/4/21549760/uber-lyft-prop-2...

> same tech companies will abuse their platforms to literally broadcast their political beliefs.

if the owners of the company feels the desire to, they can instruct their employees to perform work to broadcast/promote their (owner's) political beliefs. This is just a case of a company using its resources for a purpose designated by the owner.

An employee co-opting company resources without owner approval to broadcast their (employee's) political message is not allowed, unless explicitly given permission by the owners.

Why people cannot tell the difference between the two situations above is beyond me - it's not like they are similar or confusing.

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

#456

Post by the-rc »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #180
zobzu wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth your comment is technically wrong and misleading - really, it's FUD. Android is very specific about company-owned vs personally-owned phones. Personally-owned lets you setup devices with a work profile where very little non-work data is available to the employer. They don't know your personal apps, they dont know your IP address, and they dont know where these apps go (ie no personal network logs)…

Except that in the Employment Agreement that Google made me sign when I worked there (I don't know if it is still like this) Google specifically called out that they reserve the right to rootkit your personal devices that access "Google's corporate information" (basically that means accessing your work email because you needed to use your corp laptop if you wanted to access the internal network) But I agree that if t…

When you signed your agreement, that Android technology didn't exist, so reserving themselves the right to get root on your devices accessing corporate information was the closest, yet very blunt, approximation. Personal devices were highly discouraged or even forbidden for a long time, but employees kept asking about them, for the convenience. These use cases and internal dogfooding were major factors in the eventual development of Android Enterprise and related products.

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

#457

Post by throwaway2048 »

cooljacob204 wrote: post #66
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…

With android work profiles I don't think it's that big a deal. It's isolated from my phone, my employer can't see anything outside the profile and I just disable it on weekends/vacations.

Google is a special case, via play store the effectively have complete control of almost every android phone.

Its foolish to think they wouldn't use it.

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

#458

Post by cj »

thelastwave wrote: post #418
cj wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You seem like you have not had a lot of real job experience.

You’re right, I’ve only had a few jobs in my life. But I have hired dozens of people - everyone I’ve hired received their contracts the same day they receive an offer.

Very surprised this isn’t common practice.

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

#459

Post by black_puppydog »

renewiltord wrote: post #288
black_puppydog wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bonzibuddy crap funny name to give to something on the grounds of an engineer in the team pushing for unionization

It isn't about the topic. Like if you tell me it's going to give me computer security tips and instead it's advocating for peace in the middle east I genuinely don't give a fuck. It's bonzibuddy crap. It's getting blacklisted. I'd prefer you don't get fired for doing dumb shit like that because whatever, it's not going to kill someone, but I'm not going to use that team's adware shit anymore.

Oh wow, I just looked up Bonzibuddy and I guess I learned something today! :D

Sorry, I misunderstood this to allude to "Bonze" a German/French derogatory translating to "fat cat".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bonze

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

#460

Post by chii »

ahelwer wrote: post #451
chii wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> contributed nothing to its creation. no, they contributed capital. This capital came from somewhere - e.g., they took a risk and borrowed it. Or they took their own saved capital from their own past working life (or inherited, which is just the past working life of their parents). When speaking of labour and value creation, the concept of capital is often seen as "nothing", and is certainly wrong. Without capital,…

If you buy a share of a publicly-traded company you are not "investing" in the company, "contributing capital", whatever. The company does not use your money to build out its infrastructure; generally they don't see a dime of it. There are a few exceptions like with Tesla who issue new shares to cash in on their inflated stock price, but this is generally rare. Most companies are doing the opposite: buying more of th…

> If you buy a share of a publicly-traded company you are not "investing" in the company

no you are - because it's a chain of capital investment that is linked all the way to IPO (or private investment pre-IPO).

You purchase a share publicly from _someone_ who has purchased it from someone else. This chain of purchases leads all the way back to the initial share offering.

Just because your dollar doesn't go directly to the company doesn't mean this form of funding structure isn't "contributing capital". Your public share purchase allows an existing share holder to exit - without which they would not have purchased the initial share in the first place.

Post reply on HN