Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges • Hacker News Board

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

#551

Post by ryandrake » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 2:30 AM UTC

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.

Yea, this shouldn't be surprising at all. Every company I've ever worked had some wiggle room with salary and equity, but when it came to the legal terms, they were not negotiable. I tried the cute "redlining" thing a few times, and without exception it always ended up with a stern letter from Legal: "Sign it unmodified or GTFO!"

I don't know who all these Captains Of Industry are who claim to be able to actually negotiate any of these terms with their company's legal department. Unless you are some kind of unicorn super-star or exec, I don't see any company wanting to deal with the hassle of negotiating a special snowflake contract for you.

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

#552

Post by claudeganon » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 2:32 AM UTC

black_puppydog wrote: post #465

leftyted wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not comparing google to coal mines. BUT 1. Unionized coal mines had/have much better wages and working conditions :) 2. Of course there are shades everywhere. And just because there are worse exploiters, doesn't mean google should get away with anything that's not "as bad" as those.

This is also such an insane take because organized labor at Google stopped a project (Dragonfly) that would’ve been used against “troublesome” workers in China, as well as a military project that also undoubtedly would’ve been used to kill more poor people.

Yes, unions watch out for their member’s bottom line, but even without a union, workers at Google have organized to protect others beside themselves!

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

#553

Post by avianlyric » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 2:32 AM UTC

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…

Could you provide some evidence for this rather remarkable claim?

> It is likely that engineers at FAANG companies would make less money if they join a union, because the union would level people out by negotiating a standard salary for workers at similar levels at all companies. I haven't seen anyone refute this.

More than one union exists in the world, they also compete with each other to offer their members the largest benefits. I don’t see why unionisation would reduce pay competition, if anything it should increase it by ensuring that anti-poaching agreements never happen.

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

#554

Post by austhrow743 » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 2:34 AM UTC

brundolf wrote: post #469

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…

Regardless of whether or not IT professionals should be worried about their salaries, labor power isn't just about compensation. Unions could negotiate for better parental leave (which is still atrocious throughout the US, even in relatively cushy jobs). Unions could empower tech workers to actually push back on unethical policies and projects, as opposed to right now where they get to make a statement and then nothi…

Parental leave is part of compensation. It's just extra cash but with strings attached.

Things like parental leave are exactly why some people don't like collective bargaining. It means you get stuck being compensated with something you're not going to use instead of cash.

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

#555

Post by rablackburn » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 2:35 AM UTC

fogetti wrote: post #513

realityking wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was un are of this system until I hired in the US. It blows my mind. Here (Germany) offer letters are used to outline the general terms of an offer however the next step will then be that you’re sent a contract (some of mine have been > 10 pages) outlining a lot of relevant things such: - role (ideally even with a job description but that is rare) - place of employment (city/country) - IP assignment - length of pro…

If you want to know, the same system happens in Japan too. When you get the offer letter it's an outline only. Then you either accept the offer letter as it is, or walk away. Asking for the detailed contract (called 就業規則 in Japanese) will always end up losing your job offer, because you have no legal right to see the contract before you join the company. Some companies are so hostile (and this is the norm in my exper…

I still remember the furore it caused when I asked for a copy of the 業務規則. (because the new overtime pay policy was paying ~$3/hr worked after 10pm and I wanted to see the section that covered that calculation)

I just wanted to read the actual language around hours worked and overtime because it was never stated what the policy was.

Turns out you couldn’t read it without a director sitting next to you, and it was in a binder that you weren’t allowed to touch.

My conversation with the CEO:

“Why would you need to read that?”

“Because my contract says ‘in accordance with the 業務規則’ and I’d like to know what my contract is”

“Well you can ask me a question and ill tell you if it’s in there”

Glad I got off that sinking ship.

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

#556

Post by claudeganon » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 2:36 AM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #390

YokoZar wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly, the fact that she has the gall to complain to the NLRB about this firing is pretty despicable. Google should be suing her for defamation. This is such an ill-informed understanding of how labor law works I'm not sure where to even start. You have a legal right to assert your legal rights, as was done here. The NLRB is akin to a trial court that makes the determination and issues judgements. Winning a lega…

NRLB cases are not "legal cases", they are administrative proceedings from which one has pretty much no actual legal recourse.

The have redress through the U.S. Court of Appeals for noncompliance with their decisions, so this really isn’t true at all.

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

#557

Post by waheoo » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 2:39 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #375

waheoo wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Signed" isn't what you think it is. You can sign the offer letter, and possibly a couple other things, but most companies will also have more documents that you must sign on your first day of employment, and won't give them to you before then.

Interesting. That's not how it works in Australia at all.

Here, salary expectations are given in the first screening call. If they can't meet the expectation or you won't be happy with their lower offer things end there.

Interviews / code tests happen.

Offer comes over phone or email. This includes salary.

There is no signature at this stage and nothing is set in stone, its just an offer. If you accept the offer a contract is drawn up. Still nothing is certain.

Changes to the contract can happen here.

Once both parties sign. That is when you're "signed".

This happens well before your start date, usually you would stipulate the start date in the contract, so if you need to give a month's notice to your employer your new contract with a start date from a month is signed before you even hand in your notice.

There is a 3 month trial period on all employment where they can walk without much repercussions, but this is more of a concession on your part because employment is very well protected.

Any weird IP bullshit or other conditions of employment that need signing would be in the contract you signed on for.

They can't bait and switch like what you're discussing. Any NDA's are discussed up front and at least their existence is disclosed in the contract giving you a chance to see them early.

Basically you can't put new conditions of employment on people after the fact, and if you did it wouldn't be valid in court anyway, contract law trumps contract content here no matter what.

Things don't have to work exactly like this, you might want to leverage the offer for a higher pay at your current job, counter offering is commonplace here but I wouldn't ever accept one. They'll be looking for your replacement as soon as you accept.

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

#558

Post by MereInterest » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 2:39 AM UTC

gowld wrote: post #349

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 the equivalent of haggling of the flea market, and being told to give back the goods you are holding because there is no agreement on the price.

Alternative analogy. The haggling at the flea market already occurred (compensation negotiation), and the price was agreed upon. As you are picking up the goods, the seller shouts at you that he also gets to rifle through your phone, no take-backs, and you definitely agreed to it because you're picking up the goods.

One party here is altering the verbal agreement, and expecting the other party to accept without additional negotiation.

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

#559

Post by claudeganon » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 2:40 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #455

stuwon wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But the NLRB ruled that what Spiers did was perfectly within their rights, so you’re completely wrong in this specific case. However correct you may believe yourself in the abstract, entirely relies on the lawfulness of the specifics.

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

#560

Post by austhrow743 » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 2:43 AM UTC

postingpals wrote: post #483

renewiltord wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be allowed to unionize but I'll oppose it at every front. Because mass power means mass power that can be turned against me. 2016 taught me something. There are a large contingent of anti-immigrants out there. Should you allow the creation of a mob, a day will come when the populists will take control of it. In moments, the mob can break generations of integration. The best defence against it is prevent…

I was planning to argue with this, but I only feel sorry that you see something as historically useful as unionising in such a light.

Do you think a tech union would be in favour of immigrant labour?