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

561–570 of 772 posts

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

#561

Post by orangecat »

acituan wrote: post #517
scarmig wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we all know that is not the real reason No, that is not true. Some of us take security seriously.

Can you contextualize who you are, so that I can better understand “us”? You mention seriousness as an absolute virtue, but if it fires people for a harmless, easily correctable mistake in an internal tool, it is just misguided and an excuse especially if it “happens” to serve some ulterior motive.

It's not harmless. Google is very concerned about internal security, and putting irrelevant messages in security notifications makes them more likely to be ignored in the future. Your ASCII dinosaur hypothetical is a good way to think about it, and I wouldn't be surprised or outraged if that also resulted in the offender being fired.

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

#562

Post by biggc »

eikenberry wrote: post #478
waheoo wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've done this as well, though I only needed to once. They didn't even look at the contract I turned in. Just slapped it in a file and went on with things. Never came up again.

Don't both parties need to agree to (e.g initial) the redlined sections?

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

#564

Post by pers0n »

ditonal wrote: post #40

One thing that happens in SV is: * Employer says "hey, we have all these convenient corporate app, wouldn't it be nice to be able to check work messages and work docs on your mobile? Just install our app to "corp-ify" your phone" * Employer now views your mobile device as containing sensitive company IP and therefore they have the right to snoop on anything on your phone. If you install corp on your phone, Google vie…

Simple solution just use a $20 4yr phone that only has WiFi access and you only use for work, no cellular data

Old smartphones are cheap these days

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

#565

Post by MereInterest »

kelnos wrote: post #378
gowld wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would "negotiation allowed" mean? Negotiation includes saying "no". The remedy for that is labor law, not some right to negotiate. An interesting labor law challenge is "one side repeatedly making assertions that don't accord with contract, and I rely on those assertions, or the other side should be punished for making statements that suggest bad faith."

It's not much of a "negotiation" when the power imbalance is such that the employer can say no to your every request, but if you say no to any of theirs, you're unemployed.

Not only unemployed, but potentially unemployed in a new city, and liable for returning the relocation package. There is zero leverage in such a position if a company alters the deal, and tells you to pray they don't alter it further. Thankfully that that didn't happen to me, but it was in the back of my mind that after moving, I wasn't in the greatest of positions if there were to be any objectionable clauses.

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

#566

Post by inetknght »

ehsankia wrote: post #406
inetknght wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the work profile is supposed to solve that problem: you only add your corp account and install corp apps in work profile Wait until your personal phone, with its work profile, comes into scope of a work-related deposition. You'll find just how paper thin that argument is.

But that's no longer "spying", is it? You just shifted the goal post.

> You just shifted the goal post.

Arguably. I don't see it as such though. I see it as: if my phone would be fine in a deposition then I don't have to worry about work spying on their device. But if I have to worry about what work might find out on a device then I'd be a lot more worried about what might show up in a deposition.

What's said in private is supposed to stay private. It helps to demonstrate that it has stayed private if it can't be compelled especially from unrelated circumstances. Whether "private" means discussions with your family, your friends, your coworker, your boss, your commander, your patient, your client...

...it's very important to keep work separate.

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

#567

Post by jkaplowitz »

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…

If they did that after the person turned down other job offers and possibly incurred explicit financial expenses in reliance on Google accepting the redlined changes - assuming they highlighted the changes when they provided them instead of trying to sneak it past - Google could possibly be liable for damages caused by that reliance if they were to be sued or arbitrated against.

It says really bad things about the corporatist labor culture in the US that Google doesn't have any reason to fear that type of lawsuit in practice. (I.e., they could make it too expensive to win, they'd still hire without a problem going forward, and the person who sued them would have trouble getting jobs even if they win.)

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

#568

Post by nautilus12 »

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…

This actually makes me glad I never got a google job

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

#569

Post by MereInterest »

lopmotr wrote: post #448
MereInterest wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't know the way Google does business, because you don't know the terms of the contract, then you cannot make an informed choice. You are not free to choose unless you have information to guide that choice.

You know that you will have to sign a contract. And even if you don't, they're in an "at will" state so they can fire you whenever they want (eg. on your first day) without giving a reason. You know all that going in and can choose to work in a state or country with stronger labor laws if you don't like it.

Holy cow, that's some monstrous reasoning. To paraphrase, you're saying that going in, before even seeing a contract, you should be prepared to agree to anything because it is your role to agree to anything. And then you go on to say that it is their own fault for not moving to a location that forbids it.

The choices are not just "like it or leave it". Another is to recognize that the options being presented are unreasonable, and that the entire situation should be changed to make it impossible.

I agree that the solution is stronger labor laws. I disagree vehemently that people should be forced to relocate as a condition of those stronger labor laws.

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

#570

Post by chii »

claudeganon wrote: post #559
chii wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Spiers did was perfectly within their rights

no that's not what the article says.

The article claims: > NLRB has found Google’s policy against employees looking at certain coworkers’ calendars is unlawful.

Google claimed that she abused security notification system for websites to show a non-security related message (see https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/17/fifth-google...). She could, within her rights, send emails to organize a company wide meeting, or write up a public document to talk about unionization. If google had banned this, then they would fall afoul of the law.

May be google is really using the excuse that she abused security notification systems to fire her. That's something I'm not privy to, and only litigation will reveal this (if it even does).

Post reply on HN