571–580 of 772 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that have to do with accusation that Google read the messages? From the topic?
This far into the thread, it changed to justifying two phones for reasons of possible deposition. I was explaining why it’s a good idea to do that.
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.)
Here's my question for everyone on this thread: what are you going to do about it? My rough guesses of what you could do: - unionize your shop / commit to working at unionized shops (addresses the power imbalance between individual employees and the employer by treating employees as a group) - use the power you have as an employee to drive change at your workplace, if you're one of those employees who is well-treated…
- Refuse to work for a company that treats privacy as a commodity that can be bought and sold.
No one has to work at Google. Anyone who gets an offer from them has ample opportunity to work elsewhere.
It seems like the NLRB is alleging that it is or should be illegal to have a policy against employees spying on each other for non-business reasons at work and using company tools?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The NLRB ruled both firings were illegitimate and their actions protected under labor law. So no, she was within her rights and the NLRB said she’s to be reinstated.
The NLRB has no direct enforcement power, so how it resolves itself will be dependent on if the NLRB pursues Google in the U.S. Court of Appeals, they settle out of court, or otherwise. My guess is that they settle because an NLRB ruling against you isn’t likely to work in your favor in the event of an employment lawsuit. But regardless, what Spiers did stands as a favorable precedent for workers in the event of other disputes with similar circumstances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is how I've felt about unions since the grad students tried to unionize at my university, and all the hard science grad students would have lower salaries if the union came to fruition How would they know what their salaries would be if they chose to unionize?
Most likely the union organizers said they'd do X, Y and Z if created. That included a more standardized salary across the board which benefits those making the least but hurts those making the most.
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…
They have no shortage of people wanting to work for them. Why bother taking on a 'difficult' person?
So it's in Google's interest to at least pretend to negotiate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those people aren't barred from suffering from invasions of privacy and rootkits for the sake of a minor convenience. Most places outside of tech folks with tolls need to carry company tools where they go - doctors carrying hospital beepers was essentially a meme in the 90's.
Are you saying they should be barred?