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

671–680 of 772 posts

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

#671

Post by Nextgrid »

wpietri wrote: post #423
z6 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have no shortage of people wanting to work for them. Why bother taking on a 'difficult' person?

Why take on a person who reads things closely, thinks about them carefully, values privacy, and has a sense of integrity? There are a bunch of reasons. But the business one is that modern companies can't concentrate power at the top if they want to be successful in the long term. Innovation and adaptation don't happen because the SEVP of whatever has a brainstorm. They happen because people doing the work are intelli…

> values privacy

I'd expect this to be a negative for a company whose entire business is based on stalking people.

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

#672

Post by howlgarnish »

austhrow743 wrote: post #542
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.)

People absolutely negotiate successfully with Google. New hires fresh out of uni do. Tens of thousands of more dollars. It just seems that invading their employees privacy is table stakes for them.

You can (and should) negotiate salary, they expect that and have the authority to bump up your pay.

However, trying to negotiate the legal terms of a contract with a FAANG is highly unlikely to succeed, since HR is not authorized to change anything and Legal doesn't give a shit about you.

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

#673

Post by Nextgrid »

djrogers wrote: post #127
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…

> assume that HR can view EVERYTHING on your phone, because they can Patently false, for many values of ‘everything’ and ‘phone’. An MDM has zero visibility into an iPhone’s browsing history, iMessage content, or the content of any app not installed directly by the MDM. So things like Signal, WhatsApp, and even the default mail app are off limits.

An MDM can install a root certificate + VPN and snoop on your network traffic (which would disclose a lot of things).

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

#674

Post by benhurmarcel »

realityking wrote: post #235
willcipriano wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

It varies by country, even in Europe. In France you also sign beforehand. But in Spain it's quite common to only sign the contract on the first day; before you can request a letter saying that they are contracting you and the salary, but not more.

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

#675

Post by benhurmarcel »

dleslie wrote: post #611
sudosysgen wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't kid yourself. Your employer will always be better connected and more influential politically than you, unless you organize. You'll be fired for donating to that PAC if it's actually becoming controversial and effective. Fortunately, unions have the same status in campaign contribution laws as PACs, so your best bet to do some lobbying as a worker is to join a union and use it as a PAC.

I watched my parents suffer throughout their careers because their Unions were politically toxic and also deigned it necessary to keep their wages below market in order to apply pressure on the employer to raise the wages of others in the bargaining unit. As though a lineman and a telecontrol technologist are similarly skilled and trained. My father spent the better part of a decade trying to hire his replacement bec…

I don't know why but it seems that unions are very different between Europe and the US.

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

#676

Post by etherealG »

austhrow743 wrote: post #593
dayjobpork wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, you are against other workers benefiting from something if you yourself don't benefit?

Absolutely not. I'm against giving up my ability to negotiate for myself to someone who is going to negotiate for compensation that I can't use at the expense of compensation I can. Also, weird take. In a scenario where compensation has no lifestyle strings attached to it, both the childless person and the child having person can use that money. Pushing for heavy parental leave is the "fuck you, getting mine" option.

It's only that way if you think of money and time as equivalent, which I assume from your tone you do. For many parents, time with their child during those early months is invaluable, and no money compensation can compare, so it's not really a viable option for them to "get theirs" while you don't "get yours". I think collective bargaining could solve this better by asking for an option to either have the cash or the time... but getting only cash is also saying to parents "fuck you, getting mine", just with the added "and you get it too, even if you don't want it".

Overall, I think grouping together to have a more powerful negotiating position is better for the group as a whole... It's a classic Nash Equilibrium problem, and obvious to many people that grouping together even if you don't want the exact same things is still better.

I'm not sure why people who advocate for staying "alone" in your negotiation think that the outcome will be better by leaving the employer in the state of having more power in the negotiation by you being alone. Can you explain if you see it as better for any reason other than that you prefer to "have yours" even if "yours" is more for you at the cost of less for us all?

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

#677

Post by benhurmarcel »

jldugger wrote: post #489
squarefoot wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. And not just two phones but two laptops as well, unless the employer forbids bringing a personal one at work (which would be a reason to dump them in my case). Leave work stuff to work hardware and never ever use company assets for anything personal. A friend of mine who works for a big multinational telco (unrelated to Google) installed an open source tool on his company laptop; when he connected back on the c…

Why would you bring a personal laptop to work?

Sometimes your work computer is so locked down that some work tasks are made much easier by having a machine you have full access to.

For example we needed to program an Arduino-type board, but that's not possible with our work laptops (no admin rights, USB ports disabled, etc); we never found a solution other than a personal laptop. Or a colleague needed to run a supplier's simulation tool that needed admin rights, and couldn't get an exception fast enough. Or you need to run a Linux tool.

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

#678

Post by DangitBobby »

drstewart wrote: post #662
Ericson2314 wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Labor how about how you learn some labor history, and how organization efforts spearheaded by the most privileged workers, however odious in some respect, did beget trends good for all.

Here's some more labor history for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa

Is this supposed to convince people that unions are bad?

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

#679

Post by DrHydeous »

astura wrote: post #627
nmfisher wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does happen regularly, and employees should never do it (for precisely this reason). Don't quit your job, move cities, etc etc without a signed contract.

What good is that if you're an "at-will" employee? They can just change the rules at any time for any reason and fire you if you don't agree to them. I have enough experience to know absolutely nothing about me employer is guaranteed/permanent in the US. Relevant story for the HN crowd: I worked for a small company (~250 employees). Real chill place. Six months after I start they were suddenly bought out by a huge mu…

I would assume that if they do decide to "change the rules" then the penalty clauses in the contract kick in, such as payment in lieu of notice. Jesusland does actually enforce contracts, right?

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

#680

Post by modo_mario »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #667
silverpepsi wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> entirely nothing but a list of terms advantageous to one party The obvious counterpoint is that usually a job offer involves getting paid.

Which is why people take the job but which doesn't relate much to a large part of the negotiation being rigged in favour of one party.

You could say the same about when the Silicon Valley salary cartel was uncovered. "yeah it's anticompetitive and negatively impacts workers but,....but these companies offer you food at work and comfortable workplace and all that."

Post reply on HN