[flagged]
> His Orangeness Please refrain from insults. Nearly half of the voters voted for him. There are plenty of his supporters here and this is offensive to them.
It's a really fine line to walk for those who are inclined to do so.
11–20 of 772 posts
[flagged]
> His Orangeness Please refrain from insults. Nearly half of the voters voted for him. There are plenty of his supporters here and this is offensive to them.
It's a really fine line to walk for those who are inclined to do so.
>Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities,” the notification read I remember that case. Yeah - she deserved to be fired. She used an internal security tool to push her personal political views. How could that not be a fire-able offense?
That headline does not match the article contents. That is definitely the headline from the article, but it simply repeats the claim and doesn't even link to the complaint or provide ANY details. > Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. Didn't she inject code into an unrelated internal extension? That sounds like a legit security issue no matter how just…
If she had injected a BitCoin miner, for personal profit, that would have been an entirely different situation, wouldn't it?
Arguments of the form, "Person did X. Imagine if they had done Y! (Where Y is some obviously unethical thing.)" are fallacious and they lead the discussion to useless dead ends. The point is that the person did do X, and NOT Y.
>Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities,” the notification read I remember that case. Yeah - she deserved to be fired. She used an internal security tool to push her personal political views. How could that not be a fire-able offense?
>Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities,” the notification read I remember that case. Yeah - she deserved to be fired. She used an internal security tool to push her personal political views. How could that not be a fire-able offense?
A little more than that even. They have the right to participate in concerted activities. But those activities must usually be performed in a way that would not impact the business during working hours. Unionization and voting etc must usually be performed off-site.
Sounds like a non profit startup opportunity, to provide tools to empower workers to unionize and vote remotely. With remote normalizing, as long as you stay off corp gear (stay off corp gear for any activities not directly related to your employment!), your employer isn't going to know you're working towards organizing, preventing them from interfering with your organizing activities (which does them a favor, considering that's illegal under US labor law).
That headline does not match the article contents. That is definitely the headline from the article, but it simply repeats the claim and doesn't even link to the complaint or provide ANY details. > Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. Didn't she inject code into an unrelated internal extension? That sounds like a legit security issue no matter how just…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If she had injected a BitCoin miner, for personal profit, that would have been an entirely different situation, wouldn't it?
Not sure why you are being downvoted. You've (correctly) pointed out that the parent comment has constructed a strawman to punch at, rather than the actual events. Arguments of the form, "Person did X. Imagine if they had done Y! (Where Y is some obviously unethical thing.)" are fallacious and they lead the discussion to useless dead ends. The point is that the person did do X, and NOT Y.
I have policies at my workplace that disallow something because it's impractical to judge every single situation and then have to deal with the gray area.
[flagged]
> His Orangeness Please refrain from insults. Nearly half of the voters voted for him. There are plenty of his supporters here and this is offensive to them.
>Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities,” the notification read I remember that case. Yeah - she deserved to be fired. She used an internal security tool to push her personal political views. How could that not be a fire-able offense?
"Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities" is not a personal political opinion, it is the law.
But I wonder if anyone would be have been fired if it were an April fools prank?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If she had injected a BitCoin miner, for personal profit, that would have been an entirely different situation, wouldn't it?
Not sure why you are being downvoted. You've (correctly) pointed out that the parent comment has constructed a strawman to punch at, rather than the actual events. Arguments of the form, "Person did X. Imagine if they had done Y! (Where Y is some obviously unethical thing.)" are fallacious and they lead the discussion to useless dead ends. The point is that the person did do X, and NOT Y.