Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 293 posts

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#151

Post by [deleted] »

dekhn wrote: post #102
m0zg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> overly expansive ownership claim Yeah, that particular clause gave me a looong pause before signing their contract, in fact I even seriously considered taking one of the other offers I had. This is why you see all those "happens to be owned by Google" disclaimers on open source projects. This means the person wrote this code on their own time, yet it's owned by Google anyway, which IMO is total employee-hostile bu…

I agreed to that contract and open sourced many thousands of lines of code owned by Google, but still available to me and the rest of the world via github. I don't see the problem. If you could demonstrate your project didn't overlap google business then you could do your own project.

[deleted]

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#152

Post by marssaxman »

throwaway987988 wrote: post #126
defen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the right to surveillance on personal property Wait, what? I don't think I've seen that before, what does this mean exactly?

Yeah, this is real. On a throwaway for obvious reasons, but this is from an employment contract I've seen in the past: "I acknowledge that I have no reasonable expectation of privacy in any computer, technology system, email, handheld device, telephone, or documents that are used to conduct the business of the Company. As such, the Company has the right to audit and search all such items and systems, without further…

This all sounds completely normal. Do people actually imagine that the hardware they use at work is somehow theirs, and not their employer's?

"Keep a hard boundary between your work and personal systems" has always been the right answer. I am surprised that this does not seem obvious to everyone.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#153

Post by joshuamorton »

m0zg wrote: post #111
dekhn wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agreed to that contract and open sourced many thousands of lines of code owned by Google, but still available to me and the rest of the world via github. I don't see the problem. If you could demonstrate your project didn't overlap google business then you could do your own project.

People seem to not quite get this, so I'll try to be as clear as I can. Google should not have the ability to claim ownership on unrelated work that does not use company time or resources unless _I_ _voluntarily_ relinquish such ownership. Google should have no business whatsoever interfering with what I do on my own personal time. Nor should I have to make anything open source. Nor should I need to ask anyone's _per…

The key point is "if you can demonstrate that your project doesn't compete with Google's business" IARC is really easy. I was approved for a couple projects, including one that absolutely could be considered to be competing with Google's business if they wanted, in like a week.

You aren't actually legally required to go through IARC. The contract isn't enforcible in CA if you really don't compete, but I have prewritten verification of that now, and it was painless.

IME, Google's earned the benefit of the doubt in this context.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#155

Post by rhizome »

phamilton wrote: post #138
danans wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow, you mean collective employee action can be used to force an employer to stop exploitative behaviors? Who knew? :-) I think part of the problem is that we non-organized workers (i.e. most tech workers and our similar peers) have accepted the unfortunate media-fueled trope that collective worker action equates to organized-crime connected unions like those of the Hoffa-period Teamsters. Unfortunately, many white…

You ignore the non-union organizations that also protect their own. ABA, AMA, etc. control the supply of doctors/lawyers and accomplish the same end result as unions: higher wages and less competition.

Those are more like guilds than unions.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#156

Post by [deleted] »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #57
riffraff wrote: post #19

Why isn't forced arbitration illegal? You're effectively agreeing to renounce to your rights to sue a company. Seems odd that US laws allows that. Or, is the clause only that arbitration has to be attempted but not binding to the fact that an agreement may be reached? This case would seem far less evil.

The idealistic take is that the United States is a country that maximizes freedom, which includes the freedom to enter into whatever contracts you wish. You aren't forced to take a job that requires you to waive your right to sue; you're choosing to do it. If it were too important, capitalism suggests that another employer would show up, offer you a little less pay and no arbitration clause, and everybody would work…

[deleted]

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#158

Post by rhizome »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #91
JohnFen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would not sign something like that contract today. I've been seeing wording to that effect in nearly every contract I've been presented with for years now. Every time, I speak up and suggest replacing it with wording that is much more restrictive (they can own anything I make using their resources or intellectual property, otherwise I own it). I have yet to have a company not agree to this change.

An acquaintance of mine who was given an offer by Google, and arrived on the appointed day, brought the agreement, a red line, and a clean copy. They refused to make any change in their wording even though they said their intent was not to enforce the wording as written. They said that they couldn't sign it unless Google's intent was actually in the writing as well. That afternoon, Google asked for all the gear they…

Hobson's HR department.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#159

Post by iceninenines »

martin1975 wrote: post #120

an opportune time to unionize, if you ask me...

Yes, in states without "right to work" (for less) and other union-busting laws. More importantly would be for workers to quit en masse and start their own employee-owned co-op so they're not cheated out of profits they helped create but rarely see.

Re: Google Ends Forced Arbitration for Employees

#160

Post by jonny_eh »

joshuamorton wrote: post #78
jahn716 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the exact same reaction. Shouldn't this worry the employees the most?

I work at Google and have absolutely no clue what he's referring to. My best guess is that it has something to do with the permissions you give Google if you add a work profile/account to your phone. But that isn't required.

On iPhones it just allows them to wipe your phone if it's lost.
Post reply on HN