Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by joshuamorton » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #256

ChuckMcM wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I "understood" it, California is a "Right to Work" state and signing the agreement was clearly a requirement of working and by not signing the unchanged agreement, it was a voluntary action of elimination etc etc. So Google was well within their rights to rescind their job offer as they did. That said, it was at a time where Google was complaining bitterly about how hard it was to hire engineers, and their much va…

> If the HR rep was speaking truthfully, then I would have expected to Google legal to just adopt the updated text in this agreement and all future agreements. It literally got tweaked at least once a year so the problem of "multiple agreements" wasn't really a problem. I'm definitely not defending the actions of Google here but I do understand them - it's quite likely this HR rep couldn't legally agree to this contr…

> To contrast, if this person had said "I can't agree to that clause for my personal property but I am happy to be issued and exclusively use (for business purposes) a phone from you folks."

And indeed this is a thing that many people at Google do.

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

#262

Post by black_puppydog » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

The whole thread here seems to revolve around whether or not Spiers should have been fired for what she did. And while I have a clear opinion on that and had fun sparring with y'all here about it, can we also talk about how unionization is actually something that we need to think about as a profession / group of professions?

The days where "being in IT" made you a rockstar that could command a premium in individual negotiations are, best I can tell, way in the past. Open source frameworks and industry standards, while certainly excellent from a standpoint of work de-duplication and stability, have made it much easier (at least for bigger corps) to replace engineers, or to simply hire someone who's cheaper and less likely to make trouble (read: people more vulnerable to exploitation).

There are certainly still exceptions to this, and there will continue to be. For example, the mythical 10x people among you will never have to worry about this, because they're simply that good. Or if you happen to be working on rust for a year before it breaks into the mainstream, then you'll have a head start for a while. But don't expect that to last.

Overall: we will either realize and act on the fact that we are now for the most part a skilled labor like any other, or we will see our precious privileges erode and our incomes and work conditions deteriorate. And like it or not, but for many among us who are not "the gift of god to coding" the rational strategy will be to not fight on our own.

To bring this back to the current case: the NLRB decided that Spiers got illegally spied on. Whatever your take on her actions before that: illegal stays illegal, and as such don't blame her for it "because she had it coming." Blame google, for blatantly pushing against workers knowing and demanding their rights. If you see what they did here, and the context of this whole story, can you really take their argument at face value that she got fired for misappropriating company property or some such? Doesn't it seem much more likely that they simply made an example of her for informing her co-workers of their rights?

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

#263

Post by icelancer » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

izacus wrote: post #132

icelancer wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> They need you to hand it over. If its your personal device, you just say piss off, no you can't have it. That's not how a subpoena works if it's on the same physical device. Good luck finding a judge who understands the concept of a "software wall."

So you're saying that judge will ignore the separate profiles but it'll magically stop from depositioning all your phones that might contain work conversations? That's a tall order. Also, the title says that GOOGLE spied on someone - which is not a deposition, is it?

>> So you're saying that judge will ignore the separate profiles but it'll magically stop from depositioning all your phones that might contain work conversations?

Yes.

Source: Been subpoenaed three times and my attorneys have had restrictions placed on what can/cannot be searched... like I am assuming most competent attorneys can provide. The party has to have reasonable indication that relevant data is on personal devices so the opposing counsel doesn't go goldfishing through a bunch of stuff to turn up potentially unrelated dirt in discovery.

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

#264

Post by Broken_Hippo » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #231

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…

You'd think they'd offer the guy a job still, but without the contract changes, instead of immediately pulling out. It sounds like he was firm, but given a chance to take the job without said changes, he may still have accepted. Geez. It is unreasonable and in bad faith to completely like a candidate and then reject them for merely asking for a contract change.

It sounds like he didn't just ask for a contract change: He simply crossed it out and expected them to take it.

I'm honestly surprised people do that. I always go with the assumption that a job offer comes with the implication that you agree to the legal stuff as you are signing it: If you don't, you have refused the job. If you don't agree to something that has been updated, you have quit. The only thing that might actually protects you in the last scenario is something like a job contract, but a lot of places in the states simply don't have them for everyone.

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

#265

Post by Barrin92 » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #231

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…

You'd think they'd offer the guy a job still, but without the contract changes, instead of immediately pulling out. It sounds like he was firm, but given a chance to take the job without said changes, he may still have accepted. Geez. It is unreasonable and in bad faith to completely like a candidate and then reject them for merely asking for a contract change.

letting go of a prospective employee for trying to protect his or her privacy and apparently being able to read their contract carefully and think through it tells you all you need to know about what Google stands for today.

Never let SV compensation packages or relaxed workplace culture distract you from the fact that the interests of the owners and workers at those companies don't have the same interests.

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

#266

Post by throwaway667555 » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #203

jedberg wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not. Legal doesn't want to deal with everyone having a different employment contract. Google has always leaned towards being ok with a ton of false negatives to avoid false positives. They'd rather give up 10 good hires than make one bad one. This is just an extension of that. They don't want any exceptions and they aren't willing to make any.

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.)

The person redlined a contract instead of spending +$2000/yr (out of a likely $250,000+ salary) on a second personal phone. Such short-sidedness is a bad trait in an employee.

Second, their protest is laudable. But their decision was consciously: "the legal department of this $xxx billion company (that spends $xx million maintaining this employment contract template) will bend to my will, or I will {quit OR relent}". If they'd quit? Job well done. If they'd relent? Then why try? You're screaming into a void, and if you didn't recognize this prior to redlining, you have a bad trait for an employee.

All scenarios point to a competent red-liner achieving their desired outcome -- an ethical win in whatever case. Only an incompetent/shortsighted/kneejerk/low-critical-thinking red-liner would achieve an undesired outcome, because they didn't consider the game before playing.

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

#267

Post by Broken_Hippo » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

dheera wrote: post #225

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…

> by installing a rootkit On what? A phone or laptop? They should provide the device, if so. As long as they are providing the hardware and I'm not forced to carry it around during personal time, I don't see a problem with it; I just wouldn't log into my personal accounts with it, and maintain separate personal hardware.

I completely agree. They can put whatever they want on a work phone that I don't need to take with me without it being an explicit part of the job. I very much mind on a personal device.

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

#268

Post by deeth_starr_v » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

janesvilleseo wrote: post #46

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…

100% agree. People laugh at me why I carry two phones but this is the main reason. If my employer needs me to have a mobile phone they are paying for separate device and plan. It’s a little silly I need to carry 2 phones around but it makes my life so much more convenient. Unknown call on my work phone guess I’ll answer. If it’s on my personal then it’s spam. Leave company, no need to update or port my number. Want t…

I'm kind of surprised by the option to use a personal phone anyway. Whenever I've worked at big tech, there has never been an option to use a personal device or laptop. Even getting a USB port enabled takes a VP to ok it often. But this tends to be in R&D depts.

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

#269

Post by sneak » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #260

sneak wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like the way Google does business, you are free to not do business with them, either as an employee or customer. I don't understand your snark.

This is helpful information - the next time I'm working on promoting my website I'll remember that it's entirely optional whether my business thrives or I go destitute due to refusing to be indexed by their search index. Your statement is accurate when a healthy market and competitors exist but you are not free to avoid doing business with Google since they have an insane amount of market control.

You can run most types of businesses without Google, or even in being in Google's index at all.

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

#270

Post by annexrichmond » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

613style wrote: post #16

vorpalhex wrote: post #2

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…

"Injecting code," is not the way I'd describe making changes to a product that it's your job to maintain.

did the change have anything to do with their job? No, so it's basically injecting code.