561–570 of 779 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read what the extension is for?
It feels like a lot of astro-turfing going on here. Why would any sane person be against unions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like this. Where is it from? In response to it: You can't apply this to everything, you need to pick you battles. There might be better means to an end.
Unionising is a pretty good means to improve your working conditions though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? So if I hire you to email out my monthly company statement it’s reasonable that you add some of your own thoughts to said email.
Not sure that notifying people of the law is actually "your own thoughts".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But IANAL firing some one for telling their co-workers about their right to unionize is an illegal reason to fire someone. I'm not completely convinced that's what happened here but still
Technology makes a lot of these good intentioned laws hard to interpret. You cannot be fired for telling your co-workers that they are allowed to unionize. What if you work for a call center, commandeered an auto-dialer, and called every co-worker in the company with the same message? What about a popup on every page of an internal company website? Is someone allowed to stand up in the middle of the office with a meg…
The law already covers situations like this, in terms of whether or not employees are allowed to use the internal technology tools of their employers in order to organize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agreed with this at first, but according to her medium post ( https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for... ) "Part of my job was to write browser notifications so that my coworkers can be automatically notified of employee guidelines and company policies while they surf the web" If this is true and her job is literally to create javascript notifications of company policy, then I think it's entire…
The extension is intended to inform Googlers of applications that are not approved for corp data, not just generic "employee guidelines and company policies." This is so you don't e.g. upload PII into a random unsecured S3 bucket. Yes, it's company policy, but this is more like running into a meeting and then interrupting it so you can start reciting NLRB policy than it is posting a flyer. Worse, it misappropriates a…
True, but it seems kind of shady to come down harder on an employee based on the content of the interruption, and that content notifying of the right to organize.
Like, imagine there's a documentation page for http cookies. Consider two scenarios:
A) Rogue employee adds to the bottom of the page: "Cookies are also delicious treats given as a reward on the internet."
B) Rogue employee adds to the bottom of the page: "Employees reading this are reminded of their right to organize under NLRA."
Let's say that in scenario A, an employee would typically get a written warning, and in B, you always got fired. In that case, I think it would be fair for B to say -- at least in common speech -- "I got fired for notifying employees of their right to organize."
This is true, even though there is a general policy of not adding non-topical messages to doc pages, because the punishment never escalates to firing unless it's something like scenario B. (In a legal context rather than common speech I don't know enough to say whether it would be legal.)
Totally agree with the spirit of what she did and applaud her efforts to organize, but there's no way she didn't know what she did could get her fired. What did you think would happen when you made unauthorized changes to software that promote actions against the company's interests?
Not saying the company is a blameless party (especially after the news today of their expiring cloud business, this is clearly a shady company), honestly, I'm not even commenting on the substance of what she wrote.
This just seems like something that anyone with half a brain would realize could get them fired before they deployed those changes.
I still feel bad when anyone loses their job and source of income, and maybe a reprimand would have been more balanced given her high performance reviews before, I just can't see any context where this is seen as neutral or ok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the purview of a code review? Is it only about making sure the code meets technical standards, or are reviewers expected to comment holistically?
Reviewers are supposed to review holistically, and in cases where something raises larger questions (do we actually have approval for this change?) they shouldn't approve until those questions are resolved. In this case I suspect the reviewers were supportive of the protest, and so approved it even though their authority didn't cover this kind of change. I don't think any of these people should have been fired, but "…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd disagree. Another post shows stellar performance reviews, so if this is considered a mistake, it should be remedied and she should be reprimanded. Outright firing seems heavy handed
My take on this is that she was trying to ruffle feathers, and she succeeded. I suspect her firing took into account that intent. Putting myself in the shoes of whoever decided, I can only think that factor would have weighed heavily against her. She might be naive enough to believe that this was actually protected concerted activity, but I don't think so. I'm not sure I think firing her was the right play, but I als…
So if her goal was to cause disruption at Google, it sounds like management just gave her a major assist. Like a Falcon Heavy's worth of assist.