12 ms·

Bad headline. It should read "Engineer fired her for abusing privileged access to modify an internal security tool." That's a pretty dumb way to notify co-work

by kawfey 7y ago

Bad headline. It should read "Engineer fired her for abusing privileged access to modify an internal security tool." That's a pretty dumb way to notify co-workers of their right to organize, but I guess it's a really good way to get fired and draw up a big media stink about it.

iwantagrinder 7y ago
Did you not read the part where she did, where she followed the process by the book and it was approved? Or did you just have your mind made up to decide to side with Google instead?
- kawfey 7y ago
  If my company's handbook on privileged access is anything like Google's, it's completely against the rules to do something like this, even if it's for a noble or worthy cause for its employees, even if other employee's must sign off on the change. Our employee agreement comes with an NDA that tells us to not speak bad about the company, and insubordination of this has resulted in firings just from social media criticism. I'm not siding with Google, but I'm not siding with her either. The facts and evidence presented to me don't give me an impression that Google was in the wrong by firing her. My opinion will change if I see that the guiding principles or Employee handbook that led Google to this decision are not in agreement.
  - gnopgnip 7y ago
    Its also against the rules to go on strike, but it would be unlawful to fire someone for striking in many cases
- georgefrick 7y ago
  Did you come to the comments to discuss this, or just spam your empty response at everyone?
- tdfx 7y ago
  I love that a site full of engineers is pretending that getting a pull request approved by colleagues is the same thing as getting management's approval for a new, most likely controversial feature. Google is clearly trying to squash union organizing at the company but let's not pretend this employee was correct in her actions. Google being evil and this employee being in the wrong are not mutually exclusive.
  - swish_bob 7y ago
    I'm stunned by the number of people who think that reviewing a PR is just a matter of checking the code works and looks clean. Does nobody ask what the code is for and why you're doing it? I mean, I don't expect people to require detailed specs before approving, but a quick "what's this code for, and why are you doing it?" before addressing the details. Surely that's the bare minimum, isn't it?
    - nahtnam 7y ago
      Even if they asked those questions, the PR would've looked pretty legit. No one directly asks "did your manager approve this?", that would be silly. When a PR is made and you're asked to review, you assume that the person went through the proper steps to get approval in the first place. In this case those other employees would've seen just another notice being added to an employee page
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    The employee was not correct in doing her legal obligation to inform people of their right to organize in an app designed to inform employees about various rights and things as they browse the web? Which she had the authority to do because it's literally what she was hired to do? Can you explain how this makes the employee wrong if they follow the law and their company fires them for doing so?
    - TheFrizz 7y ago
      A writer hired to write the wording on Google's websites could submit a change that rot13s every word on Google's web properties. This would not be against the law, additionally it would be exactly what the employee was hired to do. But the employee should be fired all the same.
save_ferris 7y ago
Wrong. She went through the standard review process to get the notification change out. Read the article.
- scarface74 7y ago
  And the “standard review process” was to get approval from two coworkers. Does this even pass any type of bar of what is acceptable behavior?
- 0x445442 7y ago
  Well the article didn't really go into details. When I read it I got the idea she got two thumbs up on a merge request which is a far sight from getting approval from introducing a new feature by some change management board. I suspect the details of what really happened would be quite illuminating.
- kawfey 7y ago
  > We dismissed an employee who abused privileged access to modify an internal security tool,” a Google spokeswoman said in a statement, adding that it was “a serious violation.” See my other comment reply.
- glofish 7y ago
  What if the message was: "Make America Great Again". What if the message was: "H1B - go back to your country". would it still feel ok to you? etc it is grossly unprofessional to insert unrelated messaging and hijack a tool to push your agenda. "Going through standard protocols" in this case meant two other people approved the change - those two people also show serious unprofessionalism and bear responsibility as well - it is not an excuse. Edit: I have now also read the author's take on it. https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for-exercising-her-rights-and-protecting-coworkers-from-illegal-b86c41ef91b9 https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for... I do feel that the way Google went about it was heavy-handed and reflects badly on Google as well.
  - shantly 7y ago
    It's more like posting a reminder of the current legal minimum wage—and only showed up, apparently, if the user visited the site of a consulting firm Google hired to help them figure out how to avoid unionization. A great and entirely "professional" thing to do? Nah, but hardly worth the vigorous harumphing and tut-tutting it's receiving. It's not like she contributed code to Amp or spearheaded putting ads inline with and above search results. You know, nothing terribly evil.
relluic 7y ago
She didn't abuse anything. She followed the standard process and she created the alert on the appropriate page (labor relations) to inform people of company policy: https://miro.medium.com/max/1000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg https://miro.medium.com/max/1000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg

by kawfey 7y ago

iwantagrinder 7y ago

Did you not read the part where she did, where she followed the process by the book and it was approved? Or did you just have your mind made up to decide to side with Google instead?

kawfey 7y ago
If my company's handbook on privileged access is anything like Google's, it's completely against the rules to do something like this, even if it's for a noble or worthy cause for its employees, even if other employee's must sign off on the change. Our employee agreement comes with an NDA that tells us to not speak bad about the company, and insubordination of this has resulted in firings just from social media criticism. I'm not siding with Google, but I'm not siding with her either. The facts and evidence presented to me don't give me an impression that Google was in the wrong by firing her. My opinion will change if I see that the guiding principles or Employee handbook that led Google to this decision are not in agreement.
- gnopgnip 7y ago
  Its also against the rules to go on strike, but it would be unlawful to fire someone for striking in many cases
georgefrick 7y ago
Did you come to the comments to discuss this, or just spam your empty response at everyone?
tdfx 7y ago
I love that a site full of engineers is pretending that getting a pull request approved by colleagues is the same thing as getting management's approval for a new, most likely controversial feature. Google is clearly trying to squash union organizing at the company but let's not pretend this employee was correct in her actions. Google being evil and this employee being in the wrong are not mutually exclusive.
- swish_bob 7y ago
  I'm stunned by the number of people who think that reviewing a PR is just a matter of checking the code works and looks clean. Does nobody ask what the code is for and why you're doing it? I mean, I don't expect people to require detailed specs before approving, but a quick "what's this code for, and why are you doing it?" before addressing the details. Surely that's the bare minimum, isn't it?
  - nahtnam 7y ago
    Even if they asked those questions, the PR would've looked pretty legit. No one directly asks "did your manager approve this?", that would be silly. When a PR is made and you're asked to review, you assume that the person went through the proper steps to get approval in the first place. In this case those other employees would've seen just another notice being added to an employee page
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  The employee was not correct in doing her legal obligation to inform people of their right to organize in an app designed to inform employees about various rights and things as they browse the web? Which she had the authority to do because it's literally what she was hired to do? Can you explain how this makes the employee wrong if they follow the law and their company fires them for doing so?
  - TheFrizz 7y ago
    A writer hired to write the wording on Google's websites could submit a change that rot13s every word on Google's web properties. This would not be against the law, additionally it would be exactly what the employee was hired to do. But the employee should be fired all the same.

save_ferris 7y ago

Wrong. She went through the standard review process to get the notification change out. Read the article.

scarface74 7y ago
And the “standard review process” was to get approval from two coworkers. Does this even pass any type of bar of what is acceptable behavior?
0x445442 7y ago
Well the article didn't really go into details. When I read it I got the idea she got two thumbs up on a merge request which is a far sight from getting approval from introducing a new feature by some change management board. I suspect the details of what really happened would be quite illuminating.
kawfey 7y ago
> We dismissed an employee who abused privileged access to modify an internal security tool,” a Google spokeswoman said in a statement, adding that it was “a serious violation.” See my other comment reply.
glofish 7y ago
What if the message was: "Make America Great Again". What if the message was: "H1B - go back to your country". would it still feel ok to you? etc it is grossly unprofessional to insert unrelated messaging and hijack a tool to push your agenda. "Going through standard protocols" in this case meant two other people approved the change - those two people also show serious unprofessionalism and bear responsibility as well - it is not an excuse. Edit: I have now also read the author's take on it. https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for-exercising-her-rights-and-protecting-coworkers-from-illegal-b86c41ef91b9 https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for... I do feel that the way Google went about it was heavy-handed and reflects badly on Google as well.
- shantly 7y ago
  It's more like posting a reminder of the current legal minimum wage—and only showed up, apparently, if the user visited the site of a consulting firm Google hired to help them figure out how to avoid unionization. A great and entirely "professional" thing to do? Nah, but hardly worth the vigorous harumphing and tut-tutting it's receiving. It's not like she contributed code to Amp or spearheaded putting ads inline with and above search results. You know, nothing terribly evil.

relluic 7y ago

She didn't abuse anything. She followed the standard process and she created the alert on the appropriate page (labor relations) to inform people of company policy: https://miro.medium.com/max/1000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg https://miro.medium.com/max/1000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg