5 ms·
It's still worth discussing if their reaction warranted the offense. Would they have fired her had she added a pop-up on Earth Day encouraging employees to recy
by Touche 7y ago
It's still worth discussing if their reaction warranted the offense. Would they have fired her had she added a pop-up on Earth Day encouraging employees to recycle? Or would she have received a slap on the wrist for that. In other words, how much of what she was advocating was part of the decision to fire?
- ninly 7y ago> Or would she have received a slap on the wrist for that. Or would she have received a pat on the back, given that she went through the Standard Procedure for adding a feature to the browser plug-in?
- ddalex 7y agoSounds like she went through standard procedure to add code, but the feature was not sanctioned by management.... i.e. if you work on a payment system, add you add code to siphon sub-cent rounding "errors" to a "settlement" account, said code may pass review (because it looks legit to code reviewers), but I bet management would be pissed at the change if not prior approved.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoNot cool to equate a notification of rights, to a crime (theft).
- loopz 7y agoSo do nothing until management orders it, is that how they want it now? This is what they'll get!
- TravHatesMe 7y agoThat is a good question. Is this a fireable offense regardless of the content? If not, what kind of content is fireable, subject matter that is political, religious, vulgar, or offensive? Putting this into an internal tool does seem unprofessional in my opinion. Why bite the hand that feeds you?
- gbronner 7y agoI assume that she was an at-will employee, and this does not fall under the rubric of 'protected activities', so they can fire her for any activity.
- vintermann 7y agoWhy bite the hand that feeds you? Why the struggle, why the strain? Why make trouble, why make scenes? Why go against the grain, why swim upstream? It ain't, it ain't, it ain't no use You're bound, you're bound, you're bound to lose What's done, what's done, what's done is done That's the way the river runs So why get wet? Why break a sweat? Why waste your precious breath? Why beat your handsome brow? Nothing changes, nothing changes, nothing changes Anyhow
- TravHatesMe 7y agoI 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.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoUnionising is a pretty good means to improve your working conditions though.
- matwood 7y agoDoes Google not have enough vegan options in the free cafe?
- neilparikh 7y agoWhy are you mentioning veganism in a conversation about unionizing?
- matwood 7y ago
- extropy 7y agoThe particular popup looks pretty official and scary as security popups should. And portrays that Google management is endorsing this instead of a grassroots poster. IMHO this is at minimum a misrepresentation case. And I would be pretty pissed if it was used for Earth day. Don't mess around with crying wolf. Working for Google.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- zozbot234 7y ago> The particular popup looks pretty official and scary It's warning of a legal obligation. Is that not enough of an "endorsement"? And it only pops up if you visit the website of a consulting firm that some say has breached these obligations in the past. It's hard to think of a better way of targeting this warning.
- pfortuny 7y agoExactly. What if the pop-up just said “not using disposable cups helps the environment”, or “the Holocaust happened”. Or even something like “Trump is a bigot”. Would she have got the sack? This is the true question. She was just stating a fact...
- lr4444lr 7y agoDoes it matter? If she used Google resources in a manner not company-approved, and if labor law doesn't recognize using a resource like that as a protected communications channel, like they would a company break room announcement board, why should Google be subject to a neutrality test? I support unionization, but I don't see what legal ground she has to stand on here.
- username90 7y agoThe firing might hold in court, but to be frank there is no way she would get fired over something like this if it was not related to unionization or other anti corporate messages. Google is typically very lenient on harmless offences like this which is why the firing is a surprise.
- harambaebae69 7y ago>Google is typically very lenient on harmless offences I know somehow who got fired from Google for taking a half gallon on milk home, because it was late and he didn't feel like swinging by the grocery store.
- jillesvangurp 7y agoBased on what I'm reading here, firing somebody that early in their career is cold and Google deserves all the criticism it is getting lately for basically being a combination of tone deaf, insensitive, overreacting (or shall we call it panicking?), and biased to doing things most of their own people would simply characterize as "the wrong thing". In jurisdictions outside the US, this kind of random act of corporatism could end up being very expensive. Firing people without good reason is a not a thing that holds up in court and this looks like it doesn't stand much scrutiny. Also, this seems like it is policy rather than an isolated incident. I'd suggest fixing it by maybe correcting people up the food chain. Google is a long way away from their don't be evil motto when they were young, naive, and producing lots of cool new products and services because they weren't held back by corporate idiotism and political correctness.