6 ms·

I'd agree, it sounds a lot like a code review, but at Google that was also the approval standard for deploying such an extension. I don't really see how Google

I'd agree, it sounds a lot like a code review, but at Google that was also the approval standard for deploying such an extension. I don't really see how Google could be in the right here though. If they have an internal program for creating alerts/extensions for specific websites, and Spiers followed the normal procedure for adding such an extension, there doesn't seem to be a problem. The only problem is Google being anti-union, and retaliating against someone for quietly promoting unions in line with existing policies seems a lot like illegal retaliation.

dahdum 7y ago
The tool was for privacy and security, not advocacy right? Sounds like she abused her position as a security engineer.
- xenophonf 7y ago
  How on earth is being notified of your legal rights "advocacy"?
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    So this individual could have posted the 2nd Amendment in there and it wouldn't be advocacy? /s
    - saghm 7y ago
      I think the difference is that Google is a lot less likely to infringe on employees' right to bear arms than they are their right to organize, especially given that this message literally appeared on a website of a firm Google hired specifically to suppress organization
    - xenophonf 7y ago
      Is a sarcastic response a good faith argument? I have a poster here in my home office that was mailed to me by my employer's HR department. It advises me of all my rights under state and federal labor laws: equal opportunity, workplace safety, minimum wage, etc. In my mind, it is not at all inappropriate to advise employees of their rights. In fact, the only reason I have this poster is because state and federal labor laws require such notices. Those laws and those requirements are written in the blood of all the serfs, children, and laborers who couldn't earn living wages or who were forced to work at a tender age or who were injured due to corporate malfeasance. The freedom of association is likewise recognized as a right inherent to all people, and its protections were likewise bought with blood. We should all be reminded of our rights and the reasons we safeguard them. An employer who tries to interfere with its employees' freedom of association only seeks to exploit them. If it treated its employees well, it wouldn't need to worry about organized labor—and its employees wouldn't need to organize in the first place.
- GVIrish 7y ago
  If indeed the extensions were only for security/privacy notifications, I would categorize what Speier did more as off-topic. That would be maybe something deserving of a correction not outright termination. The fact that the message was about employee labor rights means that Google might be in a precarious legal position
wolco 7y ago
You added your personal code to a browser extension.. I can't see how google is in the wrong. Unless google allows anyone to change this extension for personal reasons and they only flagged her. Could someone change it to let everyone know they are selling cookies or accepting donations to their church.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  From what I understand this is actually how google communicates policies and the like via their employees, for which it is legally required to notify such employees via electronic medium if electronic medium is the primary communiation factor. This is based off of the engineer's medium article though.
- ExtremePopcorn 7y ago
  That's not how Google works. She mentions in the Gizmodo article that she had ownership over these files, which isn't given out casually. Creating these policy notifications would have been a core part of her work.
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    Right, but her job was to advise about company policies, not her own personal politics. It's incredibly obvious this was a violation of her fiduciary duty.
macspoofing 7y ago
>but at Google that was also the approval standard for deploying such an extension...I don't really see how Google could be in the right here though. I don't see how Google isn't in the right here. The approval process for this security tool was designed to minimize red-tape and maximize contributions because the goal was security, and the assumption was that the lax process wouldn't be abused. The clear intent of the tool is not to push the political agenda. It was there to warn about security-related issues while browsing. She abused the process and deserved to be reprimanded. Here's an example .. like most companies we have a wiki that anybody can edit. The intent is to get contributions from everybody around product-related issues (e.g. debugging a particular problem, how to configure the product for a specific use-case). Nobody polices usage of this wiki, and the wiki has no specific access controls to bar any individual from editing any page. Certainly though if someone started putting in notes at the top of some of the pages to push a political agenda that would be an abuse of the process, wouldn't you say?
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > Certainly though if someone started putting in notes at the top of some of the pages to push a political agenda that would be an abuse of the process, wouldn't you say? Just to be clear: the message she communicated wasn't about some divisive social issue, it was warning employees to not break federal labor law. https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >Just to be clear Then be clear. We both know what she was doing, why be obtuse? This was an activist power-play. Every article that is written about this lists the action as activism. Again, why pretend otherwise? But if you want more clarification: it's not her job as a SECURITY ENGINEER to send warnings about federal statue compliance through a security tool. I also have yet to have anybody demonstrate that Google was breaking any federal law, and I highly doubt they would. They have entire departments that deal with legal complience. And you linked to a labour consulting company website, which I take is where this actvist decided to helpfully issue threats to senior management through the security tool she was tasked with maintaining so they think twice about contracting them. This is a such a clear violation on her part that I am flabbergasted that you would actually defend the move. She deserved to be fired for her arrogant stunt. You don't get to dictate compliance policy (as an early 20-something tech-sister, who knows nothing) to a company employing 50,000 people.
vintermann 7y ago
It might help a lot if someone leaked the internal repository for this extension... sorry I meant, if Google voluntarily shared the repository for this extension, so that we could see what it was commonly used for.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
> but at Google that was also the approval standard for deploying such an extension. If Google allows any team member to freely push changes without formal change request, it has to be implied that changes must comply with the scope of the project, company policies, professional standards, etc. In any case, my point would stand: It does not sound like she had actual project/management approval. To play devil's advocate, the 'approval' she got does not absolve her (if we suppose that she did something wrong), it just means that the coworkers who approved the change are also in hot water.

dahdum 7y ago

The tool was for privacy and security, not advocacy right? Sounds like she abused her position as a security engineer.

xenophonf 7y ago
How on earth is being notified of your legal rights "advocacy"?
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  So this individual could have posted the 2nd Amendment in there and it wouldn't be advocacy? /s
  - saghm 7y ago
    I think the difference is that Google is a lot less likely to infringe on employees' right to bear arms than they are their right to organize, especially given that this message literally appeared on a website of a firm Google hired specifically to suppress organization
  - xenophonf 7y ago
    Is a sarcastic response a good faith argument? I have a poster here in my home office that was mailed to me by my employer's HR department. It advises me of all my rights under state and federal labor laws: equal opportunity, workplace safety, minimum wage, etc. In my mind, it is not at all inappropriate to advise employees of their rights. In fact, the only reason I have this poster is because state and federal labor laws require such notices. Those laws and those requirements are written in the blood of all the serfs, children, and laborers who couldn't earn living wages or who were forced to work at a tender age or who were injured due to corporate malfeasance. The freedom of association is likewise recognized as a right inherent to all people, and its protections were likewise bought with blood. We should all be reminded of our rights and the reasons we safeguard them. An employer who tries to interfere with its employees' freedom of association only seeks to exploit them. If it treated its employees well, it wouldn't need to worry about organized labor—and its employees wouldn't need to organize in the first place.
GVIrish 7y ago
If indeed the extensions were only for security/privacy notifications, I would categorize what Speier did more as off-topic. That would be maybe something deserving of a correction not outright termination. The fact that the message was about employee labor rights means that Google might be in a precarious legal position

wolco 7y ago

You added your personal code to a browser extension.. I can't see how google is in the wrong. Unless google allows anyone to change this extension for personal reasons and they only flagged her. Could someone change it to let everyone know they are selling cookies or accepting donations to their church.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
From what I understand this is actually how google communicates policies and the like via their employees, for which it is legally required to notify such employees via electronic medium if electronic medium is the primary communiation factor. This is based off of the engineer's medium article though.
ExtremePopcorn 7y ago
That's not how Google works. She mentions in the Gizmodo article that she had ownership over these files, which isn't given out casually. Creating these policy notifications would have been a core part of her work.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  Right, but her job was to advise about company policies, not her own personal politics. It's incredibly obvious this was a violation of her fiduciary duty.

macspoofing 7y ago

>but at Google that was also the approval standard for deploying such an extension...I don't really see how Google could be in the right here though. I don't see how Google isn't in the right here. The approval process for this security tool was designed to minimize red-tape and maximize contributions because the goal was security, and the assumption was that the lax process wouldn't be abused. The clear intent of the tool is not to push the political agenda. It was there to warn about security-related issues while browsing. She abused the process and deserved to be reprimanded. Here's an example .. like most companies we have a wiki that anybody can edit. The intent is to get contributions from everybody around product-related issues (e.g. debugging a particular problem, how to configure the product for a specific use-case). Nobody polices usage of this wiki, and the wiki has no specific access controls to bar any individual from editing any page. Certainly though if someone started putting in notes at the top of some of the pages to push a political agenda that would be an abuse of the process, wouldn't you say?

CharlesColeman 7y ago
> Certainly though if someone started putting in notes at the top of some of the pages to push a political agenda that would be an abuse of the process, wouldn't you say? Just to be clear: the message she communicated wasn't about some divisive social issue, it was warning employees to not break federal labor law. https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Just to be clear Then be clear. We both know what she was doing, why be obtuse? This was an activist power-play. Every article that is written about this lists the action as activism. Again, why pretend otherwise? But if you want more clarification: it's not her job as a SECURITY ENGINEER to send warnings about federal statue compliance through a security tool. I also have yet to have anybody demonstrate that Google was breaking any federal law, and I highly doubt they would. They have entire departments that deal with legal complience. And you linked to a labour consulting company website, which I take is where this actvist decided to helpfully issue threats to senior management through the security tool she was tasked with maintaining so they think twice about contracting them. This is a such a clear violation on her part that I am flabbergasted that you would actually defend the move. She deserved to be fired for her arrogant stunt. You don't get to dictate compliance policy (as an early 20-something tech-sister, who knows nothing) to a company employing 50,000 people.

vintermann 7y ago

It might help a lot if someone leaked the internal repository for this extension... sorry I meant, if Google voluntarily shared the repository for this extension, so that we could see what it was commonly used for.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

> but at Google that was also the approval standard for deploying such an extension. If Google allows any team member to freely push changes without formal change request, it has to be implied that changes must comply with the scope of the project, company policies, professional standards, etc. In any case, my point would stand: It does not sound like she had actual project/management approval. To play devil's advocate, the 'approval' she got does not absolve her (if we suppose that she did something wrong), it just means that the coworkers who approved the change are also in hot water.