15 ms·

I agreed with this at first, but according to her medium post ( https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for-exercising-her-rights-and-protectin

• dqv 7y ago
  You're right. It literally links to (what appears to be) an internal company document. go/nlrbnotice
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • kettro 7y ago
    Yeah, the go/ is a shortener for goto.google.com/, and is the main way of sharing links internally.
  • wetmore 7y ago
    Just because it's a go link doesn't make it an internal document. A go link is just a shortened url. You can make a go link point to a non-internal web page.
    • dqv 7y ago
      >It also included a link to a list of employee rights and protections that Google agreed to post as part of a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board this year.[0] But in this case it appears to be a link to an internal notice. [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-17/another-google-worker-says-she-was-fired-for-labor-advocacy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-17/another-g...
• ramblerman 7y ago
  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.
  • jagged-chisel 7y ago
    I think GP is saying that since 'right to organize' is in the company policy, then adding this seems right in line with the job. If, indeed, this was not in the company policy, and it is indeed the employee's opinion, then yes, termination is apt.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  • void445be54d48a 7y ago
    Not sure that notifying people of the law is actually "your own thoughts".
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • ralusek 7y ago
      How? If I am instructed to email an update notifying our users about new terms of service whenever they are changed, and I add an addendum, "Don't forget, you have 3 days after the old terms of service expire on order to return old devices..." The company has every right to fire me.
  • helen___keller 7y ago
    It wasn't her thoughts it was company policy, or to be specific it's required by law that this notice to be posted in the workplace. It's was her personal judgment that it should be posted in a chrome add-on rather than only by poster like is typical in most workplaces. But assuming her job was to maintain an add-on that informs employees of company policy, and assuming her job typically lets her act with personal judgment, yeah I think that's perfectly reasonable In fact, you can find further support of her action from the NLRB FAQ: https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/faq/elections/are-there-any-changes-requirements-post-notice-election https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/faq/elections/are-there-any-c... "The employer is also required to distribute the notice electronically to unit employees if it customarily communicates with employees in the unit electronically, either by email, by posting on an employer intranet site, or both" Again, it's her judgment to add the notification (which links to the Google intranet posting of the NLRB poster), but considering that Google customarily informs employees of policy via notifications in this add-on, and she is in charge of maintaining said add-on, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable judgment to add this notification
• workthrowaway 7y ago
  from her blog: > This kind of code change happens all the time. we have all been there. i think she knew she wasn't following proper procedure. even if it's done "all the time".
  • bluntfang 7y ago
    if proper procedure isn't enforced, especially if others are routinely encouraged not to follow it, then it isn't proper procedure.
• TallGuyShort 7y ago
  This is very reminiscent of laws regarding jury nullification, and how the practice may be legal, but in some jurisdictions / cases it can be illegal to inform a jury of that fact.
  • vonmoltke 7y ago
    That's because it's not legal. It's a violation of the jury's duty to render a verdict based on the law and the facts presented. Stating an intention to vote a certain way without respect to the law and facts is grounds for removal from the jury. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification and the referenced court case.
    • tnorthcutt 7y ago
      However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law.
    • btilly 7y ago
      It's a violation of the jury's duty to render a verdict based on the law and the facts presented. Who assigned the jury that duty? And when did that happen? Per http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullifi... and other sources that I have seen, the understanding of the law when the Constitution was written was that juries should judge both the law and the facts. The view that they should not judge the law only arose decades later in the late 1800s. The fact that the legal profession today sees jurors as having a duty to NOT judge the law I see as undermining the intent of having jury trials in the first place. The understanding of jury trials when the Constitution was written was that juries had a right and obligation to judge both the law and the facts. The first laws
• dhdhebsb 7y ago
  IMO the problem was putting the pop up on the IRI consultants website. She wasn’t protecting anyone or informing anyone of policy, she was being inflammatory and I don’t see it as a stretch for G to say she abused her position to inject that message.
  • tehjoker 7y ago
    It's inflammatory for Google to retain an anti-labor union cracking firm.
    • dhdhebsb 7y ago
      Perhaps. But that doesn’t make her action any less so. She’s not a victim. She made a choice (which I personally agree with and find admirable) but the firing seems justifiable.
      • tehjoker 7y ago
        It's justifiable because that's where the discourse is. If the discourse shifts, Google would be in a tough spot.
• Vysero 7y ago
  In my mind this is the hinge or the crux of the issue. If it was her job to create and inject JavaScript notifications of company policy and they fired her for doing that then shame on Google. Actually, it would be more than just shame on Google. If this is true, then I would say Google is not a safe place to work for anybody. Which is why I find it hard to believe that this was actually in her job description and or that there is more context that we are missing; that the premise of the argument is misleading. "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." -With regard to what exactly? Context matters, if the browser notifications she was creating were only supposed to pertain to surfing the web then I think we can safely say she overstepped her bounds. "So when I heard that Google had hired a union busting firm and started illegally retaliating against my coworkers, I decided to make sure that my coworkers knew about the posting." -Again, it depends on what exactly her job was, but this seems to suggest she had motivation outside the bounds of her job description for doing what she did. I don’t disagree with what she did. In fact, I think it’s kind of great. However, that doesn’t mean Google didn’t have a right to fire her for it.
  • shadowgovt 7y ago
    Unfortunately, I'm leaning toward the other interpretation these days: Google management does not want their software engineers unionized but doesn't have experience to know how to deal with it legally, so they've hired strikebreaking lawyers and given them a lot of leeway on firing calls.
• s1artibartfast 7y ago
  >her job is literally to create javascript notifications of company policy, I think there is a reasonable difference between security notifications and other corporate policies. Were non-security notifications in scope for their job or the tool used?
  • helen___keller 7y ago
    Good question. I have no idea. Her specific wording is "employee guidelines and company policies" which is quite vague.
• tanilama 7y ago
  > 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 She needs to understand this power isn't her own to wield. And the risk of people abusing power to advance their personal agenda is NOT something that would get passed easily once discovered.
  • shadowgovt 7y ago
    As a Googler, it's not only her power to wield, it's her job description to make discerning calls.
    • tanilama 7y ago
      > make discerning calls about stuff that will breach company security, not to alert people of dangerous opinions. The latter is not hers to decide.
      • shadowgovt 7y ago
        Individual Googlers inadvertantly violating the law opens the company up to risk of legal discovery processes and is therefore a beach of company security.
  • hechang1997 7y ago
    It's so disingenuous to call out employees advancing their agenda when the corporations themselves are constantly abusing their power to advance their agenda. > And the risk of people abusing power to advance their personal agenda is NOT something that would get passed easily once discovered. Yes, it is. It get discovered all the time and no one gives a sh*t about it.
    • fargle 7y ago
      Um, not disingenuous. See, the company isn't funded nor owned nor managed by its employees. So it's not "abuse" and it is completely legitimate, even a mandate, and a fiduciary duty that compels companies advance their agenda. A corporation MUST take these kinds of actions, it isn't even legal for them not to, let alone abuse. Conversely, an employee's agenda can be left at home, please, if they agree to be employed. The "Engineer" is lucky she isn't brought up on misuse of computing system charges. I don't like companies that invade employees and customers outside-of-work freedoms. Just as I don't like employees that abuse and undermine the relationship that they freely entered with their employers. If you don't like it - quit and go work somewhere else. Then become activist.
• scarmig 7y ago
  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 security tool in order to do that. And when it comes to intentional actions that violate or undermine security, Google, like most companies, takes a pretty hard line. Disclosing that I'm a Googler, and speaking only on my own behalf, with no connection to anyone involved except the fact that the extension is running on my browser.
  • cousin_it 7y ago
    Confirming this. The extension says it's for information security and privacy policy.
    • dunkelheit 7y ago
      This is what I suspected and thanks for confirming this. The fact that she wrote that her job is to notify the employees "of employee guidelines and company policies" and chose to withhold the critical bit that it was specifically security policies she was responsible for looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead. I totally support googlers' right to unionize but it seems that some employees are in an all-out war with the company and think that all is fair in that war. I can't say I support that.
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  • SilasX 7y ago
    >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. 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.)
• wolco 7y ago
  I guess the question is did she add a company policy or guideline by adding what she added? I wouldn't classify a union drive as a company policy. Some may think a union drive is a company function. From what I remember about my experience with unions is you are allowed to put up notices in the employee breakroom that is done by the union rep who is voted in within each shop. I would say what she did was more along the lines of blasting the union notice over speakers to everyone who entered the cafe.
  • helen___keller 7y ago
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/13/googles-settlement-on-speech-with-nlrb-requires-posting-rights.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/13/googles-settlement-on-speech...
    • wolco 7y ago
      "National Labor Relations Board is requiring Google to post a list of employee rights at its headquarters". Requiring Google to post a list at hq doesn't cover other locations and/or browser notification when visiting certain sites.
      • helen___keller 7y ago
        I know but I was trying to answer your question > did she add a company policy or guideline by adding what she added? I wouldn't classify a union drive as a company policy. The answer is that it's a policy that must be posted (just not necesarily there). It wasn't a union drive.
• sigzero 7y ago
  No. Just no. She absolutely violated what her job was.
• codegeek 7y ago
  She said "So when I heard that Google had hired a union busting firm and started illegally retaliating against my coworkers, I decided to make sure that my coworkers knew about the posting." This was purely a Moral decision on her part and not reasonable in my opinion to tag it as part of her job. She was not happy with how google was retaliating against her co-workers (right or wrong) and she took action using her own judgement. She did this not because this was part of her job but because she wanted to get back at google for their behavior (again right or wrong, thats not the point here).
• augbog 7y ago
  After reading both of these statements, idk I feel the grey area is large enough that it didn't necessarily justify firing but also I don't blame Google for doing so. Ugh.
• tikiman163 7y ago
  Her job was to notify people of company policy. Injecting messages based on her personal politics raises red flags. This time she sent a benign message, but what might she do when googlers ultimately don't unionize? What might she do the next time there's a policy she disagrees with? Google has provided places for people to discuss things. When she didn't think that was good enough she chose to make unapproved code changes that went against corporate direction. Personally, I'm against unionizing any software company, especially google. Unions were created to prevent systemic abuse of people that were seen as easily replaceable. If you think a recent college graduate making 120k+ that has been provided almost ridiculous perks and freedom unheard of in most of the industry is being abused when they could easily leave Google and expect to receive a similarly paid position virtually anywhere purely because they used to work at Google, then there's no helping you. Google employees have more rights than at most companies, they can even spend up to 20% of their day working on personal projects and Google won't claim ownership. If they think they need a union when dealing with such a reasonable employer,then those fresh out of college lottery winners need a serious reality check. Let's talk about unionizing Amazon fulfillment centers where they frequently let people go because taking a bathroom break means missing your quota. Let's talk about unionizing virtually any company before we demand labor unions for the most highly privileged group of people in the world.