5 ms·

"But you can’t follow me to the bathroom stall and keep telling me." "plaster it on everyone's screen" did you read the same article I did? The alert was trigg

by MrLeap 7y ago

"But you can’t follow me to the bathroom stall and keep telling me." "plaster it on everyone's screen" did you read the same article I did? The alert was triggered off a single consultancy's site. I really doubt it was a common hang out spot.

scarface74 7y ago
She was using a security tool to spread her message. Does that seem appropriate to you?
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > She was using a security tool to spread her message. Does that seem appropriate to you? Yes, of course. Apparently this "security tool" exists to notify Googlers of policy, and the notification just linked to a Google policy notice with a warning not to violate it. This is apparently the actual notification that was displayed: https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg > Do not violate go/nlrbnotice. Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Yes email exists to notify employees too but just because I can email the entire company doesn’t mean that I should take it upon myself to notify them about anything that’s not in my job description.
- calcifer 7y ago
  You keep moving the goalposts every time someone refutes one of your points. > Does that seem appropriate to you? Yes. It's a tool for showing notifications related to the page being visited. Not to mention the whole thing is appropriate on moral grounds, regardless of any technicality.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So that means she should be able to inject her opinion on any site that she doesn’t like?
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > So that means she should be able to inject her opinion on any site that she doesn’t like? Just to be clear: her "opinion" is "don't take actions that would cause the company to break federal labor law."
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Is she part of the company’s legal team?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        CharlesColeman 7y ago
        > Is she part of the company’s legal team? If that's was an actual requirement, can you make or point to a statement in an official Google capacity that states the notices displayed by the tool she maintained had to be written or pre-cleared by Google's legal team? If you can, was the requirement for legal team involvement established practice and not some post-hoc rationalization for her firing?
        scarface74 7y ago
        Some things are just common sense. It wasn’t her role to disseminate information about any type of compliance outside of security. As a professional, you should know what’s appropriate in a workplace based on your position.
        CharlesColeman 7y ago

by MrLeap 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

She was using a security tool to spread her message. Does that seem appropriate to you?

CharlesColeman 7y ago
> She was using a security tool to spread her message. Does that seem appropriate to you? Yes, of course. Apparently this "security tool" exists to notify Googlers of policy, and the notification just linked to a Google policy notice with a warning not to violate it. This is apparently the actual notification that was displayed: https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg > Do not violate go/nlrbnotice. Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Yes email exists to notify employees too but just because I can email the entire company doesn’t mean that I should take it upon myself to notify them about anything that’s not in my job description.
calcifer 7y ago
You keep moving the goalposts every time someone refutes one of your points. > Does that seem appropriate to you? Yes. It's a tool for showing notifications related to the page being visited. Not to mention the whole thing is appropriate on moral grounds, regardless of any technicality.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So that means she should be able to inject her opinion on any site that she doesn’t like?
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > So that means she should be able to inject her opinion on any site that she doesn’t like? Just to be clear: her "opinion" is "don't take actions that would cause the company to break federal labor law."
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Is she part of the company’s legal team?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - CharlesColeman 7y ago
        > Is she part of the company’s legal team? If that's was an actual requirement, can you make or point to a statement in an official Google capacity that states the notices displayed by the tool she maintained had to be written or pre-cleared by Google's legal team? If you can, was the requirement for legal team involvement established practice and not some post-hoc rationalization for her firing?
        scarface74 7y ago
        Some things are just common sense. It wasn’t her role to disseminate information about any type of compliance outside of security. As a professional, you should know what’s appropriate in a workplace based on your position.
        CharlesColeman 7y ago