6 ms·

The extension is intended to inform Googlers of applications that are not approved for corp data, not just generic "employee guidelines and company policies." T

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.)
- scarmig 7y ago
  I'm sympathetic to this. But the fact that it's a security tool being misused is what I think made for the very harsh reaction. Two scenarios: A) Rogue employee messages a bunch of internal email lists about having the right to organize B) Rogue employee configures a security extension to issue a popup saying "Happy Birthday Sundar!" every time an employee visits google.com on June 10. I am confident that A) wouldn't result in any formal adverse action (they'd mostly get a pile of nasty responses about spamming internal lists), and I am confident that B) would at the least earn the employee a reprimand and plausibly get them fired.
  - anarchodev 7y ago
    It's incredible watching tech people in this thread assert that she wasn't fired for union agitation but if she was, that's okay too because she should have known not to be "inflammatory."
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - loopz 7y ago
      We don't have all info on this though. Maybe there were more to it. If not, it follows US workplace culture and is unfortunate.
  - geofft 7y ago
    > I am confident that B) would at the least earn the employee a reprimand and plausibly get them fired. Yikes! That sounds like a dangerous place to work. If an employee with legitimate, assigned access to such a tool makes a change through normal procedures (not bypassing required code review or anything) and it's still a fireable mistake - well, I'm glad I don't work there.
    - lostmsu 7y ago
      You are making plenty of assumptions here.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
geofft 7y ago
In her account, she says, > For example, someone changed the default desktop wallpaper during the walkout last year so that the Linux penguin was holding a protest sign. The company has never reacted aggressively in response to a notification such as this in the past. It’s always been a celebrated part of the culture. Is this accurate? If it's culturally acceptable to change everyone's desktop wallpaper (including of those who were anti-protest) to a pro-protest image, it seems reasonable that this falls in the lines of culturally acceptable too.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
helen___keller 7y ago
Thanks for this. With stories like this it's always hard as an outsider to really discern what's going on.
choppaface 7y ago
"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" How is this like "running into a meeting"?? Do Googlers visit the IRI website every day? Is this pop-up really a distraction to core work for engineering? Your party line here makes the change sound like Nest shutting down the house [1] but according to the evidence it looks more like that recruiting thing that gives you a pop-up for google.com/foobar when you enter certain search queries. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsMkLaEiOY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsMkLaEiOY
georgeplusplus 7y ago
It sounds like you are saying SilasX was misinterpreting the policy or taking it a step too far. That was my question, her job literally to make extensions to inform employees on policies but I was doubting that it was to make any and all notifications but only a specific set of policies like, limit personal browsing activities, or that the computer is the property of google and you consent to blah blah by it’s use. It’s clear to me that this employee knew this was more of a political notification and took matters into their own hands.

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.)

scarmig 7y ago
I'm sympathetic to this. But the fact that it's a security tool being misused is what I think made for the very harsh reaction. Two scenarios: A) Rogue employee messages a bunch of internal email lists about having the right to organize B) Rogue employee configures a security extension to issue a popup saying "Happy Birthday Sundar!" every time an employee visits google.com on June 10. I am confident that A) wouldn't result in any formal adverse action (they'd mostly get a pile of nasty responses about spamming internal lists), and I am confident that B) would at the least earn the employee a reprimand and plausibly get them fired.
- anarchodev 7y ago
  It's incredible watching tech people in this thread assert that she wasn't fired for union agitation but if she was, that's okay too because she should have known not to be "inflammatory."
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - loopz 7y ago
    We don't have all info on this though. Maybe there were more to it. If not, it follows US workplace culture and is unfortunate.
- geofft 7y ago
  > I am confident that B) would at the least earn the employee a reprimand and plausibly get them fired. Yikes! That sounds like a dangerous place to work. If an employee with legitimate, assigned access to such a tool makes a change through normal procedures (not bypassing required code review or anything) and it's still a fireable mistake - well, I'm glad I don't work there.
  - lostmsu 7y ago
    You are making plenty of assumptions here.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

geofft 7y ago

In her account, she says, > For example, someone changed the default desktop wallpaper during the walkout last year so that the Linux penguin was holding a protest sign. The company has never reacted aggressively in response to a notification such as this in the past. It’s always been a celebrated part of the culture. Is this accurate? If it's culturally acceptable to change everyone's desktop wallpaper (including of those who were anti-protest) to a pro-protest image, it seems reasonable that this falls in the lines of culturally acceptable too.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

helen___keller 7y ago

Thanks for this. With stories like this it's always hard as an outsider to really discern what's going on.

choppaface 7y ago

"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" How is this like "running into a meeting"?? Do Googlers visit the IRI website every day? Is this pop-up really a distraction to core work for engineering? Your party line here makes the change sound like Nest shutting down the house [1] but according to the evidence it looks more like that recruiting thing that gives you a pop-up for google.com/foobar when you enter certain search queries. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsMkLaEiOY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsMkLaEiOY

georgeplusplus 7y ago

It sounds like you are saying SilasX was misinterpreting the policy or taking it a step too far. That was my question, her job literally to make extensions to inform employees on policies but I was doubting that it was to make any and all notifications but only a specific set of policies like, limit personal browsing activities, or that the computer is the property of google and you consent to blah blah by it’s use. It’s clear to me that this employee knew this was more of a political notification and took matters into their own hands.