4 ms·

> How insane to claim that simple negativity toward a member of a protected group is an -ism. I'm not saying she isn't an engineer because of ANYTHING related t

> How insane to claim that simple negativity toward a member of a protected group is an -ism. I'm not saying she isn't an engineer because of ANYTHING related to her sex. If the only way we can distinguish your actions from sexism is via your internal state, you have a problem larger than this conversation and you should expect pushback. > I'm clearly stating that a CompTIA+ is not sufficient to call someone an engineer. Regurgitating questionable facts does not make you an engineer. I didn't move the goalpost. But I can recognize something that isn't one. But just before this you said there isn't a clear test. So really, it's just your feelings. > Yes, I agree there is no litmus test for "Engineer". This is more arbitrary goal setting to gatekeep a word. The debate is not if she is somehow an amazing engineer or a mediocre engineer, a well trained engineer or a rushed training job, well paid or not. No, that's not the debate. The debate is, "was she given an engineering position in which she had autonomy to make changes and when she made changes a union buster didn't like, she was fired in retaliation. If her job was strictly to type things that were handed to her in a field, this might technically evade the law. But that's obviously not her job. You're obviously eager to categorize her as a not-engineer because (despite protestations) you're obviously eager to shut down any pro-unionization messages, even legally protected ones. > She screwed up bad, because if there is ever any collective action, her case won't be in on it. She gave google an ironclad excuse to be fired. I don't think this is true. She acted within her job capacity. She wrote a true and (importantly) legally protected statement. It was in a system that was specifically mean to advise workers about rights, options and obligations. And unless she was already being evaluated for poor performance, even a single infraction is an extremely rare circumstance for dismissal in modern corporate America.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
speedplane 7y ago
I think you're missing the larger point. It's mostly the large companies and those in power that create these rules. I'm not siding with either side here, but simply saying that "the rules are the rules" is not enough if the rules themselves are wrong. If we want to make it harder for unions to organize, then she was rightly fired. But ff she was fired for union organizing and we want to protect that activity, then she was wrongfully fired.
- fargle 7y ago
  I don't disagree, but you're talking about right/wrong from a moral standpoint, one that many people probably agree with, but it's not an absolute. The right and wrong I was talking about was with respect to the existing rules, policies, and ethics. And if you do believe these rules are morally wrong, then you change them from within the system. The upside is there are multiple opportunities to do this without also getting fired. There are also opportunities to do as much union organizing as you like without getting fired. The Thanksgiving four played a very dangerous game, as did this individual, and they got the expected result. Unfortunately, the other result is that if you want to find examples of blatantly illegal union busting, I'm sure they are out there but these are not them. This smacks of agitation and activism for it's own sake.
fargle 7y ago
> you have a problem larger than this conversation and you should expect pushback Why is that? Please give an example of what I said that is sexist or any other -ist. > So really, it's just your feelings. No, it's perfectly reasonable to object to points that were made that don't support the argument. I'm only stating that CompTIA+ does not provide evidence that you are an engineer because of the nature of the certification. > You're obviously eager to categorize her as a not-engineer I didn't categorize here as either way. Someone else did, I just object to assuming that a job title or a cert makes you one. It doesn't. I don't think it even matters to the argument at hand either. > you're obviously eager to shut down any pro-unionization messages, even legally protected ones I'm not. I'm neutral to whether googler's want a union or not since I don't have to work there and have no interest at all in google's future direction. I'm eager to inject some reality into some very dangerous idealism before more people think they will stand up to the man without understanding the not-so-nice realities. It's well and good, from the safety of the narrative of her supporters to say things like "she had autonomy to make changes". But engineer or not, she doesn't have that kind of autonomy. No employee really does, including directors. And it's up to her to prove she did. For example: can she show her manager approved this specific action in writing? Who asked her to do this? It looks a lot different when google shows up to a hearing with logs, rules, job descriptions, and her manager's manager having not approved the labor message, corporate security policies, and on and on. Then she shows up with, "but I thought it was OK because I did other stuff similar before, but it didn't involve labor notices. Yes, I had no actual authorization, but I was trusted as an engineer". People need to think adversarially, not just "Oh the NLRB will magically protect me". Because it can't if they don't follow the rules to the letter, and even then only partially. A company in google's position is just waiting for people to do what she did: combine legal organizing with breaking a verifiable rule. Something with proof, like security logs. Great! now they have plausible reason to make someone an example. Now - do you see why I think it was stoopid?
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > Why is that? Please give an example of what I said that is sexist or any other -ist. Because you are specifically supporting a narrative that declines to grant an arbitrary status to a woman even as you argue that there is no clear delineation of that status. You "know it when you see it" is a hell of a thing to say as you make a pronouncement about someone's termination from a job. What's more, looking over the history of this thread, you've substantially changed your message depending on how forcefully people reply to you. You've gone from saying that she cannot be an engineer because she has no credentials (which you first try to claim is required, "That IS why (engineers are credentialed and regulated)." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21822286); https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21822286); and eventually move to saying you're a fiat arbiter of: "[I] can recognize something that isn't one." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21832089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21832089) It's crystal clear you're not having a discussion. You're trying to push a narrative. You're writing anything you think you can get away with, and trusting the thread depth cutoffs of HN to hide that part of the thread. > No, it's perfectly reasonable to object to points that were made that don't support the argument. I'm only stating that CompTIA+ does not provide evidence that you are an engineer because of the nature of the certification. The assertion earlier was that she was untrained. She is clearly not. > I'm not. I'm neutral to whether googler's want a union or not since I don't have to work there and have no interest at all in google's future direction. This isn't really the question and I don't know why you think this statement is relevant. The question is "should people be fired for talking about unionization." Clearly, you now that some Googlers are friendly to unionization in at least some aspects of the workplace. You're reading a story about one right now. > I'm eager to inject some reality into some very dangerous idealism before more people think they will stand up to the man without understanding the not-so-nice realities. Oh? And those not-so-nice realities seem to be that you'll cheerfully throw in with discrediting a woman. > But engineer or not, she doesn't have that kind of autonomy. No employee really does, including directors. No technical organization I've ever encountered has to go and get every action stamped and filed by their manager to avoid being fired. That's so far beyond the norm I'm wondering if you've ever been a manager or run your own company. Quite the contrary, Management has to constantly document directives in writing and carefully apply messages to employees because there is substantial legal risk in just letting managers do whatever they feel like. > and her manager's manager having not approved the labor message, corporate security policies, and on and on. Then she shows up with, "but I thought it was OK because I did other stuff similar before, but it didn't involve labor notices. Yes, I had no actual authorization, but I was trusted as an engineer". People need to think adversarially, not just "Oh the NLRB will magically protect me". Because it can't if they don't follow the rules to the letter, and even then only partially. "Thinking adversarially" is at this point collective action. As I've said, Google is making a stronger and stronger case for all its employees that they need to consider a defensive unionization strategy. > A company in google's position is just waiting for people to do what she did: combine legal organizing with breaking a verifiable rule If she goes to court, they're going to have to prove there was a rule in place and that it was communicated to her. We'll see then.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

speedplane 7y ago

I think you're missing the larger point. It's mostly the large companies and those in power that create these rules. I'm not siding with either side here, but simply saying that "the rules are the rules" is not enough if the rules themselves are wrong. If we want to make it harder for unions to organize, then she was rightly fired. But ff she was fired for union organizing and we want to protect that activity, then she was wrongfully fired.

fargle 7y ago
I don't disagree, but you're talking about right/wrong from a moral standpoint, one that many people probably agree with, but it's not an absolute. The right and wrong I was talking about was with respect to the existing rules, policies, and ethics. And if you do believe these rules are morally wrong, then you change them from within the system. The upside is there are multiple opportunities to do this without also getting fired. There are also opportunities to do as much union organizing as you like without getting fired. The Thanksgiving four played a very dangerous game, as did this individual, and they got the expected result. Unfortunately, the other result is that if you want to find examples of blatantly illegal union busting, I'm sure they are out there but these are not them. This smacks of agitation and activism for it's own sake.

fargle 7y ago

> you have a problem larger than this conversation and you should expect pushback Why is that? Please give an example of what I said that is sexist or any other -ist. > So really, it's just your feelings. No, it's perfectly reasonable to object to points that were made that don't support the argument. I'm only stating that CompTIA+ does not provide evidence that you are an engineer because of the nature of the certification. > You're obviously eager to categorize her as a not-engineer I didn't categorize here as either way. Someone else did, I just object to assuming that a job title or a cert makes you one. It doesn't. I don't think it even matters to the argument at hand either. > you're obviously eager to shut down any pro-unionization messages, even legally protected ones I'm not. I'm neutral to whether googler's want a union or not since I don't have to work there and have no interest at all in google's future direction. I'm eager to inject some reality into some very dangerous idealism before more people think they will stand up to the man without understanding the not-so-nice realities. It's well and good, from the safety of the narrative of her supporters to say things like "she had autonomy to make changes". But engineer or not, she doesn't have that kind of autonomy. No employee really does, including directors. And it's up to her to prove she did. For example: can she show her manager approved this specific action in writing? Who asked her to do this? It looks a lot different when google shows up to a hearing with logs, rules, job descriptions, and her manager's manager having not approved the labor message, corporate security policies, and on and on. Then she shows up with, "but I thought it was OK because I did other stuff similar before, but it didn't involve labor notices. Yes, I had no actual authorization, but I was trusted as an engineer". People need to think adversarially, not just "Oh the NLRB will magically protect me". Because it can't if they don't follow the rules to the letter, and even then only partially. A company in google's position is just waiting for people to do what she did: combine legal organizing with breaking a verifiable rule. Something with proof, like security logs. Great! now they have plausible reason to make someone an example. Now - do you see why I think it was stoopid?

KirinDave 7y ago
> Why is that? Please give an example of what I said that is sexist or any other -ist. Because you are specifically supporting a narrative that declines to grant an arbitrary status to a woman even as you argue that there is no clear delineation of that status. You "know it when you see it" is a hell of a thing to say as you make a pronouncement about someone's termination from a job. What's more, looking over the history of this thread, you've substantially changed your message depending on how forcefully people reply to you. You've gone from saying that she cannot be an engineer because she has no credentials (which you first try to claim is required, "That IS why (engineers are credentialed and regulated)." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21822286); https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21822286); and eventually move to saying you're a fiat arbiter of: "[I] can recognize something that isn't one." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21832089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21832089) It's crystal clear you're not having a discussion. You're trying to push a narrative. You're writing anything you think you can get away with, and trusting the thread depth cutoffs of HN to hide that part of the thread. > No, it's perfectly reasonable to object to points that were made that don't support the argument. I'm only stating that CompTIA+ does not provide evidence that you are an engineer because of the nature of the certification. The assertion earlier was that she was untrained. She is clearly not. > I'm not. I'm neutral to whether googler's want a union or not since I don't have to work there and have no interest at all in google's future direction. This isn't really the question and I don't know why you think this statement is relevant. The question is "should people be fired for talking about unionization." Clearly, you now that some Googlers are friendly to unionization in at least some aspects of the workplace. You're reading a story about one right now. > I'm eager to inject some reality into some very dangerous idealism before more people think they will stand up to the man without understanding the not-so-nice realities. Oh? And those not-so-nice realities seem to be that you'll cheerfully throw in with discrediting a woman. > But engineer or not, she doesn't have that kind of autonomy. No employee really does, including directors. No technical organization I've ever encountered has to go and get every action stamped and filed by their manager to avoid being fired. That's so far beyond the norm I'm wondering if you've ever been a manager or run your own company. Quite the contrary, Management has to constantly document directives in writing and carefully apply messages to employees because there is substantial legal risk in just letting managers do whatever they feel like. > and her manager's manager having not approved the labor message, corporate security policies, and on and on. Then she shows up with, "but I thought it was OK because I did other stuff similar before, but it didn't involve labor notices. Yes, I had no actual authorization, but I was trusted as an engineer". People need to think adversarially, not just "Oh the NLRB will magically protect me". Because it can't if they don't follow the rules to the letter, and even then only partially. "Thinking adversarially" is at this point collective action. As I've said, Google is making a stronger and stronger case for all its employees that they need to consider a defensive unionization strategy. > A company in google's position is just waiting for people to do what she did: combine legal organizing with breaking a verifiable rule If she goes to court, they're going to have to prove there was a rule in place and that it was communicated to her. We'll see then.