2 ms·

> I don't think I'm changing my message - it's based on replying to the conversation. I'm not even saying she's not an engineer, just that people need to stop c

> I don't think I'm changing my message - it's based on replying to the conversation. I'm not even saying she's not an engineer, just that people need to stop conflating tech certs with engineering. In many of these comments I'm still referring to her as an engineer, so now I'm not a sexist right? Good. You're definitely still saying and have been saying you believe she's not an engineer. > However, if you ABUSE that independence to bite the hand of your employer, you have absolutely no expectation of top cover. Again, your bias shows. If your employer is treating you well, why would talking about unionization be threatening? These conversations are happening precisely because people claim to be seeing abusive parts of the system and are looking for recourse. Is that biting the hand of your employer? You clearly think so. Would that folks like you were more active in demanding action the collective action by corporate CEOs to illegally fix wages. Sadly, folks seem content to shrug and smile and pretend that's the right of their minders. > Furthermore, if you go into a legal setting with your argument that engineers always act autonomously, you just sound like a bunch of cowboys to the bureaucrats that get to decide this. No, but the idea that summary dismissal is normal for a simple message not approved by management on a legally protected subject is hogwash. I think you know this, but you'd prefer it's not so. Thank you for the conversation. Goodbye.

fargle 7y ago
> You're definitely still saying and have been saying you believe she's not an engineer. I never said that, nor do I necessarily believe that. I replied to someone else in a one-liner which was to put forward a possible reason other people were questioning it. > Again, your bias shows. If your employer is treating you well, why would talking about unionization be threatening? Talking about unionizing is not threatening to me, or my company (which has a union), but it's pretty clearly very threatening to your company. You should be cognizant and careful about that. > Is that biting the hand of your employer? You clearly think so. What I think is that google and every other sufficiently large company will think so. It would be naive to think because your company has some zippy slogan like "don't be evil" (now retired) that they are somehow different. It's interesting, btw., how you believe to know what I think based on not at all what I say. Novel way to run an argument. > Would that folks like you were more active in demanding action the collective action by corporate CEOs to illegally fix wages. Sadly, folks seem content to shrug and smile and pretend that's the right of their minders. There's a right and a wrong way to take action. Getting youself fired doesn't seem smart, but it could be a nice martyr move if you don't need the income. If you are engineers, then you are not just wage slaves. You are independent people and can take - or leave - your employment at will. If you don't like company X, I'd suggest it's far better to simply leave. Your problem is a bad employer, so you add a union, now you have two problems: a still bad employer and a union full of politicians. So, I've enjoyed your interesting thought processes, and I leave you with this advice: - read, carefully, the rights granted by the NLRB. Stick strictly and safely within them. https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employees/i-am-not-represented-union/your-rights-during-union-organizing https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employees/i... - for example, do you notice that it gives you the right to talk and distribute literature outside working areas (such as breakrooms or parking lots)? Do you notice how modifying a browser security extension isn't on that list? Nor is doxing your co-workers? - don't use company time or resources to do it! A) it could easily be construed as not-protected and B) obvious opsec reasons - martyrs for the cause might energize the base but they scare off those with mortgages. - be mindful of who has your back: January 2019, google pushes to overturn Purple Communications - https://onlabor.org/google-to-nlrb-shut-down-employee-email-access/ https://onlabor.org/google-to-nlrb-shut-down-employee-email-... December 2019, NLRB overturns Purple Communications - https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-restores-employers%E2%80%99-right-restrict-use-email https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-restores... Tootles!

fargle 7y ago

> You're definitely still saying and have been saying you believe she's not an engineer. I never said that, nor do I necessarily believe that. I replied to someone else in a one-liner which was to put forward a possible reason other people were questioning it. > Again, your bias shows. If your employer is treating you well, why would talking about unionization be threatening? Talking about unionizing is not threatening to me, or my company (which has a union), but it's pretty clearly very threatening to your company. You should be cognizant and careful about that. > Is that biting the hand of your employer? You clearly think so. What I think is that google and every other sufficiently large company will think so. It would be naive to think because your company has some zippy slogan like "don't be evil" (now retired) that they are somehow different. It's interesting, btw., how you believe to know what I think based on not at all what I say. Novel way to run an argument. > Would that folks like you were more active in demanding action the collective action by corporate CEOs to illegally fix wages. Sadly, folks seem content to shrug and smile and pretend that's the right of their minders. There's a right and a wrong way to take action. Getting youself fired doesn't seem smart, but it could be a nice martyr move if you don't need the income. If you are engineers, then you are not just wage slaves. You are independent people and can take - or leave - your employment at will. If you don't like company X, I'd suggest it's far better to simply leave. Your problem is a bad employer, so you add a union, now you have two problems: a still bad employer and a union full of politicians. So, I've enjoyed your interesting thought processes, and I leave you with this advice: - read, carefully, the rights granted by the NLRB. Stick strictly and safely within them. https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employees/i-am-not-represented-union/your-rights-during-union-organizing https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employees/i... - for example, do you notice that it gives you the right to talk and distribute literature outside working areas (such as breakrooms or parking lots)? Do you notice how modifying a browser security extension isn't on that list? Nor is doxing your co-workers? - don't use company time or resources to do it! A) it could easily be construed as not-protected and B) obvious opsec reasons - martyrs for the cause might energize the base but they scare off those with mortgages. - be mindful of who has your back: January 2019, google pushes to overturn Purple Communications - https://onlabor.org/google-to-nlrb-shut-down-employee-email-access/ https://onlabor.org/google-to-nlrb-shut-down-employee-email-... December 2019, NLRB overturns Purple Communications - https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-restores-employers%E2%80%99-right-restrict-use-email https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-restores... Tootles!