4 ms·

If you go to her original post linked in the article, there is an interesting and fairly detailed account of what happened from the other side’s view in the com

by Vaslo 7y ago

If you go to her original post linked in the article, there is an interesting and fairly detailed account of what happened from the other side’s view in the comments. That view is much more focused on the fact that she broke protocol for installing the notification just because she wanted to, and if everyone did the same thing, there would be some chaos.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
It's hard for me to believe that anyone doesn't understand that, though. Of course there would be chaos if people were allowed to create popup windows to communicate whatever they want. That ought to be clear as soon as you read that she created the popup and Google didn't want her to.
- utopian3 7y ago
  Agreed. Imagine if everyone was allowed to abuse their positions. After years of working in enterprises, I know many that would create popups about the silliest things. The Security VP quoted in the article stated that she abused a security tool, and I agree.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    My best story is a popup every time you connected to the main corporate wifi, saying that you've connected and you should disconnect if you're not authorized to connect.
  - salawat 7y ago
    >Imagine if everyone was allowed to abuse their positions. So it's okay if some people are allowed to abuse their positions by firing someone who essentially added a little footnote on one website in particular with a reminder as to what Federal law actually dictates? That's my issue with that logic. We are all citizens first. Corporate shenanigans should never undermine civil rights. The right to organize and to do so at work, is protected, just as the right of a corporation to spew as much anti-unionization propaganda is protected. Period. The employer will find any other excuse besides the blatantly illegal thing on which to pin the rationale for the firing. They just want to reap the benefit of the outcome (one less active organizer) without the hassle of being called to the carpet for a clear violation of labor law. That's how it works. It's all about how to get what you want while having an out to fall back on when someone calls you out. This is why legal departments exist. To ensure a jury in the event of getting called out will have to slog through every conceivable distraction before the company can be held accountable for their actions.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      She has the legal right to do union organizing at work, but she doesn't have the right to subvert the company's tools to do it. The idea that misbehavior becomes okay once you say "well I was organizing a union" seems incredibly toxic to me, and fundamentally incompatible with the kinds of freedoms software developers generally enjoy. If Spiers gets her way, and Google is legally barred from expecting line staff to use their powers responsibly, that just means Google will start requiring manager approval for everything potentially disruptive.
- geofft 7y ago
  Yes, that seems like a really good reason to have a limited set of people who can create such popups. Which Google did. If someone makes an alert that management wishes to overrule, that seems like a really good reason to be able to revert commits, which I believe Google's version control system is able to do. If they made a really bad mistake and you want to make sure they don't do it again, that seems like a really good reason to have their manager call them into a meeting. If they made a really, really bad mistake, then perhaps there's formal disciplinary action, like a negative performance review or a docked bonus. None of this seems like a reason to fire someone. Definitely none of this seems like a reason to drag them into a conference room and interrogate them to disclose the names of other people they're organizing with. That's what you would do if you were threatened by the content of the notification instead of unhappy with an abuse of process.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    We'll never know exactly how the disciplinary process went down. But from Spiers' Medium post, it sounds like they tried to have meetings multiple times and she doubled down. If she told Google what she's telling the public, that she did nothing wrong and it was illegal for Google to stop her, that seems like a plenty good reason to fire her.
nashashmi 7y ago
I thought she talked this step through others on the team.

by Vaslo 7y ago

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

It's hard for me to believe that anyone doesn't understand that, though. Of course there would be chaos if people were allowed to create popup windows to communicate whatever they want. That ought to be clear as soon as you read that she created the popup and Google didn't want her to.

utopian3 7y ago
Agreed. Imagine if everyone was allowed to abuse their positions. After years of working in enterprises, I know many that would create popups about the silliest things. The Security VP quoted in the article stated that she abused a security tool, and I agree.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  My best story is a popup every time you connected to the main corporate wifi, saying that you've connected and you should disconnect if you're not authorized to connect.
- salawat 7y ago
  >Imagine if everyone was allowed to abuse their positions. So it's okay if some people are allowed to abuse their positions by firing someone who essentially added a little footnote on one website in particular with a reminder as to what Federal law actually dictates? That's my issue with that logic. We are all citizens first. Corporate shenanigans should never undermine civil rights. The right to organize and to do so at work, is protected, just as the right of a corporation to spew as much anti-unionization propaganda is protected. Period. The employer will find any other excuse besides the blatantly illegal thing on which to pin the rationale for the firing. They just want to reap the benefit of the outcome (one less active organizer) without the hassle of being called to the carpet for a clear violation of labor law. That's how it works. It's all about how to get what you want while having an out to fall back on when someone calls you out. This is why legal departments exist. To ensure a jury in the event of getting called out will have to slog through every conceivable distraction before the company can be held accountable for their actions.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    She has the legal right to do union organizing at work, but she doesn't have the right to subvert the company's tools to do it. The idea that misbehavior becomes okay once you say "well I was organizing a union" seems incredibly toxic to me, and fundamentally incompatible with the kinds of freedoms software developers generally enjoy. If Spiers gets her way, and Google is legally barred from expecting line staff to use their powers responsibly, that just means Google will start requiring manager approval for everything potentially disruptive.
geofft 7y ago
Yes, that seems like a really good reason to have a limited set of people who can create such popups. Which Google did. If someone makes an alert that management wishes to overrule, that seems like a really good reason to be able to revert commits, which I believe Google's version control system is able to do. If they made a really bad mistake and you want to make sure they don't do it again, that seems like a really good reason to have their manager call them into a meeting. If they made a really, really bad mistake, then perhaps there's formal disciplinary action, like a negative performance review or a docked bonus. None of this seems like a reason to fire someone. Definitely none of this seems like a reason to drag them into a conference room and interrogate them to disclose the names of other people they're organizing with. That's what you would do if you were threatened by the content of the notification instead of unhappy with an abuse of process.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  We'll never know exactly how the disciplinary process went down. But from Spiers' Medium post, it sounds like they tried to have meetings multiple times and she doubled down. If she told Google what she's telling the public, that she did nothing wrong and it was illegal for Google to stop her, that seems like a plenty good reason to fire her.

nashashmi 7y ago

I thought she talked this step through others on the team.