4 ms·

I don't think it's so black and white: the "security tool" is a chrome extension for sending notices to employees about the site they are visiting. An analogou

I don't think it's so black and white: the "security tool" is a chrome extension for sending notices to employees about the site they are visiting. An analogous situation seems like if the company had a big cork board for safety/security messages and someone posted a paper with that sentence on it next to something the company posted that was perceived as anti-union. It's unclear to me if that other scenario is protected or not: I understand that you're legally protected when posting notices informing your peers of certain rights on company property, but presumably you couldn't stick such notices just anywhere.

entangledqubit 6y ago
I don't think the cork board analogy really works here. This sounds like a person (ab)used their position and access to the backend of a security tool (Chrome extension or not) to broadcast a non-security related message. I think we can generally agree that if they were on a team maintaining protocol buffers and they baked an unnecessary ignored message into the encoded stream (about whatever) there should be repercussions for lack of good judgement. Generally speaking, I am for workers self-organizing if they feel it is appropriate. It's not clear to me that Spiers should have been fired for this seemingly minor offense.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > broadcast a non-security related message. I don't think it was broadcast, it was displayed if one particular website was visited. That seems very analogous to permitted organizing activities such as using your employers email system to organize or posting on a cork board. > they baked an unnecessary ignored message into the encoded stream (about whatever) there should be repercussions for lack of good judgement. Would you be fired? I'm not so sure. It is pretty obvious that this firing was not unrelated to the messaging. I'm glad that the very conservative interpretation of labor law that most on HN seem to believe is not the reality of labor law in the US, although more should still be done.
codekansas 6y ago
Presumably in this scenario the employee was one of a small group of people that was responsible for maintaining the cork board, and used it for their political beliefs
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  I find it funny how people assert that she used it for her political "beliefs" (when the message was simply informing people of their rights) but seem to take at face value Google's assertion that they acted on this because she (ab)used the infrastructure, as opposed to what she used it for.
  - brendoelfrendo 6y ago
    I'm going to go ahead and assume that a similar circumvention of company policy for non-labor union purposes would not have been met with immediate termination. Unless Google can say that this was normal punishment or was part of a pattern of behavior, it's kinda hard for it not to look like retaliation.
- SrslyJosh 6y ago
  > political beliefs Informing employees of their legal right to organize isn't a political belief.
  - thrwaway2day 6y ago
    Would you feel the same way if she added a banner that suggested her fellow employees exercise their 2nd amendment rights?
    - andrewzah 6y ago
      Bad faith argument aside, informing people of the rights they do have is not really having a political stance. Those rights exist regardless of what one personally supports. Obviously, this holds true for USA's 2nd amendment rights as well as any other provisions granted by the law. Companies have active interests in suppressing this sort of information, and put forth efforts to try and convince people that literally stating the laws of the country that one resides in is somehow pushing a political agenda.
giantg2 6y ago
"...presumably you couldn't stick such notices just anywhere." Nor use company resources/infrastructure to distribute it.
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  I really hope you're not making an infrastructure cost argument here. Would be kind of laughable.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Cost wouldn't matter. The idea is that you can't use the company's resources for your personal projects, especially if that project is being used against them. So let's say you want to put up a single flyer about unionizing. You can do that in the appropriate area, such as off the company property or potentially on a bulletin board in the break room. What you can't do is type it up while on the clock and print it on the company's printer.
    - black_puppydog 6y ago
      The other way (and it seems the NLRB sees it this way too) is that she didn't materially hurt google by doing so, and on the flipside used this system to make sure that laws are known and can be followed. This is (a bit) like google buying property around polling stations and then preventing anyone from passing through to vote. They're not hurting google by passing through, but they keep shouting "get off my land!" Why would we let them weaponize property law to prevent others from enforcing their rights vis-a-vis google?
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Did she make the change on company time? If so, her wages would be material damage. Even if made off the clock, it could still be considered material because Google needs to pay someone to fix it. Your voting/property analogy is completely off-base. It completely ignores right of ways and public property. And if you have people actually trespassing on private property on the way to a polling place then they are in violation of the law and can be cited. I see no legal way that you can "weaponize" property law to prevent access to a polling location. Also, there's nothing stopping employees from exercising their right to concerted efforts off company time and property.

entangledqubit 6y ago

I don't think the cork board analogy really works here. This sounds like a person (ab)used their position and access to the backend of a security tool (Chrome extension or not) to broadcast a non-security related message. I think we can generally agree that if they were on a team maintaining protocol buffers and they baked an unnecessary ignored message into the encoded stream (about whatever) there should be repercussions for lack of good judgement. Generally speaking, I am for workers self-organizing if they feel it is appropriate. It's not clear to me that Spiers should have been fired for this seemingly minor offense.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> broadcast a non-security related message. I don't think it was broadcast, it was displayed if one particular website was visited. That seems very analogous to permitted organizing activities such as using your employers email system to organize or posting on a cork board. > they baked an unnecessary ignored message into the encoded stream (about whatever) there should be repercussions for lack of good judgement. Would you be fired? I'm not so sure. It is pretty obvious that this firing was not unrelated to the messaging. I'm glad that the very conservative interpretation of labor law that most on HN seem to believe is not the reality of labor law in the US, although more should still be done.

codekansas 6y ago

Presumably in this scenario the employee was one of a small group of people that was responsible for maintaining the cork board, and used it for their political beliefs

black_puppydog 6y ago
I find it funny how people assert that she used it for her political "beliefs" (when the message was simply informing people of their rights) but seem to take at face value Google's assertion that they acted on this because she (ab)used the infrastructure, as opposed to what she used it for.
- brendoelfrendo 6y ago
  I'm going to go ahead and assume that a similar circumvention of company policy for non-labor union purposes would not have been met with immediate termination. Unless Google can say that this was normal punishment or was part of a pattern of behavior, it's kinda hard for it not to look like retaliation.
SrslyJosh 6y ago
> political beliefs Informing employees of their legal right to organize isn't a political belief.
- thrwaway2day 6y ago
  Would you feel the same way if she added a banner that suggested her fellow employees exercise their 2nd amendment rights?
  - andrewzah 6y ago
    Bad faith argument aside, informing people of the rights they do have is not really having a political stance. Those rights exist regardless of what one personally supports. Obviously, this holds true for USA's 2nd amendment rights as well as any other provisions granted by the law. Companies have active interests in suppressing this sort of information, and put forth efforts to try and convince people that literally stating the laws of the country that one resides in is somehow pushing a political agenda.

giantg2 6y ago

"...presumably you couldn't stick such notices just anywhere." Nor use company resources/infrastructure to distribute it.

black_puppydog 6y ago
I really hope you're not making an infrastructure cost argument here. Would be kind of laughable.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Cost wouldn't matter. The idea is that you can't use the company's resources for your personal projects, especially if that project is being used against them. So let's say you want to put up a single flyer about unionizing. You can do that in the appropriate area, such as off the company property or potentially on a bulletin board in the break room. What you can't do is type it up while on the clock and print it on the company's printer.
  - black_puppydog 6y ago
    The other way (and it seems the NLRB sees it this way too) is that she didn't materially hurt google by doing so, and on the flipside used this system to make sure that laws are known and can be followed. This is (a bit) like google buying property around polling stations and then preventing anyone from passing through to vote. They're not hurting google by passing through, but they keep shouting "get off my land!" Why would we let them weaponize property law to prevent others from enforcing their rights vis-a-vis google?
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Did she make the change on company time? If so, her wages would be material damage. Even if made off the clock, it could still be considered material because Google needs to pay someone to fix it. Your voting/property analogy is completely off-base. It completely ignores right of ways and public property. And if you have people actually trespassing on private property on the way to a polling place then they are in violation of the law and can be cited. I see no legal way that you can "weaponize" property law to prevent access to a polling location. Also, there's nothing stopping employees from exercising their right to concerted efforts off company time and property.