4 ms·

Yes, you have a right to participate in unionization and politics. But you don't have a right to alter company software to spread your political message. There'

Yes, you have a right to participate in unionization and politics. But you don't have a right to alter company software to spread your political message. There's a big difference between holding a "Vote X" sign on a street corner on your own time, and using your position as a developer to put up "Vote X" signs on your company's website.

izacus 6y ago
I think apt comparison is - if some Apple or Google engineer would push a non-authorized OTA update to all Apple/Google phones which would add a permanent political banner to homescreen - would you consider this to be a firing offense or not? And to people who are trying to justify this by process being "technically possible" - there is a non empty set of Apple and Google employees who can technically push any code to your phone remotely. Is it still acceptable for them to use that to push their political agenda? Because it comes down to trust. You trust people who can push code to your devices to not abuse it.
- manfredo 6y ago
  Pushing a banner to all phones with a political message would be a brazen abuse of one's engineering position. This developer's change was much more narrow, it modified an internal tool that only Google employees see. But it's still breaching professionalism. If the message instead was, "Unions are corrupt and deprive people of individual agency" would that be acceptable? Especially with the unique position Google is in as our gateway to information, it's prudent to avoid employees that cannot refrain from making changes to production software to further personal politics.
whimsicalism 6y ago
> using your position as a developer to put up "Vote X" signs on your company's website. To state the law* for internal users who visit one specific website
- knorker 6y ago
  You're missing the point. Do you think Google engineers should be allowed to unilaterally, against the wishes of Google, be allowed to replace the www.google.com homepage by the US constitution? No? Of-fucking-course not. Just because something is true, and you have technical means to put up a true message, doesn't make it in any way non-fireable to do it.
stuwon 6y ago
But developers at Uber and Lyft can spam drivers and riders with "Tap to support Prop 22" every time they want to use their apps with no consequence? I don't see how anyone can get upset with employees notifying fellow employees of their legal rights when the same tech companies will abuse their platforms to literally broadcast their political beliefs. https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/4/21549760/uber-lyft-prop-22-win-vote-app-message-notifications https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/4/21549760/uber-lyft-prop-2...
- manfredo 6y ago
  Do you believe those messages were done by developers, on their own initiative? Or by company PR people whose profession is to manage public messaging? The point is, somebody used checked in code to further personal political aims. I highly doubt that is what occurred at Lyft and Uber.
- drstewart 6y ago
  The developers in your example are doing it with the express approval of the company and management. The ones at Google were not. So yes, there is a big difference.
- chii 6y ago
  > same tech companies will abuse their platforms to literally broadcast their political beliefs. if the owners of the company feels the desire to, they can instruct their employees to perform work to broadcast/promote their (owner's) political beliefs. This is just a case of a company using its resources for a purpose designated by the owner. An employee co-opting company resources without owner approval to broadcast their (employee's) political message is not allowed, unless explicitly given permission by the owners. Why people cannot tell the difference between the two situations above is beyond me - it's not like they are similar or confusing.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    But the NLRB ruled that what Spiers did was perfectly within their rights, so you’re completely wrong in this specific case. However correct you may believe yourself in the abstract, entirely relies on the lawfulness of the specifics.
sosborn 6y ago
There is also a big difference in saying "Vote for X" vs. "You are allowed to vote."
- knorker 6y ago
  Ok. So it's OK if your webhost provider replaces your homepage with the phrase "you are allowed to vote"?

izacus 6y ago

I think apt comparison is - if some Apple or Google engineer would push a non-authorized OTA update to all Apple/Google phones which would add a permanent political banner to homescreen - would you consider this to be a firing offense or not? And to people who are trying to justify this by process being "technically possible" - there is a non empty set of Apple and Google employees who can technically push any code to your phone remotely. Is it still acceptable for them to use that to push their political agenda? Because it comes down to trust. You trust people who can push code to your devices to not abuse it.

manfredo 6y ago
Pushing a banner to all phones with a political message would be a brazen abuse of one's engineering position. This developer's change was much more narrow, it modified an internal tool that only Google employees see. But it's still breaching professionalism. If the message instead was, "Unions are corrupt and deprive people of individual agency" would that be acceptable? Especially with the unique position Google is in as our gateway to information, it's prudent to avoid employees that cannot refrain from making changes to production software to further personal politics.

whimsicalism 6y ago

> using your position as a developer to put up "Vote X" signs on your company's website. To state the law* for internal users who visit one specific website

knorker 6y ago
You're missing the point. Do you think Google engineers should be allowed to unilaterally, against the wishes of Google, be allowed to replace the www.google.com homepage by the US constitution? No? Of-fucking-course not. Just because something is true, and you have technical means to put up a true message, doesn't make it in any way non-fireable to do it.

stuwon 6y ago

But developers at Uber and Lyft can spam drivers and riders with "Tap to support Prop 22" every time they want to use their apps with no consequence? I don't see how anyone can get upset with employees notifying fellow employees of their legal rights when the same tech companies will abuse their platforms to literally broadcast their political beliefs. https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/4/21549760/uber-lyft-prop-22-win-vote-app-message-notifications https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/4/21549760/uber-lyft-prop-2...

manfredo 6y ago
Do you believe those messages were done by developers, on their own initiative? Or by company PR people whose profession is to manage public messaging? The point is, somebody used checked in code to further personal political aims. I highly doubt that is what occurred at Lyft and Uber.
drstewart 6y ago
The developers in your example are doing it with the express approval of the company and management. The ones at Google were not. So yes, there is a big difference.
chii 6y ago
> same tech companies will abuse their platforms to literally broadcast their political beliefs. if the owners of the company feels the desire to, they can instruct their employees to perform work to broadcast/promote their (owner's) political beliefs. This is just a case of a company using its resources for a purpose designated by the owner. An employee co-opting company resources without owner approval to broadcast their (employee's) political message is not allowed, unless explicitly given permission by the owners. Why people cannot tell the difference between the two situations above is beyond me - it's not like they are similar or confusing.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  But the NLRB ruled that what Spiers did was perfectly within their rights, so you’re completely wrong in this specific case. However correct you may believe yourself in the abstract, entirely relies on the lawfulness of the specifics.

sosborn 6y ago

There is also a big difference in saying "Vote for X" vs. "You are allowed to vote."

knorker 6y ago
Ok. So it's OK if your webhost provider replaces your homepage with the phrase "you are allowed to vote"?