3 ms·

I'm confused, what exactly is the allegation of illegal spying? The article just says: > Google violated US labor laws by spying on workers who were organizing

I'm confused, what exactly is the allegation of illegal spying? The article just says: > Google violated US labor laws by spying on workers who were organizing employee protests, then firing two of them, according to a complaint to be filed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) today. And then talks about the circumstances around the firing of those employees. > “This week the NLRB issued a complaint on my behalf. They found that I was illegally terminated for trying to help my colleagues,” Spiers said. This also doesn't refer to spying. Is this title/article just clickbait or is there any substantiation or further information around the "spied on workers" claim? I've done a quick bit of reading on other news sites and can't find any mention of spying elsewhere.

ma2rten 6y ago
One of those people was fired for looking at someone's calendar.
- theptip 6y ago
  So the claim is that Google looking at its access logs constitutes illegal spying? I'd like to see that claim fleshed out a bit more, I can see where this could be considered problematic to a non-technical person, but it's also common-place for most large companies (or small tech companies) to have internal tools that log employees' behavior.
thw0rted 6y ago
I also didn't understand, because the article doesn't actually mention Google's "spying" or explain it at all. It does link to the NLRB complaint, though. It's a real slog to read through but I think the actual salient points are: * Management "viewed an employee slide production in support of the union drive" (§7), no details but I'd assume that they somehow accessed it without an invitation? * The firing was nominally because the employee looked at another employee's calendar, but the claim is that this rule is selectively enforced (§11b) So the only "spying" I can figure out is if, say, one of the claimants made a Google Slides presentation about the union, then one of their bosses went poking around in the employee's Drive (?) and reading their presentations without explicit permission. If the boss abused privileged access to read what was supposed to be a "private" document, I could see how that's illegal "spying". (Although, hey, maybe don't use your employer's software to make your union presentation?)

ma2rten 6y ago

One of those people was fired for looking at someone's calendar.

theptip 6y ago
So the claim is that Google looking at its access logs constitutes illegal spying? I'd like to see that claim fleshed out a bit more, I can see where this could be considered problematic to a non-technical person, but it's also common-place for most large companies (or small tech companies) to have internal tools that log employees' behavior.

thw0rted 6y ago

I also didn't understand, because the article doesn't actually mention Google's "spying" or explain it at all. It does link to the NLRB complaint, though. It's a real slog to read through but I think the actual salient points are: * Management "viewed an employee slide production in support of the union drive" (§7), no details but I'd assume that they somehow accessed it without an invitation? * The firing was nominally because the employee looked at another employee's calendar, but the claim is that this rule is selectively enforced (§11b) So the only "spying" I can figure out is if, say, one of the claimants made a Google Slides presentation about the union, then one of their bosses went poking around in the employee's Drive (?) and reading their presentations without explicit permission. If the boss abused privileged access to read what was supposed to be a "private" document, I could see how that's illegal "spying". (Although, hey, maybe don't use your employer's software to make your union presentation?)