4 ms·

yes, abusing internal systems. imagine using tools explicitly created to facilitate communication and organization between employees but suddenly its abuse whe

yes, abusing internal systems. imagine using tools explicitly created to facilitate communication and organization between employees but suddenly its abuse when used for organize something other than a potluck

judge2020 6y ago
Defining a 'break room' and legally protected workplace communications wasn't really ready for the internet age when this happened (this is the context behind the above two posts for those out of the loop[0]). Thankfully NLRB weighed in and suggested that this was protected communication [1], or they at least are suing to argue that case[2] (still an open case). 0: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/engineer-says-google-fired-her-for-browser-pop-up-about-worker-rights/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/engineer-says-go... 1: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cpt20-ca-252802ccnohdocx-redacted.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cpt20... 2: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CA-252802 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CA-252802
manfredo 6y ago
This was not a chat tool. It was a security extension that one person used as their political soapbox.
- smhost 6y ago
  it was a good-ass soapbox though
BostonFern 6y ago
A person on the security team tasked with notifying employees browsing the Web of company guidelines and policies decided to author a policy notification entirely of her own. That's like the guy hanging up memos from the top floor in the company lunch room one day deciding to slip in a political message, printed on official company stationary to disguise it as an official memo. It's not about using general-purpose internal communication tools to remind co-workers of their rights, it's abuse of a privileged position involving the power to broadcast official messages. Whether someone thinks it's justified by the cause is a separate argument.

judge2020 6y ago

Defining a 'break room' and legally protected workplace communications wasn't really ready for the internet age when this happened (this is the context behind the above two posts for those out of the loop[0]). Thankfully NLRB weighed in and suggested that this was protected communication [1], or they at least are suing to argue that case[2] (still an open case). 0: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/engineer-says-google-fired-her-for-browser-pop-up-about-worker-rights/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/engineer-says-go... 1: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cpt20-ca-252802ccnohdocx-redacted.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cpt20... 2: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CA-252802 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CA-252802

manfredo 6y ago

This was not a chat tool. It was a security extension that one person used as their political soapbox.

smhost 6y ago
it was a good-ass soapbox though

BostonFern 6y ago

A person on the security team tasked with notifying employees browsing the Web of company guidelines and policies decided to author a policy notification entirely of her own. That's like the guy hanging up memos from the top floor in the company lunch room one day deciding to slip in a political message, printed on official company stationary to disguise it as an official memo. It's not about using general-purpose internal communication tools to remind co-workers of their rights, it's abuse of a privileged position involving the power to broadcast official messages. Whether someone thinks it's justified by the cause is a separate argument.