Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize

Re:Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers o... by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @09:48AM (#21813923)

> injecting javascript into an employer's internal chrome extension

The purpose of the extension is to serve site-specific pop-ups. Spiers added a pop-up to an existing pop-up tool using existing, precedented processes.

The analogy to a poster in a cafeteria, which is explicitly protected by federal law, passes a first-order smell test.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers o... by c0achmcguirk on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @10:01AM (#21814052)

Is this a precedent that Google or any company wants to have, though? Engineers with access to company-wide tools or extensions can put political or divisive content into them?

This is more than just a "poster in the cafe" because of the reach and invasiveness of the approach.

Disclaimer: I work for Google, speaking for myself only.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers o... by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @10:04AM (#21814090)

> Is this a precedent that Google or any company wants to have, though?

Google is free to pull the tool or change the documented process. (I admit, the process seems lax.) Instead, they fired the employee. That’s an aggressive response.

> the reach and invasiveness of the approach

It’s a pop-up generated when one visits the site of the “firm that Google hired this year amid a groundswell of labor activism at the company”. That sounds like a reasonable scope.

Again, using a tool whose entire purpose is to serve site-specific pop-ups.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/security-engineer-says-goog...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers o... by extropy on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @10:10AM (#21814179)

These popups are security popups, the ones you would get from your antivirus/firewall and carry a certain Management endorsement weight.

It's not a free for all space to put random messages into.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers o... by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @10:14AM (#21814228)

> random messages into

Federally-protected content isn’t random speech.

There are reasonable arguments on both sides. Looking forward to seeing them play out at the NLRB and in the courts.

The only solid takeaway at this time is, if you think this is black-and-white, you’re missing salient detail.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers o... by myalphabet on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @10:36AM (#21814518)

Random speech doesn't become any less random just because it is federally protected. On the contrary, it actually becomes less federally protected if it is random, because federal protection of speech requires specific time, place, and manner.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers o... by SolaceQuantum on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @11:15AM (#21814995)

"federal protection of speech requires specific time, place, and manner."

I'm actually ignorant on the specific time/place/manner of protection for organizing. Can you educate me?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers o... by myalphabet on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @12:25PM (#21815916)

At a broader level, federally protected speech in the US isn't absolute; the Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that restrictions can be placed on organizing protests, such as you can't protest in the middle of a busy freeway at rush hour blocking traffic and use "my right to protest is federally protected" as an excuse. There's more info here [1] (PDF warning; go to page 9).

More specifically to unionizing, employees are allowed to discuss unions but employers are allowed to place some restrictions on when/where such discussions can take place. From the NLRB [2]:

> Working time is for work, so your employer may maintain and enforce non-discriminatory rules limiting solicitation and distribution, except that your employer cannot prohibit you from talking about or soliciting for a union during non-work time, such as before or after work or during break times; or from distributing union literature during non-work time, in non-work areas, such as parking lots or break rooms.

1: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

2: https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employees/i...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers o... by caseysoftware on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @10:35AM (#21814503)

I think it's less about Management endorsement and more about notification blindness.

If you start adding wholly unrelated messages into the security warnings, people start ignoring them. We've seen the same with medical systems where doctors and nurses ignore the important pop ups because so many are just interruptions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers o... by dunkelheit on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @12:14PM (#21815761)

> The analogy to a poster in a cafeteria, which is explicitly protected by federal law, passes a first-order smell test.

This doesn't feel like the right analogy. She (ab)used her access after all. A better one IMO would be a cafeteria worker sneaking in a leaflet among the napkins. Definitely feels less innocent.

[ Parent | on HN ]