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.

> 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.

"...presumably you couldn't stick such notices just anywhere."

Nor use company resources/infrastructure to distribute it.

Actually, when she was fired, this was not the case. The NLRB ruled a day or two after she went public about being fired that company communications couldn't be used for this type of thing. Before that companies had to allow it.

https://www.post-gazette.com/business/career-workplace/2019/...

Ah, so this was before they amended the rule allowing communication to be restricted.

I wonder what the restrictions were before. It specifically says emails were allowed. But I wonder if a person maintaining an intranet site could post a banner on it with the same message. I'm guessing not since it isn't designed for that type of communication. I'm not sure where the plugin would fall. Seems like the message didn't fit the intended plugin scope.

Yeah, hard to say, one could certainly make an argument that it did fall under that though. It would need to be decided in court.

How could that message, on that site, fall into the scope of the plugin? I could maybe see if it was a site that employees were actually using it to perform concerted activities. If the firm was hired by the company, then they can't also represent the workers. Thus, what could employees do on that site for concerted activities?

I would also guess the plugin only covers prohibited use and does not cover allowed uses (ie does the plugin say you have 1st ammendment rights when visiting Facebook?). I doubt the documentation states that the plugin shall provide users with their rights. It probably says something like the purpose is to provide users with policy or law information related to the site they are visiting so they don't break the law/policy.

Is it even the case that you are legally protected when you inform you coworkers that they have constitutional rights? I would have assumed only informing them of workplace rights specifically would be protected.

Only if it's a concerted effort to improve the workplace and even then it depends on how it is accomplished.

The message merely stated that employees have the right to organize. Without additional context, I don't see how that is a concerted effort to improve the workplace. There would have to be a "unionize to improve health coverage, or wages, etc" type message. Otherwise, I could just stand at my desk all day and tell people as they walk by that they have the right to free speech, to own a gun, and protections from unreasonable searches, etc. It's not a concerted effort to make the workplace better, so it doesn't matter if I'm telling people about their rights (not to mention I would not be doing my job while on the clock).

Using a plugin to communicate that message is likely a subversion of it's intended purpose and would be inappropriate - similar to if she were maintaining the company intranet site and posted a banner with that information. They aren't mediums for individual communication (such as email or chat apps) but rather for company-to-employee messaging and for the sole use of the company. In this case, she misused company-to-employee infrastructure outside of its scope for her own communication purposes.

I really hope you're not making an infrastructure cost argument here. Would be kind of laughable.

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.

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?

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.

I think the far more substantial damage is from Google customers wondering what else the employee or some malicious insider could have done. You can bet that this came up in internal audits and customers' security assessments.

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

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.

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.

> political beliefs

Informing employees of their legal right to organize isn't a political belief.

Would you feel the same way if she added a banner that suggested her fellow employees exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

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.

It was the parent comment's language. I was more taking issue with the "cork board" metaphor