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