
Another Fired Google Employee Claims They Were Targeted for Labor Organizing - qips
https://onezero.medium.com/another-fired-google-employee-claims-they-were-targeted-for-labor-organizing-def8ddb415a9
======
Vaslo
If you go to her original post linked in the article, there is an interesting
and fairly detailed account of what happened from the other side’s view in the
comments. That view is much more focused on the fact that she broke protocol
for installing the notification just because she wanted to, and if everyone
did the same thing, there would be some chaos.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
It's hard for me to believe that anyone doesn't understand that, though. Of
course there would be chaos if people were allowed to create popup windows to
communicate whatever they want. That ought to be clear as soon as you read
that she created the popup and Google didn't want her to.

~~~
utopian3
Agreed. Imagine if everyone was allowed to abuse their positions. After years
of working in enterprises, I know many that would create popups about the
silliest things. The Security VP quoted in the article stated that she abused
a security tool, and I agree.

~~~
salawat
>Imagine if everyone was allowed to abuse their positions.

So it's okay if some people are allowed to abuse their positions by firing
someone who essentially added a little footnote on one website in particular
with a reminder as to what Federal law actually dictates?

That's my issue with that logic. We are all citizens first. Corporate
shenanigans should never undermine civil rights. The right to organize and to
do so at work, is protected, just as the right of a corporation to spew as
much anti-unionization propaganda is protected. Period.

The employer will find any other excuse besides the blatantly illegal thing on
which to pin the rationale for the firing. They just want to reap the benefit
of the outcome (one less active organizer) without the hassle of being called
to the carpet for a clear violation of labor law. That's how it works. It's
all about how to get what you want while having an out to fall back on when
someone calls you out. This is why legal departments exist. To ensure a jury
in the event of getting called out will have to slog through every conceivable
distraction before the company can be held accountable for their actions.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
She has the legal right to do union organizing at work, but she doesn't have
the right to subvert the company's tools to do it. The idea that misbehavior
becomes okay once you say "well I was organizing a union" seems incredibly
toxic to me, and fundamentally incompatible with the kinds of freedoms
software developers generally enjoy. If Spiers gets her way, and Google is
legally barred from expecting line staff to use their powers responsibly, that
just means Google will start requiring manager approval for everything
potentially disruptive.

------
kccqzy
Mandatory pop ups are mandatory pop ups; no matter how useful or relevant the
message is, it doesn't mask the fact that it's annoying and disrespects the
user of the browser. No one would be happy to receive a pop up window _every
time_ they visit a site.

~~~
sp332
That was literally her job.
[https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1207003914718998528](https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1207003914718998528)

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I don't think that really makes sense. If someone edited build tooling to
print a labor notice after every compilation, "no it's my job to manage that
build tool" would be a really dumb defense.

~~~
sp332
kccqzy was complaining about the mandatory popup.

------
tyingq
A direct post from the fired worker.
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/17/google...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/17/google-
workers-rights-coding-chrome-unions)

Also, her on Twitter, includes screenshots of the "pop up"
[https://twitter.com/eiais/status/1206937188409044993](https://twitter.com/eiais/status/1206937188409044993)

------
tyingq
It's somewhat curious to me that neither she not Google are spelling out
exactly what was changed in the code.

The "policy notifier" existed already as an internal use Chrome plugin. It
apparently had a list of sites that would merit it popping a policy reminder.

So, she clearly mapped a policy reminder for that website. But, elsewhere in
this thread
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21961447](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21961447))
it's suggested that she also made a special rule to show it every time for
that site, where other sites would only show it on first visit.

~~~
sp332
Google claims that she was fired for violating security policies, not for
being annoying. So neither side is claiming that was the reason.

~~~
tyingq
They claimed change management policy as a reason, so I was curious if any
code actually changed.

------
sp332
This is another article about Kathryn Spiers, the fifth person recently to
claim that Google fired them for organizing. Earlier _ahem_ spirited
discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21813619](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21813619)

------
blondin
too soon to start putting 2019 on titles?

