Engineer Says Google Fired Her For Browser Pop-Up About Worker Rights (arstechnica.com) 129
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Another former employee has accused Google of violating federal labor law by firing her for activities related to labor organizing. In a Tuesday blog post, Kathryn Spiers says Google terminated her after she created a browser tool to notify employees of their organizing rights. Spiers says she worked on a Google security team that was focused on how Google employees used Chrome within the company. Part of her job was to "write browser notifications so that my coworkers can be automatically notified of employee guidelines and company policies while they surf the Web."
So when Google hired a consulting company known for its anti-union work, Spiers wrote a notification that would appear whenever Google employees visited the firm's website. The notification stated that "Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities." That's a legal term of art for worker organizing efforts. It also included a link to the worker rights notification mandated by the NLRB settlement. Google responded swiftly and harshly, according to Spiers. She was suspended from her job pending an investigation. Spiers writes that Google officials "dragged me into three separate interrogations with very little warning each time. I was interrogated about separate other organizing activities, and asked (eight times) if I had an intention to disrupt the workplace." She says she wasn't allowed to consult with a lawyer. Two weeks later, on December 13, Spiers was fired. She was told that she had violated Google's policies but couldn't get more details about which policies she had violated. In an email shared with several media outlets, Google executive Royal Hansen said: "[Spiers] misused a security and privacy tool to create a pop-up that was neither about security nor privacy. She did that without authorization from her team or the Security and Privacy Policy Notifier team, and without a business justification. And she used an emergency rapid push to do it."
Hansen argued that the firing had nothing to do with the content of the message. "The decision would have been the same had the pop-up message been on any other subject," he argued.
So when Google hired a consulting company known for its anti-union work, Spiers wrote a notification that would appear whenever Google employees visited the firm's website. The notification stated that "Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities." That's a legal term of art for worker organizing efforts. It also included a link to the worker rights notification mandated by the NLRB settlement. Google responded swiftly and harshly, according to Spiers. She was suspended from her job pending an investigation. Spiers writes that Google officials "dragged me into three separate interrogations with very little warning each time. I was interrogated about separate other organizing activities, and asked (eight times) if I had an intention to disrupt the workplace." She says she wasn't allowed to consult with a lawyer. Two weeks later, on December 13, Spiers was fired. She was told that she had violated Google's policies but couldn't get more details about which policies she had violated. In an email shared with several media outlets, Google executive Royal Hansen said: "[Spiers] misused a security and privacy tool to create a pop-up that was neither about security nor privacy. She did that without authorization from her team or the Security and Privacy Policy Notifier team, and without a business justification. And she used an emergency rapid push to do it."
Hansen argued that the firing had nothing to do with the content of the message. "The decision would have been the same had the pop-up message been on any other subject," he argued.
Harsh, but sounds technically justified (Score:5, Insightful)
"[Spiers] misused a security and privacy tool to create a pop-up that was neither about security nor privacy. She did that without authorization from her team or the Security and Privacy Policy Notifier team, and without a business justification. And she used an emergency rapid push to do it."
Might be a pretext, but it is a pretty good one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Had me going, up until he dropped this:
"The decision would have been the same had the pop-up message been on any other subject," he argued.
Sure it would have... I don't even have to work at or anywhere near Google to smell the BS emanating from that line.
Re:Harsh, but sounds technically justified (Score:4, Insightful)
Emergency - everyone needs to see this joke (Score:4, Insightful)
In somewhat related news:
The employee of the security and privacy team used an emergency rapid push to push a notification to all employees browser to show them a funny cat meme.
She did that without authorization from her team or the Security and Privacy Policy Notifier team, and without a business justification.
Yeah, fired - regardless of the message. It's certainly not an emergency, nor even something within her proper job scope at all, since it's not a security issue. They may or may not have wanted to get rid of her before that, she gave them a darn good reason to do so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There are a handful of jobs where any mistake should lead to immediate dismissal. We can (and are) debating whether this is one of those, but that still illustrates why unions are useful. Otherwise it would be all of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an interesting sentiment. Let's analyz that.
Job x is so important that any mistake leads to immediate dismissal
Humans are by definition fallible
Experience lowers the chance of failure
Your idea basically means that the position is always filled by someone who has not yet made a mistake on the job. But it also means there have been and will be mistakes made. Arguably more so than if you had kept the fallible human.
The question is is this position an important function or a marketing gag.
So... are you a
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't do that?"
"Why not?"
"The last person to do it got sacked."
It's almost as though experience can be gained through observation and training.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is is this position an important function or a marketing gag.
You tell me. Obviously learning from your mistake is not desirable in this position, so using your logic hopefully it is not an important function. Of course if it is not important, then firing is probably excessive.
This wasn't a mistake.... (Score:2)
'Willful misconduct' and 'mistake' are two different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Willful misconduct implies malice.
I'm not seeing malice here, just bad judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Mistakes shouldn't lead to immediate dismissal because mistakes are how people learn. If you are going to refuse to pay for proper tra
Re: Emergency - everyone needs to see this joke (Score:2)
It wasn't a push notification though, it was a pop up that showed up when you visited one specific site.
I bet what happened is that this pop up showed up while the leadership was in the room, probably being sold on the benefits, and it was extremely embarrassing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. Also, she might have gotten in trouble for a cat meme pop-up, and told not to do it again, but probably not fired.
There's really no way to know exactly what would have happened. But Google could have handled this a lot better, giving her a warning instead of firing her. Not to mention it backfired severely due to the Streisand Effect; it's likely no one outside Google would have known about this incident had it just been a talking-to.
Re:Emergency - everyone needs to see this joke (Score:5, Insightful)
If some fraudulently declared an emergency RFC to push a cat to hundred thousand employees, I'd absolutely fire them. They have demonstrated horrible judgement. No question I'd get rid of them before their total lack of judgement costs us much more.
Re: Emergency - everyone needs to see this joke (Score:2)
This. Precisely. Itâ(TM)s what you call a âoeteachable moment âoe. She learned a lot the moment she realized she was being fired for that stunt.
Re:Emergency - everyone needs to see this joke (Score:5, Informative)
The point is it doesn't MATTER what the message was.
If it wasn't a security emergency, she had no business doing it.
It would be illegal for Google to fire her *for talking about specific things*. She was a dumb ass and gave them good reason to fire her regardless of the message. She inappropriately put out a browser notification to all the employees, fraudulently declaring it an emergency. Full stop. Fired.
Re:Emergency - everyone needs to see this joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Something needs to be made clear here.
She declared nothing an emergency. She used a code push method, called 'emergency'. It's about 'when to push code without review' and 'how fast to push code'. It doesn't mean anyone deemed it an 'emergency' to have code pushed that fast.
In this context, emergency just means 'update immediately'. You might get the same for a typo on a popup alert as well.
Google employees were not presented with a banner saying "EMERGENCY! ALERT! READ THIS!".
Further, according to the article:
--
Part of her job was to "write browser notifications so that my coworkers can be automatically notified of employee guidelines and company policies while they surf the Web."
--
I find it interesting the the narrative on /. has quickly changed from 'part of her job' to 'not part of her job' and 'sending emergency alert popups' really quickly.
Now.. is what she said to Arstechnica true? Is what Google said true?
I don't know.. but, seems like some are ignoring presented info.
Re: (Score:3)
Any engineer knows that you are expected to write the delivery mechanism, not make any actual decisions about what message is delivered. That applies in some way to almost any task an engineer is assigned. If you feel yourself making a decision with more than technical implications, you are almost certainly at risk of usurping management prerogative wh
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting the the narrative on /. has quickly changed from 'part of her job' to 'not part of her job'
If you think misusing a system that is normally used as part of your job to do something not related to your job doesn't change that part then it's not Slashdot's narrative that really needs questioning.
I send emails all day. I would absolutely expect to be fired if I sent a company wide email to push an agenda not inline with company policy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. People changing application code without authorization are a serious security risk. And abusing an emergency procedure without business justification or authorization? That is just wrong.
Sure, Google is just an evil old rich company now. Standard of professional conduct still apply. I have no idea why some Google employees seem to not get that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You kind of missed the bit, where that message was exactly exemplified in the action, and demonstrated the lack of security and privacy at Google with regard to employee to employee interactions and was in fact an emergency with regard to employee rights. Actively demonstrated in action by the reaction, the interrogations and firings, for a comment based in reality and law and showing the lack of security an privacy of employees, the minions of evil, the googlites, gloves are clearly off and so will the non
Re: Harsh, but sounds technically justified (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The 'emergency' was, apparently, that the poster needed to bypass the required review/approval channels (urgently?), to avoid the high probability that (his/her) abuse of (his/her) enhanced access privileges would have caused the attempt to be rejected. Failure, of that sort, was not an option: it was replaced, shortly thereafter, by a more egregious failure. (termination)
Re: (Score:2)
"Might be a pretext, but it is a pretty good one."
Everybody who ever programmed a pop-up should be fired.
all her fault (Score:5, Insightful)
she got fired for misuse of company property. I see no problems with google firing her. There are rules even union organizers must follow. sounds like she was asking to be fired.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
she got fired for misuse of company property. I see no problems with google firing her. There are rules even union organizers must follow. sounds like she was asking to be fired.
This is trivial shit that could have been resolved in a single meeting, there was no need to fire her. Google could cooperate with the employees and create an amicable and cooperative relationship with their employee unions but if Google wants to go to war with their own employees then that is their choice and it's a dumb one. Coming down on any effort towards collective bargaining by Google employees is stupid. Nobody ever profited from starting a feud.
Re: (Score:2)
This is trivial shit that could have been resolved in a single meeting, there was no need to fire her.
This is not trivial in any way. It is an astonishing abuse of tools made available to her and shows an exceptional lack of judgment. That alone should get her fired. Such a person has no place in a security team at all. Sure, they could have offered her a job somewhere else or a parachute, but keeping her in her position became impossible after what she did.
Look, I get that the cause is important. I even agree on that. But there are some things that are in no way compatible with standards of professional co
Re: (Score:2)
This is trivial shit that could have been resolved in a single meeting, there was no need to fire her.
This is not trivial in any way. It is an astonishing abuse of tools made available to her and shows an exceptional lack of judgment. That alone should get her fired. Such a person has no place in a security team at all. Sure, they could have offered her a job somewhere else or a parachute, but keeping her in her position became impossible after what she did.
Look, I get that the cause is important. I even agree on that. But there are some things that are in no way compatible with standards of professional conduct and this is one of them. When you are in a somewhat hostile situation with your employer, you have to make damn sure you do not step over the line. What she did was crass.
Google hired a bunch of consultants that specialize in helping employers infringe on their employees constitutionally guaranteed rights to peaceably assemble and voice their grievances. This you consider normal and desirable behavior. Informing your your fellow employees about this and urging them to do something about it, that you consider a crime against billionaire-ism which should be punished severely? What they did was every bit as crass. All she did was react to an outrageous action initiated by Googl
Re: (Score:2)
Google hired a bunch of consultants that specialize in helping employers infringe on their employees constitutionally guaranteed rights
Or did Google hire a group of domain experts to help them assure that while pursuing stakeholder objectives they fully comply with the law and do not illegal deny people their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Sounds to me like Google were doing their best to protect employee rights and spending money to do so. Why are you attacking them for this?
Re: (Score:2)
This is trivial shit that could have been resolved in a single meeting, there was no need to fire her.
This is not trivial in any way. It is an astonishing abuse of tools made available to her and shows an exceptional lack of judgment. That alone should get her fired. Such a person has no place in a security team at all. Sure, they could have offered her a job somewhere else or a parachute, but keeping her in her position became impossible after what she did.
Look, I get that the cause is important. I even agree on that. But there are some things that are in no way compatible with standards of professional conduct and this is one of them. When you are in a somewhat hostile situation with your employer, you have to make damn sure you do not step over the line. What she did was crass.
Google hired a bunch of consultants that specialize in helping employers infringe on their employees constitutionally guaranteed rights to peaceably assemble and voice their grievances. This you consider normal and desirable behavior. Informing your your fellow employees about this and urging them to do something about it, that you consider a crime against billionaire-ism which should be punished severely? What they did was every bit as crass. All she did was react to an outrageous action initiated by Google. She did not start this fire, Google did. The constitution, the federalist papers, the declaration of independence, the rights you are guaranteed in the constitution, all of that stuff means something. For them it means a hindrance in exploiting you to the extent that they would like. For you it is the only thing that stands between you and becoming a hat holding serf bowing to his master. One of the admirable things about America is that it was built on the idea of telling tyrants with delusions of superiority by virtue of them being some kind of god sanctioned aristocracy to go wear their ass as a hat. But that is not something given, and guaranteed, to you by an invisible man in the sky. Those rights are rights you have to grow a backbone and fight for. My hat is off to this lady for growing a backbone and exposing Google for hiring these mercenaries.
Nothing what you say about my stance is true. Would you also think it was acceptable if, say, she had set fire to the building she was working in?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should "grow a backbone and fight for" the rights of the employee to choose to work for a company freely, or to work elsewhere, or not work, if they choose.
The individuals who now seek to rebel would never been hired by the company in the first place, if their greed had not driven them to jump through the long and complex series of hoops standing between the salivating masses and the big cash-box in Mountain View. They all have simple recourse, each and every one: their employment is voluntary,
Re: (Score:2)
Google hired a bunch of consultants that specialize in helping employers infringe on their employees constitutionally guaranteed rights to peaceably assemble and voice their grievances.
That is Google's right and those "constitutionally guaranteed rights to peaceably assemble and voice their grievances" is about citizens and the government, not a company and it's employees.
This you consider normal and desirable behavior.
Seeing as you are so fucking ignorant that you think the first amendment applies to whether companies can hire consultants, it is not surprising that you don't know that it is considered normal and desirable behavior for companies.
Informing your your fellow employees about this and urging them to do something about it, that you consider a crime against billionaire-ism which should be punished severely?
What she did was use her company provided access to a company provided tool in a way agains
Re: (Score:2)
Article says:
Part of her job was to "write browser notifications so that my coworkers can be automatically notified of employee guidelines and company policies while they surf the Web."
So... how is it abuse? The tools were used for their intended purpose, yes? Including showing court mandated info (you read the article, yes?).
And an 'emergency push' in some companies is even used to fix embarrassing typos in code. This is an internal plugin, not even world facing.
If the article is accurate, Google may be
Re: (Score:2)
Caveat lector applies. Is this article is neutral, balanced and well researched, even then she stepped over it. A statement about labor rights is not a link to a Google policy or guideline. Sure, it may be relevant, but it does not fit the scope. It also does not say whether she had decision power over what to include here. The story pretty much said she was only to do alerts about security and privacy and the one she did was neither.
Look, I am all for Google being brought under control. But attacking them
Re: (Score:2)
Part of her job was to "write browser notifications so that my coworkers can be automatically notified of employee guidelines and company policies while they surf the Web."
So... how is it abuse? The tools were used for their intended purpose, yes? Including showing court mandated info (you read the article, yes?).
No, it was not. her job is to write notifications " of employee guidelines and company policies ". She wrote a personal notification about a consulting company the company hired. Why are you a dishonest ass?
Re: (Score:2)
Court mandated info?
Your implying that there was a court order that mandated distribution of information through the channel that she used. That is misleading at best and most likely simply dishonest. If you actually have a court order that says that they are to use an emergency notification system to notify their employees than I will stand corrected when you cite your reference as the context of the entire story will change.
Somehow I don't think that's going to happen and that you are conflating a court o
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there were a court order there are agents of the company would who be authorized to make the court ordered statements. It is highly unlikely that a member of the security team would have been empowered to make such a statement without prior approval.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Legitimately fired (Score:4, Informative)
She was using company resources and engaging in unauthorized activities during her working hours.
There are protections for union organizing, but they don't go that far.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You missed this line in the article "included a link to the worker rights notification mandated by the NLRB settlement." So, this is not even under standard law protections but, an already agreed upon settlement that Google faced for already existing labor and anti-union violations.
For non-US readers: NLRB stands for National Labor Relations Board and is our federal agency in charge of protecting workers' rights.
Re:Legitimately fired (Score:5, Insightful)
An emergency security channel is not for workers rights notification. Ever. It's not an emergency, and it's not security.
When you take a job, you take responsibility for your activities in that job. What you don't do is misuse emergency channels because you don't like a contractor or business partner that's come in. She massively overstepped her bounds by using a resource she was responsible for using in emergencies and sending it out non-emergency information.
Most safety critical endeavors have emergency channels of some kind. All the hospitals I've worked in have an emergency push from IT that's designed for business emergencies (certain escalation levels, outages of vital parts of infrastructure, that kind of thing). If someone used that for pushing a message that should be handled by HR or line management on a day to day basis, they'd be shown the door.
Otherwise if it's accepted and glossed over, the next person who decides their personal issue needs to be pushed out a huge group as an emergency will do just the same. And more. Until everyone uses it and justifies the action as "so and so did it and wasn't fired, why should I be?".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If that was the only channel available to deliver the mandated notice, than that was the tool they had to use. According to the article, the NLRB link appeared when employees where directed to the union-busting contractor's website. A notification was required by the NLRB settlement to counter anti-union propaganda and inform employees what their rights were under the law. Now, ideally, Google would have set up a dedicated team with tools to deliver these notices. From what I have read, Google did not d
Re: (Score:2)
If that was the only channel available to deliver the mandated notice
That was not the only channel.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in "paperless" offices where printing things are restricted to certain business needs.
Re: Legitimately fired (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An emergency security channel is not for workers rights notification. Ever. It's not an emergency, and it's not security.
When you take a job, you take responsibility for your activities in that job. What you don't do is misuse emergency channels because you don't like a contractor or business partner that's come in. She massively overstepped her bounds by using a resource she was responsible for using in emergencies and sending it out non-emergency information.
Most safety critical endeavors have emergency channels of some kind. All the hospitals I've worked in have an emergency push from IT that's designed for business emergencies (certain escalation levels, outages of vital parts of infrastructure, that kind of thing). If someone used that for pushing a message that should be handled by HR or line management on a day to day basis, they'd be shown the door.
Otherwise if it's accepted and glossed over, the next person who decides their personal issue needs to be pushed out a huge group as an emergency will do just the same. And more. Until everyone uses it and justifies the action as "so and so did it and wasn't fired, why should I be?".
Emergency security channel? Are you just making things up? Did you read anything?
She was on a team that would "write browser notifications so that my coworkers can be automatically notified of employee guidelines and company policies while they surf the Web." She wrote one of these browser notifications that explained the law as it applied to her coworkers and "used an emergency rapid push to do it."
Unless Google is in the habit of issuing employee guidelines and company policy that conflict with the law
Re: (Score:2)
Go read the laws and you will see that union organizers can't use company resources, such as paper, copiers, and computer, to engage in organizing activities. What did she do? She used company resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Article says:
Part of her job was to "write browser notifications so that my coworkers can be automatically notified of employee guidelines and company policies while they surf the Web."
Does the 'security team' handle this job too? It sounds like they do. Just because it is the 'security team', it doesn't mean their mandate is highly limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Publicity Seeker (Score:5, Insightful)
Given what Google is saying about what she did, and her own omission of some of those facts... you have to wonder if she was trying to gain publicity by getting fired.
Re: (Score:3)
"fighting" (Score:2)
You make it sound like publicity would be bad
Why? It was her goal.
She's fighting for her job
Not at all, she threw it away on purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect she didn't anticipate being fired for this.
That would've required thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Publicity Seeker (Score:4, Informative)
Google is not a public company (as in owned by the public). It is a private company owned by its shareholders.
There's a not-very-fine line between being cleverly pedantic and just making shit up. Educate yourself. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What a ridiculous and ignorant comment. Google is part of Alphabet, which is a public company owned by its shareholders. Any member of the general public can be a shareholder. I am. You could be (probably). https://robinhood.com/stocks/G... [robinhood.com]
If you want to learn more about public companies by actually owning part of them, feel free to sign up here and we'll both get some free stock in some random company: join.robinhood.com/davide873
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is more about trying to attract negative publicity to Google, to discourage people from wanting to work there. It's succeeding on many levels. Some are incredulous that should worked there and thought she could get away with that, others are incredulous that they would fire her for that. Many/most probably just see the constant array of posts about culture there and thinking "wow, way too much drama for me".
Google is nothing without its engineering staff, so things like this should be taken serio
Re: Publicity Seeker (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Publicity Seeker (Score:3)
Yep (Score:2)
I think it is more about trying to attract negative publicity to Google
That's exactly the publicity I was thinking she was seeking.
Re: (Score:2)
Many/most probably just see the constant array of posts about culture there and thinking "wow, way too much drama for me".
Well, that and the perception Google is a hostile environment for people that have the wrong skin colour, the wrong genitals or a reluctance to publicly enthuse about specific political views.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blatant prejudice: is bigotry directed against the only *unprotected* minority left in this country (white males) now not just allowed, but positively encouraged and rewarded?
Is the concept of ownership, and the right of company management to make and enforce rules for employee conduct within the workplace, and limit the use of corporate resources to activities that further corporate goals, too complex to be grasped in its entirety by certain individuals? Or are rational limitations on employee conduct in
Re: Publicity Seeker (Score:2)
Google: Hot mess (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of your feelings of unionization or not, the workplace gives every indication of being a hot mess.
That's what you get when you go after snowflakes fresh out of second highschool ( at least those with that mindset ).
Or it could be they're just not afraid (Score:4, Insightful)
While I'm on the subject, I wouldn't mind living in a world where everybody I work with isn't constantly on edge afraid of being fired for every little thing. Don't you ever get tired of bowing and scraping all the time? Yeah, you could start your own business, 80% of those fail in 5 years leaving the previous owners in debt up to their eye balls. We've given "job creators" too much power. We're slaves again.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said sir.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're constantly living in fear of being fired, you're a shit worker and probably SHOULD be fired for being incompetent.
That's been my experience anyway.
Re: Or it could be they're just not afraid (Score:2)
Boomers are more sensitive than the kids (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The entire point of incorporating is that if the company fails, its debt does not spill over to the former owners. Debts remain with the company, and if it fails, the creditors are the ones holding the bag, not the company owners.
Banks know this, so usually require a personal guarantor before they'll give you a business loan. But you shouldn't be starting a company as if you'
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind living in a world where everybody I work with isn't constantly on edge afraid of being fired for every little thing.
Get a job at a normal company then. They have clear policies that are easy to comply with, generally involving things like not breaking the law, not disrupting the workplace, not abusing company resources and not being a fuckwit.
Don't assault people in the office. Don't try and impose your religious or political views on them. Don't throw a tantrum when others act less professionally.
No fear of being sacked. Plenty of choices where to work. Lots of opportunity.
If you do want to start a business, do so low s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine there are tech companies out there who have infrastructure tasks that need to actually be reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Regardless of your feelings of unionization or not, the workplace gives every indication of being a hot mess.
That's what you get when you go after snowflakes fresh out of second highschool ( at least those with that mindset ).
Your use of "snowflakes" informs your use of "highschool."
Re: Google: Hot mess (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's not a proper use of the term snowflake then nothing is.
Go with the latter.
Anyone forcing popups on anyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry to say this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry to say this, but Google is right here. I mean Google has turned evil on so many levels, the entire internet is in danger from Google, but we post here the one issue where I have to agree that Google is right and that I'd fire that idiot too?
The firing was justified ... (Score:2, Interesting)
For instance, I had a policy of no firm-wide emails without permission of the firm administrator.
In writing.
Signed by them and me that I had verbally reviewed the policy with them.
In a couple of phone affidavits, the firm prevailed.
She violated policy.
Forget the Rightedness / Wrongedness of her firing (Score:5, Interesting)
Forget the rightedness or wrongedness of her firing.
What I found hair-rasing was this bit right in TFA:
Part of her job was to "write browser notifications so that my coworkers can be automatically notified of employee guidelines and company policies while they surf the Web."
O.O So like a Websense "Uh-uh-UH!!" banner saying Your Blocked, but worse? This is Clippy saying "Are you SURE you want to be reading that article on the history of the Colt Government Model?" Or "Dear Cog, reading labor-organizing materials are against Google Policy"
Anyone who's seen that MLP episode where they introduce Starlight Glimmer knows what this is.. it's propaganda, from the speakers, radio and TV 24/7
You will conform, you will drone, you will do what I say, how I say it.
Wait until Google foists that.. thing.. on us.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like if you visit dropbox.com you get a tiny popup that says please don't share company data on dropbox. It pops up once, you can dismiss it, doesn't do anything beyond that.
Separate from that, I assume corp security already logs every website employees visit, like at most big companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Separate from that, I assume corp security already logs every website employees visit, like at most big companies.
Yep. But this is a literal implementation of the good old trope of the angel on your shoulder.
Where I'm at, no dropbox. No proxy, no icloud, no onedrive, no nuttin's company-approved. I can live with that. The logging and surveillance, I've *ran* it at places, but not right now. But I know it's there.
It's things like Veriato that I find far more distasteful than the angel on my shoulder busybody. Google it if you don't know what it is. Evil from a sysadmin perspective (finicky, cranky, like an old it
Re: (Score:2)
things like Veriato
Prior to the last few years (when ubiquitous worldwide 'net access has greatly increased electronic attacks) insider fraud was at least as much, often more than external fraud.
That insider fraud hasn't gone anyway. It would be irresponsible to ignore the threat, silly not to take measures to prevent and mitigate it.
So something like Veriato isn't inherently sinister, although yes, it could well be misused.
Sounds like GoogleTube (Score:2)
She was told that she had violated Google's policies but couldn't get more details about which policies she had violated.
I suppose google does this to their own as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you're talking about Youtube. It applies even better to Facebook.
Targeted advertising has teeth... (Score:2)
In the old days, it could have truly been a random pop-up. These days, it's more likely it was targeted to her based on browsing habits. If so, it's hard to have much of a case...
How Slashdot changed.... (Score:2)
If this was any other company, I am sure attitude here would be totally different.
Especially since her team lead (still in company) approved and told this kind of behavior is something normal at company.
This was internally showing popup and, to whomever read more than "Google" it is obviously part of their internal culture or whatever.
Disclaimer: I do not seek a Google job. Many others here probably do or will at some time :)
funny.. (Score:2)
Another millennial dumbass (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm bewildered that Google felt the need to publicly comment on this.
Why the fuck wouldn't they say, "Yes, we're aware of the allegations. However they pertain to the employment of a specific individual and for confidentiality and privacy reasons we will not be discussing this with you."
Maybe I'm just used to working with professional organisations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that she didn't just do security, she was on a team that would "write browser notifications so that my coworkers can be automatically notified of employee guidelines and company policies while they surf the Web." Pointing out the how the law applies to Google employees was something that she did as part of her assigned duties. She was actually doing her job, although the emergency push was probably intentionally used to avoid management seeing it.