Engineer says Google fired her for notifying co-workers of right to organize
nbcnews.com
nbcnews.com
So basically, the Google employee added arbitrary javascript to an internal chrome extension used by Google employees that triggered a popup when employees visited a specific website.
And Google fires her with the reasoning:
> “We dismissed an employee who abused privileged access to modify an internal security tool,” a Google spokeswoman said in a statement, adding that it was “a serious violation.”
I'm not at all opposed to Google employees organizing. But injecting javascript into an employer's internal chrome extension does seem like something that warrants some type of action by Google in response...
That sounds like code review approvals, not actual project/management approval of the 'feature'.
We have the same: Cannot commit any code change unless 2 other team members have reviewed it. That has nothing to do with having actual project/management approval for the change.
> Spiers' pop-up message was inserted into a tool that notifies employees of privacy and security concerns about using non-Google tools and services, like warning employees not to upload proprietary information to Dropbox, Spiers said. The tool is managed by the platform security team, for which Spiers worked for almost two years as a security engineer.
So, seems like the bulletin was pretty far outside the intended function and should have required more than a code review. I wonder what will happen to the people who accepted the patch?
I’m surprised how many people are jumping through hoops to defend this sort of thing.
Again with the jumping through hoops...
The application maybe, depending on how you set it up. Not the website itself.
I think a reasonable reaction would be to remove the message from the extension, put in place a better review process, better training and possibly some minor negative comments at review time.
Yes I do. 100%.
>put in place a better review process,
This is your solution? The process was intentionally lax so that you wouldn't have too much red-tape when soliciting contributions. The assumption was that this wouldn't be abused by your Security engineers(!!). Your solution to this is to make the process more onerous because one individual couldn't behave like an adult? How about you keep the process as is and you fire the individual who couldn't differentiate activism from security work.
No, but I think they'd similarly be fired if they had written an anti-union popup. (Indeed, if someone wrote an anti-union popup and weren't fired for it, I expect that would itself have made the news as a "Google hates unions" story.)
Yes, immediately and for cause. Internal business apps at large companies are not your personal playground.
Edit: Her warning literally said: "Do not violate NLRB notice. Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities." (see screenshot in article, bottom right.) This is something that Google is already obligated to acknowledge under labor law. They're simply shooting the messenger.
I don't really see how Google could be in the right here though. If they have an internal program for creating alerts/extensions for specific websites, and Spiers followed the normal procedure for adding such an extension, there doesn't seem to be a problem. The only problem is Google being anti-union, and retaliating against someone for quietly promoting unions in line with existing policies seems a lot like illegal retaliation.
I have a poster here in my home office that was mailed to me by my employer's HR department. It advises me of all my rights under state and federal labor laws: equal opportunity, workplace safety, minimum wage, etc. In my mind, it is not at all inappropriate to advise employees of their rights. In fact, the only reason I have this poster is because state and federal labor laws require such notices. Those laws and those requirements are written in the blood of all the serfs, children, and laborers who couldn't earn living wages or who were forced to work at a tender age or who were injured due to corporate malfeasance. The freedom of association is likewise recognized as a right inherent to all people, and its protections were likewise bought with blood. We should all be reminded of our rights and the reasons we safeguard them. An employer who tries to interfere with its employees' freedom of association only seeks to exploit them. If it treated its employees well, it wouldn't need to worry about organized labor—and its employees wouldn't need to organize in the first place.
The fact that the message was about employee labor rights means that Google might be in a precarious legal position
I can't see how google is in the wrong. Unless google allows anyone to change this extension for personal reasons and they only flagged her. Could someone change it to let everyone know they are selling cookies or accepting donations to their church.
It's incredibly obvious this was a violation of her fiduciary duty.
I don't see how Google isn't in the right here. The approval process for this security tool was designed to minimize red-tape and maximize contributions because the goal was security, and the assumption was that the lax process wouldn't be abused. The clear intent of the tool is not to push the political agenda. It was there to warn about security-related issues while browsing. She abused the process and deserved to be reprimanded.
Here's an example .. like most companies we have a wiki that anybody can edit. The intent is to get contributions from everybody around product-related issues (e.g. debugging a particular problem, how to configure the product for a specific use-case). Nobody polices usage of this wiki, and the wiki has no specific access controls to bar any individual from editing any page. Certainly though if someone started putting in notes at the top of some of the pages to push a political agenda that would be an abuse of the process, wouldn't you say?
Just to be clear: the message she communicated wasn't about some divisive social issue, it was warning employees to not break federal labor law.
Then be clear. We both know what she was doing, why be obtuse?
This was an activist power-play. Every article that is written about this lists the action as activism. Again, why pretend otherwise?
But if you want more clarification: it's not her job as a SECURITY ENGINEER to send warnings about federal statue compliance through a security tool. I also have yet to have anybody demonstrate that Google was breaking any federal law, and I highly doubt they would. They have entire departments that deal with legal complience.
And you linked to a labour consulting company website, which I take is where this actvist decided to helpfully issue threats to senior management through the security tool she was tasked with maintaining so they think twice about contracting them.
This is a such a clear violation on her part that I am flabbergasted that you would actually defend the move. She deserved to be fired for her arrogant stunt. You don't get to dictate compliance policy (as an early 20-something tech-sister, who knows nothing) to a company employing 50,000 people.
When you use the words like activist and activism you evoke images of people pushing for new things that are politically decisive in some way.
The message she got fired over was expressed pretty settled interpretation of federal labor law that Google recently agreed to disseminate. It's like calling it an "activist power play" to remind the government of the First Amendment when if it tried to censor something or other. It's a stretch.
If anyone's being activist, it's the people who are trying to treat the expression of those rights as some kind of inappropriate activism.
> I also have yet to have anybody demonstrate that Google was breaking any federal law, and I highly doubt they would. They have entire departments that deal with legal complience.
Why do you "highly doubt" Google would break the law? In the past they've broken federal law in pretty obvious ways over labor practices.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo...
They've also been forced to display the list of rights in question as part of a settlement with the NLRB:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/13/googles-settlement-on-speech...
Apparently that list is what the notification in question linked to.
> And you linked to a labour consulting company website, which I take is where this actvist decided to helpfully issue threats to senior management through the security tool she was tasked with maintaining so they think twice about contracting them.
I linked to a screenshot of the message we're actually discussing. You can see the so-called "threat" yourself:
> go/nlrbnotice Policy
> Do not violate go/nlrbnotice. Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.
> View Policy
> This is a such a clear violation on her part that I am flabbergasted that you would actually defend the move.
Black people sitting at lunch counters was once "such a clear violation" of corporate policy, too, but it was pretty defensible, no? Sometimes you have to take a broader view of something than whether it violated policy or not.
I'm not saying this action is fully equivalent to a lunch-counter sit-in, however I do think Google's reaction here was unsupportably harsh. The worst they should have done was issue a reprimand. I'm also "flabbergasted" by the over-the-top condemnation of this engineer's actions.
Because that's what you are when you co-opt an internal tool to put up messaging over the web page of the consulting group that works with your employer. She knew what she was doing. She knew it was a political statement. She may even have even wanted to be martyred.
>The message she got fired over was expressed pretty settled interpretation of federal labor law.
She didn't get fired for her message even though you're trying to spin it that way. The medium matters here. You don't get to co-opt internal tools to post your interpretation of federal labor law, or to send a message to the management team, or whatever else her motivations were. That's why she got fired.
>What are you talking about? I linked to a screenshot of the message we're actually discussing. You can see the so called "threat" yourself:
I know exactly what she did. She made a political statement about a labour consulting group (that they can or do infringe on federal law) and that was directed at least partly at executive management (who else is going to work with IRI Consultants and browse their page). This was a purposeful activist power-play.
The gaslighting that you're engaging in is offputting. This kind of thing would have gotten her fired from pretty much every company in the country and for good reason - she's untrustworthy and cannot seperate her job as a Security Engineer from her activism, and I'm sorry you can't see that.
>Black people sitting at lunch counters was once "such a clear violation" of corporate policy, too, but it was pretty defensible, no?
She's not a black person during Jim Crow era. She's not oppressed, and it's offputing that you would even make that comparison. She's a bay-area engineer who was making a very good salary and betrayed the trust that her position entitled her to.
>I'm not saying this action is fully equivalent to a lunch-counter sit-in,
I hope not because that would be insane.
>The worst they should have done was issue a reprimand.
That's your opinion. I think she deserved termination. You don't want this kind of person on your security team. You cannot trust her to seperate activism from work.
And it is interesting that you can claim that she did nothing wrong, and at the same time understand why she should be reprimended.
> This kind of thing would have gotten her fired from pretty much every company in the country and for good reason - she's untrustworthy and cannot seperate her job as a Security Engineer from her activism, and I'm sorry you can't see that.
What Google-specific support do you have for this, than post-hoc rationalizations based on her firing? Every indication I've seen has told me that Google has developed a very unique corporate culture, which makes inferences from "every company in the country" suspect.
I can definitely see your position (which approximately seems to be: a worker's primary moral obligation is to serve his employers to their satisfaction during his employment. Assertion of his own rights on work time with work resources is a severe moral violation as it puts the workers' interest above the employers'.), I just disagree.
> She's not a black person during Jim Crow era. She's not oppressed, and it's offputing that you would even make that comparison. She's a bay-area engineer who was making a very good salary and betrayed the trust that her position entitled her to.
I'd say she is oppressed, just in a different, less-severe way than black people during the Jim Crow era.
> And it is interesting that you can claim that she did nothing wrong, and at the same time understand why she should be reprimended.
Really? I thought it was pretty widely understood that morality and law are not the same. You can have immoral things that are legal, and moral things that are illegal. Corporate policy is a weak kind of law that has even less claim to respect than federal and state law.
That's not post-hoc rationalization. That's the stated reason. That's also clearly the reason if you take an inventory of the facts on hand.
>Every indication I've seen has told me that Google has developed a very unique corporate culture
Yes, "unique" just like every snowflake is unique. And "Unique corporate culture" doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, as James Damore found out. And yes, her actions (not anybody elses) led to her termination, as would have been the case in every other company.
>I can definitely see your position (which approximately seems to be: a worker's primary moral obligation is to serve his employers to their satisfaction during his employment. Assertion of his own rights on work time with work resources is a severe moral violation as it puts the workers' interest above the employers'.)
That's not my position and I don't appreciate this distortion.
And no, she's not a moral arbiter of Google. She doesn't have the right to assert her interpretation of law and morality on the entire corporation. Maybe she thinks she was doing a moral action (though I would argue her action is narcissim and attention-seeking), but Google employs tens of thousands of people across the world, with different religions and politics and beliefs. You don't get to co-opt internal tools to advocate for Jesus Christ as your saviour (and what could be more moral than saving people from eternal damnation) just because you think that's the moral action.
>I'd say she is oppressed, just in a different, less-severe way than black people during the Jim Crow era.
Talk about an understatement of the century. She's as much oppressed as a grounded teenager, which, you're right, on the oppression scale is "less-severe way than black people during the Jim Crow era".
The stated reason can obviously be a post-hoc rationalization. It's entirely possible that she crossed a line her employer drew after the fact.
> That's not my position and I don't appreciate this distortion.
Well, if you could clarify, that would be great. It's clear to me that there's some moral component to your position, given your language:
>>> she's untrustworthy
>>> [she] betrayed the trust that her position entitled her to.
> She doesn't have the right to assert her interpretation of law and morality on the entire corporation.
(I should note that it's not her interpretation, it is the law.)
> I would argue her action is narcissim and attention-seeking
I does sound like you feel that her overriding moral obligation was to serve her employers to their satisfaction, and that it was a strong moral violation to take a fairly anodyne action that caused her employers some discomfort. No money was lost, no security systems breached, no confidential data exposed. The only thing that happened was a few people saw a required legal notice that her employers would rather have people forget about.
If Google allows any team member to freely push changes without formal change request, it has to be implied that changes must comply with the scope of the project, company policies, professional standards, etc.
In any case, my point would stand: It does not sound like she had actual project/management approval.
To play devil's advocate, the 'approval' she got does not absolve her (if we suppose that she did something wrong), it just means that the coworkers who approved the change are also in hot water.
I don't know why there is this pervasive desire to strangle developers. This is a pretty recent phenomena in my opinion and certainly nothing close to a requirement to develop great software.
If I were an employee at Google, actions such as this would let me seriously consider to look for other work. The requirement for the code review for internal tools already seems awefully restrictive.
Give employees power / freedom and fire fast if you do stupid things.
Stricter regulations/ checks so they cannot mess up hard in the first place. At the cost of slower pace and less risks taken.
Google has historically been the former. And it comes with people doing stupid things and getting fired. Just the world is not used for huge companies to keep operating in such mode.
I applaud Google for keeping being open and not enforcing processes. The rest of the world will grow up eventually.
But I fail to see how the employee in question did something that justifies firing her. Maybe there are other factors involved, but I certainly think that people opting for getting rid of her only on the basis of publicly available information shouldn't have any form of responsibility for staff to be honest.
How on earth is that restrictive? Having code review for any important code should be normal at any company. Just because the tool is internal doesn't mean it's trivial and any engineer (especially a 21-year-old: how is she even an employee and not an intern at that age?) should be able to merge anything in willy-nilly.
So to answer your inane question, she wouldn't be an employee because she's not old enough to have graduated college yet. And that's just to get a BS degree; lots of engineers these days (esp. at top-tier companies like Google) get an MS degree before they enter the workforce full-time.
I'm rather appalled that I have to spell this out here on this forum.
Yeah. I don't think so. The tool in question is an internal security tool, not a communication tool to get her message out. The two engineers who signed off on this should also be reprimanded. This is a clear abuse of a process meant to take in security-related contributions without too much red-tape.
And you want a separation of concerns here. You don't want a tool created for security to push the political agenda of some activists.
And she literally says the only reason for her change was because she wanted to get the word out because posters aren't effective enough: "Spiers told NBC News that she was inspired to create a digital notification because “a poster in the cafeteria is not the best way of reaching the majority of Googlers.”" ... yeah. Sorry posters aren't effective enough for you, you can't do that.
Or would she have received a pat on the back, given that she went through the Standard Procedure for adding a feature to the browser plug-in?
i.e. if you work on a payment system, add you add code to siphon sub-cent rounding "errors" to a "settlement" account, said code may pass review (because it looks legit to code reviewers), but I bet management would be pissed at the change if not prior approved.
Putting this into an internal tool does seem unprofessional in my opinion. Why bite the hand that feeds you?
Why the struggle, why the strain? Why make trouble, why make scenes? Why go against the grain, why swim upstream? It ain't, it ain't, it ain't no use You're bound, you're bound, you're bound to lose What's done, what's done, what's done is done That's the way the river runs
So why get wet? Why break a sweat? Why waste your precious breath? Why beat your handsome brow? Nothing changes, nothing changes, nothing changes Anyhow
In response to it: You can't apply this to everything, you need to pick you battles. There might be better means to an end.
> Unionising is a pretty good means to improve your working conditions though.
Google has some of the best, if not the best working conditions out of nearly any job for the rank and file employee.
It appears to be from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadestown_(musical)
It looks like it's sung in the voice of the Fates from Greek mythology.
I would say that better you would ask , was this the right time to bite the hand? Because there are good reasons to do it, like if uber self driving cars developers would have done something instead of disabling safety features and lick the hand that feeds them.
And portrays that Google management is endorsing this instead of a grassroots poster.
IMHO this is at minimum a misrepresentation case. And I would be pretty pissed if it was used for Earth day. Don't mess around with crying wolf.
Working for Google.
It's warning of a legal obligation. Is that not enough of an "endorsement"? And it only pops up if you visit the website of a consulting firm that some say has breached these obligations in the past. It's hard to think of a better way of targeting this warning.
I know somehow who got fired from Google for taking a half gallon on milk home, because it was late and he didn't feel like swinging by the grocery store.
Also, this seems like it is policy rather than an isolated incident. I'd suggest fixing it by maybe correcting people up the food chain. Google is a long way away from their don't be evil motto when they were young, naive, and producing lots of cool new products and services because they weren't held back by corporate idiotism and political correctness.
So no, she wouldn't have "added arbitrary JavaScript". She would've added an additional message and triggering website to an existing script.
Because of that most companies over time become very strict and unforgiving.
> Spiers told NBC News that she was inspired to create a digital notification because “a poster in the cafeteria is not the best way of reaching the majority of Googlers.”
> The message included a link to a statement that the NLRB required the company to post for employees following the settlement of a complaint that was filed against Google in 2016.
> Spiers, 21, said she went through the standard approval process, which requires two co-workers to greenlight changes, before updating the Chrome browser extension. Another source at Google familiar with the update approval process confirmed to NBC news that those two approvals are standard practice for a browser extension update.
Any engineer with the freedom to make changes without manager approval knows that adding features or making major changes isn't not the sort of thing you just do on your own. You'd go through another process for that.
So I don't buy this argument at all. This was a knowing violation. That does not, however, mean that they punishment was warranted, I don't think that it was.
To say that it wasn't the union overtones that got her fired is naive.
Should she have done it? No, absolutely not. Not like that anyway. Should she have been reprimanded? Yes definitely. Should she have been fired? I don’t think so personally, not for a first time mistake at least (we don’t know if she did other things previously or not, of course)
On Google.com if you present a Vivaldi user agent and arrive via a redirect, the search text box will be misaligned
On Google Docs if you present a Vivaldi user agent you will receive a warning
Security tools, and especially extensions that run with full browser access, are in an exceptionally trusted position. Employees who can inject code into arbitrary websites can in effect get administrator access to anything in the company, as Google is run almost entirely off of web apps of various kinds. It's actually hard to get more trusted than that: without a doubt this woman effectively had a greater level of access than Sundar Pichai or other senior executives.
If there's one thing you don't screw around with in any firm, its mis-using administrator access. Mis-use here means doing things that aren't related to your job description. You just don't do it! What she did would be like a logs engineer deleting internal access logs to cover up activity by political allies, or a GMail engineer spying on conversations between executives. It's complete madness to think you can abuse such a high level of trust in such a direct way and get away with it!
I used to have a certain type of Google account system administrator access. The way I used it was watched very closely, and deservedly so. Eventually it was removed because Google built better security systems that could restrict employee access more, and in my team were happy about this (for one, it meant we were less likely to be hacking targets). The idea of anyone abusing this sort of access for political reasons was unthinkable.
I honestly can't believe people here are defending this kind of behaviour. If Googlers feel it's OK to abuse root@chrome for unionisation related purposes, what else might they start doing? What about people perceived as 'bad'? Google needs to explain what happened here pronto, because apparently she was able to get this change through code review? So she had internal allies who approved her abuse of access? That is tremendously worrying.
Google is very rapidly burning the trust it requires for its business models to function. How can anyone trust the firm when 21 year old activists are able to manipulate Chrome for political causes and Google's own security procedures are unable to stop them?
I would not characterize this as evidence that this person is a security risk. It takes existing culture of google, including past incidents like changing the default desktop wallpaper for a protest that was happening, etc.
Also if this is true it is totally insane. Sounds like intimidation tactics to stop exactly what the pop-up warned against.
> They also 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. The interrogations were extremely aggressive and illegal. They wouldn’t let me consult with anyone, including a lawyer, and relentlessly pressured me to incriminate myself and any coworkers I had talked to about exercising my rights at work.
Modifying the behaviour of people's web browsers isn't a channel intended for employees to push personal messages to each other and this should have been really obvious to her. She and her colleagues were trusted with a tremendous amount of power which could be readily abused (see my other comment on this thread), and the expectation was clear that it'd be used only within the bounds of what her management asked her to do, namely corporate security.
When she went outside those bounds and started using her immense technical privileges in ad-hoc ways, and (worse) making arguments like "I got a colleague to approve a code review so it was OK" she gave an extremely clear demonstration that management simply couldn't trust her. It's not about unionisation. It's about someone with the power to steal cookies from her own colleagues going rogue and deciding her own personal political priorities matter more than company policies she had agreed to follow.
You could tell them to stop instead of firing them after the first offense.
This was absolutely off limits.
All they received was a small rebuke. In fact, management praised the team for the end result of decimating IE6 usage, as intended.
Then one of the architects of the scheme blogged about it in retrospect years later.
> If this went at all wrong, a number of us would surely be fired.
What? Granted, I've only worked for large businesses but that would be grounds for immediate termination at any company I've ever worked at.
> As a security engineer who worked on the Chrome browser’s use within Google, Spiers wrote browser notifications so that employees could be automatically notified of the company’s policies and guidelines as they browse the internet. Spiers said that engineers regularly implement such code changes to make their jobs easier and share personal interests.
But programming a popup to appear over a union busting law firm website with a message that such and such law exists was not.
> Spiers wrote a few lines of code that created a pop-up message asserting Google employees’ labor rights whenever her co-workers visited the consulting firm’s website or Google’s community guidelines. The message reads: "Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities." The pop-up would have been visible to anyone at Google. > https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jgexe8/google-fired-an-en...
I don't understand why two people sign off changes if they assume the person making the changes isn't going to make errors or be "malicious". And I'm not sure why two people sign off changes instead of just one. There's a well understood problem when you have more than one person inspecting product - they both assume the other person is competent and will catch anything they've missed, and they each do a lighter inspection.
Because more eyes catch more bugs. I work in a time like this where we have 2 or even 3 people review stuff; it's extremely common for one engineer to miss stuff that another one catches. It's particularly notable I think with junior vs. senior engineers: I think you really need at least one senior engineer reviewing everything before a merge, but you don't want to keep junior engineers out of the process because then they'll never learn. With trivial tickets, however, you can relax this rule and just have one person review before a merge.
But for product inspection we have pretty good evidence, from millions of human hours of factory work, that it's a bit more complicated.
X makes a widget, and sends it for inspection by Y and Z. Y has a look, but assumes Z will catch anything that Y misses. But Z also assumes that Y will catch anything that Z misses.
You end up with two people doing a superficial inspection and missing problems.
Of course, that's only if they're doing the same inspection twice. If they have different and clearly defined inspection roles the two inspector problem doesn't apply.
In my experience, you more often get the other phenomena where all reviewers (and some other people who get automatically CC'd) dogpile the review and you potentially have too many comments. Or someone ignores the review and it never gets approved. Cursory reviews were basically never a problem.
The standard for whether a company is legally allowed to fire an employee for organizing isn't whether their action is in "good faith", but whether their action is concerted. The fact that it passed code review is therefore critical evidence.
The law already covers situations like this, in terms of whether or not employees are allowed to use the internal technology tools of their employers in order to organize.
With that said, the organization and orchestration problem for movements is a very real problem (finding the correct people and disseminating information). This is something businesses are well aware of and they use that to their advantage.
Change the words in the message, and I can't imagine it being anything but a reprimand, at worst. This is a message to other employees that organizing gets you fired.
Prefixing this by saying I'm not making an assumption about who you're siding with, but offering my opinion on the argument you're using.
> The standard approval process sounds like most merge review processes on any engineering team. There's a sort of assumed good-faith for this process. The fact that 2 coworkers were fine with your change doesn't mean it was made in good-faith and was within the bounds of normal types of changes.
Other people have already argued about whether what she added to the extension is in line with the purpose of the extension and whether it was within her purview.
Regardless of that, I would like to point out that we're not hearing that these two coworkers -- or anyone else involved in the process -- have been fired. Only Spiers. If the concern is really about the security and the trust, why is one person singled out?
That said, it seems kind of strange, if this was a better way to post something than the cafeteria, that she added it to the union buster's site, though. Wouldn't only execs and management hiring the union busters go there? Seems like it was a way to argue back with the execs who hired the union busters by essentially defacing the union busters site?
She probably pissed off a high level exec who hired the union busters in the first place and was fired by their order. She was making all the management who visited their site see her notice, and some management obviously support the union busters since they hired them in the first place...
In this particular case, does Google consistently apply the stated reasoning? Google says it does, the engineer says they don't. Do we just trust Google despite a very long history of corporations taking illegal or unacceptable actions against employees engaging in similar actions, or do we let it go before a court to be decided?
If you're speeding over the limit and the cops pull you over, you still deserve the fine, simply because that's the law. This doesn't mean that the cops themselves are innocent of any wrongdoing, but the two issues are separate.
And of course civil disobedience can be justified if the law or its application are unjust, but using it as an excuse after the fact is lame.
If you can prove it isn't being applied fairly it can result in rewards that more than cancel out any such penalty. Such discrimination cases can be hard to prove but can result in significant rewards magnitudes greater than the ticket fine.
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.
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.
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...
It's not a free for all space to put 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.
I'm actually ignorant on the specific time/place/manner of protection for organizing. Can you educate me?
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...
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.
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.
It also weaponizes the internal browser to advocate for political causes.
It shows such stunningly bad judgement that they are entirely justified in firing her.
In the same way, I know I have a right to vote, but I definitely felt it was annoying when I had a coworker who would regularly spam us to remind us to vote. It's not necessarily Political, but it's advocacy. I only have so much mental bandwidth - hijacking it to have my read a message of your choosing is cause advocacy whether I agree with it or not.
Advocating a certain level of involvement/mindfulness of specific issues is political - Most of the difference between folks in the same party/ideology is just in if they think about or prioritize certain issues over others. Do you care more about Union Rights or the Environment? International Wars or domestic policing? Pushing people towards one over the other is political even if they already agree with you on the underlying issue.
That said, if I was taking a world history class, and my teacher spent the whole class for a year exclusively going over US war atrocities and rights abuses, I think you could argue that would be political, even if it was all factual and correct. They chose to present a set of facts that leads people towards a specific ideology and worldview that influences how they observe politics and the government.
Telling people truths can still be political. Having a popup at work, or a chat message, that informed me of a political candidate's policy positions would be "telling people facts about reality they should know", but is definitely political advocacy. Just because that candidate happens to be in favor of workers rights, or union power, or parental leave, doesn't mean that it's now a relevant work topic.
In a perfect world, everyone would know all their rights and all the laws that are relevant to them, but most people don't. Trying to impose that I take time at work to inform myself about them is thus innately political advocacy. That's not to say that it's a bad thing - I appreciate folks who remind people to vote/registration deadlines, or post informative information about relevant local laws, but it doesn't mean it's not political advocacy to do so when you're doing it in a targeted manner.
It's possible to both think that what this person did was political activism, and to believe that it probably shouldn't have been punished this hard.
1. A list of one website on which to notify
2. The static content to display on that website in a predefined (provided by the browser) popup context.
While I grant what you're saying is possible given the dev's access rights, it's not required for the functionality described in the article.
Even so much as organizing could be viewed as a threat by Google’s management.
But that doesn't mean it was OK. It just means the co-workers might have greenlit it without taking a close look, or were misled as to what they were approving, or that they were approving it because the code was correct technically, and approval isn't about judging the code's product purpose.
If this tool was NOT meant to be used as the equivalent of "posters on the wall" and she modified it, regardless of co-worker code approval, it DOES seem to be an abuse of privileges.
If her manager had given her the OK, then she's in the right. Otherwise, I have a hard time seeing how this isn't abuse of one's position.
"Part of my 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"
If this is true and her job is literally to create javascript notifications of company policy, then I think it's entirely reasonable what she did considering it IS company policy (well, law really) that you have a right to organize.
Link to the popup: https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg
But in this case it appears to be a link to an internal notice.
[0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-17/another-g...
So if I hire you to email out my monthly company statement it’s reasonable that you add some of your own thoughts to said email.
If, indeed, this was not in the company policy, and it is indeed the employee's opinion, then yes, termination is apt.
It's was her personal judgment that it should be posted in a chrome add-on rather than only by poster like is typical in most workplaces. But assuming her job was to maintain an add-on that informs employees of company policy, and assuming her job typically lets her act with personal judgment, yeah I think that's perfectly reasonable
In fact, you can find further support of her action from the NLRB FAQ:
https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/faq/elections/are-there-any-c...
"The employer is also required to distribute the notice electronically to unit employees if it customarily communicates with employees in the unit electronically, either by email, by posting on an employer intranet site, or both"
Again, it's her judgment to add the notification (which links to the Google intranet posting of the NLRB poster), but considering that Google customarily informs employees of policy via notifications in this add-on, and she is in charge of maintaining said add-on, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable judgment to add this notification
Those are well defined roles. Specially in a company of that size.
She didn’t just make a judgement call. She went way outside her role imo.
She claims she's in a role to make judgment calls on adding content - and that this was reinforced by her previous stellar performance reviews, which made her confident in her judgment - but I don't personally have enough info to know if that's the truth. She very well could be stretching the truth that maybe every other addition she's made was under the direction of HR or product, in which case she is definitely out of line here - it would take the input of a Googler on her team to know for sure.
That having been said, this would still be considered an unusual call to have made. But had I been on the receiving end of this message, I suspect I'd have found it annoying unless she remembered to suppress it after first display---if she had, I wouldn't have been bothered by it.
That's not so much a matter of opinion as of what her role is, exactly. I don't know. Do you?
Whether or not it was her job has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it was protected activity.
While they're at it, they should stop bending (and probably breaking) export controls regarding China, and stop doing immoral DoD and ICE projects.
And heck, why not implement a process by which all private contracts are approved by a company-wide vote? Including the guy that sweeps the floor. Oh, afraid that employees will leak the details of the project? There's always NDAs, but if you are so concerned about leaks, maybe that's not a project you should be doing then.
Wait, what? How would this work? Who would take a Google bid seriously if, after awarding them the contract, they turn around and have to ask the employee population for permission to proceed?
The big issue I see with a lot of discussion around this issue is not a lot of thought is put into the practicality of running a large business concern. Stuff that works when it's two guys and a server does not (can not) fly when you have a large group of people to manage.
Now understandably the janitor has provided a lot less capital than deeply invested shareholder, so their votes are uniformly weighted according to their share of ownership.
I'm guessing the engineer might own about 1/10,000,000th or so of the company if she has a healthy 401K. So as long as she can convince 10,000 or so other employees and 49.91% of the rest of shareholders to go along...
FTA, your personal assertion is quite wrong. Her line of work was security and at most she was tasked with posting content regarding privacy and security concerns regarding non-Google tools and services.
Her personal political views and opinions don't pass off as InfoSec topics.
Unless she was asked to do it by management, it was her thoughts. As much as the title makes this seem like David v Goliath this is really just employer v disgruntled former employee.
No matter your thoughts on "its required by law... Blah blah blah" it's not up to her to enforce the law on behalf of an employer. Google has the right to post or not, statements of its choosing. In fact it's absolutely within Google's right to ignore this law, doesn't mean there won't be consequences but it they can do it.
This is so cut and dry I'm surprised she found a lawyer willing to take the case. It's staggering there's even a discussion ok HN about this.
She's an engineer, not someone working a type pool.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathryn-spiers-1b3048a1/
By any measure she's not an engineer.
Please explain why she's not an engineer; and please take care to include discussion of why anyone is an arbiter of the "engineer" title in a field which is largely unregulated and not credentialed.
Otherwise the most charitable reading of your comment is something like "ticmasta thinks security engineers are not real engineers," and the less charitable reading is something like "ticmasta claims this person is not an engineer because she is a woman," which is incredibly juvenile and misogynistic. It has no place on this forum.
That IS why (engineers are credentialed and regulated).
And where you got misogynistic is a mystery - simply using someones pronoun of choice in conjunction with something negative isn't implying anything.
The misogyny comes from the fact that this tends to only come up whenever a woman engineer is in the news. Nobody comments on HN threads saying “but he isn’t even an engineer”.
Tbh it sounds like other ulterior motives are clouding your judgement here. She seems like exactly the sort of engineer who would benefit from unionization and while I might need it less, I fully support her and I'm disappointed in Google for firing her.
As I've said elsewhere, these sham reasons for firing folks adjacent to union activity are opening up the company to massive liability and imo the board and shareholders should hold more people accountable.
The board and shareholders will have to decide whether this action was, or was not, in their best interests. But history has shown that Wall Street would generally agree with this one. It's certainly not a "massive" liability. Should the employee prevail, years from now, in a wrongful termination suit the cost to google will be trivial compared to the employee.
That's why other companies often flagrantly intentionally ignore NLRB protections. It's a very limited civil liability with a very high burden of proof on the employee.
As opposed to... what? Do college degrees promise engineering discipline? Surely not. Many successful engineers have nothing more than a high school diploma and industry experience.
This has clearly gone into sexist territory now. She's a she, and therefore her experience and education is going to be audited by arbitrary and increasingly vague standards to make sure she's considered valueless.
> It certainly isn't evidence of any engineering discipline.
There is literally no credential that does this. It's a ridiculous standard to offer forward. Engineering discipline is a property of teams and organizations. On an individual level there is no distinct standard of it.
You are moving the goalposts outside the stadium.
> It's certainly not a "massive" liability. Should the employee prevail, years from now, in a wrongful termination suit the cost to google will be trivial compared to the employee.
I disagree. With the rash of these firings, we may start to see a collective lawsuit. Should systemic problems be found, Google is in genuine danger of both large fines (both the left and right in the US and other countries are eager to give Google a black eye for perceived wrongs) and of severe reputational damage putting it at a competitive hiring disadvantage.
> It's a very limited civil liability with a very high burden of proof on the employee.
Right up until you get enough claimants for various collective actions, I agree this is the sad case for American enforcement.
How insane to claim that simple negativity toward a member of a protected group is an -ism. I'm not saying she isn't an engineer because of ANYTHING related to her sex.
She's getting raked over the coals because what she did was stupid and shows incredibly bad judgement. To imply that this is less bad, or maybe we shouldn't discuss it, or maybe we'd have a different opinion if she was not female is itself far more sexist.
I fully support non-degreed engineers. Yes, I agree there is no litmus test for "Engineer".
I'm clearly stating that a CompTIA+ is not sufficient to call someone an engineer. Regurgitating questionable facts does not make you an engineer. I didn't move the goalpost. But I can recognize something that isn't one.
She screwed up bad, because if there is ever any collective action, her case won't be in on it. She gave google an ironclad excuse to be fired. I'm not even arguing right vs. wrong but the way employment lawsuits work, she has zero chance.
If the only way we can distinguish your actions from sexism is via your internal state, you have a problem larger than this conversation and you should expect pushback.
> I'm clearly stating that a CompTIA+ is not sufficient to call someone an engineer. Regurgitating questionable facts does not make you an engineer. I didn't move the goalpost. But I can recognize something that isn't one.
But just before this you said there isn't a clear test. So really, it's just your feelings.
> Yes, I agree there is no litmus test for "Engineer".
This is more arbitrary goal setting to gatekeep a word. The debate is not if she is somehow an amazing engineer or a mediocre engineer, a well trained engineer or a rushed training job, well paid or not. No, that's not the debate.
The debate is, "was she given an engineering position in which she had autonomy to make changes and when she made changes a union buster didn't like, she was fired in retaliation.
If her job was strictly to type things that were handed to her in a field, this might technically evade the law. But that's obviously not her job.
You're obviously eager to categorize her as a not-engineer because (despite protestations) you're obviously eager to shut down any pro-unionization messages, even legally protected ones.
> She screwed up bad, because if there is ever any collective action, her case won't be in on it. She gave google an ironclad excuse to be fired.
I don't think this is true. She acted within her job capacity. She wrote a true and (importantly) legally protected statement. It was in a system that was specifically mean to advise workers about rights, options and obligations.
And unless she was already being evaluated for poor performance, even a single infraction is an extremely rare circumstance for dismissal in modern corporate America.
If we want to make it harder for unions to organize, then she was rightly fired. But ff she was fired for union organizing and we want to protect that activity, then she was wrongfully fired.
The right and wrong I was talking about was with respect to the existing rules, policies, and ethics. And if you do believe these rules are morally wrong, then you change them from within the system.
The upside is there are multiple opportunities to do this without also getting fired. There are also opportunities to do as much union organizing as you like without getting fired. The Thanksgiving four played a very dangerous game, as did this individual, and they got the expected result.
Unfortunately, the other result is that if you want to find examples of blatantly illegal union busting, I'm sure they are out there but these are not them. This smacks of agitation and activism for it's own sake.
Why is that? Please give an example of what I said that is sexist or any other -ist.
> So really, it's just your feelings.
No, it's perfectly reasonable to object to points that were made that don't support the argument. I'm only stating that CompTIA+ does not provide evidence that you are an engineer because of the nature of the certification.
> You're obviously eager to categorize her as a not-engineer
I didn't categorize here as either way. Someone else did, I just object to assuming that a job title or a cert makes you one. It doesn't. I don't think it even matters to the argument at hand either.
> you're obviously eager to shut down any pro-unionization messages, even legally protected ones
I'm not. I'm neutral to whether googler's want a union or not since I don't have to work there and have no interest at all in google's future direction. I'm eager to inject some reality into some very dangerous idealism before more people think they will stand up to the man without understanding the not-so-nice realities.
It's well and good, from the safety of the narrative of her supporters to say things like "she had autonomy to make changes". But engineer or not, she doesn't have that kind of autonomy. No employee really does, including directors. And it's up to her to prove she did. For example: can she show her manager approved this specific action in writing? Who asked her to do this? It looks a lot different when google shows up to a hearing with logs, rules, job descriptions, and her manager's manager having not approved the labor message, corporate security policies, and on and on. Then she shows up with, "but I thought it was OK because I did other stuff similar before, but it didn't involve labor notices. Yes, I had no actual authorization, but I was trusted as an engineer". People need to think adversarially, not just "Oh the NLRB will magically protect me". Because it can't if they don't follow the rules to the letter, and even then only partially.
A company in google's position is just waiting for people to do what she did: combine legal organizing with breaking a verifiable rule. Something with proof, like security logs. Great! now they have plausible reason to make someone an example. Now - do you see why I think it was stoopid?
Because you are specifically supporting a narrative that declines to grant an arbitrary status to a woman even as you argue that there is no clear delineation of that status. You "know it when you see it" is a hell of a thing to say as you make a pronouncement about someone's termination from a job.
What's more, looking over the history of this thread, you've substantially changed your message depending on how forcefully people reply to you. You've gone from saying that she cannot be an engineer because she has no credentials (which you first try to claim is required, "That IS why (engineers are credentialed and regulated)." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21822286); and eventually move to saying you're a fiat arbiter of: "[I] can recognize something that isn't one." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21832089)
It's crystal clear you're not having a discussion. You're trying to push a narrative. You're writing anything you think you can get away with, and trusting the thread depth cutoffs of HN to hide that part of the thread.
> No, it's perfectly reasonable to object to points that were made that don't support the argument. I'm only stating that CompTIA+ does not provide evidence that you are an engineer because of the nature of the certification.
The assertion earlier was that she was untrained. She is clearly not.
> I'm not. I'm neutral to whether googler's want a union or not since I don't have to work there and have no interest at all in google's future direction.
This isn't really the question and I don't know why you think this statement is relevant. The question is "should people be fired for talking about unionization." Clearly, you now that some Googlers are friendly to unionization in at least some aspects of the workplace. You're reading a story about one right now.
> I'm eager to inject some reality into some very dangerous idealism before more people think they will stand up to the man without understanding the not-so-nice realities.
Oh? And those not-so-nice realities seem to be that you'll cheerfully throw in with discrediting a woman.
> But engineer or not, she doesn't have that kind of autonomy. No employee really does, including directors.
No technical organization I've ever encountered has to go and get every action stamped and filed by their manager to avoid being fired. That's so far beyond the norm I'm wondering if you've ever been a manager or run your own company.
Quite the contrary, Management has to constantly document directives in writing and carefully apply messages to employees because there is substantial legal risk in just letting managers do whatever they feel like.
> and her manager's manager having not approved the labor message, corporate security policies, and on and on. Then she shows up with, "but I thought it was OK because I did other stuff similar before, but it didn't involve labor notices. Yes, I had no actual authorization, but I was trusted as an engineer". People need to think adversarially, not just "Oh the NLRB will magically protect me". Because it can't if they don't follow the rules to the letter, and even then only partially.
"Thinking adversarially" is at this point collective action. As I've said, Google is making a stronger and stronger case for all its employees that they need to consider a defensive unionization strategy.
> A company in google's position is just waiting for people to do what she did: combine legal organizing with breaking a verifiable rule
If she goes to court, they're going to have to prove there was a rule in place and that it was communicated to her. We'll see then.
I'm supporting a narrative that declines to grant an arbitrary status to a PERSON based on a tech certification.
It is NOT sexist to say that CompTIA+ is insufficient evidence to be called an engineer. Not even CompTIA+ would say that. And I'm not pushing a narrative - you are pushing the narrative that if someone starts questioning a position, they must be sexist.
I don't think I'm changing my message - it's based on replying to the conversation. I'm not even saying she's not an engineer, just that people need to stop conflating tech certs with engineering. In many of these comments I'm still referring to her as an engineer, so now I'm not a sexist right? Good. Got it.
> technical organization I've ever encountered has to go and get every action stamped and filed by their manager to avoid being fired.
Yep, no engineer can or will get every action stamped and approved by management. They are expected to work independently. However, if you ABUSE that independence to bite the hand of your employer, you have absolutely no expectation of top cover. So if you are planning to do something dangerous like this, you better make sure you have it in writing that it was authorized. Because the burden of proof is now on you to show it was. Furthermore, if you go into a legal setting with your argument that engineers always act autonomously, you just sound like a bunch of cowboys to the bureaucrats that get to decide this.
If and when this goes to court, I agree we will see. But it won't. Of course that will be months and years from now either way.
Until then, if the goal was to inform her co-workers that it was safe to discuss union organizing without fear of reprisal, how's she doing at that?
You're definitely still saying and have been saying you believe she's not an engineer.
> However, if you ABUSE that independence to bite the hand of your employer, you have absolutely no expectation of top cover.
Again, your bias shows. If your employer is treating you well, why would talking about unionization be threatening? These conversations are happening precisely because people claim to be seeing abusive parts of the system and are looking for recourse.
Is that biting the hand of your employer? You clearly think so. Would that folks like you were more active in demanding action the collective action by corporate CEOs to illegally fix wages. Sadly, folks seem content to shrug and smile and pretend that's the right of their minders.
> Furthermore, if you go into a legal setting with your argument that engineers always act autonomously, you just sound like a bunch of cowboys to the bureaucrats that get to decide this.
No, but the idea that summary dismissal is normal for a simple message not approved by management on a legally protected subject is hogwash. I think you know this, but you'd prefer it's not so.
Thank you for the conversation. Goodbye.
I never said that, nor do I necessarily believe that. I replied to someone else in a one-liner which was to put forward a possible reason other people were questioning it.
> Again, your bias shows. If your employer is treating you well, why would talking about unionization be threatening?
Talking about unionizing is not threatening to me, or my company (which has a union), but it's pretty clearly very threatening to your company. You should be cognizant and careful about that.
> Is that biting the hand of your employer? You clearly think so.
What I think is that google and every other sufficiently large company will think so. It would be naive to think because your company has some zippy slogan like "don't be evil" (now retired) that they are somehow different.
It's interesting, btw., how you believe to know what I think based on not at all what I say. Novel way to run an argument.
> Would that folks like you were more active in demanding action the collective action by corporate CEOs to illegally fix wages. Sadly, folks seem content to shrug and smile and pretend that's the right of their minders.
There's a right and a wrong way to take action. Getting youself fired doesn't seem smart, but it could be a nice martyr move if you don't need the income.
If you are engineers, then you are not just wage slaves. You are independent people and can take - or leave - your employment at will. If you don't like company X, I'd suggest it's far better to simply leave.
Your problem is a bad employer, so you add a union, now you have two problems: a still bad employer and a union full of politicians.
So, I've enjoyed your interesting thought processes, and I leave you with this advice:
- read, carefully, the rights granted by the NLRB. Stick strictly and safely within them.
https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employees/i...
- for example, do you notice that it gives you the right to talk and distribute literature outside working areas (such as breakrooms or parking lots)? Do you notice how modifying a browser security extension isn't on that list? Nor is doxing your co-workers?
- don't use company time or resources to do it! A) it could easily be construed as not-protected and B) obvious opsec reasons
- martyrs for the cause might energize the base but they scare off those with mortgages.
- be mindful of who has your back:
January 2019, google pushes to overturn Purple Communications - https://onlabor.org/google-to-nlrb-shut-down-employee-email-...
December 2019, NLRB overturns Purple Communications - https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-restores...
Tootles!
Or was she hired to add things she considered relevant?
In her Medium post she claims that "Part of what makes me a great fit for Google is that the company is always telling us to take initiative to deliver high impact work." and also that she received stellar (4/5, 4/5, 5/5, where 5/5 is apparently top 2%) performance reviews, which reinforced her view that she should act on her judgment.
For example, did her design record sufficient analytics for regulatory compliance reporting? If a regulated company can't verify they did it correctly, it didn't happen. Did it distinguish between contractors, part-time and full-time employees? How did it handle employees outside the U.S.? By IP address or did it look up their country of residence in HR records? What about interns? Did it count these different populations correctly or was it at risk of over-reporting and getting the company fined? Did her design meet the requirements for Spanish-speaking ESL employees based in the U.S. Did her design read-out the text for blind and vision-impaired employees or did it initiate notification via an alternate channel?
In my opinion, she's being extremely disingenuous with her claims.
She might be naive enough to believe that this was actually protected concerted activity, but I don't think so. I'm not sure I think firing her was the right play, but I also don't have all the information. I will say that I don't think this outcome should surprise her. It should definitely been one of the likely outcomes she modeled when deciding to submit that code.
So if her goal was to cause disruption at Google, it sounds like management just gave her a major assist. Like a Falcon Heavy's worth of assist.
Also, FWIW, this may provide some interesting reading: https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/are-employers-required-to-...
Individual employees publicly embarrassing the company (https://mobile.twitter.com/jweise/status/491788092710199297?...) or accidentally disrupting the network fabric and costing the company $X in missed revenue don't get fired for first offense. The way this was handled seems unusual, suggesting either there's a piece of the puzzle we internet pundits aren't holding or Google has changed its tolerance policy for honest mistakes.
If someone deliberately goes around those checks to push something anyway then it could be a fire-able offense.
Part of the right of free speech is correctness of attribution. Trying to speak as someone else, using someone else's communication channels isn't speech, it's fraud.
And I say that as (at least within the spectrum of folks on this site) a full on pinko commie unionizer. If this is the truth of the story, this just wasn't OK, and was a very reasonable firing offense.
Not if they want to win, they don't. Anarchism won nothing at the turn of the century. Organized (note the adjective!) Labor broke through when it became a political movement with representation in government.
Look, the point here is that if you want to win a unionization fight (which is a legal victory, it will happen in courts and with contracts) you have to fight using legal tools. Pulling anarchist tricks like this just makes you feel better, it does nothing but make management's position stronger.
If we leave rhetoric aside, what she's done is the equivalent of sending a leaflet or putting up a poster on company property. That's not strictly 'proper', but life does not happen in courtrooms. You actually have talk to people, let them know what's happening, organise, etc. Courtroom is where the fight is settled in it's last stages.
I disagree that only rights granted by courts are effective in winning labor struggles. Strikes, legal or not, are required for advancing labor's cause.
This worker was attempting to organize her colleagues in an extremely tame way. There was no property damage. We should show our unadulterated support to embolden the working class.
Like most of the general public, I have no desire to associate with criminals. If you build your union on a foundation of illegal acts, there's no reason for anyone to believe you'll stop once it gets fully established. Existing unions in the United States provide ample proof of that.
(Oh, and by the way, the Teamsters, whose site you linked to, figure prominently in quite a number of those news stories. There really isn't a better example I can think of of why "Workers need to be willing to break the law in order to win victories against the people that make the laws..." goes down a bad path than them. The Wikipedia article for them contains the word "corrupt" 31 times.)
That's the cleverest counterargument you could manage?
I choose to interpret that, as most readers will, as conceding to my arguments.
> This kind of code change happens all the time.
we have all been there.
i think she knew she wasn't following proper procedure. even if it's done "all the time".
Who assigned the jury that duty? And when did that happen?
Per http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullifi... and other sources that I have seen, the understanding of the law when the Constitution was written was that juries should judge both the law and the facts. The view that they should not judge the law only arose decades later in the late 1800s. The fact that the legal profession today sees jurors as having a duty to NOT judge the law I see as undermining the intent of having jury trials in the first place.
The understanding of jury trials when the Constitution was written was that juries had a right and obligation to judge both the law and the facts. The first laws
She’s not a victim. She made a choice (which I personally agree with and find admirable) but the firing seems justifiable.
"Part of my 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."
-With regard to what exactly? Context matters, if the browser notifications she was creating were only supposed to pertain to surfing the web then I think we can safely say she overstepped her bounds.
"So when I heard that Google had hired a union busting firm and started illegally retaliating against my coworkers, I decided to make sure that my coworkers knew about the posting."
-Again, it depends on what exactly her job was, but this seems to suggest she had motivation outside the bounds of her job description for doing what she did.
I don’t disagree with what she did. In fact, I think it’s kind of great. However, that doesn’t mean Google didn’t have a right to fire her for it.
I think there is a reasonable difference between security notifications and other corporate policies.
Were non-security notifications in scope for their job or the tool used?
She needs to understand this power isn't her own to wield.
And the risk of people abusing power to advance their personal agenda is NOT something that would get passed easily once discovered.
about stuff that will breach company security, not to alert people of dangerous opinions. The latter is not hers to decide.
> And the risk of people abusing power to advance their personal agenda is NOT something that would get passed easily once discovered.
Yes, it is. It get discovered all the time and no one gives a sh*t about it.
Conversely, an employee's agenda can be left at home, please, if they agree to be employed. The "Engineer" is lucky she isn't brought up on misuse of computing system charges.
I don't like companies that invade employees and customers outside-of-work freedoms. Just as I don't like employees that abuse and undermine the relationship that they freely entered with their employers. If you don't like it - quit and go work somewhere else. Then become activist.
Yes, it's company policy, but this is more like running into a meeting and then interrupting it so you can start reciting NLRB policy than it is posting a flyer. Worse, it misappropriates a security tool in order to do that. And when it comes to intentional actions that violate or undermine security, Google, like most companies, takes a pretty hard line.
Disclosing that I'm a Googler, and speaking only on my own behalf, with no connection to anyone involved except the fact that the extension is running on my browser.
I totally support googlers' right to unionize but it seems that some employees are in an all-out war with the company and think that all is fair in that war. I can't say I support that.
True, but it seems kind of shady to come down harder on an employee based on the content of the interruption, and that content notifying of the right to organize.
Like, imagine there's a documentation page for http cookies. Consider two scenarios:
A) Rogue employee adds to the bottom of the page: "Cookies are also delicious treats given as a reward on the internet."
B) Rogue employee adds to the bottom of the page: "Employees reading this are reminded of their right to organize under NLRA."
Let's say that in scenario A, an employee would typically get a written warning, and in B, you always got fired. In that case, I think it would be fair for B to say -- at least in common speech -- "I got fired for notifying employees of their right to organize."
This is true, even though there is a general policy of not adding non-topical messages to doc pages, because the punishment never escalates to firing unless it's something like scenario B. (In a legal context rather than common speech I don't know enough to say whether it would be legal.)
A) Rogue employee messages a bunch of internal email lists about having the right to organize
B) Rogue employee configures a security extension to issue a popup saying "Happy Birthday Sundar!" every time an employee visits google.com on June 10.
I am confident that A) wouldn't result in any formal adverse action (they'd mostly get a pile of nasty responses about spamming internal lists), and I am confident that B) would at the least earn the employee a reprimand and plausibly get them fired.
Yikes! That sounds like a dangerous place to work. If an employee with legitimate, assigned access to such a tool makes a change through normal procedures (not bypassing required code review or anything) and it's still a fireable mistake - well, I'm glad I don't work there.
Data is simultaneously Google's greatest strength and its biggest liability. If an employee uploads data to a not-known-to-be-secure third party, it can literally cost Google billions of dollars depending on the data locality. Or, it could plausibly cause a severe security breach (if e.g. an employee uploads a security token into a third party decoder).
And so the security team builds an extension in order to very loudly alert employees when they're on one of these known-to-be dangerous domains. And, as it happens, the implementation of the loud popups could make it a general browser notification platform whenever an employee visits a particular domain.
Is it a good idea for teams to start using it as a general notification platform?
No, not on any level. On top of being annoying for employees, it breaks the security UX. When someone sees one of these popups, they know they're important and that they should be very wary of whatever they're doing. But if it starts being a popup that can be triggered by anyone in the company who can convince themselves that they're providing value by sending out the popup, people start ignoring it. And there's no going back at that point, because employees have been trained to ignore the popup because of it staying stupid shit like "Happy Birthday Sundar!" and "Read these NLRB rights!" and "You can go grab a burger at the cafe today!" Everyone's been made worse off, and the original security problem has come back.
"This kind of code change happens all the time. We frequently add things to make our jobs easier or even to just share hobbies or interests. For example, someone changed the default desktop wallpaper during the walkout last year so that the Linux penguin was holding a protest sign. The company has never reacted aggressively in response to a notification such as this in the past. It’s always been a celebrated part of the culture."
The fact that other employees have participated in pro-employee activism and not been disciplined speaks to that. Some things are fine, some things are not. Abusing security software is not.
Do you activism in your personal time. Don't use important company resources used to protect employees from harm to push your slogans. Regardless if those slogans are legally legitimate statements in a normal context, like handing out a leaflet on the edge of the property.
Correction: an internal message display tool.
> for your own pet activism
> push your slogans
Correction: a warning not to break federal labor law, which Google is actually required to provide.
https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg
> Do you activism in your personal time.
This is about Google. Apparently their company culture has been the opposite, and they have commonly had lots of political discussions on company time using company resources.
For the millionth time, it was not a general message display tool. It is a security tool to flag domains that run the risk of data leakage and malware. Trying to hijack a security extension to turn it into a general messaging platform is both stupid and bad for security.
Labor law requires that those notices be posted somewhere in a prominent place employees are likely to see. They definitely don't require them to be posted in arbitrary places at any employee's choice.
(Furthermore, the laws about protected concerted activity specifically permit you to do your activism at work, not just on your own time.)
Jeez, politics really does make people go funny in the head. As long as it's "their guy" everything is on the table to sidestep logic.
(I don't know enough of the history of Google's firings and this kind of violation to know either way.)
You can't fire a worker for organizing, or on the basis of sex, race, etc. But you CAN fire whoever you want for breaking even the most minor rules or even just poor performance. And the choice can be as politically motivated as google likes, doesn't change a thing.
Furthermore, google has a really easy time with "selective enforcement" They can show that people violating security rules and abusing administrative rights are always fired. Now, she can argue she didn't do this, but because of the nature of our legal system, it will be extremely hard to explain. I main, disgruntled employee abusing security? Whoever heard of such a thing. The civil judge will probably help google refer her to the FBI!
>They can show that people violating security rules and abusing administrative rights are always fired.
Yes, that agrees with what I was saying: if every message thusly inserted resulted in a firing, then it would not be fair to say she got fired "for notifying employees of their right to organize".
If you could concisely and cogently explain why this change is a bad idea in an HN comment, surely someone can do that in response to the change, revert it, and move on. If it's SOP for Google to fire people who make well-intentioned changes that have the side effect of alert fatigue, then one, I don't want to work there, and two, I would expect to see a lot more firings.
And surely they could explain the problem, revert it, and move on without calling her into a conference room and grilling her about who else she's organizing with. That makes it seem like it's about the content of the notification, not the alert fatigue.
Don't misunderstand, it's not that I'm really trying to defend google. This is to serve as a reality check and warning to those who don't understand the rules of employment. And I'm guessing the Engineer in question understood the risk full well.
I don't disagree with that either. I'm just saying that, if this is the company's choice of fireable offense if the company actually considers it normal to exercise the right to dismiss an employee (which they legally do have) for this sort of mistake, I'm glad I don't work there.
As I mentioned in another comment, I recently did something at work that you could spin in an equally sinister way, if you want. My company would be within its rights to fire me for it. My employer would be within its rights to fire me for sneezing at the wrong time, or even for no reason at all. I choose to continue working at this company because I trust that, despite their legal ability, they have no intention of actually doing so. If I ever lost that trust, I would leave.
(In fact, my employer and Google's also have very similar employment agreements about ownership of outside IP / personal open source, but I had reasons to trust my employer to act more reasonably than Google, which was part of why I chose my current employer when deciding about it and Google. In practice that trust has turned out to be well-placed, and there's now a thread on the front page about how Google loves to follow the letter of the employment agreement and arbitrarily deny IARC requests.)
If you hijack the company's PR to inject your own personal opinion I'm pretty sure you'd be fired from any company.
> For example, someone changed the default desktop wallpaper during the walkout last year so that the Linux penguin was holding a protest sign. The company has never reacted aggressively in response to a notification such as this in the past. It’s always been a celebrated part of the culture.
Is this accurate? If it's culturally acceptable to change everyone's desktop wallpaper (including of those who were anti-protest) to a pro-protest image, it seems reasonable that this falls in the lines of culturally acceptable too.
How is this like "running into a meeting"?? Do Googlers visit the IRI website every day? Is this pop-up really a distraction to core work for engineering?
Your party line here makes the change sound like Nest shutting down the house [1] but according to the evidence it looks more like that recruiting thing that gives you a pop-up for google.com/foobar when you enter certain search queries.
That was my question, her job literally to make extensions to inform employees on policies but I was doubting that it was to make any and all notifications but only a specific set of policies like, limit personal browsing activities, or that the computer is the property of google and you consent to blah blah by it’s use.
It’s clear to me that this employee knew this was more of a political notification and took matters into their own hands.
Some may think a union drive is a company function. From what I remember about my experience with unions is you are allowed to put up notices in the employee breakroom that is done by the union rep who is voted in within each shop.
I would say what she did was more along the lines of blasting the union notice over speakers to everyone who entered the cafe.
Requiring Google to post a list at hq doesn't cover other locations and/or browser notification when visiting certain sites.
> did she add a company policy or guideline by adding what she added? I wouldn't classify a union drive as a company policy.
The answer is that it's a policy that must be posted (just not necesarily there). It wasn't a union drive.
This was purely a Moral decision on her part and not reasonable in my opinion to tag it as part of her job. She was not happy with how google was retaliating against her co-workers (right or wrong) and she took action using her own judgement. She did this not because this was part of her job but because she wanted to get back at google for their behavior (again right or wrong, thats not the point here).
Google has provided places for people to discuss things. When she didn't think that was good enough she chose to make unapproved code changes that went against corporate direction.
Personally, I'm against unionizing any software company, especially google. Unions were created to prevent systemic abuse of people that were seen as easily replaceable. If you think a recent college graduate making 120k+ that has been provided almost ridiculous perks and freedom unheard of in most of the industry is being abused when they could easily leave Google and expect to receive a similarly paid position virtually anywhere purely because they used to work at Google, then there's no helping you.
Google employees have more rights than at most companies, they can even spend up to 20% of their day working on personal projects and Google won't claim ownership. If they think they need a union when dealing with such a reasonable employer,then those fresh out of college lottery winners need a serious reality check. Let's talk about unionizing Amazon fulfillment centers where they frequently let people go because taking a bathroom break means missing your quota. Let's talk about unionizing virtually any company before we demand labor unions for the most highly privileged group of people in the world.
Come now. It's a browser extension, it's written in JavaScript, and knowingly installed by employees. No "injecting" went on here, let's not try to make this sound more nefarious than it was (not very). Fireable? Perhaps. But not because of a security concern.
(edit: reading more, it's clear that the only thing that makes this "fireable" in google's view is that it promotes union organizing that they oppose. Any other such message would probably not cause firing unless it caused a PR problem, and perhaps not even then.)
> This kind of code change happens all the time. We frequently add things to make our jobs easier or even to just share hobbies or interests. For example, someone changed the default desktop wallpaper during the walkout last year so that the Linux penguin was holding a protest sign. The company has never reacted aggressively in response to a notification such as this in the past. It’s always been a celebrated part of the culture
https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for...
No, the "so basically" is the employee added another URL & a string to a map of URLs & strings in an existing extension.
The extension already existed. It already showed notifications on various URLs. She didn't create that part.
Despite news articles mentioning walkouts themed on identity politics and out of court sexual assault allegations - those are narrow and not representative of the collective: a small, but vocal clique demanding VIP treatment at the expense of everything else. As for the feelings of those not fitting those characteristics? Do they not have their own personal and professional struggles, ambitions to cooperate and rise in the organization and live a happy life with a family?
It's a perfect distraction from the worker's struggle for union representation.
In order to form a union, you need votes. Google's management knows enduring the most radical and loud is a small price compared to having a union to ensure everyone is treated fair.
Cater to the whims of radicals rather than focusing on common ground == no plurality. Union busted, mission accomplished. https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employees/i...
This is actually false (it's not listed in the article, so I wouldn't expect you to know). It was a config file containing URL patterns and plain text messages. Most messages were things like: "please don't upload random company files to dropbox.com/upload".
So my take is that this employee's job responsibilities probably involved notifying sending these types of notifications. However I'd actually agree that there was some "abuse" because letting someone know they are about to upload a file to dropbox is pretty different than using it as a forum to remind people that organizing is a protected activity. I wouldn't fire someone over that because despite them being in the wrong, it doesn't seem malicious.
This is a little disingenuous. She's a software engineer who works on this extension. "Injecting arbitrary JavaScript" is her job.
If she bypassed code review, introduced a vulnerability, abused a known weakness to violate policy (e.g. logged into an account with signing keys to deploy manually when it's usually automated), etc. then you'd have a case. If she did her job and followed all policies about review and the only question is the content of the notification, then the way she sent it is an unfair criticism. It reeks of CFAA-style stretching of the truth about authorized access, and we as hackers shouldn't stand for it.
I wrote a command-line tool at work to automatically add a bunch of party parrots to a Slack message. This tool runs with your personal credentials, and web-scrapes your Slack access token in order to run. As a normal UNIX tool it also has access to your homedir etc. The credentials it uses can also read your private Slack DMs, access data that you can get to but I am legally forbidden from seeing, etc. - but it does none of those things. I installed it to a bin directory in everyone's path, without code review, because we have a system that explicitly allows this and it is often useful. Our security team raised a general ticket to the effect of, hm, maybe code review should be required before you stick code in everyone's PATH. Nobody is thinking of firing me for "injecting arbitrary Python" or "stealing credentials" or anything because nothing I did was against either policy or convention, even though you can make it sound horrid if you choose.
Things that would likely require legal review and Google has the budget to test the waters of at this point.
The last clause in the link below pertains to this scenario, I think, which may bite Google. Or it may not because it all depends on case law and what union leadership is willing to push back on (which could take years to sort out via legal proceedings)
Really, at the end of the day all Google has to risk via this kind of behavior is some lawyer time, setting precedent, and potentially being required to post a notice if they end up losing.
Source: https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employees/i...
> 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. Also, restrictions on your efforts to communicate with co-workers cannot be discriminatory. For example, your employer cannot prohibit you from talking about the union during working time if it permits you to talk about other non-work-related matters during working time.
> Spiers, 21, said she went through the standard approval process, which requires two co-workers to greenlight changes, before updating the Chrome browser extension. Another source at Google familiar with the update approval process confirmed to NBC news that those two approvals are standard practice for a browser extension update.
She did it exactly according to internal policy. The extension she updated warns site visitors on many websites. I do not see what she did wrong.
Personally I think that modifying a work tool to achieve political goals is wrong.
It's about as political as informing someone they have a right to be paid the minimum wage.
"plaster it on everyone's screen" did you read the same article I did? The alert was triggered off a single consultancy's site. I really doubt it was a common hang out spot.
Yes, of course.
Apparently this "security tool" exists to notify Googlers of policy, and the notification just linked to a Google policy notice with a warning not to violate it. This is apparently the actual notification that was displayed:
https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/0*1BTVYLTvuHiJVvp_.jpg
> Do not violate go/nlrbnotice. Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.
> Does that seem appropriate to you?
Yes. It's a tool for showing notifications related to the page being visited. Not to mention the whole thing is appropriate on moral grounds, regardless of any technicality.
Just to be clear: her "opinion" is "don't take actions that would cause the company to break federal labor law."
If that's was an actual requirement, can you make or point to a statement in an official Google capacity that states the notices displayed by the tool she maintained had to be written or pre-cleared by Google's legal team? If you can, was the requirement for legal team involvement established practice and not some post-hoc rationalization for her firing?
"Common sense" often isn't as common or as sensible as some people think.
You often make seemingly-authoritative statements like "it wasn't her role." Avoiding post-hoc rationalizations based on the fact that she was fired, can you explain to me how that was communicated to her?
> Do you really need someone to tell you that if you work on security it’s not your told to disseminate information about hiring?
Maybe if you're fully indoctrinated into a particular corporate culture that very hierarchical, siloed, and highly biased towards management and shareholders.
However, Google, at least for now, has a very unusual corporate culture.
> I created a little notification, only a few lines of code, that pops up in the corner of the browser whenever my coworkers visited the union busters’ website or the community guidelines policy. The notification said: “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.”
https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for...
Don't think that is true from the story, if you read it.
But if you look at, say, the UK, then unions actually fund one of the major political parties and have tremendous influence over it. Unions have in the past managed to topple elected governments. Beating the unions was Margaret Thatcher's flagship effort when she was first elected. And union membership has been in steady decline.
It's certainly not a USA specific thing. Union/management wars in the UK got very nasty indeed.
... or are you saying the content of the message in the popup is one Google has to make available in some form.
Because I'm fairly certain it's the latter, but this feels like an attempt to obfuscate the real issue with tricky language.
I think the employee has a point with the pop-up. Wall posters aren't a good way to reach technology workers. Some kind of digital notification like a pop-up or regular reminder email would be more sensible. Remote employees can't see a poster at the office, for instance.
It's coopting an internal tool for political messages then implying "it passed PR" means you had permission from where it should come from.
It's not even the message itself, I don't want politics, even those I agree with, living in the codebase I use at work.
Sure the notice is required, but putting it so it shows up solely on the website for the legal firm hired by your employer is a political message before it is a helpful message.
No one's saying it "passed PR", it passed the review process that was in place for similar changes.
> IIRC, an employer has to make the content available in some form in a place where employees will see it, not just anywhere. Traditionally it's a wall display of posters in a cafeteria or break room. Trying to fulfill the requirement by putting the posters up in a broom closet of the CEO's office would be forbidden.
> It's not even the message itself, I don't want politics, even those I agree with, living in the codebase I use at work.
A lot of this thread feels like unusual sudden concern for the aesthetics of the cafeteria wall.
Like a PR?
And I don't even get what the second half of your comment is trying to say, especially the cafeteria wall comment...
Putting an unannounced popup when you visit the page for a legal firm would not fulfill the requirement either, so what is your point?
You should probably not work at Google.
I work at a place full of xooglers and other ex-faangs, and get the benefits of working with talented people without these kinds of scandals.
No, more to point out that it's a weird concern to have about an internal tool used by a company that uses their code to exert huge, global political influence. It's a strangely specific grain of rice to make an issue of.
There are plenty of ways to protest that are just as effective as a pop up that only appears on a specific site for a specific lawyer that don't involve messing with work code.
The comment she injected into a benign law website has nothing to do with that and whether there was some weak approval process that missed this glaring fact doesn’t make it okay.
I don't think this person or the other organizers should have been fired, but code review is not the same as organizational approval.
(Disclosure: I work at Google, speaking only for myself)
Let's take for instance the fictional case of adding a list of website to a whitelist.txt. Maybe the source file had thousands of websites to be added. Anyone could add or remove some in the middle and no one would ever know
It looks good when you review it. but there is no way to check the data integrity (at review time), you can only rely on the good faith of your coworkers.
I am not saying that's what happened but this is a good example of how anyone could sneak-in arbitrary code that pass the code review.
In this case I suspect the reviewers were supportive of the protest, and so approved it even though their authority didn't cover this kind of change.
I don't think any of these people should have been fired, but "by the book" is not a good way of characterizing this process. That would have been proposing the feature to management, getting their sign-off, and then making the code changes.
That sounds about right. So why doesn't Google fire the reviewers? If they don't, then they are inconsistently applying the standard. If they do, then they are punishing a coordinated employee action.
Is the literal problem, which necessitated the pop-up.
The Organization Does Not Approve™
It’s like asking someone if you can kick them in the knee before doing so. What do you think they’ll say?
Y’all seem confused: the organization, Google in this case, is antognizing it’s organizing employees. Google absolutely do not, will not, can not approve of unionization efforts. Ever.
But I don't think glossing "the change went through code review" as "She did it exactly according to internal policy" is helpful.
If I were Google, I'd give the employee a warning (one of three strikes). I'd tell them that they need approval from someone in a certain role (that's not an engineer) to post internal notices. Otherwise, it's up to the employee and their fellow engineers to make a judgement call about which notices are right to post.
Getting code review approval is not the same as following internal policy.
Adding a conspicuous feature to a security tool installed on every employee's computer requires approval from higher-ups before writing the code. The approvers should have recognized that and rejected the change, but that doesn't absolve Spiers of responsibility for the change.
As an analogy, suppose that I'm a crew member on a submarine. I have authority to fire torpedoes when a higher-up orders it, but I require a peer crew member to push their own "fire" button at the same time. Obviously, if I go rogue and start firing torpedoes myself, that's a serious violation, even if I convince one crewmate to go along with it.
I think this is the crux of the issue and people are making up the facts they don't have to fit a narrative.
There is a reasonable difference between security notifications and other corporate policies.
Were any non-security notifications in scope for their job or the tool used?
Is there precedent for google flagging specific external websites with HR policy notices?
Whether it is published once or 1000 times is editorial. It is not within scope of their job to notify >1 time if Google’s management wants employees to be nominally reminded of their rights against their employer exactly once.
Note that I am not arguing for or against; I personally think it’s wrong she was fired and I hope the wage-thieves at Google get held to the flames over it. But let’s not pretend that she wasn’t editorializing because it can be described as “simply distributing a fact”.
She was further distributing a fact which is in her former employer’s best interest to publicize the minimum amount required by law.
That’s why retaliation like this is illegal. I’m surprised they’re surprised; Google has already conspired (and gotten caught) to illegally cheat employees out of billions of dollars of wages.
https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for...
> Recently Google was forced to post a list of rights that we have in the workplace. So when I heard that Google had hired a union busting firm and started illegally retaliating against my coworkers, I decided to make sure that my coworkers knew about the posting.
She was mad at her employer and used her role to retaliate.
> I created a little notification, only a few lines of code, that pops up in the corner of the browser whenever my coworkers visited the union busters’ website or the community guidelines policy.
It only mentions the union busters' website in the OP but she also says it popped up a notification when people visited the community guidelines policy. That's pretty invasive, this is a notification everyone will see.
Edit: "Happy Birthday Sundar!" didn't actually happen, my bad.
> "She misused a security and privacy tool to create a pop-up that was neither about security nor privacy," Hansen wrote. "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."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/engineer-says-go...
I'm questioning the double standard of being able to use the tool to display company wide messages ("Happy Birthday Sundar!"). Why was the "Happy Birthday Sundar!" poster not held equally accountable? Seems like any topic management doesn't like is political speech.
Edit: The "Happy Birthday Sundar!" message didn't happen.
This professor completely ignores the sign-off, and I wonder if actually it's really important... Can we really call it a digital-extension of a wall, if it's impossible to put something without 2 approvals?
It doesn't sound like just anyone could do this, but only people with specific privilege and approvals.
A company being "legally required" to do something doesn't mean that individual employees can decide for themselves to implement that policy... Otherwise you could ask random employees to Right-To-Be-Forgotten and delete you from Google...
I think the real questions are: 1) Was it part of their job? [no] 2) Was it a message board? [no] 3) Was it protected speech anyway? [unsure]
Performance does not matter: fire both the genius and the slacker for abuse. The factual content of the message does not matter: fire both those who lie, spam, or those who distribute relevant activist messages. Legally required company does not matter: if it is not your role, it is not your role (distributing these "facts" was never part of her job description, it has nothing to do with security. It is also naive to assume Googlers visiting that very website would be interested or unaware of this policy notice).
The controversy is because people have different opinions: those who feel activism trumps profession, and those who feel it don't. Like said, any company that employs security engineers who hold their activism as more important than their profession is a dangerous company worth avoiding. I am glad this firing happened.
What absolute extreme bullshit. By your own arguments if a security engineer was advocating for increased security against management, they would be considered an activist and someone that deserves to be fired, tarred and feathered and tried as a witch.
She will get work somewhere else, but, to me, it does not look good to be fired for abusing internal security tooling, with the huge responsibility that security engineers have. Burning bridges and making a stink about it was her own choice, and this should have consequences, like crying about any other unrelated protected status (I did this very bad thing, but my employer fired me for racism, unionizing, being a (trans) woman, being old, etc.). You poison the well for everyone with that crap. Your group identity becomes so important to you, that you start to label individuals as "old white men" and anything negative happening to you must be related to your group identity. I don't play that game, so don't handicap me with your stereotypical groupthink.
The only one being tarred and feathered here is Google, for union-busting and retaliatory firing (as if... some even argue these firings target transgenders). Your example misrepresents my argument: advocating increased security against management is harmless and part of your job. Trying to be cute and score brownie points with activist pals is a risk she thought worth taking. Good on her.
The rest of your argument is massive projection because she did nothing of the sort. She added a notice which linked to internal Google documentation which was reviewed by her peers and by any account incredible benign. Acting like this was some severe security violation is out of line.
That's a valid point, though it takes me a lot of energy to hold this view even for seconds. But I see where you are coming from now.
It does assume / hinges on: adding such legal and security notices without approval of higher-ups is the way security and legal compliance at Google is done. That would look bad on Google, because it is bad security practice (using a rapid code push meant for solving critical bugs, for something that could go live next week), bad culture practice (why not ask input from more experienced Googlers?), and bad legal practice (a legal notice is worth at least one meeting with someone hired to do / deal with law issues).
> She added this notice because as part of being legally compliant with the law people have to be informed of their right to unionize.
I do not believe this for a single moment. This was her "temporarily change the Linux background"-moment, not a "oh, let's be proactive and do legal requirements for Googlers who can't Google 'right to unionize'.". That is the one you use to cover your ass and turn this into a political hot potato. But then still, if true, you go to your supervisor and you can bring this up. You don't emergency push a legal notice.
> Acting like this was some severe security violation is out of line.
I think that what she did would be grounds for insta-firing a security engineer, even in very employee-friendly countries in the EU. It betrays trust of all colleagues (the message would be no different from a carefully vetted company policy, so she basically spoofed her colleagues). She played an activist prank using internal security tooling: I laugh when I think of the confused angry emails upper management must have been sending the Privacy Policy Notifier team lead, they got trolled hard. I also think all this backlash from the diversity crowd is something that Google has deserved: They are either hypocritical (they never meant it, and are now stuck babysitting 20+ genders), or supporting Damore's argument that the ideological echo chamber within Google does not really work, and in business terms is a very ugly beast (if this was an action movie, they fired the scientist for pointing out that the volcano is about to explode).
So for severity I would not go as far as a good wry laugh about this. The mask is coming off. I can understand not wanting to build government murder machines and stick to ads, or not wanting to be part of the deeply ingrained rapey culture and this being the reason to protest and organize. But an internal security tool that your colleagues trust you to run on their machines is just a very bad "murder baby hitler" way to go about it. Murders your trust, processes, and protocols. Some big nasty lawyers are going to push the "disrupt the workplace"-argument hard, Google is going to be even more careful to fire blue-haired employees, and the argument that Google is intentionally targeting on anything protected by law will make even less sense.
> "She misused a security and privacy tool to create a pop-up that was neither about security nor privacy," Hansen wrote. "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."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/12/engineer-says-go...
I say this as a non-management, rank-and-file employee: I don't like the idea of activists (whether I agree with their cause or not) hijacking the company's internal tools to broadcast their message. There are plenty of ways to communicate with your colleagues, there's just need to resort to that.
The worst part is that when the activists abuse the company's open tools, the likely response will be to put more restrictions down the tools. In the end, everyone loses because of one individual's thoughtless, narcissistic actions.
> For example, someone changed the default desktop wallpaper during the walkout last year so that the Linux penguin was holding a protest sign. The company has never reacted aggressively in response to a notification such as this in the past. It’s always been a celebrated part of the culture.
I suppose this was her mistake: ""It's always been a celebrated part of the culture"
Google clearly does not always operate in good faith with it's employees on labor relations issues. The correct approach for her to take would be to get written approval from her manager on the popup
Her job was supposedly to "write browser notifications so that my coworkers can be automatically notified of employee guidelines and company policies while they surf the web", and this was supposedly a notification of one such company policy, but it was naive to think she could just approach her job in good faith and be treated in good faith. BigCorp follows the law of the jungle, and workers are not unionized at google so every engineer has to cover his or her ass before treading into contentious waters.
For what it's worth, after reading both points of views I think her actions were highly reasonable. But I would never implement that kind of notification like she had done, not without written approval from my boss and maybe my bosses' boss to cover my ass.
But again, law of the jungle and all that. If I were her boss and she came to me for approval, I also would get approval from my boss and my bosses' boss.
If this is something that goes through your mind, the organization you are at is broken and probably dangerously hostile.
An approach that has some form of checks, however formal (for purposes of quality and accountability), is entirely reasonable, and especially where there is a notable risk of exploitation (historical or likely potential.)
But I've worked full-time essentially non-stop for a quarter century in a wide range of organizations (in an employee context: 3-person small business up through several thousand people enterprises), and default distrust is a red flag regardless.
You should get fired five times over for abusing your privileged access to modify software that runs on every employee's computer. How stupid can you be? Start a healthy discussion, don't violate trust. This just puts up a bad reputation for workers who do want to organize
If I got a manager who I was friends with to approve my purchase of a fully decked out $53K Mac Pro so I could finally use Slack at a decent speed when I am working from home, wouldn’t you think there was something fishy?
Google doesn’t care about these antics. They, like all employers, don’t want their employees to have meaningful bargaining power.
https://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/tech-news-fully-spec-apple-m...
Taking into account the exchange rate that works out to about 55K USD.
And as far as having “bargaining power” they are tech workers at Google. If they have even a modicum of skills they have the ultimate power - they can walk away and get another job.
Heck, I’ve worked at a bunch of no name companies over 20 years and even I can walk out of the office and have another job in two weeks and this is nowhere near the west coast.
*By the way, that's very much sarcasm since a well organized union doesn't need to cap wages at any level. It's just the argument that keeps getting put forward and I get sick of it.
What if this change allowed passwords to be captured in plain text? Browsing history? Surely those are fire-able offenses? So how is this situation any different?
Giving her the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, you'd agree there's a huge difference between adding malicious phishing code to a company tool, versus displaying a text notification that doesn't fit the tool's original intent?
The text in question read, “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.”, which is arguably different than the usual privacy/security warnings that the tool was intended for. But is it a fireable offense, versus an offense that warrants reprimand?
To put it another way, I think very few people would be bothered by Spiers being fired if the text notification she added were "Heil Hitler!". But that kind of content is fireable for a number of reasons. Whereas Spiers note about union rights, while inappropriate for the given plugin, is not patently against Google policy, and (again, assuming it's just a text notification) did not endanger the company.
If an employee tries to set fire to company equipment, they should be fired. If they draw a swastika on a bathroom stall, they should be fired. If they post up a pro-labor pamphlet in a bathroom stall, where it's against company policy to post any materials (regardless of content), should they be fired or reprimanded?
i, honestly, want to know why you think otherwise. what she did is wrong.
but assuming she didn't know and that's what the "by the book" process at Google truly is... that's even more concerning
In my company, I could put in travel orders to let me go to and from Hawaii on the company dime, have a vacation, and have my supervisor approve (which is following the standard process), but doing that should get me in a lot of trouble and/or fired.
How do you think old-school labor organizing went down? Do you think the bosses stood there smiling as employees handed out flyers at lunch? Google shouldn't have a say in how employees unionize. They have every reason, literally EVERY SINGLE REASON to sabotage it at every stage to make it as ineffective as possible.
Sorry to be pedantic about a hypothetical, but I think it's necessary to consider the specifics of the actual case. Assuming this process involves something akin to a codebase commit, where the contents of the approved change can be clearly seen by the approvers, it raises the question of what sanctions her colleagues faced if Spiers' violation was so severe as to result in near immediate termination.
(because obviously, in your hypothetical situation, your supervisor would be fired if they knowingly approved a deceptive work expense)
If the supervisor did not know, then your analogy is flawed. There was no information asymmetry between Spiers and her reviewers - they knew what the change did and they approved it.
So in this case process was followed, yeah. But trust was broken, and it only stands to reason that Google would fire this employee because of it. All other stuff is secondary and pollutes the discussion.
You followed company policy, but your supervisor didn't.
The fact that 2 reviewers approved her change doesn't mean that she has the right to send notifications like this through a browser extension.
Obviously, inserting pro-unionization messaging into a security tool isn't "by the book", or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
She alleges it was done by the book.
Its naive to think her firing had nothing to do with the fact Google doesn't like unions.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/13/googles-settlement-on-speech...
I’m part of my company’s “architecture team” but that doesn’t mean I have the right (even though I do have the access) to spin up an X1 AWS instance at work with 2TB of RAM. If my immediate manager said it was okay, I would have sense enough to get it confirmed by my CTO.
But my overall point is not that I think her alteration was appropriate (given the context of the tool). But that her mistake could reasonably be seen as one made in good faith, especially because the content itself does not outright violate company policy or labor law. In other words: approved content, unapproved venue. The question is: that's a fireable offense?
So why do you keep likening it to hypotheticals that would reasonably violate standard policy and procedure, such as conspiring with your manager to spend $53K on a Mac Pro that you use at home? Or injecting via browser notification a "political_message_you_dont_agree_with"?
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/13/googles-settlement-on-speech...
I was the dev lead responsible for writing software that would be used by the department that was most impacted by the decree. Should I have taken it upon myself to create pop ups informing them to be careful about compliance? Legally, I probably couldn’t have been fired but would that have displayed good judgement?
When you are part of certain departments or positions, you have more access and therefore are expected to have better judgement.
>This kind of code change happens all the time. We frequently add things to make our jobs easier or even to just share hobbies or interests. For example, someone changed the default desktop wallpaper during the walkout last year so that the Linux penguin was holding a protest sign. The company has never reacted aggressively in response to a notification such as this in the past. It’s always been a celebrated part of the culture.
Incidents like this are the reason why red tape ends up introduced on small teams, and are what turn projects into a nightmare to work on.
Presumably, audit logs would make this an easy thing to set straight.
The fact that 2 reviewers approved her change doesn't mean that she has the right to send notifications like this through a browser extension.
[1] https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for...
"Part of my 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'd be curious to know what URLs employees get alerts about? Perhaps services which do not take kindly to seeing IPs from Google offices?
However, it looks like the sole purpose of the extension is to warn employees about security issues in websites, and this engineer coopted that to show a union forming message.
The final paragraph suggests that there's legal precedence for doing this:
“You’re allowed to put posters up on the wall to help organize your workers, and this can be seen as kind of a digital extension of that,” said Veena Dubal, a professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. “Whether or not you’re in a union or there’s a union being formed, the law protects organizing activities by employees in the workplace organizing to improve their working conditions.”
This person used their access as a developer to alter internal security tools to promote their own messaging. That shows a profound lack of judgement, and it's not surprising their access would be revoked.
If she had put it up and refused to take it down I could understand firing her. But this is suspect for sure.
For someone who doesn't agree with her message, this is best case to shove a message down your throat, worst case a security breach to their computer.
This is just a legal fact.
> I was interrogated about separate other organizing activities, and asked (eight times) if I had an intention to disrupt the workplace. The interrogations were extremely aggressive and illegal. They wouldn’t let me consult with anyone, including a lawyer, and relentlessly pressured me to incriminate myself and any coworkers
Sounds more foxconn than Google to me...
EDIT: Found one in Purple Communications. It was ruled workers can use work email to organize. https://www.littler.com/nlrb-creates-right-use-corporate-e-m...
If the higher ups felt this message was inappropriate and should be removed they could follow the same procedure instead of firing the engineer
But alot of people in the comments claim that she more or less hacked the system.
I don't believe the code review meets this test, but I'd love to hear from someone who knows what they're talking about.
The logical leaps people are willing to take because they think the ends justify the means is interesting.
If Google upper management had just shut up and kept the status quo and recognized that without impetus, comfortable workers almost certainly won't organize in America, then the unionization of Google would not be a national topic.
But here we are, with holdout reactionary bro's who ate the Ellison/Jobs/Schmidt wage-fixing cartel line about how evil unions were (even as they organized to oppress workers) in positions of power opening up the company (and thus the company's stock) to huge liability.
Speaking of provocation: I suspect she might have done this to intentionally get fired. It wouldn't be the dumbest play, she's super young (21), if she doesn't want to code anymore she could use the exposure to parlay this into a new career, and if she does want to still code, she probably made some new supporters and her detractors will factor in youthful indiscretion. Wild speculation sure, but, you just read a big press article about it... Where do you think the tip came from? This isn't the kind of move you make if you intend to stick around at a place.
If the precedent is "a talking to" with future offenses resulting in a firing, then smart Google employees will realize that they can create an internal activist email list, get new hires to join it, and then when an opportunity for activism presents itself get an employee with a clean record to perform the activism, rinse repeat.
Of course the message in this case wasn't terribly harmful, so I'm sympathetic to the argument of "it's not such a big deal". But the problem is, Google doesn't want to wait for the big deal (for example a chrome extension change to search exec's TextAreas for keywords a "whistleblower" might want to report on) to actually happen and then fire them. They want to prevent employees from thinking they should ever try doing that in the first place which means putting the foot down before the inevitable happens.
Why was this necessary by management? Regardless of what Kathryn did, this is a bad faith move by management.
[1] https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for...
Yikes, that feels so dystopian to me...
"Kathryn Spiers, who worked as a security engineer, updated an internal Chrome browser extension so that each time Google employees visited the website of IRI Consultants — the Troy, Michigan, firm that Google hired this year amid a groundswell of labor activism at the company — they would see a pop-up message that read: “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.”"
It sounds like the person updated an internal extension on everyone's computer to do this. I am tending to side with Google on this, that is not the right way to go about notifying co-workers of right to organize.
My gut is that if she had spammed a bunch of internal mailing lists, she'd not be being fired or even getting a formal reprimand. But the fact that she hijacked an internal security tool for an unintended purpose is alarming. I am fine granting Google rights to run arbitrary code on my browser, but only because I know it has strict processes (including disciplining of employees who subvert the process) to manage submission and deployment of that code.
My preference here would have been for her to get a rebuke and an explanation of why this was bad behavior (unless these ad hoc non-security related messages are common), especially since she's young. But there is a core assumption and trust that is violated when someone abuses control of trusted client code to do something unapproved by organizational review processes.
Most of my anger is directed at the approving coworkers, since they should know better, assuming they are more senior than her.
> “We dismissed an employee who abused privileged access to modify an internal security tool,” a Google spokeswoman said in a statement, adding that it was “a serious violation.”
The only times I’ve ever seen people fired quickly in Tech without a performance improvement plan or something similar is a security violation. Be sure you always take security seriously if you like your job.
No, my main concern is ongoing, persistent, secret access to my machine, particularly delivered via a malicious package. Something like Little Snitch is going to make it much harder for such an attack to work. Locking your machine, 2FA, PKI, etc is not going to help with that threat at all. And I have reason to believe it's more common than people think.
This is far far from the worst that might (and does) happen. I think you severely underestimate the average dev's access to critical systems.
>but presumably all their remote access is 2FA protected
hahahahahaha
You also severely overestimate the security of most companies. A lot of F500s don't even use 2FA at all, let alone on something like CI/CD.
> unlikely that an attacker would find and exploit it faster than the defender would realize the box is gone and revoke keys
I have firsthand seen many cases where this isn't true at all. OTOH, I've never once heard of anyone catching a breach by using Little Snitch or anything close to it (though I'm not opposed to it at all as a good practice).
And in many cases, it has very little to do with "revoking keys" or any kind of remote access. Many people, whether they realize it or not, usually have some very valuable data just sitting in a csv file on their machine (I've encountered a large number of devs that have partial exports of customer databases stored locally on their machine that they were using for local testing). That type of stuff is easily lifted, no remote access required.
A few interesting tidbits: 1. She received extraordinary performance ratings during her short time at google, and got promoted recently 2. Google has not acted this aggressively in the past, where someone deploy a change in people’s Linux wallpaper while the protest happened. 3. She limited the notification to just people visiting the union busting firm
Given those, it does looks like an unusually aggressive response from Google, which would imply that Google has become very aggressive when it comes to unions.
With that said, it is also mentioned in her post that it took several weeks of investigation from Google until they made the final call, which could imply that there is more of a back story here.
My contribution is that it’s foolish to react too quickly to a story like this.
If the headline were accurate, it would be such an obvious own-goal on the part of Google HR, it beggars belief.
I think the wise course is to wait until more details are made public before getting worked up about it.
I'm not sure about that. Outrage quickly passes and is forgotten.
All I have to say is that it will be interesting to see a drastic change in culture in the coming years at Google. Google did foster an "open" culture for more than a decade and now that their own employees are coming after the higher ups, they are trying to squash the rebellion they encouraged? they were fine as long as other employees or other businesses were getting the short hand of the stick...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/17/21024472/google-employee...
Every single time I see these posts the involved employees are activist LGBT folks.
Am I wrong here? Why do all these issues seem to stem from the same group of people?
I guess it’s not enough
This distrust of government pushed the US toward a generally laissez-faire approach to regulation, while most European countries have gone the opposite direction. The approaches differ in terms of workers rights, labor laws, and taxation. Specifically, as a simple example, in the US, you can fire somebody whenever you want. Generally speaking, taxes are lower, it’s easier to start a company, and the regulatory environment is friendlier to business models driven by venture capital.
I’m arguing that it shouldn’t be a surprise, then, that the US has produced more innovation and economic capital than European countries, partially because the regulatory environment is friendlier and more encouraging of risk.
"I’m arguing that it shouldn’t be a surprise, then, that the US has produced more innovation and economic capital than European countries, partially because the regulatory environment is friendlier and more encouraging of risk."
I tend to agree, but that's not really what's at stake for businesses facing organized labor. After WWII, the (capitalist) USA controlled about half of the world's wealth and was home to a robust labor movement. In many ways the American labor movement between ca. 1850 and 1960 was hugely influential in the Western world, including and especially Western Europe. During that time, American businesses produced an astonishing amount of inventions. For these historical reasons, I think the narrative about America's relationship to organized labor is far more complex than you've asserted, unless we're supposed to pretend that American history only dates back to the Reagan administration.
That's a pretty dumb way to notify co-workers of their right to organize, but I guess it's a really good way to get fired and draw up a big media stink about it.
Well, that digital extension belongs to Google. If she wanted to rally company developers she could have used email, created her own website, slack account, WhatsApp, telegram, etc. There are plenty of channels that don't belong to Google.
I doubt anyone in upper management asked her to do this, maybe she took too much freedom and abused her privileged access? "Oh but someone else approved that PR", well probably they ganged up.
She is a Security Engineer, not HR/Management.
If this approved by HR/Management, there would be no problem at all but I think she/they did whatever they wanted without thinking about it.
Hard to see why she shouldn't be fired for that.
Of course she has the right to express that message, and it seems to be factually correct. But that doesn't mean she can use a security tool to spam people.
Sending political messages thorugh a browser extension to other employees seems like a reason for being fired no matter how many reviews you've got.
An employer who tried to pull this in 1970 would have had a picket like outside the door the next day. Union truckers wouldn't deliver to their loading dock.
[1] https://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources-publication/employers...
Rant over - but seriously, I don’t have a problem putting aside any personal feelings or beliefs to achieve my employers goal, that is what employment is. Spiers apparently decided that the security position allowed for this action and did it. Google did not want this type of behavior from an employee in that position. She knew Google management wasn’t going to approve, she assumed that risk.
For the most part, no one seemed concerned and the biggest complaint was regarding leaks which make it harder to deal with issues internally and threaten transparency.
Probably still gets you an easy CTO title at a startup after 2-4 years at Google.
Not anymore, really. It was the case a couple of years ago but right now, for rank-and-file employees, Google downlevels heavily and targets around 80% of the market rate. For some reason, people are still flocking at their doors and because of high supply of candidates, they can afford to be both very selective and very cheap.
It seems pretty unlikely that it would be within your job description to create notifications like this on specific websites, and from reading the blog post and the content here, it seems like these notifications are not meant for "company policies" whatever that means, or at the very least it doesn't make sense why a "security engineer" would have a job that notified employees about this.
So, the assumption therefore must be that this person knew they were going out of the norm, but assumed it was acceptable or protected speech.
That raises a good question: Is it the same thing as a message board? My gut instinct is... no, it really isn't.
This sounds like a tool that requires a specific level of authority to use (you need 2 approvals). Not just anyone can put notifications like this in the tool! So this isn't like a message board... this sounds like it was a person abusing their privileges.
Now, for me the next question is: does that mean they should be fired? Personally, I'd say... no. It shows bad judgement, but firing seems disproportionate. In that regard, even if it was a misguided attempt at using their organizing rights, there is an argument to be made that they shouldn't be fired for it (maybe warned, but not fired). So I think even though it sounds pretty fishy, I think there is likely still a possible case here for workers rights issues (though I am not a lawyer).
There's nothing wrong with Unions, but there is something wrong with government-backed unions.
Let people collectivize if they'd like. Collective bargaining is fine, and you aren't living in a free country if you can't collectively bargain -- but collective bargaining shouldn't mean you automatically get government as an ally.
The battle between Union and Company should be between Union and Company.
It would feel like a violation. Not "siding with Google" here. It just definitely would feel like a violation of my trust in the platform engineering team. At that point, I want them to promise not to do it in future, or get their software off my machine. And to be honest, relations are going to be strained between us anyway. I'm not going to be thrilled about any further software.
I don't even want reciprocal "I can push to you" powers. And I have no problem discussing these things where we agreed to discuss them.
But letting you install software on my machine comes with an obligation - you don't get to use that as a backdoor soapbox. Feels so very icky.
Like if a friend told me she would like to stay over and I gave her a key and she decided to plaster my home with posters. It doesn't matter if the posters are against the freaking Holocaust. I'm not pro-Holocaust and I'd want the friend to leave. Pronto.
Honest question for long term(4+ years) Google Engineers reading... has the change in culture and bad press lately had any effect on your feelings towards your employer? Do you think it is eroding their culture at G? Do you see any of this leading to a loss of talent?
Anyone know the likely reasons your average Googler might have visited this consulting firm's site? Like, was Google sending employees to it for some reason (why?), or would it have just been by chance or because they read Google hired them in the news and wanted to see what they were up to?
Totally agree with the spirit of what she did and applaud her efforts to organize, but there's no way she didn't know what she did could get her fired. What did you think would happen when you made unauthorized changes to software that promote actions against the company's interests?
Not saying the company is a blameless party (especially after the news today of their expiring cloud business, this is clearly a shady company), honestly, I'm not even commenting on the substance of what she wrote.
This just seems like something that anyone with half a brain would realize could get them fired before they deployed those changes.
I still feel bad when anyone loses their job and source of income, and maybe a reprimand would have been more balanced given her high performance reviews before, I just can't see any context where this is seen as neutral or ok.
The chrome extension was modified but approved by two other people? Were these two other people on her side?
Regardless of policy or no policy, having an internal tool modified to say, “we have the right to organize,” clearly sets off some trust concerns with me.
If this extension was approved by two people who were on her side, then those two need to be removed as well and there should be a rethinking of the approval process.
> This kind of code change happens all the time. We frequently add things to make our jobs easier or even to just share hobbies or interests.
This doesn't sounds like privileged access, it sounds more like they have issues with their pipeline. If all what it takes for code to get in Production(even if it's internal), is at least two approvals, I think that's a bigger problem.
She was a member of the group maintaining that toola and abused her authority for a personal crusade; hence terminated.
“Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.”
which seems pretty reasonable since her job is literally to place notifications of what employees legally can and can’t do when visiting websites.
> Kathryn Spiers updated an internal Chrome browser extension so that each time Google employees visited the website of IRI Consultants — the Troy, Michigan, firm that Google hired this year amid a groundswell of labor activism at the company — they would see a pop-up message that read: “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.”
Yeah ok.
* but please leave some tiiiiny little bits home
Google is in a phenomenally trusted position in the world. Chrome is the most popular browser. It auto updates silently and continuously, as do installed extensions. Vast swathes of information and infrastructure is accessed via web apps. We tend to forget that browser makers have access to all our authentication tokens and can do whatever they like.
Put simply, given the level of web dependence in our lives and infrastructure, those who can modify browsers are practically gods. The same goes for operating system developers of course.
We don't think about this because our level of trust in those developers and the corporations they work for is extremely high and deservedly so: after decades of using operating systems and web browsers they've never violated that trust. In fact they've reinforced it by rolling out encryption to block rogue government departments who were exploiting the lack of it, they've invested heavily in security to lock out hackers and done many other great things.
But trust is hard to build and easy to destroy. What if browser makers stopped being so trustworthy? What if they started to become convinced of their own superior morality, the correctness of their political judgements, the importance of their role in the world? What could they do?
They could use SafeBrowsing to arbitrarily censor the web.
They could edit out individual comments, rewrite news stories, insert their own views into the middle of documents purporting to be neutral. They could distort your view of the web at will.
They could violate our privacy at will by linking our identities together and then publishing what we've written, they could publish browsing logs, they could take over any accounts we have and use them for whatever purposes they like, they could feed sensitive information to political enemies to give themselves plausible deniability, they could even frame us by posting illegal material under those accounts. It'd just look like someone phished the password.
They could do many other things we never even considered.
Google absolutely needed to go nuclear on this employee. The news has been filled over the past years with stories about Googler's increasingly hard-left political activism. As a consequence some users and even politicians have started to wonder if Google Search is trustworthy, but their trust in browser developers is so total, so blind, the world hasn't yet taken the next mental leap and started to wonder if Chrome is. Mozilla is hardly in a better position: it's funded by Google and literally just down the road from them. If the integrity of the Chrome devs start to be doubted, few will consider Mozilla devs to be radically different.
Inserting political JavaScript via browser security mechanisms targeted at Googlers, even if it may seem fairly harmless in this case, is a very problematic situation and a slippery slope Google simply cannot afford to go near. It raises fundamental questions, like are Google's internal procedures robust? What else might have been slipped through code review already? Are Google employees only adjusting their own tools or did some already start to abuse their access to people's private data and systems? How many of them feel the ends justify the means when dealing with political causes they feel passionately about?
How safe is Chrome, really?
Did it push notifications with a particular political message? I don't think it did.
"You have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms" when employees visited cabelas.com, would you call it a political message?
Both are simply informing people of their rights.
I've seen it reach the collective conscious more in the last two years in San Francisco, but I'm not at a FAANG to see if its really permeating. As in at a bar or courtyard it might not be the most outlandish topic of conversation, compared to an idea immediately scoffed at since all of us made conscious financial decisions to pursue high paying jobs without union dues. People are curious about the benefits.
My only observation is that multiple of the largest publicly listed companies in the world are right here, and that the high compensation has nothing to do with what's possible. If compensation reached ratios with housing that haven't been seen since the 1980s, then the compensation would still be substantially higher on average than it is today. For reference, it means fully owning your house in 5 years. Not the 8-11 year situation that even highly compensated FAANG workers experience. But compensation may or may not improve with unionization, with the reality that higher comp outliers might disappear. The employees may have more say in other perks such as the company towns their employers have created in south bay. Overall at this point I am seeing net benefits, distinct from the public sector blue-collar work that unions have become associated with.
I heard the food had gotten bad, but I didn’t know it was this bad.
Why would the engineer reveal their HS graduation year if they didn't want the world to know it? I considered that they must have had little experience considering their graduation year and the average or even above average experience of those graduating the same year.