And the popup message is one Google is required by law to make available to its employees.
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.
... 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.