"Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities" is not a personal political opinion, it is the law.
And to people who are trying to justify this by process being "technically possible" - there is a non empty set of Apple and Google employees who can technically push any code to your phone remotely. Is it still acceptable for them to use that to push their political agenda?
Because it comes down to trust. You trust people who can push code to your devices to not abuse it.
This developer's change was much more narrow, it modified an internal tool that only Google employees see. But it's still breaching professionalism. If the message instead was, "Unions are corrupt and deprive people of individual agency" would that be acceptable? Especially with the unique position Google is in as our gateway to information, it's prudent to avoid employees that cannot refrain from making changes to production software to further personal politics.
To state the law* for internal users who visit one specific website
https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/4/21549760/uber-lyft-prop-2...
So yes, there is a big difference.
if the owners of the company feels the desire to, they can instruct their employees to perform work to broadcast/promote their (owner's) political beliefs. This is just a case of a company using its resources for a purpose designated by the owner.
An employee co-opting company resources without owner approval to broadcast their (employee's) political message is not allowed, unless explicitly given permission by the owners.
Why people cannot tell the difference between the two situations above is beyond me - it's not like they are similar or confusing.
no that's not what the article says.
The article claims: > NLRB has found Google’s policy against employees looking at certain coworkers’ calendars is unlawful.
Google claimed that she abused security notification system for websites to show a non-security related message (see https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/17/fifth-google...). She could, within her rights, send emails to organize a company wide meeting, or write up a public document to talk about unionization. If google had banned this, then they would fall afoul of the law.
May be google is really using the excuse that she abused security notification systems to fire her. That's something I'm not privy to, and only litigation will reveal this (if it even does).
The NLRB ruled both firings were illegitimate and their actions protected under labor law. So no, she was within her rights and the NLRB said she’s to be reinstated.
The NLRB has no direct enforcement power, so how it resolves itself will be dependent on if the NLRB pursues Google in the U.S. Court of Appeals, they settle out of court, or otherwise. My guess is that they settle because an NLRB ruling against you isn’t likely to work in your favor in the event of an employment lawsuit. But regardless, what Spiers did stands as a favorable precedent for workers in the event of other disputes with similar circumstances.
ICI consultants isn't a criminal organization as far as I know, and without really knowing anything about them, I would assume the consulting services they provide don't tell companies to perform illegal acts.
"Nobody has the right to ..." is your opinion.
And it looks to me that's just what the GP poster was trying to do - challenge others to argue with a truism while pretending that the context in which it was stated isn't relevant.
> She used an internal security tool to push the law
Even for messages I agreed with, I would still find this a questionable activity and disruptive as an employee.
Seems like if that's the status quo, it should be disrupted.
"Oh, I'm just informing people of their constitutional rights? What's the problem? I thought this was 'merica"
Until Trump's NLRB overturned the precedent late last year, workers had stronger protections than getting fired for a minor slip-up in the course of organizing. But today, your intuition would be correct.
No, that is not true. Some of us take security seriously.
But I wonder if anyone would be have been fired if it were an April fools prank?