What I find most interesting about these situations - and they've happened in google before - is that the employees are almost always fired for 'security breaches'. Is it a huge coincidence that the employees who want to unionise happen to always be breaching security, or is google just stretching the definition of security breach?
One could even say that their need to breach protocol to unionise is a violation on google's part in the first place. It should be incredibly easy to unionise.
Almost every one at all institutions I have worked in the past was guilty of a security breach of some sort. One org mandated that you were not allowed to have the 2FA token and your laptop in the same bag. But almost everyone, including me, at some point had their token on the keyring - if you’d throw that in your backpack, put the laptop in you had a security breach. In another, you were not allowed to leave the laptop in a car unattended - leave it in at the gas station while going to pay: security breach. And so on.
Security breaches are convenient as cause: If rules are sufficiently byzantine, everyone breaches them at some point or another. “Security breach” also sounds bad enough that few will question the decision to fire. “But everyone does it.” is no defense against an alleged security breach. Whether the rules actually increase security doesn’t matter.
First, practically any information revealed can be considered security breach even if you just forward a meeting invite with a list of coworkers to your private email or you talked to your friend at a party about what you do at work. This is all explicitly, prominently prohibited by contract (not a google employee but any large corporation I worked did that).
Second, company can avoid releasing too much information about it exactly because it is security matter.
Third, there is usually good track of evidence and it is easy to find. Just look at the mail the person sent outside the company and look for anything they should not be revealing (ie. almost any information).
Fourth, there needs to be no precedent for firing employees for security incidents. Companies do that regularly for valid reasons. And yet as or even more frequently, they decide not to react, also for valid reasons.
Perhaps Google has a strict security policy with lax enforcement (i.e. regularly violated by employees and normally tolerated) which makes it useful for selectively enforcing against people you need a good reason to fire?
Neither. Google is selectively enforcing their security policy. The article explains: "It fired a number of staff for violating data security - but the NLRB said the rules were applied only to those engaging in union activity."
Not commenting on this particular scenario. But one reason for the continued existence of absurd laws impossible to comply with, is to selectively apply it against inconvenient people.
Big companies keep getting away from having union being created. Why can't the government make creation of unions mandatory for companies of a certain size?
A couple of reasons, first government messing in business is almost always a disaster.
Second, I don't ever want to work in a union environment again. If I don't want to join a union it should be my choice, but as soon as one exists you get this "you Vs the union" mentality.
"Sorry, he was harrasing you? Well, he's in a union and you are not -- so we have to support him".
It's bullshit and horse shit, just look at people getting attacked for working in the UK during the 70's.
Germany has „workers councils“. All my interactions with them were negative - they’re extortionate bureaucrats. The idea behind it sounds nice, the reality not so much.
If Googler's did manage to unionize what would be some of the biggest changes that would happen at Google as a result? I'm an outsider so I don't have much of a picture into how employees feel about Google. But I am curious about the bigger picture. Feel free to make a throw away if anyone wants to post
I love how the US government, having long been very anti-collectivisation themselves, are now attacking firms for this behaviour. That should tell you how powerful private corporations have become.
"And [google] also accessed an employee slide presentation that was part of a union drive, the complaint said."
Does anyone know if this means that they accessed customer files while doing a 'completely unrelated' investigation?
In other words, if a member of a homeless shelter association is complaining loudly enough about google security's behaviour, will google read their files to find donors they can pressure?
> Does anyone know if this means that they accessed customer files while doing a 'completely unrelated' investigation?
What actually stops Google from doing things like that other than their own internal rules and processes? Nothing really, other than the microscopic risk of getting caught, which they may or may not ignore depending on the advantage Google would gain from bending their own rules.
We're in a situation where we just need to "trust them" to not be evil. How's that working out for us?
It's not legal in the U.S., where union organizing is protected under law. The beginning of the article says:
"Google unlawfully fired employees for attempting to organise a union, a US federal agency has said.
A complaint filed by the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleged that Google unlawfully monitored and questioned its employees about their union activity."
[+] [-] greenyoda|5 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25278781
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25290009
[+] [-] postingpals|5 years ago|reply
One could even say that their need to breach protocol to unionise is a violation on google's part in the first place. It should be incredibly easy to unionise.
[+] [-] Xylakant|5 years ago|reply
Security breaches are convenient as cause: If rules are sufficiently byzantine, everyone breaches them at some point or another. “Security breach” also sounds bad enough that few will question the decision to fire. “But everyone does it.” is no defense against an alleged security breach. Whether the rules actually increase security doesn’t matter.
[+] [-] lmilcin|5 years ago|reply
First, practically any information revealed can be considered security breach even if you just forward a meeting invite with a list of coworkers to your private email or you talked to your friend at a party about what you do at work. This is all explicitly, prominently prohibited by contract (not a google employee but any large corporation I worked did that).
Second, company can avoid releasing too much information about it exactly because it is security matter.
Third, there is usually good track of evidence and it is easy to find. Just look at the mail the person sent outside the company and look for anything they should not be revealing (ie. almost any information).
Fourth, there needs to be no precedent for firing employees for security incidents. Companies do that regularly for valid reasons. And yet as or even more frequently, they decide not to react, also for valid reasons.
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drudu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sn41|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] infinityplus1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeCow|5 years ago|reply
Second, I don't ever want to work in a union environment again. If I don't want to join a union it should be my choice, but as soon as one exists you get this "you Vs the union" mentality.
"Sorry, he was harrasing you? Well, he's in a union and you are not -- so we have to support him".
It's bullshit and horse shit, just look at people getting attacked for working in the UK during the 70's.
[+] [-] MrBuddyCasino|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Uptrenda|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] postingpals|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|5 years ago|reply
Does anyone know if this means that they accessed customer files while doing a 'completely unrelated' investigation?
In other words, if a member of a homeless shelter association is complaining loudly enough about google security's behaviour, will google read their files to find donors they can pressure?
[+] [-] crispyambulance|5 years ago|reply
What actually stops Google from doing things like that other than their own internal rules and processes? Nothing really, other than the microscopic risk of getting caught, which they may or may not ignore depending on the advantage Google would gain from bending their own rules.
We're in a situation where we just need to "trust them" to not be evil. How's that working out for us?
[+] [-] blastonico|5 years ago|reply
I don't trust them.
[+] [-] HipstaJules|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greenyoda|5 years ago|reply
"Google unlawfully fired employees for attempting to organise a union, a US federal agency has said.
A complaint filed by the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleged that Google unlawfully monitored and questioned its employees about their union activity."
[+] [-] throway1gjj|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throway1gjj|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geewee|5 years ago|reply