I love that a site full of engineers is pretending that getting a pull request approved by colleagues is the same thing as getting management's approval for a new, most likely controversial feature. Google is clearly trying to squash union organizing at the company but let's not pretend this employee was correct in her actions. Google being evil and this employee being in the wrong are not mutually exclusive.
I'm stunned by the number of people who think that reviewing a PR is just a matter of checking the code works and looks clean.
Does nobody ask what the code is for and why you're doing it? I mean, I don't expect people to require detailed specs before approving, but a quick "what's this code for, and why are you doing it?" before addressing the details.
Even if they asked those questions, the PR would've looked pretty legit. No one directly asks "did your manager approve this?", that would be silly. When a PR is made and you're asked to review, you assume that the person went through the proper steps to get approval in the first place. In this case those other employees would've seen just another notice being added to an employee page
The employee was not correct in doing her legal obligation to inform people of their right to organize in an app designed to inform employees about various rights and things as they browse the web? Which she had the authority to do because it's literally what she was hired to do?
Can you explain how this makes the employee wrong if they follow the law and their company fires them for doing so?
A writer hired to write the wording on Google's websites could submit a change that rot13s every word on Google's web properties. This would not be against the law, additionally it would be exactly what the employee was hired to do. But the employee should be fired all the same.
> "The employee was not correct in doing her legal obligation to inform people of their right to organize..."
The corporation as an entity has the legal obligation to inform people of their right to organize. The corporation has designated specific people with the appropriate expertise and authority as those permitted to do so. Said group does not include this individual. End of story.
> "Which she had the authority to do because it's literally what she was hired to do?"
This individual is a legal or HR specialist with expertise in US labor law and knowledge of approved mechanisms for complying with said laws? No? How odd it is, then, that people are claiming that is what she was "hired to do" despite having no qualifications or permission to to do so.
If my company's handbook on privileged access is anything like Google's, it's completely against the rules to do something like this, even if it's for a noble or worthy cause for its employees, even if other employee's must sign off on the change. Our employee agreement comes with an NDA that tells us to not speak bad about the company, and insubordination of this has resulted in firings just from social media criticism.
I'm not siding with Google, but I'm not siding with her either. The facts and evidence presented to me don't give me an impression that Google was in the wrong by firing her. My opinion will change if I see that the guiding principles or Employee handbook that led Google to this decision are not in agreement.
