[kop316]

This was the process: "the standard approval process, which requires two co-workers to greenlight changes"

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.

[danso]

Sorry, but could you clarify what you would be fired for in your hypothetical situation? Presumably, it's not automatically against company policy to expense a trip to Hawaii.

[kop316]

I was implying I took the trip to vacation, not to do work. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[danso]

And your supervisor knew of your intent to deceive the company when they made the approval? And if so, why would they make the approval unless they too wanted to be fired?

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)

[MiroF]

If your supervisor knew that you were taking the trip to vacation, why would they approve it?

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.

[zo1]

No, to follow the analogy: The supervisor trusted that person to only put in requests that are actually work-related. Just because the process says "supervisor approves" doesn't mean that it absolves the subordinate of responsibility.

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.

[throwaway2048]

So forming a union (which is absolutely legally protected) is like going on a vacation?

[FussyZeus]

Because adding harmless code and stealing plane tickets, hotel fare, and maybe a rental car are the same thing.

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.

[omegabravo]

They are merely pointing out that despite the action following one standard procedure, it is still possible to be against the rules.

[FussyZeus]

And a fox has every reason to make a "rule" that dogs can't go in the henhouse. That's why we don't let foxes guard henhouses.

[dominotw]

no it shouldn't, your supervisor thinks that you should go to hawaii for company's benefit.

[mkolodny]

I think in that case your supervisor should be fired.

You followed company policy, but your supervisor didn't.