> Why is that? Please give an example of what I said that is sexist or any other -ist.

Because you are specifically supporting a narrative that declines to grant an arbitrary status to a woman even as you argue that there is no clear delineation of that status. You "know it when you see it" is a hell of a thing to say as you make a pronouncement about someone's termination from a job.

What's more, looking over the history of this thread, you've substantially changed your message depending on how forcefully people reply to you. You've gone from saying that she cannot be an engineer because she has no credentials (which you first try to claim is required, "That IS why (engineers are credentialed and regulated)." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21822286); and eventually move to saying you're a fiat arbiter of: "[I] can recognize something that isn't one." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21832089)

It's crystal clear you're not having a discussion. You're trying to push a narrative. You're writing anything you think you can get away with, and trusting the thread depth cutoffs of HN to hide that part of the thread.

> No, it's perfectly reasonable to object to points that were made that don't support the argument. I'm only stating that CompTIA+ does not provide evidence that you are an engineer because of the nature of the certification.

The assertion earlier was that she was untrained. She is clearly not.

> I'm not. I'm neutral to whether googler's want a union or not since I don't have to work there and have no interest at all in google's future direction.

This isn't really the question and I don't know why you think this statement is relevant. The question is "should people be fired for talking about unionization." Clearly, you now that some Googlers are friendly to unionization in at least some aspects of the workplace. You're reading a story about one right now.

> I'm eager to inject some reality into some very dangerous idealism before more people think they will stand up to the man without understanding the not-so-nice realities.

Oh? And those not-so-nice realities seem to be that you'll cheerfully throw in with discrediting a woman.

> But engineer or not, she doesn't have that kind of autonomy. No employee really does, including directors.

No technical organization I've ever encountered has to go and get every action stamped and filed by their manager to avoid being fired. That's so far beyond the norm I'm wondering if you've ever been a manager or run your own company.

Quite the contrary, Management has to constantly document directives in writing and carefully apply messages to employees because there is substantial legal risk in just letting managers do whatever they feel like.

> and her manager's manager having not approved the labor message, corporate security policies, and on and on. Then she shows up with, "but I thought it was OK because I did other stuff similar before, but it didn't involve labor notices. Yes, I had no actual authorization, but I was trusted as an engineer". People need to think adversarially, not just "Oh the NLRB will magically protect me". Because it can't if they don't follow the rules to the letter, and even then only partially.

"Thinking adversarially" is at this point collective action. As I've said, Google is making a stronger and stronger case for all its employees that they need to consider a defensive unionization strategy.

> A company in google's position is just waiting for people to do what she did: combine legal organizing with breaking a verifiable rule

If she goes to court, they're going to have to prove there was a rule in place and that it was communicated to her. We'll see then.