Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Fired Me

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 81 posts

Re: Google Fired Me

#51

Post by anon4 »

ohitsdom wrote: post #22

Without knowing the details: Confronting the person (after HR said not to!) was a terrible decision, and probably made the person extremely uncomfortable. Then following up with that person to contact HR sounds like straight harassment. I get that the author may have had honest intentions, but the party that initiated the complaint clearly was uncomfortable with contact. It sucks and it's awkward, but at that point y…

Absolutely - when a person cannot act as an adult in the real world, the LAST THING you want to do is have any contact with them. HR are obligated to side with the female in practically every situation short of physical assault on her part, as anything else opens them up for some serious litigation.

Just think of her as a bully - give her a wide berth while passing her on the corridor, don't stay in common areas when she's there if you can help it, and if you ever get invited to the same party as her by a mutual friend, stay at the other end of the room. Best of all, if you can, quit your job. You don't want toxic people in your life.

Re: Google Fired Me

#52

Post by anon4 »

cm2187 wrote: post #3

It's hard to form an opinion without knowing what is "this thing" the author has done, unless I missed the part where he describes it. If he acknowledged to a colleague of having killed someone, the context is pretty different from a minor violation of an internal policy.

Correction: it's a thing that she thought he had done based on hearsay from other coworkers, but which he hadn't actually done. Could have been "Hey, so-and-so told me you have a great rack when we were both wasted at the bar", used as a flirty opening by a coworker, but one which backfired spectacularly.

Re: Google Fired Me

#53

Post by hwstar »

osullivj wrote: post #41
rewqfdsa wrote: post #2

Never talk to HR.

Remember your employment rights. Or, if you're in the US, remember you have almost no employment rights.

It would be interesting to see how this would be handled in the European Union. It's almost certain that it would have been more work for the HR department than in the US.

Re: Google Fired Me

#54

Post by hwstar »

engi_nerd wrote: post #26
brodo wrote: post #8

If HR tells you "if XYZ happens, you're fired" it's time to look for a new job.

Yes. "Performance Improvement Plans" are also the kiss of death. When it looks like you're about to be placed under one, fairly or not, you should attempt to find other employment ASAP.

Or as soon as you are asked to sign a PIP the relationship has soured and you should be looking for a new job, or if you have FU money, resign.

Re: Google Fired Me

#55

Post by hwstar »

forgottenpass wrote: post #17
Tomte wrote: post #4

Okay, yes, unrequited love hurts. A lot. But still... you acted stupidly. You were told that you weren't supposed to contact her. Doesn't matter if that's fair or legal or whatever. It's simply a bad idea to "bring up the HR issue" when walking home alone. And your conversation was probably very short mostly because it was extremely uncomfortable for her. Shortly after that you're wondering what's happening now. Inst…

I don't know how you pull unrequited love out of such a vauge post. If we are to make that leap of assumption, it's a tiny additional inference to say the root cause was at least one of them was unable to mange the interaction line an adult (pursuer wouldn't take no for an answer and/or perused didn't bother to shut it down properly). HR conversations basically take the American inability to be direct and multiply it…

There was probably not enough ammunition (i.e. documentation) to avoid a wrongful termination issue, or Google gave the person the benefit of the doubt and and issued a warning as a documentation point.

In any case the person in question should have started looking for a new job at that point as the relationship is damaged, or resigned if they had the financial resources to do so.

Re: Google Fired Me

#56

Post by felideon »

Someone1234 wrote: post #6

This is intentionally vague to the point of being dishonest. Take this quote: > They asked about my whereabouts that involved this co-worker, all of which happened outside the workplace. I asked why these events mattered, and they told me that an issue has been brought to their attention in such a way that is has entered the workplace, and thus is now a workplace matter. So something happened outside of the workplace…

Agreed. His language tells a lot. From the beginning he is distancing himself from this person by saying "this coworker" and "that coworker" but then later on gives a weak implication of friendship. So what is it, friend or co-worker?

If they were actually friends outside of work situations, you would expect less distancing language to that person from the beginning. First sentence mentioning 'coworker', emphasis mine:

> The first meeting involved being asked a series of questions about me and another co-worker.

You would expect "about me and a friend who also works at google" or even "about me and a co-worker". I think "another" places greater distance between the two.

> If this co-worker wasn’t my friend at the time [...].

You would expect a less convoluted sentence, something along the lines of "If [him|her] and I weren't friends" or "If my coworker and I weren't friends".

> and wasn’t friends with my other friends, this could have been simple to follow

This sounds redundant, and kind of shows the need to convince the reader that there was a healthy social relationship prior to the HR incident.

I'm not saying the person had or has any malicious intent, but is probably — as others have commented — not aware of his own impropriety.

Disclaimer: I am not a linguist or anything, take with a grain a salt.

Re: Google Fired Me

#57

Post by ghaff »

felideon wrote: post #56
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

This is intentionally vague to the point of being dishonest. Take this quote: > They asked about my whereabouts that involved this co-worker, all of which happened outside the workplace. I asked why these events mattered, and they told me that an issue has been brought to their attention in such a way that is has entered the workplace, and thus is now a workplace matter. So something happened outside of the workplace…

Agreed. His language tells a lot. From the beginning he is distancing himself from this person by saying " this coworker" and " that coworker" but then later on gives a weak implication of friendship. So what is it, friend or co-worker? If they were actually friends outside of work situations, you would expect less distancing language to that person from the beginning. First sentence mentioning 'coworker', emphasis m…

The whole post is filled with convoluted language and vague words like "interactions." I suppose it's possible that a co-worker who is just part of a group of drinking buddies or whatever heard some (purportedly false) story about the author one day and promptly headed over to HR. But that seems... unlikely.

Re: Google Fired Me

#58

Post by Johnny555 »

totalrobe wrote: post #21
fearface wrote: post #10

15 years ago, freshly employed, less than 25 years old, introverted and socially awkward, I had a work colleague as well to which I wrote a romantic poem (for her, more or less out of the blue). It wasn't received well. Not well at all. I had trouble understanding her dismissal and insisted on that she gave me signs of affection. HR was involved briefly, my story sounded so similar to what OP writes. But in my case,…

This is why you should party or at least socialize widely in college. To get all that weird socially awkward shit over with before you're in the workplace and it impacts yours or another's career.

The socialization skills I learned in college didn't really help me at my first corporate job where the rules are completely different.

Re: Google Fired Me

#59

Post by [deleted] »

hoopism wrote: post #24

I can't help but look at it from the other person's perspective. They went to HR and were clearly upset/disturbed. HR then told this guy clearly to avoid contact at work. The guy then ignores this order and confronts the person. I can only imagine the confronted person would say anything to avoid this author. Basically the author approached them (when told not to) and said "Hey, I am gunna get fired cus of you!". Who…

[deleted]

Re: Google Fired Me

#60

Post by Johnny555 »

felideon wrote: post #56
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

This is intentionally vague to the point of being dishonest. Take this quote: > They asked about my whereabouts that involved this co-worker, all of which happened outside the workplace. I asked why these events mattered, and they told me that an issue has been brought to their attention in such a way that is has entered the workplace, and thus is now a workplace matter. So something happened outside of the workplace…

Agreed. His language tells a lot. From the beginning he is distancing himself from this person by saying " this coworker" and " that coworker" but then later on gives a weak implication of friendship. So what is it, friend or co-worker? If they were actually friends outside of work situations, you would expect less distancing language to that person from the beginning. First sentence mentioning 'coworker', emphasis m…

Based on the photo of him draped in a rainbow colored cape at what appears to be a Pride parade, I suspect that this involves a case of a homosexual advance on a straight coworker, which, depending on the person, could make it more sensitive.

Despite huge progress in gay rights and public acceptance, not everyone is so accepting.

I'll admit that I have nothing to base this on other than pure speculation, but the lack of detail in the post makes wild speculation possible. As a manager, I once had a similar situation between two coworkers - too much alcohol at a Holiday party led to an unwanted advance that was not accepted well at all, there was almost a physical altercation. Though in this case, both parties wanted nothing more than to stay away from each other so a reassignment to a team that was based in a building across town was an "easy" solution (keeping them socially separated was self-fulfilling), though one party left the company within a year ostensibly for unrelated reasons.

Post reply on HN