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

Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 423 posts

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#121

Post by mnglkhn2 »

oddlyaromatic wrote: post #61
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not saying Google has to uphold everyone's 1A rights. Not saying dude who wrote the essay is correct either. But it's a lie to say Google's culture supports free speech when the cost of that speech is compliance with the tyranny of a Code of Conduct.

>But it's a lie to say Google's culture supports free speech when the cost of that speech is compliance with the tyranny of a Code of Conduct. I think people often expect 'free speech' in situations where I wouldn't. Like a collaborative working environment where you are all professionals trying to get work done. There is a subset of speech (so no longer 'free') that is appropriate for working professionally with a g…

Your argument seems to be that in an work environment opinions should be kept to one's self. Would that apply only to Republicans or to Democrats as well?

It is an utopia to pretend that the workplace should be opinion-free. Especially since the workplace on purpose tries to blur the lines between personal and professional lives: dorms on campus, cafeteria, malls and dry-cleaning amenities on campus.

If that's the direction business are going towards to then it is normal to accept that the employee comes with opinions attached.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#122

Post by aeorgnoieang »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #107
puranjay wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is how it should be. The owners of any business are free to create whatever business environment they want to create. The market is supposed to punish or reward them accordingly.

People being up in arms about this issue is exactly 'the market punishing or rewarding Google accordingly'. That said, don't expect the market to give you a solution that's fair to people - the only one you'll get is the one of maximum profitability under implicit rules of the current culture. Those are very much not the same things.

To be fair, 'the market' is much less strictly economic now – the phrase or even the idea itself, not the network of economic activity (which remains as 'economic' as ever).

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#123

Post by TeMPOraL »

puranjay wrote: post #112
MichaelGG wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, we should let companies have explicit policies against certain races cause the market will sort it out... I don't think I've ever heard that "the market" will deal with unfair internal HR policies.

What tech company would be able to attract top workers if it had an explicit policy against a certain race? The job market, too, is a market.

There's enough "top workers" available in pretty much any kind of social/racial/gender-based group you could delineate, that even companies with explicit discrimination policies can find the talent they need.

The market won't give you the solution you seek; the issue does not impact profitability enough.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#124

Post by sol_remmy »

puranjay wrote: post #103
ryandvm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral of the story is something most adults figure out by their mid 20s: if you like your job, keep your mouth shut about your political/religious beliefs. And despite what any employer will tell you about their workplace being an open forum, they are full of shit. What they mean is, it's an open forum to agree with management.

Which is how it should be. The owners of any business are free to create whatever business environment they want to create. The market is supposed to punish or reward them accordingly.

Government regulation is actually the culprit here.

Google is being sued by the Department of Labor for violating a gender discrimination regulation: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...

These companies behavior has nothing to do with the free market. It is a response to government regulation.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#127

Post by swat535 »

se2 wrote: post #10
koolba wrote: post #5

Quoting Sundar Pichai (Google CEO), emphasis mine: > At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint) . They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings,…

I believe you have misconstrued the message Sundar was giving. The difference between having the freedom to speak one's mind, and breaching a code of conduct that you sign when you agree to work for Google is clear cut in his note.

Google can indeed impose a code of conduct on its employees when they sign up.

However, that does not give licence to Google to place unreasonable limits on employees constitutional rights.

To do so would give privately entered contracts the power to overturn the constitution which society has enacted.

The debate here is over whether his comments were reasonable in this context.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#128

Post by cynicalkane »

koolba wrote: post #5

Quoting Sundar Pichai (Google CEO), emphasis mine: > At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint) . They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings,…

Also from the memo:

> However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.

He made his continued employment both a social and legal liability. This is a fireable offense even if he was "right".

Also consider this. As part of Google's mandatory diversity training, one is presented with Google's internal research claiming that unconscious bias is real and measurable, and that diversity hiring yields both better individual and group performance. In short, Google feels these programs are scientifically valid. The author claims they aren't, but casually dismisses Google's position without really addressing it. Instead we get an evo-psych Chewbacca defense, phrased in a way that's sure to offend a large number of people. Even if he did that in good faith, it's a colossal mistake at best.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#130

Post by benchaney »

pimmen wrote: post #101
slavak wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He referred to a "lowered bar" in the form of a reduced false-negative rate for "diversity candidates"; at no point in the document did he imply his female engineer colleagues are less qualified. He also had a reference to apparently support this assertion, but since the hyperlink leads to an internal Google group we can't really know its contents unless a Googler informs us. From the original memo: > However, to ach…

Let's assume this guy knows statistics; by lowering the rate of false-negatives, you raise the rate of false-positives. This means that he's heavily implying Google has employed undeperforming engineers with these practices.

This is only true if the total number of trials and the test outcomes stay the same, which is definitely not the case here.
Post reply on HN