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

Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 183 posts

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#151

Post by geofft »

roenxi wrote: post #122
geofft wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't like their chances either way, management will persist in making management decisions even if they need to fire people to do so I'm not sure this is true - Google's legendarily high salaries and retention incentives are high because management has high demand for good people and specifically for people who have been at the company for a while. They might fire people, yes, but they won't do so casually. They…

Anything is possible. But there is a world of difference between an employee getting a lot of compensation and an employee who won't work on something the company thinks is important. This could be an existential challenge to the company's owners being in control. The reason employees don't get % share of the profits is literally because they don't control what the company does. If employees seriously can control wha…

Seems like a reasonable question to ask, but one less urgent for the employees (or anyone, really) to resolve than these other policy questions they're interested in. I do agree that Google should operate as a worker's collective instead of as a corporation with shareholders, but I don't think it's a prerequisite for anything.

(Also I'm pretty sure literally every employee involved is a shareholder with personal finances exposed to the state of the company. Stock is a serious form of compensation at Google.)

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#152

Post by weberc2 »

inetknght wrote: post #43
nostrademons wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the popular unrest facing both corporations & governments today is people learning that conflict gets results . The logic goes that "Well, Andy Rubin managed to exercise his threat to sue to get a $90M severance package, and he doesn't even work for the company anymore. We do work for the company, so we are going to exercise our power as employees to put pressure on the company to not do this again , so that…

> The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally The end does not justify the means. So what good is a society built on prejudice, harassment, and corruption? If you can sweep controversy under the rug until such time that it's convenient then good luck ever getting change to occur for the better. > by getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it ano…

> Making it anonymous & fungible is only necessary if you're unable or unwilling to stand up for your actions.

Doesn’t this presuppose “good” people are in charge?

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#154

Post by notacoward »

leereeves wrote: post #105
notacoward wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because there's an infinite supply of completely interchangeable workers, and no costs associated with hiring or training.

Yes, those are two obstacles that employers face when hiring strikebreakers, along with more significant obstacles like laws forbidding strikebreakers, licensing, and union violence. The common factor is that it's not enough to refuse to work, unions must be able to ensure that no one does the work.

> unions must be able to ensure that no one does the work.

Often the barrier is natural, such as with folks at Google who built the systems and are (collectively) the only ones who can keep them running without significant interruption. By what authority, for what compelling reason, would you abridge their freedom of association (or in this case non-association)?

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#155

Post by leereeves »

notacoward wrote: post #154
leereeves wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, those are two obstacles that employers face when hiring strikebreakers, along with more significant obstacles like laws forbidding strikebreakers, licensing, and union violence. The common factor is that it's not enough to refuse to work, unions must be able to ensure that no one does the work.

> unions must be able to ensure that no one does the work. Often the barrier is natural, such as with folks at Google who built the systems and are (collectively) the only ones who can keep them running without significant interruption. By what authority, for what compelling reason, would you abridge their freedom of association (or in this case non-association)?

I wouldn't, they should be free to work or not as they choose. But they shouldn't be able to abridge anyone else's freedom and I doubt they're as irreplaceable as you think.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#156

Post by [deleted] »

leereeves wrote: post #155
notacoward wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unions must be able to ensure that no one does the work. Often the barrier is natural, such as with folks at Google who built the systems and are (collectively) the only ones who can keep them running without significant interruption. By what authority, for what compelling reason, would you abridge their freedom of association (or in this case non-association)?

I wouldn't, they should be free to work or not as they choose. But they shouldn't be able to abridge anyone else's freedom and I doubt they're as irreplaceable as you think.

[deleted]

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#157

Post by kerng »

jeffdavis wrote: post #149
kerng wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was in the news, an internal Google investigation found it to be credible that Rubin coerced an employee to perform oral sex on him.

The thing about "credible" is that it has two sides. Was his denial also credible? We need a shared public consensus around the truth about particular situations, such as whether someone has done something bad or not. One way to do that is with a trial, that has long-established traditions for admissible evidence and due process. And it has a definite and timely conclusion . Is this shared public consensus always rig…

The investigation at Google, considering both side came to that conclusion. Two other execs provided input also the NYT article last week mentioned. Page believed it and showed Rubin the door.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#158

Post by notacoward »

leereeves wrote: post #155
notacoward wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unions must be able to ensure that no one does the work. Often the barrier is natural, such as with folks at Google who built the systems and are (collectively) the only ones who can keep them running without significant interruption. By what authority, for what compelling reason, would you abridge their freedom of association (or in this case non-association)?

I wouldn't, they should be free to work or not as they choose. But they shouldn't be able to abridge anyone else's freedom and I doubt they're as irreplaceable as you think.

Doubt all you like. It doesn't matter. What matters is whether Google doubts it, and I think they know better. They know the costs of hiring and training and downtime for their business. Do you seriously suppose that they think they could just find a few thousand replacements on a moment's notice?

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#159

Post by kopo »

matt4077 wrote: post #108
Ptyx wrote: post #89

Reminds me that Kierkegaard has written about Google: "A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. In the present age a rebellion is, of all things, the most unthinkable. Such an expression of strength would seem ridiculous to the calculating intelligence of our times. On the other hand a political virtuoso might bring off a feat almost as remarkable. He might write a mani…

If this is aiming to invoke the tired "virtue signalling" cliché, it's rather vacuous. Kierkegaard's alternative was an armed rebellion. Are you seriously advocating for civil war, and dismissing all peaceful methods of achieving change? That gets to the heart of what's wrong with the concept as it is used by the 4chan crowd these days: The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change without shou…

Good comment. But it is not about "forcing" an outcome. These kind of polarizing sensitive issues are never resolved long term through forcing any issue.

At their best these movements make people feel the hurt/injustice and need for safety being expressed underneath all the noise/reactions/counter reactions.

Once a majority in the room feel it the movement has succeeded. This entire process ofcourse doesn't align neatly with our cultural conditioning that change happens through confrontation and punishment.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#160

Post by jeffdavis »

kerng wrote: post #157
jeffdavis wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about "credible" is that it has two sides. Was his denial also credible? We need a shared public consensus around the truth about particular situations, such as whether someone has done something bad or not. One way to do that is with a trial, that has long-established traditions for admissible evidence and due process. And it has a definite and timely conclusion . Is this shared public consensus always rig…

The investigation at Google, considering both side came to that conclusion. Two other execs provided input also the NYT article last week mentioned. Page believed it and showed Rubin the door.

Came to what conclusion, specifically? Did they come to that conclusion based on a process established beforehand? Is this process documented publicly?

Or maybe this was just a calculated risk assessment, thinking more about PR and avoiding internal drama than a search for truth?

Post reply on HN