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

Google's Civil War

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 158 posts

Re: Google's Civil War

#21

Post by dralley »

herohamp wrote: post #16
dralley wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is, employees shouldn't complain about (censorship, bosses tolerating sexual harassment, etc.), they should either put up with it or leave quietly (possibly to their own financial detriment)? I can't say I agree with you. What you're suggesting is basically the Wall Street model where bad and unethical institutional behavior gets a suboptimal amount of pushback.

They should but they then also face the consequences

And many do. Are you suggesting otherwise?

But I don't think they "should" do so if they're calling out legitimately poor behavior that has been unaddressed by any other avenue. That wording is quite strange to me. Would you say that Rosa Parks "should" have faced the consequences of stirring things up as she did? Accepting that it is possible is a necessary part of civil disobedience, but the imposition of those consequences by higher powers is not.

Re: Google's Civil War

#22

Post by jpdb »

herohamp wrote: post #16
dralley wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is, employees shouldn't complain about (censorship, bosses tolerating sexual harassment, etc.), they should either put up with it or leave quietly (possibly to their own financial detriment)? I can't say I agree with you. What you're suggesting is basically the Wall Street model where bad and unethical institutional behavior gets a suboptimal amount of pushback.

They should but they then also face the consequences

Employees who can't voice their dissatisfaction for the status quo without fear of repercussion can't truly voice their dissatisfaction.

There's an EXTREME amount of power imbalance between employer and employee; if employees have to fear retaliation for voicing their concerns it has a chilling effect.

I'm okay with consequences, but voicing your concerns in public isn't grounds for consequences.

Re: Google's Civil War

#23

Post by jkaplowitz »

neffy wrote: post #20
pjc50 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of somewhere like Google is that they don't want people who will do what they're told, because such people are only capable of doing what they're told. You can't order someone to innovate unless they have no other choice. Silicon Valley has spent years setting itself up as an inheritor of the counterculture, a place where it's possible to "think different". Employees are given a share of the business…

I really think that's just darkly entertaining marketing. Silicon valley in reality is a ruthlessly corporate business world, where known to be worthless options are traded for people's lives and labour. (Look up "founder's shares") Startups require cheap labour, if their investors are going to make out like bandits - that's what's really going on. Google in particular, if they were looking for people capable of thin…

The equity grants awarded by publicly traded companies like Google/Alphabet are far from worthless, unlike for early stage startups where indeed most of those employee stock options end up as worthless as you say.

Re: Google's Civil War

#24

Post by [deleted] »

pjc50 wrote: post #14
fyoving wrote: post #7

I don't understand how someone can proudly be a nuisance to those who sign their paychecks nor how can an employer tolerate any of it, at the very least this situation is unfair to the majority of employees who are just "going to work". Not sure what's behind Google's inaction here, they really shouldn't be worried about the trouble makers defecting to somewhere else that most likely won't tolerate their bullshit.

The whole point of somewhere like Google is that they don't want people who will do what they're told, because such people are only capable of doing what they're told. You can't order someone to innovate unless they have no other choice. Silicon Valley has spent years setting itself up as an inheritor of the counterculture, a place where it's possible to "think different". Employees are given a share of the business…

[deleted]

Re: Google's Civil War

#25

Post by pacala »

burtonator wrote: post #15
fyoving wrote: post #7

I don't understand how someone can proudly be a nuisance to those who sign their paychecks nor how can an employer tolerate any of it, at the very least this situation is unfair to the majority of employees who are just "going to work". Not sure what's behind Google's inaction here, they really shouldn't be worried about the trouble makers defecting to somewhere else that most likely won't tolerate their bullshit.

The BEST thing someone can do when you're they're friend is tell you when you're doing something wrong so you can correct your behavior. A real friend speaks out ...

A friend tells you in private, and also cuts you a lot of slack. A jerk berates you in public at every opportunity.

Re: Google's Civil War

#26

Post by pjc50 »

neffy wrote: post #20
pjc50 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of somewhere like Google is that they don't want people who will do what they're told, because such people are only capable of doing what they're told. You can't order someone to innovate unless they have no other choice. Silicon Valley has spent years setting itself up as an inheritor of the counterculture, a place where it's possible to "think different". Employees are given a share of the business…

I really think that's just darkly entertaining marketing. Silicon valley in reality is a ruthlessly corporate business world, where known to be worthless options are traded for people's lives and labour. (Look up "founder's shares") Startups require cheap labour, if their investors are going to make out like bandits - that's what's really going on. Google in particular, if they were looking for people capable of thin…

It wasn't always worthless, although I agree that options are a lottery ticket and you need to read all the small print. Back in the distant past of the early 2000s a Google chef made $26 million: https://searchengineland.com/google-employee-53-charlie-ayer...

(of course they subsequently changed the rules to make that less likely for non-tech staff, part of the gradual move away from "Don't Be Evil")

Re: Google's Civil War

#27

Post by chii »

jpdb wrote: post #22
herohamp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should but they then also face the consequences

Employees who can't voice their dissatisfaction for the status quo without fear of repercussion can't truly voice their dissatisfaction. There's an EXTREME amount of power imbalance between employer and employee; if employees have to fear retaliation for voicing their concerns it has a chilling effect. I'm okay with consequences, but voicing your concerns in public isn't grounds for consequences.

This is where a platform for voicing anonymously is required.

Re: Google's Civil War

#28

Post by NotPaidToPost »

dralley wrote: post #11
fyoving wrote: post #7

I don't understand how someone can proudly be a nuisance to those who sign their paychecks nor how can an employer tolerate any of it, at the very least this situation is unfair to the majority of employees who are just "going to work". Not sure what's behind Google's inaction here, they really shouldn't be worried about the trouble makers defecting to somewhere else that most likely won't tolerate their bullshit.

So what you're saying is, employees shouldn't complain about (censorship, bosses tolerating sexual harassment, etc.), they should either put up with it or leave quietly (possibly to their own financial detriment)? I can't say I agree with you. What you're suggesting is basically the Wall Street model where bad and unethical institutional behavior gets a suboptimal amount of pushback.

That's how employment works.

As an employee you are paid to execute the company's strategy.

If you disagree you can of course, and even should, voice your disagreement but that should be done in a professional in diplomatic way, in private.

If you cannot do that or cannot accept the company's strategy then yes, your alternative is to leave quietly.

The new "red guards" of the left may not like it, but that's what professionalism (not to mention a free society) is. Tough.

Re: Google's Civil War

#30

Post by pjc50 »

pacala wrote: post #25
burtonator wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BEST thing someone can do when you're they're friend is tell you when you're doing something wrong so you can correct your behavior. A real friend speaks out ...

A friend tells you in private, and also cuts you a lot of slack. A jerk berates you in public at every opportunity.

Employer-employee relationships can never quite be ordinary human friendships because of the power relationship. In these kinds of situations, people are going public because handling it privately has failed and it involves questions of public interest and affects to third parties.
Post reply on HN