[flagged]
If anything there's not enough employees owning the means of production, as this story shows.
Google's Civil War
31–40 of 158 posts
Re: Google's Civil War
#32> Things got even uglier when Damore sympathizers leaked comments made on the message boards by Fong-Jones, a trans woman, and other Google diversity advocates to right-wing news sites. [this fortune.com article] This got me curious, so I tried searching for these leaked comments, while avoiding far-right news sites. This is what I found: > Diversity advocates at Google – including the Mountain View tech giant's high…
"The other side does have their incriminating comments published (or parts of them)"
Where? I don't see any leaked comments from either side on those links.
Re: Google's Civil War
#33The Google organizers have taken to calling themselves the “entitled vocal majority,” after one employee publicly referred to them as the “entitled vocal minority.” I feel like this is a small example of where my views of these employees disagrees with the author's. (I'm fine with employees having strong opinions on ethical issues, but this kindof puff quote doesn't lend them respect). I dunno if the author thinks th…
There's a long history of naming yourself after the negative term your enemies use for you in order to neutralise it. Also "entitled vocal minority" works nicely as a parody of "moral majority".
Re: Google's Civil War
#34> And in an attempt to quell the increase in uncivil interactions on its internal platforms, its new “community guidelines” ban slurs and references to sex acts in any work document
Rather surprised that people were getting away with that in the first place.
Edit: just realised that, like codes of conduct, the key difference is that now the rule also applies to the people at the top.
Re: Google's Civil War
#35[flagged]
I guess that's possible although I have no interaction with kids in their 20s and early 30s at those companies. I can't remember any political interests when I was that age aside from the odd scattering of typical programmer libertarianism, a natural side effect of living in a bubble.
What I find amusing is all the fuss at these companies, perhaps about real problems perhaps not, while those same employees are all busily laying brickwork for a kind of permanent surveillance state. Given the leviathan they are building, you'd think they'd just bug the cafeteria and everyones cubicle in order to catch evil doers.
Re: Google's Civil War
#36A day late a a dollar short. Google's biggest crime was what they did to the web. After using them to promote Google they turned the tables and essentially started them of clicks, unless they bought ads. Google search is ads, unless you keep scrolling and scrolling.
Re: Google's Civil War
#37> Things got even uglier when Damore sympathizers leaked comments made on the message boards by Fong-Jones, a trans woman, and other Google diversity advocates to right-wing news sites. [this fortune.com article] This got me curious, so I tried searching for these leaked comments, while avoiding far-right news sites. This is what I found: > Diversity advocates at Google – including the Mountain View tech giant's high…
"The other side does have their incriminating comments published (or parts of them)" Where? I don't see any leaked comments from either side on those links.
Because those links are about the leaked comments of the diversity advocates. Even so, they do contain a quoted comment (though not leaked) - the right-wing "take out". An example of the reverse wasn't hard to find:
> "Women, on average, have more openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)," the screed reads. [1]
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/google-employ...
Re: Google's Civil War
#38I 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.
Well, for one, retaliation against labor organizing is illegal under federal law. For another, Google is in fierce competition with the rest of the tech companies for talent.
For one, they are would be retaliating against employees who generate bad PR for them.
For another the rest of the tech companies don't seem to enable let alone tolerate this shenanigans.
Re: Google's Civil War
#39Re: Google's Civil War
#40Earlier 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.
> Employees who can't voice their dissatisfaction for the status quo without fear of repercussion can't truly voice their dissatisfaction.
Employees are signing up for a world where they don't wear significant risk in exchange for subordinating their decision making to a company.
Companies are fundamentally an organised group of people working to a common goal. I can understand very well if individual employees want to assert their individuality. However, at any moment, they have only and exactly 3 choices:
1) Cooperate enthusiastically.
2) Cooperate with complaint
3) Quit
Nobody is going to get sacked for quietly and politely voicing a concern. However, once employees start organising to influence management on business decisions they really need to pony up the capital and become shareholders. Deciding what management does is the privilege of shareholders, not employees.