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

111–120 of 158 posts

Re: Google's Civil War

#111

Post by geodel »

eropple wrote: post #48
NotPaidToPost wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pro…

This is an extremely...one-sided...view of things. Consider a more healthy one: capital and labor should be partners , and labor gets to have a say in the direction of the company, too. It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. A company that can't do that should have its charter revoked. And its…

Labor can and should form a cooperative. There are many in US. This hypothetical cooperative can put all the policies in place which they want but do not get from Google.

> It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. A company that can't do that should have its charter revoked.

This sounds like BS to me. I see all the companies doing serious harm to humanity, environment, ecology are running just fine. Do you have examples of charter getting revoked?

Re: Google's Civil War

#112

Post by wffurr »

malvosenior wrote: post #108
wffurr wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore was not engaging in protected behavior. NLRB sided with Google, and he withdrew his lawsuit.

We're talking about PR not lawsuits.

Yeah and the main reason Google can't and shouldn't fire people like in the article for generating bad PR is because they are engaging in legally protected behavior, which Damore demonstrably was not.

Re: Google's Civil War

#113

Post by selectodude »

darkpuma wrote: post #76
itronitron wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also, how about banning slurs and references to sex acts in any work communication ?

If I twist my ankle and exclaim "fuck!", would that be in violation? It's not a dumb question, there are some people who are genuinely offended by that sort of language. Would the rules back them up, or me? In theory I'm in favor of these sort of rules, but I hope they leave some wiggle room for common sense, preferably erroring on the side of tolerance.

I think you can exclaim "fuck!", but maybe keep the "fucks" out of internal documentation and written communication.

Re: Google's Civil War

#114

Post by chuckout5783 »

Throwaway account: the "civil war" is from a bunch of self-aggrandizing assholes. Yes there have been some big stunts (e.g. the walk out), but on the whole this counts for nothing for the rank and file employees that I know and work with.

About as far as most people o work with go in terms of "civil war" is changing their profile picture to say "no to retaliation" which is so vapid and pathetic it's not even worth doing.

Re: Google's Civil War

#115

Post by malvosenior »

wffurr wrote: post #112
malvosenior wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about PR not lawsuits.

Yeah and the main reason Google can't and shouldn't fire people like in the article for generating bad PR is because they are engaging in legally protected behavior, which Damore demonstrably was not.

There are plenty of other reasons why firing someone might be a bad idea from an ethical and PR standpoint (like if you solicit political opinions from your employees and fire those that you don't agree with). I also don't think it's clear that these employees have engaged in protected behavior. If they're using company resources to organize activism, that's not protected. If they're leaking info to the press, that's also not protected.

Re: Google's Civil War

#116

Post by eropple »

AlexB138 wrote: post #68
eropple wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely...one-sided...view of things. Consider a more healthy one: capital and labor should be partners , and labor gets to have a say in the direction of the company, too. It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. A company that can't do that should have its charter revoked. And its…

> It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. I'm assuming you're talking about the US. We are not subjects of our government, or of some other sovereign, whether that be society or anything else. Our society is founded on individual pursuit of happiness, not collectivism. Put another way, corporat…

"Corporations exist for whatever reason their creators decide" - the state is the creator of a corporation! They don't just spring out of nowhere. Corporate entities, LLCs, etc. exist literally because the government in whose territory they operate grant them a charter that allows them to enter contracts and make agreements independent of the personal liability of the owners. That government can revoke that charter (and it has happened in American history--it's not a theoretical thing, it is real and an extant power (one that goes unused, but extant nonetheless).

We, as the actual owners of that government that grants this special exception, can--and should--expect better than the barest bare minimum out of such fictional persons if they want to keep their fictional personhood. This is a transaction: "we grant you the right to operate a fictional person and you don't act like shitheads in our society."

We don't do this, largely because of the weird little melty fears that led to you going off about collectivism when it doesn't apply here except insofar that labor participation can encourage, though does not guarantee, better behavior. But we can, and we should, keep this tool at the ready because corporate entities will be good citizens only so long as you keep the proverbial fist of an angry god ready to strike; sociopaths (and your standard corporation is a sociopath by definition) only, only, respect consequences and so those consequences must be severe and always at the ready.

A careful reader might note that I said nothing about such companies operating as unlimited-liability partnerships. Because yes, fair is fair, and people (who, unlike fictive entities, have rights and freedoms even if the results of those rights and freedoms suck) have the right to do as they please so long as they aren't harming other people. But they wouldn't take that option and we all know why.

Re: Google's Civil War

#117

Post by eropple »

NotPaidToPost wrote: post #75
eropple wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely...one-sided...view of things. Consider a more healthy one: capital and labor should be partners , and labor gets to have a say in the direction of the company, too. It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. A company that can't do that should have its charter revoked. And its…

[flagged]

It is not "socialist" to expect a specially-treated organization to not act shitty if it wants to keep that special legal treatment. It just...isn't.

Not that you're right about your sweeping statement either, but it doesn't even begin to apply here except insofar as labor participation in direction can--not will, but can--discourage that shitty behavior.

Re: Google's Civil War

#118

Post by eropple »

geodel wrote: post #111
eropple wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely...one-sided...view of things. Consider a more healthy one: capital and labor should be partners , and labor gets to have a say in the direction of the company, too. It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. A company that can't do that should have its charter revoked. And its…

Labor can and should form a cooperative. There are many in US. This hypothetical cooperative can put all the policies in place which they want but do not get from Google. > It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. A company that can't do that should have its charter revoked. This sounds like BS…

Corporate death penalties exist in the United States. This article includes a Google Books link to New York doing so in 1890: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution

It sounds like bullshit because some elements of the civic discourse have expended a lot of effort to make the idea inconceivable.

Re: Google's Civil War

#119

Post by googthrow2019 »

chuckout5783 wrote: post #114

Throwaway account: the "civil war" is from a bunch of self-aggrandizing assholes. Yes there have been some big stunts (e.g. the walk out), but on the whole this counts for nothing for the rank and file employees that I know and work with. About as far as most people o work with go in terms of "civil war" is changing their profile picture to say "no to retaliation" which is so vapid and pathetic it's not even worth do…

Agreed. Management needs to fire these people. If they sue, great: Google's ensuing victory will create a precedent that workplace protections do not extend to unbounded activism that employees falsely claim is whistleblowing.

Re: Google's Civil War

#120

Post by googthrow2019 »

rgoulter wrote: post #13

The 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…

The author's bias is obvious. She's not even trying to create an impression of objectivity. The activists and this article's author are congratulating each other all over Twitter. Besides, the article contains nuggets like this:

> Meanwhile, there’s not a company in the sector that isn’t grappling at some level with the ways bro-gramming culture has made tech a toxic space for women and employees of color.

Anyone who uncritically invokes this frame is waging culture war, not describing it. This article is activist propaganda masquerading as neutral reporting.

Post reply on HN