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

121–130 of 158 posts

Re: Google's Civil War

#121

Post by wetha »

eigenvector wrote: post #94
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…

You say Google et al want people who don't just "do what they're told", yet one of the most distinguishing aspects of these places is a hiring process that specifically selects for people willing to jump through absurd hoops and full buy-in to the corporate mythology that doing this means you are simply better and smarter than anyone who doesn't. That's not how you foster counterculture. In fact, that's probably why…

What is an example of these absurd hoops you talk of, w.r.t the google interview process specifically? I just went through the process and had a much more positive experience, so i’m interested to know.

Re: Google's Civil War

#122

Post by NotPaidToPost »

eropple wrote: post #117
NotPaidToPost wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

You commented that employees should have a say on the direction of the company... That's a socialist concept.

Re: Google's Civil War

#123

Post by NeedMoreTea »

NotPaidToPost wrote: post #122
eropple wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You commented that employees should have a say on the direction of the company... That's a socialist concept.

For clarity, are Ireland and Germany socialist countries?

Both require employee representation on boards, as do many other not-socialist countries. Germany also has works councils.

Re: Google's Civil War

#124

Post by googthrow2019 »

DFHippie wrote: post #45
fyoving wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Retaliating against whistle blowers is a great way to generate bad PR for yourself. You may disagree that this is whistle blowing. You may view these employees as entitled troublemakers. I expect the googlers doing this view themselves as making personal sacrifices for the greater good. In any case, I doubt Google wants to lose talent to competitors because they are viewed as a hotbed of right-to-workers ideology in…

These people are not whistleblowers. They are instead hard-left political activists falsely claiming whistleblower protection as cover for activity that harms the company.

For years now, these people have been bullying the company into advancing hard-left political positions instead of serving the company's founding mission. They have created a climate of fear for anyone who disagrees with their extreme political positions, and they have almost certainly violated their employment contracts by leaking confidential information to the press. Their friends in HR protect them.

They appear to engage in activism full-time on the company's payroll according to documents they themselves have posted.

They talk constantly about "Google's values", which they twist into claims that the company has already decided to support their political positions. They demand that Google give up billions of dollars in business by abandoning product lines and refusing to serve huge portions of the population. For example, one of them demanded that one business disable a key component that drives a lot of revenue, calling the situation an "extremism emergency". To this person, the negative impact would have been irrelevant. These demands never stop. They call them "ethics".

Any functioning company would have fired these people a long time ago. Google leadership is full of cowards.

Re: Google's Civil War

#125

Post by malvosenior »

googthrow2019 wrote: post #120
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…

Yep, it's impossible to take journalism seriously when they use "bro-gramming" in an article. The journalists obviously have an axe to grind.

Re: Google's Civil War

#126

Post by eropple »

NotPaidToPost wrote: post #122
eropple wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You commented that employees should have a say on the direction of the company... That's a socialist concept.

Policies are not "socialist" or "capitalist"; they're...policies. You pick what works. Judging from the pretty consistent success of labor participation on boards in other companies, it certainly seems to help make a good chunk of money, too.

That such organization tends to also have societal value--weird that thinking about societal value gets conflated with "socialism", I guess every man is an island--is a really nice side effect, though.

Re: Google's Civil War

#127

Post by pjc50 »

googthrow2019 wrote: post #120
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…

What's your objectivity in this, throwaway account?

Re: Google's Civil War

#128

Post by malvosenior »

pjc50 wrote: post #127
googthrow2019 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What's your objectivity in this, throwaway account?

Why would an anonymous commenter need to be objective? There's no comparison to a journalist. You've commented on this thread more than anyone and no one is questioning your right to state your opinion.

Re: Google's Civil War

#129

Post by googthrow2019 »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #80
UncleMeat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has come up precisely twice in my immediate working group in the last few years (the Damore thing and the first walkout). It has affected by work literally not at all. Some people care deeply about this stuff. I agree with a fair amount of it. But from my perspective calling it a civil war is frankly ludicrous.

I think it affects some groups more than others. A lot of people get mistreated at Google (TVCs, women, people of color, trans people). It’s a lot of high achieving people and a high pressure environment. Inevitably some people will push others without realizing how hard they are pushing. It’s good in my opinion for people to speak out about this.

> A lot of people get mistreated at Google (TVCs, women, people of color, trans people)

It's true that TVCs are not employees, but this different in status does not amount to mistreatment.

The groups you mention are not mistreated at Google. In fact, the company bends over backward to recruit and accommodate them. I challenge you to name one policy that disadvantages women, people of color, or trans people. These persistent claims of mistreatment are in fact cynical attempts to achieve unearned status and special protection from normal rules that govern the company.

Re: Google's Civil War

#130

Post by googthrow2019 »

pjc50 wrote: post #70
fyoving wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Any bad PR resulting from firing these types would be a one time thing instead of this ongoing situation. 2. Google shouldn't accommodate the delusional and entitled. 3. Labor unions are antithetical to sound economic theory and practice, and no other company in the business supports them.

Ah yes, because dumping a bunch of people who will tell the "I was screwed over by google" story to all their friends into an economy where hiring is driven by personal recommendations can't possibly have any ongoing consequences?

Do you really believe that these people are enhancing Google's image in the eyes of the general public? You have no idea how many potential employees Google is losing due to the company having acquired a reputation as an extreme ideological environment.
Post reply on HN