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

131–140 of 158 posts

Re: Google's Civil War

#131

Post by NotPaidToPost »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #123
NotPaidToPost wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The concept is socialist. You are trying a rhetoric trick by equating that to a socialist economy... That's bad faith.

The truth is that employees do not dictate the direction of the company in those countries. They have virtually no power and the system is used as a discussion platform on working conditions, pay, etc.

This is not quite the same as having employees decide what the company should produce and to whom it should sell it.

Re: Google's Civil War

#132

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Google's Civil War

#133

Post by eigenvector »

wetha wrote: post #121
eigenvector wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact that you are meant to specifically study for the interview unlike 99% of all other companies, so the interview to a large extent evaluates how much time you've spent willingly studying the Google interview - i.e. how much you really, really want to work specifically at Google.

It's not exactly a recipe for hiring people that are going to push back on corporate decisions.

Re: Google's Civil War

#134

Post by googthrow2019 »

wffurr wrote: post #12
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.

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.

> Well, for one, retaliation against labor organizing is illegal under federal law.

These people are not attempting "labor organizing". They are putting on a few of the trappings of labor organizing, like drawing up lists of demands, but without doing any of the hard work that requires actually organizing a union.

In the United States, a company's employees decide whether to form a union by holding a referendum by secret ballot. Unions then elect their representatives through a similar process.

Google's activists are not attempting to form a traditional union. They know that they are deeply unpopular and would lose any fair secret ballot election in which they were on the ballot. The activists believe that by playing pretend-union, they can gain all the influence of a real union without the accountability and risk. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Re: Google's Civil War

#135

Post by revvx »

wcarss wrote: post #92
rudolfwinestock wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Gates & Paul Allen originally founded Microsoft in Albuquerqe, New Mexico, in order to be reasonably close to Los Alamos because they wanted to get military contracts.

This may not be a disagreement -- but I was under the impression they moved to Albuquerque to work at/with MITS[1], the manufacturer of the Altair, and Microsoft's first customer. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Instrumentation_and_Tele...

The answer here confirms what you said: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=500807

Re: Google's Civil War

#136

Post by NeedMoreTea »

NotPaidToPost wrote: post #131
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The concept is socialist. You are trying a rhetoric trick by equating that to a socialist economy... That's bad faith. The truth is that employees do not dictate the direction of the company in those countries. They have virtually no power and the system is used as a discussion platform on working conditions, pay, etc. This is not quite the same as having employees decide what the company should produce and to whom i…

No I'm not, I was asking the question.

They both require one third of the board to be employee representatives. It might even be half for larger German companies. How does getting to vote on decisions and appointments equate to having virtually no power?

German work's councils, for all their imperfections and flaws, have often been looked at enviously by other Western countries - including US and UK. It is those which deal with conditions, pay and what have you.

Re: Google's Civil War

#137

Post by A2017U1 »

dictum wrote: post #102
wswkb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should be able to put, say, "this method is fucking up that variable" in a code comment without a puritan telling me not to do so. Which is funny, as it shows that we're going full circle.

Personally, I'd prefer "fucking up" to go away, along with "rape" as a colorful equivalent of ruining/causing damage to someone or something. It associates sex with violence and destruction. A similar thing used to happen with "gay", which kids would use as an adjective for frustrating or annoying situations. My preferences notwithstanding, it's still better to be clearer about what's happening. "Fucking up that vari…

Personally I'd prefer to work in a company where basic elements of the English language aren't policed with authoritarian fervor and would seek out alternatives ASAFP.

Re: Google's Civil War

#138

Post by philwelch »

mcguire wrote: post #42
pjc50 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The Bolsheviks were actually a minority.

If you suddenly and violently seize power and repress your opposition, you don't stay a "minority" for long! You take an opinion poll and people say, "oh yeah, I'm totally with the Bolsheviks...please don't send the Cheka after my family...."

Re: Google's Civil War

#139

Post by SamReidHughes »

atomical wrote: post #5

Both Apple and Google support Saudi Arabia by refusing to remove the Absher app from the app store. Could any current employees shed light on if there is any internal disagreement on this?

Do you want a central authority dictating what code you can run on your computer?
Post reply on HN