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

Google Walkout Organizer Claire Stapleton Resigns

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: Google Walkout Organizer Claire Stapleton Resigns

#91

Post by hiram112 »

From what I can tell this woman wasn't even an engineer, yet somehow she was able to cause all sorts of HR issues and still jump from one cushy position to another.

What is she complaining about, anyway? Didn't it just come to light that Google pays its women more than men?

How many 'women of color' do they expect to work at Google when it's only a tiny majority who are getting CS degrees? And let's be honest, many of them are going to be less talented than similar men who aren't now being 'nudged through' the glass ceiling for social justice reasons.

Hey Google - if you're listening: Plenty of guys like me out there who will gladly work there for $250K and equity. We actually have engineering degrees, won't complain about social justice all day, won't get pregnant and bail for months on end at your cost, won't cry at work, and will just get work done without the drama.

Re: Google Walkout Organizer Claire Stapleton Resigns

#92

Post by dmitrygr »

the-rc wrote: post #76
dmitrygr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

google is actually a 3-class stock: class B has 10 votes and is not available publicly (owned by larry, sergey, eric), class A has one vote and trades as GOOGL, class C is nonvoting and trades as GOOG. Employees only get grants of GOOG and thus have no votes

Well, if you were employed before/during the 2014 split, you do have a mix of GOOG/GOOGL. Not that it ever made a difference in practical terms.

unless you had a very weird vesting schedule, your GOOGL long since vested (mine finished in '17)

Re: Google Walkout Organizer Claire Stapleton Resigns

#93

Post by SilasX »

what_ever wrote: post #90
SilasX wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh wow. TIL! I (and the rest of HN, and even S&P[1]) was screaming bloody murder about Snapchat IPOing and only releasing non-voting shares. I didn't know Google worked the same way! [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14904946

I thought for Snap, any investor can only buy non-voting share? For Google, you (or I during the open window) can buy GOOGL and have voting share? Disc: Googler.

Ah, sorry, misread it -- that is different from Snapchat, although still similar in that only a sliver of voting shares are publicly traded.

Re: Google Walkout Organizer Claire Stapleton Resigns

#94

Post by ocdtrekkie »

busterarm wrote: post #81
fyoving wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No politics talk at work seems to be the rational and only solution here.

Our elders really knew how to do some things right.

It's always entertaining when Silicon Valley companies learn that hundred-plus year companies have these stiff adult things called "rules" around for a reason. I can't imagine seriously engaging in significant political discussion at work, and can't imagine a positive outcome to it.

Re: Google Walkout Organizer Claire Stapleton Resigns

#95

Post by klipt »

klodolph wrote: post #88
klipt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> every fresh batch of graduates who come into the workforce are equally terrible at advocating for themselves cough the problem is further up the pipeline cough .

The way you've phrased it, it sounds like you think what you're saying is obvious, but it's not obvious to me. What are you saying?

If universities are producing graduates who can't advocate for themselves, can we fix that while they're still in university? Or maybe even secondary/primary education?

Re: Google Walkout Organizer Claire Stapleton Resigns

#96

Post by [deleted] »

klodolph wrote: post #88
klipt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> every fresh batch of graduates who come into the workforce are equally terrible at advocating for themselves cough the problem is further up the pipeline cough .

The way you've phrased it, it sounds like you think what you're saying is obvious, but it's not obvious to me. What are you saying?

[deleted]

Re: Google Walkout Organizer Claire Stapleton Resigns

#97

Post by busterarm »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #94
busterarm wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our elders really knew how to do some things right.

It's always entertaining when Silicon Valley companies learn that hundred-plus year companies have these stiff adult things called "rules" around for a reason. I can't imagine seriously engaging in significant political discussion at work, and can't imagine a positive outcome to it.

Well, when a company actively tries to make its employees private life a service provided by the company, that's inevitably going to include their activism as well.

The bigger companies in particular are your employer, your restaurant, your gym, your laundry service, your transportation, your social life...

Re: Google Walkout Organizer Claire Stapleton Resigns

#98

Post by jjdjr0odo7 »

jm4 wrote: post #89
heer4it wrote: post #3

These companies are so huge and such an integral part of society that they need to be made more accountable to the public, and forcing them to be more accountable to their workers is part of that. I think the recent proposal to require employee representation on the board of directors of $1B+ companies is a good start.

Public accountability is a slippery slope. How do you accomplish that? Legislation? New legislation pitched as a solution to a problem tends to be a rat's nest of rules that no one understands, that doesn't often have the intended impact, that can have unintended consequences, and, after some public shaming of the offender, lets them conduct business as usual. Not sure employee representation on the board is a soluti…

Slippery slope is an informal fallacy.

Why not legislation? It’s THE way for organizing our society. Do you really think it’s a free market and meritocracy? No. There are laws that incentivize and offer protection for starting corporations.

Our society is not built on objective principles but on what’s good for it. And it’s never lurched forward in ways that move the needle to the benefit of the masses without top down rejiggering.

Here’s an objective fact: neoliberalism and so-called free market capitalism are not owed deference and fealty by the masses. Either it works well enough for enough people or it encounters a tipping point where it needs dramatic change in guiding principles.

What you’re arguing for is not increased freedom for the masses an accountability, but sitting still politically. Same old same old. How’s that working out?

Pretty well for the privileged crowd on HN. Better not mess with it!

Re: Google Walkout Organizer Claire Stapleton Resigns

#99

Post by joeblow9999 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #48
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An important distinction is that companies like Google and Facebook have dual class structures for shares: The founders still hold all the power in any shareholder vote. Case in point, 68% of Facebook shareholders voted to remove Mark Zuckerberg, but since Zuckerberg's shares are a lot more powerful, it's completely irrelevant: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-68-percent-of-facebook-in...

Dual class shares seem like a perversion of what the stock market and stocks were initially intended to do. If you can’t vote on important decisions made by the company, do you actually own the company, or is a stock just a fancy piece of paper to gamble on? (I call it gambling because any return is based purely on stock price; there are no dividends paid out for FB and GOOG).

you don't have to work there and you don't have to buy their stock. end of story. hell, you don't even have to use their products...

Re: Google Walkout Organizer Claire Stapleton Resigns

#100

Post by joeblow9999 »

burkaman wrote: post #18
codingdave wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry if I'm out of the loop, but which proposal are you referring to, and who proposed it?

There are many, but one recent bill from Elizabeth Warren: > Empowers workers at United States corporations to elect at least 40% of Board members: Borrowing from the successful approach in Germany and other developed economies, a United States corporation must ensure that no fewer than 40% of its directors are selected by the corporation's employees. - https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren...

heavy-handed central planning at its finest.

no one is forced to work at these companies and no one is forced to buy the stocks. if you don't like the way the company is run don't work there or invest.

imagine the opposite heavy-handed intervention. what if it was proposed that companies are banned from allowing employees reps on the board...

Post reply on HN