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

Google Protest Leader Leaves

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 442 posts

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#101

Post by dmix »

damnyou wrote: post #74
dmix wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was amazed there was even a Resist@Google group within Google. I’m okay with people protesting the companies actions but Google seemed to be internally supporting protests on company time and property. Which has pitted employees against each other across political lines. I don’t see why Google cant just keep it apolitical in the work environment while being open to critiques externally and not caring what their emp…

"Apolitical" means no speech or actions to change the status quo. That is fine if and only if the status quo is fine.

I just said the company should be open to external critique. Which the employees should be free to engage in their spare time...

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#102

Post by CydeWeys »

cobookman wrote: post #50
CydeWeys wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's bad to retaliate against workers who organize against sexual harassment and gender compensation disparity in the workplace. It looks bad because it is bad.

Proof of retaliation? I've yet to see anything concrete here. If anything it sounded like they disagreed with the company's business direction. Leaders listened, made some changes. They still disagreed...this time with leadership not feeling a change was necessary. they then quit as they disagreed with the company's direction.

This is a separate issue now though. Just because something isn't completely proven (yet, anyway) doesn't mean that it doesn't already look bad from the outset.

And if you listen to what they're actually saying, they're alleging retaliation, not merely disagreeing with the direction the company is going on.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#104

Post by damnyou »

dmix wrote: post #101
damnyou wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Apolitical" means no speech or actions to change the status quo. That is fine if and only if the status quo is fine.

I just said the company should be open to external critique. Which the employees should be free to engage in their spare time...

Why only in their spare time?

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#105

Post by KUcxrAVrtI »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #68
cobookman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this look bad for Google? Honest question.

> How does this look bad for Google? Organising protests takes management and leadership skill. Regardless of retaliation, multiple people, predominantly women, who publicly demonstrated this skill are opting not to put it to use at Google. When competent people leave, it’s worth asking why and what further effect those departures might have.

[flagged]

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#106

Post by qntty »

el_nahual wrote: post #78
geofft wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're the people making Google work. Why shouldn't they be entitled?

Because Google gives them money in exchange for said work.

And Google employees do the work that keeps the company going. There's no law that says that people can't refuse to do certain kinds of work. You take a job that you expect to give you work that you find acceptable and if that expectation is violated, you resist.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#108

Post by sudoaza »

JeremyBanks wrote: post #3
sudoaza wrote: post #2

my my there's been 3 oped against google in Bloomberg just this last two days... A little too obvious pals...

Every thread critical of tech now has cynical anti-media comments upvoted near the top, completely ignoring the substance of the article. Is that how afraid we have become of legitimate criticism?

I couldn't care less about google, but Bloomberg has a past of bullshit stories (like the china chip thing) and 3 articles in just 2 days rings the bell

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#110

Post by gizmo686 »

charliesharding wrote: post #47

I don't really understand why it's surprising to anyone that they would face "internal retaliation" after exposing their employer as evil and boycott worthy to the entire world. By publicizing it to the degree that they did and attaching their name to it, they were putting their interests over the company. If my company started doing business practices that I didn't approve of, I would try my hardest to change the di…

Large coorporations look a lot like governments. Normally, I bring this up from the perspective of regulations (eg. we should be willing to restrict the power of large private actors in the same ways we restrict the power of governments). However, I think it is applicable here too.

If you don't like something the US government is doing, you generally aren't going to leave. You are either going to ignore it, or try to change it. Even if your employer is the Federal government, few people would expect you to quit. If your problem is with the exact portion of the government where you are working, then some might expect you to quit but few would bat an eye if your next job happened to also be with the federal government.

What is happening here is akin to being forced out of government work for critizing the government; and we do not accept that behaviour.

Post reply on HN