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

231–240 of 442 posts

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#231

Post by dahdum »

snvzz wrote: post #117
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…

This should be obvious to anyone, but people are for some reason having trouble understanding it. It's completely expected for a company to get rid of individuals on the payroll who are badmouthing the company they work for. Why would anyone willfully employ people to work against the company's interest?

The company doesn't need to be deliberate about it, publicly attack the company for its faults and many of your peers will see you as a pariah, even if they agree with the underlying reason. Work internally and you're seen as a leader.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#232

Post by 0815test »

geofft wrote: post #168
tvanantwerp wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correlation != causation. Could be that, because cities become tech hubs, and because cities tend to lean left, that anyone who wants to work in tech will move to a city and be influenced by the left-leaning culture. I've known people who were farther right, went into tech, moved to cities, and are now farther left.

Sure, but the effect is the same. A "right-wing Google" won't succeed because left-wing policies are more beneficial to the growth of cities, which are beneficial to the success of organizations like Google. It is actually sort of surprising to me that cities are tech hubs - you should be able to deliver fantastic products while working remotely and never meeting anyone in person. (And the free software/open source m…

> left-wing policies are more beneficial to the growth of cities

Left-wing policies like urban exclusionary zoning? Yeah right. Look at how Texas and other Sunbelt states are doing, despite them being in inherently more challenging parts of the country than CA.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#233

Post by tyingq »

enraged_camel wrote: post #219
snvzz wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be obvious to anyone, but people are for some reason having trouble understanding it. It's completely expected for a company to get rid of individuals on the payroll who are badmouthing the company they work for. Why would anyone willfully employ people to work against the company's interest?

Retaliating against whistleblowers is illegal. Therefore, I strongly advise you stop treating it as “obvious” and “expected”.

Explaining it and condoning it aren't the same thing.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#234

Post by luckylion »

hangonhn wrote: post #174
dannykwells wrote: post #134

It stories like these that make me wonder, is it better to take an adversarial/external approach to change (like Meredith) or to work slowly inside an org and change it from the inside? Of course the external/adversarial approach can generate huge changes quickly by relatively junior folks, but always comes at a huge cost and is not sustainable (see: most of the people who did these protests have left). So you get on…

Change from inside has a very poor track record. People who say that are usually rationalizing their involvement. Even non-violent protests are adversarial. The history of the world seems to suggest that is the one tried and known method for change is adversarial confrontation. If you look at it from a game theory/economics point of view, there is little incentive for people to change unless you change the landscape…

> Change from inside has a very poor track record.

Has it? Or is it just less visible because it happens over a decade or two? Germany's left wing and their March Through The Institutions comes to mind as a very successful change from inside.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#235

Post by malvosenior »

darkwater wrote: post #122
charliesharding wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't have led highly publicized protests against a company that I was accepting paychecks from

So if the company were you are working at, treats you badly, you would resign over going on strike to force a change and then stay at the company, for example?

I would (and have). Trying to change the company hurts you and helps the company (that was treating you bad). Just leave. Save your energy, don't put any information public that will make you look like a bad employee and find a better job. The best revenge is living well.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#236

Post by tomp »

snvzz wrote: post #117
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…

This should be obvious to anyone, but people are for some reason having trouble understanding it. It's completely expected for a company to get rid of individuals on the payroll who are badmouthing the company they work for. Why would anyone willfully employ people to work against the company's interest?

Money (paying someone) is not even the biggest issue... How can you trust such an employee (their work output, and that they won't attempt to internally sabotage the company)? I mean, noone is entirely trustwortht ("trust but verify") but when the probability rises from a few percentage points to nearly 100%, maybe it's time to part ways...

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#237

Post by paul7986 »

paul7986 wrote: post #156
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #13

I thought this story had already been reported a month ago. But no, I was wrong, that was the other organizer of the Google Protests, Claire Stapleton: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/07/google-wa... So to clarify, both of the female Google employees who lead/organized the protests have now left because they say they faced retaliation. That looks very bad for Google.

Also, Google’s R&D blatantly steals innovation from female inventors https://patentpandas.org/stories/company-patented-my-idea

Hmmm ...Why is this being downvoted?

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#238

Post by [deleted] »

snvzz wrote: post #117
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…

This should be obvious to anyone, but people are for some reason having trouble understanding it. It's completely expected for a company to get rid of individuals on the payroll who are badmouthing the company they work for. Why would anyone willfully employ people to work against the company's interest?

[deleted]

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#239

Post by nvrspyx »

TheHypnotist wrote: post #137
peteey wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the strong term "evil" is only used because Google's motto is "don't be evil". Not everyone has the freedom to instantly change jobs. The world might be a better place if employees had the right to whistle blow without being threatened with homelessness or fleeing to Russia. Unions striking and protesting against their companies for better wages seems acceptable. Why is protesting for ethical reasons withou…

Google's motto was don't be evil. I believe it was removed. Source: https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...

Google doesn’t really have a “motto” or “corporate philosophy” publicly available anymore. It’s just the Code of Conduct now. “Don’t be evil” used to be in the preface, but it was moved to the end of their Code of Conduct. However, it does feel less salient and it kinda feels inconsequential now though.

> And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!

https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#240

Post by KirinDave »

serioussecurity wrote: post #208
Merrill wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did she do that is protected under the various whistleblower protection laws? https://www.whistleblowers.gov/sites/wb/files/2019-06/whistl... I don't think that objecting to your company's AI work for DoD or plans to comply with Chinese internet search regulations fall under any of them. What did the "Open Research Group" at Google actually build?

So many arm chair lawyers on HN. The parent is wrong. It's illegal because it violates the NLRA, not whistleblower protections. "Protected concerted activity". If you want a good primer, "Labor Law for the Rank and Filer" is a good one.

Sorry, I wasn't using the term imprecisely. Thank you for the correction.
Post reply on HN