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

311–320 of 442 posts

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#311

Post by kortilla »

303space wrote: post #193
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…

I think it’s actually a very savvy strategy to protest from within. It’s too easy for Google to shrug off or ignore public criticism. They’ve done this for decades with virtually no repercussions because they hold a monopoly on their core business - very few people are going to ‘delete Google’ no matter how much you disagree with their policies. They do not have a monopoly on talent and they are actually fearful of b…

What? Protesting from within perfectly sends the signal that it’s still the best place to work despite egregious offenses.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#312

Post by macspoofing »

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.

I'm not sure. You can't really be a full-time activist and a full-time employee of a tech company. Both women gained a national profile from the initial protests, it looks like they are attracted to activism, so I full expected them to leave the company and pursue activism full-time.

In the specific case of Meredith Whittaker, she's joining "AI Now Institute" a social policy institute affiliated with NYU.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#313

Post by tastygreenapple »

Faark wrote: post #305
tomp wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It's kind of funny how wanting to improve the company you work for is equated with "sabotage". Thing is, part of Googles identity is "don't be evil". A vital part of this is stopping whenever you (unintentionally) do something evil. This should not be a problem for Google at all or reason to loose trust in an employee. Unless, of cause, the company has changed. And that's what those story's area about and why we need…

These people wanted to improve Google in the way the Auto Workers Union improved GM.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#314

Post by geofft »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #209
qntty wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people think the leaders of Google are entitled to unilaterally decide what people at Google work on, and if you resist that sense of entitlement, people call you entitled.

Seriously? Leaders who hired you and pay you are entitled to direct your work. What planet are you from?

The planet where the people making a thing happen are the most valuable ones. Ask anyone from Ayn Rand to Karl Marx.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#315

Post by cushychicken »

KirinDave wrote: post #93
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…

It's literally illegal. There are laws against retaliation against whistleblowers. That is why it is surprising. > I don't understand the desire to stay with a company and accept paychecks while simultaneously publicly denouncing and leading protests against them. Because you don't want to see the thing you worked so hard to build misused to build killer robots and "war minds"? Seems reasonable to me. Google's got a…

>It's literally illegal.

But, I'd imagine, exceptionally difficult for a complainant to prove.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#316

Post by r3bl »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #310
r3bl wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's almost as if I lived in that "but what about men's issues?" bullshit a few years previously. The only difference between us two is that I snapped out of it.

Clearly the most reasonable interpretation. Absolutely no plausibility of another possibility.

Glad we agree!

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#317

Post by AlexandrB »

KUcxrAVrtI wrote: post #162
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.

Sounds like getting rid of troublemakers who bite the hand that feeds them. If anything this will make googles stock price go up.

The hand that feeds Google are its employees. If the cream evaporates because of nasty behaviour like this the stock won't be up for too long.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#318

Post by tomp »

Faark wrote: post #305
tomp wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It's kind of funny how wanting to improve the company you work for is equated with "sabotage". Thing is, part of Googles identity is "don't be evil". A vital part of this is stopping whenever you (unintentionally) do something evil. This should not be a problem for Google at all or reason to loose trust in an employee. Unless, of cause, the company has changed. And that's what those story's area about and why we need…

> It's kind of funny how wanting to improve the company you work for is equated with "sabotage".

I definitely don't. I definitely applaud efforts to improve things (relationships, companies, ...).

But going public ("airing your dirty laundry") is a kind of an ultimatum - "I have no other option to enforce what I want than to public shame" - and, while potentially effective, it's also damaging for the other party (and, ultimately, the "whistle-blower").

And at that point, it seems that the values are already so misaligned (whether the employee, or the company, changed is ultimately not relevant) that "divorce" seems like the only option. I definitely wouldn't want to stay in a relationship with someone if they intentionally hurt me (regardless if it was "my fault" or not).

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#319

Post by CodeMage »

kortilla wrote: post #311
303space wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s actually a very savvy strategy to protest from within. It’s too easy for Google to shrug off or ignore public criticism. They’ve done this for decades with virtually no repercussions because they hold a monopoly on their core business - very few people are going to ‘delete Google’ no matter how much you disagree with their policies. They do not have a monopoly on talent and they are actually fearful of b…

What? Protesting from within perfectly sends the signal that it’s still the best place to work despite egregious offenses.

Why must that -- and nothing else -- be the signal they're sending? People have a variety of motivations.

For example, I left my country 20 years ago because I wanted a better future and I had no desire nor conviction to stay and try to make that future happen there. Of those who stayed, most had no other choice. However, there's a non-negligible number of people who stayed despite having opportunities to leave, precisely because they are willing to fight to make things better.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#320

Post by quibbler »

Afton wrote: post #69
dmix wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So as long as you have good intentions you should be free to bring whatever politics to work? Regardless of how, as long as what your protesting the right things everything else doesn’t matter?

Protesting against sexual harrassement and and equal compensation are just 'your politics'? huh.

Protesting against x = claiming x is happening. It is a smear campaign.

Didn't Google just discover that they actually paid men less than women? Oopsie.

Post reply on HN