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

431–440 of 442 posts

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#431

Post by snvzz »

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".

Publicly badmouthing the company you work for is indeed sabotage.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#432

Post by KUcxrAVrtI »

dgzl wrote: post #396
xyzzyz wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is absurd, but I've seen this play out over and over again right in front of my eyes at Google.

Whenever I hear people describe non-physical confrontation as "violence", my only thought is that they have no idea what real violence is. The tech echo-chamber is fostering unrealistic opinions about life and liberty.

Turns out we needed broken bones to realize why words never hurt.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#433

Post by user17843 »

KirinDave wrote: post #173
user17843 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imho it isn't relevant. The implication of OP is that the fact that they are female paints Google in a bad light, not that they were protest leaders. Corporations do not care about gender, it's all about power and control, and they do not care about the gender of those who they have to dismantle to keep it. The Canadian Documentary "The Corporation" is a good example of how corporations behave: https://www.youtube.co…

If a set of powerful men use the interests to said corporation to enrich themselves at the expense of women who are there, then it is definitely a sexism issue. I appreciate the economic arguments you are hinting at, but they are not incompatible with the notion that sexism was at play. We know, factually, that executives Google broke the law and then we're paid large sums of money to leave. You cannot easily disenta…

There is "sexism" on both sides. Powerful women use it against powerless men, and vice versa.

Ignoring one aspect over the other won't lead to lasting solutions. Since more men are leaders than women (men are naturally inclined to be leaders), the percentage of men enriching themselves at the expense of women is accordingly.

Google Protest has also been going on for many things that aren't related to gender, for example AI and their China project.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#434

Post by [deleted] »

KirinDave wrote: post #375
repolfx wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my other comment. But yes, it is true. You cannot be "retaliated against" if you aren't engaging in revelations of illegal behaviour. These people were not doing the latter, when you look at the details. They were merely protesting against things they didn't like, but which aren't illegal, and in one case, didn't exist at all (Google underpaid men, not women). If there's no illegal behaviour, there's no whistlebl…

Please see the other half of this thread where a real lawyer explains the specifics. Given her involvement in the women's march, there are legal considerations.

[deleted]

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#435

Post by CydeWeys »

KUcxrAVrtI wrote: post #429
CydeWeys wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

¿Por que no los dos?

Because they were forced out after they publicly called google out on their Chinese stance. They were facing no consequences when it was merely men they were chasing out of google.

The wheels grind slowly. You're expecting too much action too quickly. Also, "when it was merely men they were chasing out of google" is not remotely an accurate description of what the walkout was about. Do better.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#436

Post by ddalex »

xyzzyz wrote: post #329
asdff wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be obvious if you felt like your job at google was bullshit.

Along with me, a good half of my friends at Google (not only on my team) felt exactly that.

So make it not bullshit. It may feel bullshit because it's bullshit or because the exec deciding your project had bad info and you have good info, or you have bad info and not getting the context...

go out there, talk to people, find if it's really bullshit, and if it is, change it. there are so many interesting problems to fix that nobody should have time to do bullshit jobs

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#437

Post by peanutgal2600 »

jrockway wrote: post #362
nvrspyx wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a very good point. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I haven’t followed the situation (or other Google situations like the ones you mentioned) closely. However, I feel a just-as-reasonable explanation is that Google did those things to save face because if they truly felt those were the right things to do, there would be no retaliation and there would be an implicit agreement that the intention was morall…

> Google did those things to save face Companies don't have thoughts or emotions. A company's actions are a result of the individuals that make it up. When you see controversy like the China thing or military contracts, that's just how decisions get made in big companies. Someone wants to get money from the military. Some other people don't. They discuss it and the company makes a decision by individuals taking actio…

"Companies don't have thoughts or emotions."

This statement alone should be enough to reverse Citizens United vs FEC.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#438

Post by lawnchair_larry »

tptacek wrote: post #399
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it’s definitely me that knows “weird subsets” of people, whatever that is supposed to mean. You’re immune to bubbles, and I am in one, right? Or is that a sneaky way of saying, “The people I know don’t think that, so I suspect you made that up”? This is a silly thread, but for what it’s worth, I have not talked to anyone at Google in a security role about this issue. I’ll be more blunt. I am highly skeptical tha…

The people I'm talking about aren't reserving their true feelings about the protests so as to avoid triggering the libs. They're DM'ing me unbidden about how unhappy they are with Google.

The people I’m talking about are. Both at Google and elsewhere. And they are libs.

Then again, a surprisingly large number of Google employees don’t seem to understand that they work for an advertising company.

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#439

Post by kudokatz »

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.

> and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection

29 U.S.C. Sec. 157

Do you think that objecting to a business model or alleged risks thereof falls under the category of "mutual aid and protection" of other workers?

Re: Google Protest Leader Leaves

#440

Post by ddalex »

geofft wrote: post #314
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But Meredith was not making things happening for their employer, at least not in the way that they hired her to do.
Post reply on HN