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

One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 603 posts

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#331

Post by [deleted] »

thinkingemote wrote: post #273
JohnBooty wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people say this, I feel they're often thinking about the decreased tolerance for toxic views. Like that ex-Googler who got fired for repeatedly claiming that women were inferior engineers. There's been a decreased tolerance for... well, intolerance.

The Googler got fired for using unhelpful stereotypes. He didn't repeatedly claim women were inferior engineers (but I understand why people will believe it). Nor was it in my opinion intolerant but it was championed by those who are (there's a difference). It was some other unhelpful stereotype based on gender differences. The key take away is that generalising based on group Identity should not be done.

[deleted]

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#332

Post by cmiles74 »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #323
aedron wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With 20 years experience under my belt, it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues. Obviously, this extends even more to the workplace itself bringing these topics up. I'm not aggressive or even obvious about this disposition, I just gently steer clear of violating it. I feel the same should apply to companies, fine if you want to…

The problem is, though, that politics is inherently tied up in actions related to the workplace. Let’s say one of your colleagues or managers occasionally makes decisions that would be frowned upon by some people. Maybe you’re recruiting, and they let slip that they passed over a female candidate because they thought she might have a child soon. Or maybe they passed on a gay man because they didn’t think he should be…

I believe these actions are egregious enough that they do warrant taking some action, a conversation at minimum. That being said, in my own experience there is a near constant undercurrent of political sentiment that I simply avoid because there seems little point in engaging only to cement how much we disagree. It's more low-key stuff, like mild comments about something someone read on Twitter or a snippet of political news.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#333

Post by helen___keller »

aedron wrote: post #296
say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #208

What we are seeing are the consequences of "Employee Capture". Google captured the hearts and minds of its employees for workplace productivity. Its side effects are varied. The real world only sees highlights. Googled created a bubble from which its employees can socialize without ever needing to do so with the outside world. Why talk politics with the outside world? Stay with us, where it is safe, people are intell…

With 20 years experience under my belt, it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues. Obviously, this extends even more to the workplace itself bringing these topics up. I'm not aggressive or even obvious about this disposition, I just gently steer clear of violating it. I feel the same should apply to companies, fine if you want to…

> it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues

From the company's PoV you're correct. From the employee's PoV I'm not convinced.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#334

Post by mrrrgn »

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #317
thinkingemote wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Googler got fired for using unhelpful stereotypes. He didn't repeatedly claim women were inferior engineers (but I understand why people will believe it). Nor was it in my opinion intolerant but it was championed by those who are (there's a difference). It was some other unhelpful stereotype based on gender differences. The key take away is that generalising based on group Identity should not be done.

Did you actually follow this? His rant was basically just of a list of stock arguments from the scientific racism era. After he got fired his fans started a fundraiser on a white supremacy website. His arguments were stock white supremacy and the people who adopted him as a hero were stock white supremacists. This isn't hard to figure out.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "white supremacy" because you use it so often it seems like something nebulous.

--

So it seems that "white supremacy" is a catchall term for anything that argues a biological basis for group differences. Thank you for the links and for not just being aghast that I didn't know this. :]

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#335

Post by helen___keller »

stronglikedan wrote: post #307
aedron wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With 20 years experience under my belt, it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues. Obviously, this extends even more to the workplace itself bringing these topics up. I'm not aggressive or even obvious about this disposition, I just gently steer clear of violating it. I feel the same should apply to companies, fine if you want to…

> With 20 years experience under my belt, it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues. I, too, old this belief, but it's kind of hard when the "new culture" is overwhelmed with a sense of entitlement to "be heard". Everyone thinks their individual opinions should be able to be shared whenever they feel the need to be validated, and…

Everything is relative to the discussion and beliefs at hand. If you want to disagree about fried chicken, fine, have your beliefs even if I think you're wrong.

If you want to disagree about, say, LGBT rights, then I will probably deem that you are the bad person. That's how strong, deeply held beliefs work. I'm sure if I tried hard I could come up with an example of a belief that would make you consider me a bad person if I stated it as a coworker.

What you're describing is just that your values differ greatly from "new culture" values, not some new entitlement among young people.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#336

Post by josefx »

chii wrote: post #245
josefx wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone explain what the controversy is here? Google had some rather controversial projects that officially got shutdown over employees being rightfully concerned. An example would be the highly censored Chinese dragonfly search engine. Google clamping down on project information on a "need to know" basis could be seen as rather problematic when you consider that management considers that kind of project accept…

> Google clamping down on project information on a "need to know" basis could be seen as rather problematic when you consider that management considers that kind of project acceptable. it's daft, but upper management/owners can choose to do the most profitable project, and the employee's choices are to quit or comply (or give reasons why the project is not profitable, and offer an alternative). An employee cannot rea…

> upper management/owners can choose to do the most profitable project, and the employee's choices are to quit or comply

Comply with what? How would you quit over a project that you aren't even told about? This "employee's choice" makes no sense when the employer creates an intentional information blackout to hide its questionable activities from scrutiny.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#337

Post by PeterStuer »

cptskippy wrote: post #263
say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #208

What we are seeing are the consequences of "Employee Capture". Google captured the hearts and minds of its employees for workplace productivity. Its side effects are varied. The real world only sees highlights. Googled created a bubble from which its employees can socialize without ever needing to do so with the outside world. Why talk politics with the outside world? Stay with us, where it is safe, people are intell…

> Being fired from Google amounts to not just losing a job but "friends" and the only people who the company encouraged socializing with. I've never worked for Google so I have no basis for comparison but it's very common across white collar jobs for employees social circles to very closely if not entirely overlap with work. Unless you participated in extracurricular activities that weren't school sponsored, you prob…

If your social circle closely overlaps with your work colleagues, I would take that as a symptom of a dysfunctional work/life imbalance.

Teleworking is a major benefactor to breaking that imbalance. Typical IT workers out of every 24 hours you spend about 9 working, 8 sleeping, 2 on commuting and 3 on grooming, meals and chores. That leaves just 2 hours of uncommitted time in which to fit me-time, sports, hobbies and friends. So some things will have to give.

Teleworking doubles the amount of time you have uncommitted. That is not just a 100% quantitative increase. 4 hours can fit things that 2 hours just can not, as any outhouse activity (gym/evening class/pub/cinema/theater/...) has setup/travel/wind-down time as well.

Teleworking, or more general, the absence of the typical commute is what enables you to have a social life.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#338

Post by samirillian »

say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #208

What we are seeing are the consequences of "Employee Capture". Google captured the hearts and minds of its employees for workplace productivity. Its side effects are varied. The real world only sees highlights. Googled created a bubble from which its employees can socialize without ever needing to do so with the outside world. Why talk politics with the outside world? Stay with us, where it is safe, people are intell…

> Your colleagues are not an authentic social network who you can organise with and pursue activism. You aren't hired to do that. While you are naive for thinking you could, it's not entirely your fault. Google brainwashed you.

Well, this is exactly the question at stake. And it's not Google that makes some of us believe that it is indeed possible to not be estranged from our labor, but the history of human cooperation related to sharing our labor and other resources.

We dream of sharing labor and governance of said labor. To say Google did not hire their employees to do that is resorting to one level of rules (legal or operational). But these employees are implicitly contesting a deeper level of rules (constitutional). The question of _who we are_ is deeper than any contracts or protocols that Google explicitly defines.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#339

Post by kelnos »

aedron wrote: post #296
say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #208

What we are seeing are the consequences of "Employee Capture". Google captured the hearts and minds of its employees for workplace productivity. Its side effects are varied. The real world only sees highlights. Googled created a bubble from which its employees can socialize without ever needing to do so with the outside world. Why talk politics with the outside world? Stay with us, where it is safe, people are intell…

With 20 years experience under my belt, it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues. Obviously, this extends even more to the workplace itself bringing these topics up. I'm not aggressive or even obvious about this disposition, I just gently steer clear of violating it. I feel the same should apply to companies, fine if you want to…

The problem is that, for many issues, you can't separate the politics from social issues. Many of these political issues concern aspects of morality.

For example, a CEO might not want someone who is anti-LGBT representing their company in any way. On the flip side of that, I wouldn't want to work for a company where the leadership was anti-LGBT. Even if these people are otherwise good at their jobs, a person's morality does matter when deciding who to work with/for.

You might make the argument that no one at work should even know if anyone else is anti-LGBT or not, or argue that people should put those cares aside in the interests of a harmonious workplace, but I just don't think that's how (all) humans work.

There are practical considerations to this, too: say a trans employee has to deal with an anti-LGBT HR person regarding trans healthcare and the company's health plans. The HR person is going to be uncomfortable about that conversation, and the trans person isn't going to feel like their concerns are being taken seriously, or even feel safe having that conversation in the first place. That's... not okay.

> On a somewhat related note, I don't consider my colleagues my friends, or, God forbid, the workplace a 'family'.

Just like any other random group of people in the world, some of my colleagues are my friends who I socialize with outside work, and some (most) aren't.

(Agreed, though, the whole "company is family" nonsense needs to stop.)

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#340

Post by SquishyPanda23 »

mrrrgn wrote: post #334
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you actually follow this? His rant was basically just of a list of stock arguments from the scientific racism era. After he got fired his fans started a fundraiser on a white supremacy website. His arguments were stock white supremacy and the people who adopted him as a hero were stock white supremacists. This isn't hard to figure out.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "white supremacy" because you use it so often it seems like something nebulous. -- So it seems that "white supremacy" is a catchall term for anything that argues a biological basis for group differences. Thank you for the links and for not just being aghast that I didn't know this. :]

I'm not sure if you're joking, but white supremacy has a long history and is extremely well documented.

Wikipedia is a reasonable place to start

Post reply on HN