One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions • Hacker News Board

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

#431

Post by ChuckMcM » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #269

ChuckMcM wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it was a "safety hazard" to have too many people at once in the smoking area behind the textile mill. It is a slippery slope to try to tease apart what is, and what isn't, interference right? Google also has a clause in their employment agreement that says you agree to them putting surveillance software on your devices, company supplied and personal, as a condition of your employment. I asked about that one, got…

> Google also has a clause in their employment agreement that says you agree to them putting surveillance software on your devices, company supplied and personal, as a condition of your employment. That doesn't mean it's enforceable or that it wouldn't run into statutory limits. Many workplace relations laws are written on a strict liability basis, intent isn't necessary for infringement. So if it has a chilling effe…

There were a number of things in the Google employment agreement that my attorney suggested were either unenforceable for legal reasons or overly broad, he also pointed out that companies generally don't retain people who sue them (the contract is employment 'at will'). His advice was that if you didn't like it, just quit. That is the low cost way of getting out from under the contract that left little ill will behind. Suing was messy and follows one around to future job interviews.

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

#432

Post by manfredo » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:06 PM UTC

ahelwer wrote: post #392

manfredo wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you're seeing "unquestioned obedience". Employees can go support the politicians, or hold rallies for whatever cause they choose on their own time. An apolitical office is one where political activity isn't held in the office. That's it. I'm really not sure what is confusing about this.

Unquestioned obedience to the decisions of higher-ups.

Again, an apolitical office does not entail unquestioned obedience - the notion that it does is your own fabrication.

I've worked in apolitical offices before, and people do feel comfortable to question business decision and technical choices. In fact, I'd say people were more comfortable in questioning those decisions than in political offices, because in political offices people are loath to be perceived as political enemies.

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

#433

Post by Frondo » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:06 PM UTC

leftyted wrote: post #402

Frondo wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can feel however you want about power, about not joining a union, about not paying dues, but the employer always has more power than the employee; they pay you a small fraction of the value you produce for them, you collect a paycheck at their leisure, and they can replace you more easily than you can find another job. The employer has a workforce and resources at their disposal, you bring to the table only your…

> You can feel however you want about power, about not joining a union, about not paying dues, but the employer always has more power than the employee; they pay you a small fraction of the value you produce for them, you collect a paycheck at their leisure, and they can replace you more easily than you can find another job. "Balance of power between labor and management" doesn't mean 50:50. It means the employee has…

Unfortunately, the only reasoning I can see that "a union for programmers is a terrible idea" is that you "don't want to read newsletters or listen to speeches or be involved at all in the grubby etc".

A unionized workplace doesn't mean you 1) need to join the union (closed shops are illegal in the US) or 2) be involved in the "grubby underhanded maneuvering for power" -- in a pragmatic sense because you can't be compelled to join a union, but more importantly because that is not what union activity is.

What I would find far more convincing is an explanation of how a workplace like Google would be worse if it were a union shop. Lower pay? Nope, union shops consistently draw larger salaries for their workers. Less workplace safety? Nope, union shops consistently have fewer injuries than non-union shops. Fixed salary schedule? Nope, a technical union could easily be structured like SAG -- e.g. Tom Cruise doesn't have a salary cap. Can't fire a bad apple? That seems like a bad idea until someone decides you're the bad apple.

I bet that Damore guy would've appreciated having a union rep sitting at the table with him in those HR meetings where they were going over his blog posts or whatever.

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

#434

Post by ddevault » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:07 PM UTC

leftyted wrote: post #389

ddevault wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if your punch in, put on the blinders, work 8 hours, punch out, go home; emotionally-deatched approach has you building tools to enable censorship in China? Or what if you end up working on [insert your personal morally objectionable issue of choice]? Your employer doesn't have power over you, but you have power over them. Organization is about choosing not to exercise that power by leaving for greener pastures…

> What if your punch in, put on the blinders, work 8 hours, punch out, go home; emotionally-deatched approach has you building tools to enable censorship in China? If I thought that the company was doing something deeply unethical then I'd quit. I'm comfortable saying "I don't want to work for a company that is complicit in X bad thing". But we have to understand that "complicit" and "bad" are not easy to define. Eac…

>If I thought that the company was doing something deeply unethical then I'd quit.

And the deeply unethical behavior would continue to happen.

>Each individual should decide what those words mean and collectivizing these decisions is a massive mistake.

You have to make a compromise here. As an individual you don't have much power to stop those unethical behaviors, and as a group you do.

>You want the control without the risk and, sorry, but you don't get to do that.

No, you can have this. By collectivizing.

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

#435

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:07 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #429

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore's essay seems to be a kind of Rorschach test. People sympathetic to Damore's views (or at least, to his approach to debate) seem to trust that he's arguing in good faith. People strongly opposed to his views seem to think he's being disingenuous.

If those are my choices, I'd place myself in the "sympathetic with his approach to debate" bucket.

Feel free to add to the list of choices. I didn't mean to create a false dichotomy.

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

#436

Post by ChuckMcM » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:10 PM UTC

defen wrote: post #130

ChuckMcM wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it was a "safety hazard" to have too many people at once in the smoking area behind the textile mill. It is a slippery slope to try to tease apart what is, and what isn't, interference right? Google also has a clause in their employment agreement that says you agree to them putting surveillance software on your devices, company supplied and personal, as a condition of your employment. I asked about that one, got…

> Google also has a clause in their employment agreement that says you agree to them putting surveillance software on your devices, company supplied and personal, as a condition of your employment. How would Google even know about your personal devices? That seems to only make sense if you intend to use your personal device for work.

Not BYOD devices, any device you use to connect to the corporate servers. So if you read your corp email on your home computer, or access employee only services from your phone or laptop etc. One of the interesting things about working there was that much of what you needed to do could be done over the existing Google services.

As for how? It was left unspecified but we speculated they could drop a keylogger or other bit of surveillance kit if you logged into your corporate gmail account from a device where it wasn't already installed. Clearly crooks can do this, it has to be easier when you can sign your downloads and are a 'trusted' vendor.

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

#437

Post by manfredo » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #368

EdiX wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this is true. His "rant" was a well researched memo with extensive links to state of the art research. You should actually read the real thing, once, instead of the maimed version published by the guardian. But honestly it's better if you don't know, you're better adjusted to living in this world by remaining ignorant. Just keep reading Vox.

I read the whole thing word for word. I recognized the language and wording from scientific racism tracts. I also tracked down his fundraiser which I haven't seen covered in the news.

It wasn't "scientific racism". First of all its discussion of science pertained to differences in gender, not race. And the author did not argue that women were worse at engineering, but rather that gender differences affect preferences.

While other people may have used his memo to justify sexist beliefs about the capability of female engineers, attributing those words to the original author is at best intellectually dishonest if not outright dishonest.

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

#438

Post by sangnoir » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

leftyted wrote: post #320

DagAgren wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your colleagues are not an authentic social network who you can organise with and pursue activism. This is absolutely, 100% false. This is exactly what you SHOULD do, and this is what unions are for. Always organise with coworkers. Otherwise you are giving employers more power over you than you should.

My empoyer doesn't have a lot of power over me. I'm a programmer not a coal miner. I don't want to be in a union. I don't want to join some club. I don't want to pay dues. I don't want to read newsletters or listen to speeches or be involved at all in the grubby, underhanded manuevering for power that would come with a union. And I'm tired of people condescendingly telling me that I'm wrong for feeling this way. I'm…

> My empoyer doesn't have a lot of power over me. I'm a programmer not a coal miner.

Respectfully - were you a programmer during the last recession? I only ask because this power dynamic you imply is inherent in being a programmer can change (and has changed) in a matter of weeks and you'll find the entire industry is not hiring, not seeking consultants, and not looking to buy your *aaS product.

There were a lot of desperate programmers during the great recession (and before that, the dotcom bust)

edit: removed age from what should have been a more general question.

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

#439

Post by flatb » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

akavi wrote: post #385

flatb wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch... >Damore said that those differences include women generally having a stronger interest in people rather than things, and tending to be more social, artistic, and prone to neuroticism (a higher-order personality trait) Imagine thinking that you can literally publish and circulate several revisions of an internal company memo telling 50% of your coworkers…

I'm not sure I see any part of that quote even suggesting "50% of your coworkers... should be paid less because they're genetically inferior to you". And regardless of the correctness of firing him, him getting fired is a little stronger than "people tell[ing him] that [he's] kind of a dick".

It's on the memo itself. You can read it here, among many other places: https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...

On a section dedicated to offering alternative explanations to sexism for the gender gap in tech, James writes:

>Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.

>Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

The implication is that it's partly natural that women do worse and get lower salaries at tech. In case there's any adoubt, the section it's written in is titled "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech", in the subsection "Personality differences".

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

#440

Post by username90 » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #419

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the essay shows is that your representation of his beliefs is obviously false.

Damore's essay seems to be a kind of Rorschach test. People sympathetic to Damore's views (or at least, to his approach to debate) seem to trust that he's arguing in good faith. People strongly opposed to his views seem to think he's being disingenuous.

Since Damore explicitly said that he thought that the women working at Google had passed the same bar as the men, and hence are all qualified to be there, anyone who say "Damore wanted women to get paid less" or "Damore wanted women to get fired from Google" or anything like that just didn't read the words. They might have read the memo, but not the words, they saw that some of the things he said resembled alt-right talking points and then assumed that he had all the normal alt-right beliefs.

Note that I still think there are some questionable things in the memo, but the way people demonize it shows that they can't read controversial texts or didn't read it and just relied on second hand information from those who can't read controversial texts.