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

451–460 of 603 posts

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

#451

Post by askafriend »

xwdv wrote: post #146
askafriend wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All this does is ensure only mediocre people are hired. What you described is how you might hire for McDonald’s, not a high growth company that is building something massive/valuable. I work with a group of the most talented people in the world at what they do and 0 of them would want to work in an environment you describe. In fact they won’t even consider a company remotely like what you describe.

Doesn’t matter. We turn mediocre generalists into skilled specialists with niche knowledge of different domains within a year. And because the things we teach them don’t have much application outside the company they are very loyal. Talented people with social activism fantasies are overrated. They can’t always be trusted to simply do what you tell them. They think their talents give them leverage, and that if they s…

Frankly this sounds like a total disaster of a company.

I don’t want to work with mediocre people who end up stuck in jobs they hate.

Real talent does give people leverage.

What you’re describing is not talent - it’s dubious/ exploitative/desperate management practices combined with a funnel of people who don’t know better.

Literally no genuinely talented engineer would stay in a job like the one you describe - it just wouldn’t make sense. Skills especially are very fungible. I can apply to work at Google tomorrow without knowing their tech stack at all, get an offer, and pull down $500k+ a year.

Does your company’s ARR even touch $50m?

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

#452

Post by [deleted] »

manfredo wrote: post #447
flatb wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have YOU read it? Jesus Christ. > 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. Yes, that does say that women are genetically worse leaders and implies that their lower salaries are at least in part because they are naturally worse negotiators. The whole…

> Yes, that does say that women are genetically worse leaders and implies that their lower salaries are at least in part because they are naturally worse negotiators. No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average. And because Google rewards assertiveness, this means women have a harder time negotiating salaries at Google. In a workplace the prioritizes agreeableness over asserti…

[deleted]

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

#453

Post by bliblah »

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…

Hear hear, I'm under 30 but because the industry I work in isn't really as sexy or brand new as some more CS focused ones I tend to work with people who are older and were raised with the type of expectation that the workplace is a place for working and carry themselves more or less restrained in this regard.

I have friends who work in LA and in SF and they constantly bombard me with stories of how employees of all levels (even recent hires) just spew the most extremist political diatribes at all times and some just do it to troll other employees of the different faction. It has gotten so bad that there are several "secret" slack channels for these cliques dedicated to continue gossiping and sharing memes that are pretty distasteful.

Whenever I ask about them reporting it to HR they just tell me that HR doesn't really exist and they pretty much exist just to make sure payroll is distributed.

Just my 2 cents but I prefer just clocking in and talking about the weather than have to put up with that kind of toxicity.

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

#454

Post by michannne »

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…

Sounds like a stretch. If something like that happens, you take it to HR, you don't don a mask and cape and begin rallying your coworkers to fight alongside you.

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

#455

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

helen___keller wrote: post #449
DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the substantive discussion! > May I have a specific example? I can't without giving out too much detail. I shouldn't have stated that without being able to provide substance, sorry. > It is not disrespectful for the employer to celebrate other employees who are homosexual. Am I misunderstanding? I think we're getting close to the fundamental issue here. Let me unpack my logic a bit: 1) Celebrating behavior…

I can agree with your logic, in particular with one additional axiom: 3) an employer can respect employees religious views only if they will not imply the religious view is in error It's clearly (from your logic) the case that employers description of "respects" violates axiom (3). If you belong to one of the sects in question I can understand being upset, but I would argue that (given the breadth of beliefs in the w…

Thanks for the excellent response. Good job spotting my (unintentionally) suppressed premise, (3).

> I would rather that my employers tries the best possible at the (futile) task of being respectful and celebratory to all, and if problems are raised they try to be concluded with minimal conflict and maximum respect.

I think we agree that employers ought to take positions somewhere on the Pereto curve [0] of that tradeoff-space.

At one level, it seems to be a question of how happy various employee groups would feel for the different policy options. I don't have a principled reason for my own preference in that trade-space, so I try to not put my own views on a pedestal for this topic.

If nobody has a convincing argument for the proper balance in that tradeoff-space, though, it makes me wonder if it's simply a matter of personal preference / opinion for everyone involved.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

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

#456

Post by RangerScience »

9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #169
gwbas1c wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps put you biases aside? There are white supremacists who don't think they're racist. (It's kind of like someone claiming they aren't homophobic but also opposing gay marriage.) It's a complicated subject. IMO, I don't see how someone can be a racist / homophobe in secret; thus I don't see a justification for spying on a co-worker just to find out things like this.

Are the world famous #1 gay couple Dolce and Gabbana homophobic? They oppose gay marriage, but in your American culture there are only two ways of life, you pick Republicans or Democrats and run with whatever their ministries of truth spew out.

> in your American culture there are only two ways of life

That might be the culture I come from, but it is not my culture, and I do not subscribe to it, claim responsibility for it, or claim ownership of it.

Then again, there's not a lot of people in my culture, they're pretty spread out, and it's hard to get them together in one place to do our thing, soooo.

America is a lot of different cultures. Most places are. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats

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

#457

Post by bigred100 »

bliblah wrote: post #453
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…

Hear hear, I'm under 30 but because the industry I work in isn't really as sexy or brand new as some more CS focused ones I tend to work with people who are older and were raised with the type of expectation that the workplace is a place for working and carry themselves more or less restrained in this regard. I have friends who work in LA and in SF and they constantly bombard me with stories of how employees of all l…

I work with a few of those guys. I truly wonder why their managers put up with it. I’d immediately fire them.

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

#458

Post by koheripbal »

ahelwer wrote: post #13
xhkkffbf wrote: post #3

I've liked many things about Google over the years and I still admire many parts of their stack. But this crazy internal political culture is bound to end in a big kaboom and it looks like this might be it. Evolution has created the rules that one doesn't mix politics with business. Google has skirted this rule for some time but now it's not going to be pretty.

> Evolution has created the rules that one doesn't mix politics with business This 'rule' is a purely artificial construct encouraged to ensure the common employees keep their heads down and let those in charge continue screwing over them and/or society. The history of organized labor involves no less than straight murder of labor activists by company owners.

Man, this site is turning into Reddit. This is such an opinionated uninformative comment...

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

#459

Post by RangerScience »

gwbas1c wrote: post #242
RangerScience wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps put you biases aside? I don't follow? Maybe try rephrasing? > can be a racist / homophobe in secret I can kind of see that, but, the KKK wears hoods? > I don't see a justification for spying on a co-worker Hmm. I don't have an examined opinion on this, outside of general hesitation to go looking for problems for reasons such as confirmation bias and whatever the name is for what self-fulfilling-prophecies l…

Because you're using your biases against people who think differently than you to justify immoral behavior. Edit: You don't need to tolerate bad behavior, but it goes both ways: You can't justify bad behavior in the name of policing other peoples' dumb actions. Or: Two wrongs don't make a right.

> because you're using your biases against people who think differently than you

How do you differentiate between "biases" and "legitimate disagreement"?

I do it by exploring how much attention someone's paid to they path they took to where they are. Biases generally present as short, unexamined paths.

> Or: Two wrongs don't make a right.

I would agree. Too much of justice is about negative incentives.

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

#460

Post by RangerScience »

mike00632 wrote: post #193
mindslight wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you no longer have to be tolerated by anyone adhering to it. The point of tolerance is to tolerate . Just because you have managed to find an intolerant viewpoint that survives our current memetic filter, does not change the reality that you're the one preaching intolerance, right here . Hate movements throughout history have been supported by logical-sounding arguments for marginalizing some outgroup. I don't thin…

Being intolerant of intolerance is the only way to foster a tolerant society. It's the solution to the Paradox of Tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Nope. https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
Post reply on HN