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

531–540 of 603 posts

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

#531

Post by RangerScience »

gwbas1c wrote: post #511
RangerScience wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've gotten my feet wet in terms of understanding that kind of thing, but not really gotten into it. Thanks for the book recommendation! That said, as legit as your recommendations are, I don't see how this answers my question: How do you differentiate between biased and legitimate disagreement?

> How do you differentiate between biased and legitimate disagreement? Neutral 3rd party? But then how do you know the party is neutral?

And, how does the neutral 3rd party determine the difference?

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

#532

Post by RangerScience »

stale2002 wrote: post #527
RangerScience wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is revealing some interesting things to me. Seems to me the issue is poor self-examination. If you feel like you're doing something because someone "deserves" it, you're doing it wrong; examine the what led yourself here to find out what it's really about.

> If you feel like you're doing something because someone "deserves" it, you're doing it wrong; I was giving a description of how "intolerance of intolerance" works out in practice. It doesn't matter if you think these people are doing it wrong. I do not believe that humans can be trusted to be given such an easy to abuse loophole, that gives them carte-blanche moral authority to act terrible to other human beings (b…

I'm reading "Legal System Very Different From Ours". The first one it talks about is ancient imperial China, where (as the author presents it) the Confucian legal tradition was about teaching virtue.

I'm reminded of a description of "conservative" vs "liberal" wherein it's about risk management versus experimentation.

Right now, if I'm faced with a choice between accommodating people who are doing it wrong, or challenging those people to become more, I'm going with the second option. Then again, this might not result in a viable society; or perhaps just a viable large-scale society.

To put it another way: You can view the loophole as the problem, or you can view the attitude that finds loopholes acceptable to use the problem.

> You should not treat people poorly, even if you believe that they are intolerant,

I can treat people well whom I also do not tolerate. It's just that yeah, usually, those acting intolerant are also acting like assholes.

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

#533

Post by manfredo »

auiya wrote: post #464
Hitton wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny thing is, that although Google boasts about its racial and gender diversity, there is preciously little ideological diversity. And once people stray, they must be purged.

> Google boasts about its racial and gender diversity Does it? Because the metrics it reported just this year says it's made up of mostly still white males. https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2019/04/07/googles...

This is their latest data: https://diversity.google/annual-report/

All roles: Asian, 43.9% Black, 4.8% Latin, 6.8% Native American, 1.1% White 48.5%

Women: 33.2% Men: 66.8%

Tech Roles: Asian, 51.8% Black, 2.8% Latin, 5.3% Native American, 0.8% White, 43.5%

Women: 25.7% Men: 74.3%

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

#534

Post by flatb »

username90 wrote: post #493
flatb wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Saying "Women do on average have more of trait X" is sexism, not discrimination. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism >Definition of sexism >1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex Enough. Just believe what you want, I give up. There's no sexism on the tech industry or schools. James Damore is right and is an oppressed victim of his own bravery. Whatever.

I hope people on a tech forum understand what "or" means.

I hope so too. Let's check out the definition of discrimination.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

>1. prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

Hm. Let's check out the definition of sexism again.

>1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex

Prejudice or discrimination. And discrimination also means prejudiced or prejudicial...since I'm not a tech person like yourself I wouldn't know what 'or' means, it's too complicated for me, but I think I do know what 'and' means: for example, you are wrong about your definition of sexism, and about your definition of discrimination, and about your use of 'or'.

This is great, I love learning new tech concepts on tech forums from tech experts.

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

#535

Post by shaftway »

Frondo wrote: post #513
leftyted wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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". Really? My argument is very straightforward: > The solution is a balance of power between labor and management. In my case, I feel I have plenty of power. In the case of Google employees, I feel they have plenty of p…

"Unionization for programmers is about MORE money, LESS work, and LESS accountability." Correct, and it is certainly your right to wish for less money and more work, even if that is an unorthodox position to take. Perhaps unfair to advocate on behalf of your coworkers for, in your own words, less money and more work, however.

> Perhaps unfair to advocate on behalf of your coworkers...

I'm under the impression that once a union takes hold of a company, you're required to join the union to work there. That was certainly the case when my spouse was a teacher.

So, then, isn't fighting for a union shop also unfairly advocating on behalf of your coworkers?

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

#536

Post by PeterisP »

kelnos wrote: post #339
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 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 morali…

Let's look at the symmetrically opposite situation - for example, a CEO might not want someone who is pro-LGBT representing their company in any way. On the flip side of that, some people wouldn't want to work for a company where the leadership was pro-LGBT.

What would be the expected reaction in this case? We'd want (or require) those people to keep their desires to themselves and choose their employees/employers professionally without discrimination, right?

Thing is, you can't both have your cake and eat it; if we argue that companies should be allowed to act on political/social opinions, then that applies also if you don't like them; and if we argue that it should keep their nose out of what position their employees take on various political/social issues and just focus on their work, then again this will apply to both positions that we like and those we hate.

If employers are allowed to fire (or not hire) someone for pushing anti-LGBT agenda, they'd be allowed to fire (or not hire) someone for pushing a pro-LGBT agenda. Either employees have the right to freely express their political positions or they do not - but that right doesn't depend on which of opposing positions they hold.

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

#537

Post by RobertRoberts »

_qwfv wrote: post #504
RobertRoberts wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think only Muslims could use the rooms in any stories I have read about this topic. That wasn't my point. Consider going to a Muslim majority country where the religion controls the laws (like Indonesia) and /demand/ your Christian religious needs be accommodated. From my studying, you would either be summarily dismissed or even possibly punished.

And that's the way it should be? You are arguing that we should adopt that model? If not, this is just whataboutism. Just because other countries do something badly doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do better.

No, I am arguing the opposite.

That they are /importing/ that tyranny, and most people seem to be unaware of it.

Imagine if Buddists at Amazon had protested and demanded their own space for shrines? Or any other religion that has observational requirements?

The US is being blind to oppression of religious freedom under a false ideal of what that freedom really is.

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

#538

Post by joshuamorton »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #436
defen wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This is some nonsense.

> So if you read your corp email on your home computer, or access employee only services from your phone or laptop etc

I know literally no Google employees that use Google corp resources from personal computers. Phones are common, but as you're hopefully aware, the security considerations are different.

> 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.

Who theorized this? Because it's certainly not a thing that's ever happened. It would be trivial to detect, either as a client, or by looking at the source of Gmail.

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

#539

Post by joshuamorton »

manfredo wrote: post #422
rtpg wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And thus, an office in which this "set of activities" is not permitted is an apolitical office. Organization of people involves power dynamics. Maybe you can make an argument that something like holocracy generates an apolitical environment, though I think that doesn't hold up experimentally. Management deciding whether or not to increase vacation days is a political act. Employees deciding whether they want to sta…

> Management deciding whether or not to increase vacation days is a political act. No, it's a company policy. There is a contingent of people who believe everything is a political act, and perhaps you are among them. But know that this view is not as widely held as you might think. > Employees deciding whether they want to stand together in negotations with management or handle stuff individually is a political Inter…

Your argument boils down to "most people agree with me". Can you substantiate that claim? Even if you could, that doesn't make the popular claim right, but your don't even have a proof that most people agree with you, sot you?

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

#540

Post by Frondo »

shaftway wrote: post #535
Frondo wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Unionization for programmers is about MORE money, LESS work, and LESS accountability." Correct, and it is certainly your right to wish for less money and more work, even if that is an unorthodox position to take. Perhaps unfair to advocate on behalf of your coworkers for, in your own words, less money and more work, however.

> Perhaps unfair to advocate on behalf of your coworkers... I'm under the impression that once a union takes hold of a company, you're required to join the union to work there. That was certainly the case when my spouse was a teacher. So, then, isn't fighting for a union shop also unfairly advocating on behalf of your coworkers?

That has not been true since 1947, when Taft-Hartley banned closed shops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States

As for advocating for organizing at your workplace being unfair to your coworkers: they are not required to join, but as union shops consistently pay better, are safer, and provide better protections against arbitrary firing, I would still be comfortable advocating for those conditions for my coworkers.

Post reply on HN