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

Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 600 posts

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#321

Post by shadowgovt »

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #266
geofft wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Google and GitHub built fantastic engineering departments with that decision, beating the pants off several companies that followed "common knowledge." It was (and still is) a cliche that you get better results by hiring like Google than by hiring like everyone used to hire. What they're now learning is that this decision is incompatible with certain forms of revenue like military or immigration-enforcement con…

This is historically revisionist. Google was a money-making behemoth with its tentacles in many areas of innovation before it became the politicized entity we know it to be today. Google only really became politicized a couple of years ago when certain media publications started making demands for diversity numbers within the organization and publicly shaming them for not meeting some imaginary bar in the area. Githu…

rms is extremely political, and has made significant contributions In the operating system and application space. The entirety of the free software movement is a political movement, stemming from a philosophy that people should have freedom to change the software on devices they physically own. I assume you're not considering him one of "those in question?"

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#322

Post by ekianjo »

redblacktree wrote: post #317
hgytr wrote: post #305

First. Thanks to HN for not demanding phone numbers: anonymity allows to say things that cannot be said. Second. Many googlers read HN. In some sense, HN is the extension of the internal forums. CNBC made a good summary and I can comment on each bullet point. Larry and Brin probably stopped attending because nothing important is said on TGIFs. More people -> more leaks -> less interesting information -> less attenden…

> typical big corporation with typical corporate politics I don't know why this would surprise anyone. People are people and politics are politics in any large organization. There is no reason to think Google would be exempt.

> There is no reason to think Google would be exempt.

It can be controlled in some way. If you only hire people from the same political pool, for example. Or getting them early enough (young enough) to shape them in a way that will lower internal tensions. Not every large company is burning in political fires.

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#323

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

joshuamorton wrote: post #299
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the second is just an excuse to let your values implicitly bias the local Overton window without acknowledging that I can't speak for the original commenter, but I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that. Banning politics is a difficult and inevitably biased rule. But the alternative seems to be that politics invades every minute of everyone's life, and that's completely intolerable unless you're fortunate enough t…

And that's fine. It's a choice. One I personally disagree with, but at least it's a deliberate choice. But if you make such a deliberate choice you need to be frank about it: you're making a tradeoff between, let's say, tranquility and openness, and favoring tranquility at a cost to people whose views are less mainstream. Or (under an alternate definition of political), you're making the choice to accept without argu…

But I think your framing is backwards here.

* Banning politics from the workplace is a huge benefit to people whose views are less mainstream. In the presence of politics, people with non-mainstream views have to either lie about what they think or live under a constant cloud of controversy.

* Banning politics from the workplace is the only way to keep your values independent of the political environment. If politics are allowed, you constantly have to monitor the political landscape to make sure following your company values won't make your employees rebel.

* Your analogy does hold, and it would be unreasonable to have a rule where I'll be punished for chatting in the breakroom about how my cousin might be deported. But it would also be unreasonable for me to interrupt meetings with demands that the company must cancel its medical plan, because my dad has the same insurance and I don't think they're treating him right.

More broadly, I don't think anyone actually wants or would benefit from politics in general in the workplace. The only people I've seen argue for it are confident that their politics will be popular, and that all political views they find offensive will continue to be forbidden.

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#324

Post by ekianjo »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #160
notJim wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My brother worked in ad agencies, and this is the opposite of what he said. Tons of drinking and just generally bad behavior which would only be tolerated in the worst silicon valley startups. He moved to the startup world because it has a healthier work culture.

We are surrounded by functional alcoholics (10% in the US drink most of the booze). They naturally tend toward career paths that support their behavior.

90% of people surrounded by 10% ? The word "surrounded" seems inappropriate.

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#325

Post by lazyasciiart »

majormajor wrote: post #292
nostrademons wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more that they actively courted assertive people with opinions and then created a culture where you can bring your whole self to work. They did this so that they could get the benefits of creativity, which inherently requires emotional engagement, which requires that you not repress your emotions. (It turns out that it's not possible to selectively repress emotions: "I've got to watch what I say about po…

> (It turns out that it's not possible to selectively repress emotions: "I've got to watch what I say about politics" subconsciously spills over into "I've got to watch what I say" which spills over into "I've got to watch what I say about anything new and controversial", and you lose the latter well before the former.) I don't believe this. I can tune out whatever random BS my coworkers a few desks over are talking…

I don’t know if I could really trust the opinions of a co-worker who believed the earth is flat. I’m pretty sure that would influence my attitude towards them in technical discussions as well.

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#326

Post by rexpop »

threeseed wrote: post #24
kccqzy wrote: post #7

This reminds me of this sentence from a Wired article[0] in August: > TGIF's transformation from candid conversation to press conference was pretty much complete. As a Googler I'm totally not surprised this is happening. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time. [0]: https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery...

Unfortunately that's what happens when the discussions get leaked. It's hard to be candid and open if what you say might end up distorted in the media and without you having an ability to defend yourself.

> It's hard to be candid and open if what you say might end up distorted in the media and without you having an ability to defend yourself.

Distorted by the media? That's the point of "leaks": to make transparent leaderships' opinions verbatim.

The firms that control our lives should not be allowed to confer behind closed doors.

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#327

Post by hn82738 »

redblacktree wrote: post #317
hgytr wrote: post #305

First. Thanks to HN for not demanding phone numbers: anonymity allows to say things that cannot be said. Second. Many googlers read HN. In some sense, HN is the extension of the internal forums. CNBC made a good summary and I can comment on each bullet point. Larry and Brin probably stopped attending because nothing important is said on TGIFs. More people -> more leaks -> less interesting information -> less attenden…

> typical big corporation with typical corporate politics I don't know why this would surprise anyone. People are people and politics are politics in any large organization. There is no reason to think Google would be exempt.

> There is no reason to think Google would be exempt.

Except that it did seem to be exempt, for much longer and while becoming much larger than I think most people would have imagined.

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#328

Post by rainyMammoth »

hgytr wrote: post #305

First. Thanks to HN for not demanding phone numbers: anonymity allows to say things that cannot be said. Second. Many googlers read HN. In some sense, HN is the extension of the internal forums. CNBC made a good summary and I can comment on each bullet point. Larry and Brin probably stopped attending because nothing important is said on TGIFs. More people -> more leaks -> less interesting information -> less attenden…

> Don't get me wrong. Google is still the best workplace with top notch pay, but as it's got big, it's also morphed into a typical big corporation with typical corporate politics.

Sorry but I cannot stand that level of internal koolaid. I guess you also think that Google got the "smartest" people? There are literally thousands of companies working on problems way more interesting and with more stakes and upsides for humanity than Google and the adtech industry. I would qualify all of those companies as "better place to work" than Google. It is maybe the best place to work if you have no sense of ethics, want to take it easy, work 9 to 5 and maximize your money.

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#329

Post by rexpop »

40acres wrote: post #64

Sounds like Googlers spoiled the well. I'm not sure exactly why but Google employees always seem to be in the news about something and have leaked conversations that management had with them. In some instances the controversy is warranted (Rubin Payout, etc.) but it must be annoying from a management perspective.

What a distasteful sentiment. Management is punishing workers with their silence, and their lack of transparency, and you have the gall to suggest these workers deserve it? That they brought it upon themselves?

It's our right to speak up about our experiences, even if that means "leaking" our bosses words. In a sense, it's our duty–Google's actions impact us all, and we're owed transparency with which management's not forthcoming.

Re: Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

#330

Post by rexpop »

Aeolun wrote: post #294
brown9-2 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s interesting that people absolve management from blame, when they actively hid details of military contracts with employees.

Can’t really blame them for that given the reaction. You can blame them for taking those contracts in the first place.

Of course we can blame them for hiding their abusive, violent behavior. It's never too late to come clean, and embrace accountability.
Post reply on HN