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

On Resigning from Google

alphabetworkers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 295 posts

Re: On Resigning from Google

#241

Post by singron »

telotortium wrote: post #218
xtacy wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy is a bit extreme, don't you think so? Isn't there a difference between developing a technology and actively taking part in selling it for a use-case that you disagree with?

IMO it's not. First of all, I doubt many of the engineers here are actively selling the technology to the oil and gas companies directly, or even working on features that are especially designed for oil and gas companies - if they are, I think they have a little more of a case. Second of all, the relevant point here is that cloud computing capabilities are by default available to any purchaser, just as encryption is…

Google had a "VP of Oil, Gas, and Energy" so it's not like they are building off-the-shelf software that oil and gas companies happen to purchase. Google is making a concerted effort to accommodate those companies specifically.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#243

Post by dchyrdvh »

I like the tech labor movement idea, as long as it works on practical goals. It could be funded by membership fees and have lawyers on payroll to make some changes in the laws. Noncompetes should be outlawed, for example. Membership should be sufficiently anonymous because I don't trust you enough to disclose my name.

The author seems be dispersing anger over a very broad set of issues. That won't work.

The authors also pressing on existing employees that they should feel guilty and take some action. By this logic, when the US does some questionable things abroad, you should renounce citizenship and leave to Canada. When the Canada's gov makes a questionable move, you leave it immediately for Norway. Eventually you discover that humanity is still mostly driven by egoism and retreat to woods.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#244

Post by dangus »

veeralpatel979 wrote: post #51

The solution to climate change is not to make energy producers like oil and gas companies go out of business. The way these companies became so successful was by providing something of value at a low cost. Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? Instead, the Tesla model is the way to go. Build products that are 10x better than their fossil fuel reliant competitors. T…

Can you build a Tesla without fossil fuels?

Think of the production chain, top to bottom. Where did the steel come from?

It’s hypocritical to quit a company over selling products to oil and gas companies when one is themselves unwilling to completely stop consuming oil and gas.

Modern life is essentially made possible by oil, coal, and gas. Nobody, not even the Amish return 100% to the pre-industrial age. There are alternatives but they aren’t complete solutions, not yet. That’s just the reality.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#245

Post by perl4ever »

geofft wrote: post #237
maest wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Techies work in a seller's market (as evidenced by the comparatively huge salaries they command). There is definitely no "over supply of labor". One of Google's biggest assets is their huge army of talented techies. I'd go so far as to say losing that would be an existential threat to the business.

Comparative to what? Big tech companies are wildly profitable for their owners. Techies make a lot of money compared to other professions because we genuinely produce a disproportionate amount of value, but that doesn't imply we're in a seller's market. One way you can tell that there's no dearth of labor is that most companies round an "unsure" in the interview process to "no," not "yes."

A large part of supply and demand is the amount of immediate liquidity. Employers seem to have the upper hand when hiring typically because they have a bunch of options right then whereas few applicants have multiple simultaneous offers and if they do, they don't have many. But that's not the same as supply and demand of labor on a longer timescale.

Somebody who's thought more and more clearly about this could write something better about it, but I felt like pointing out what I think is overlooked.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#246

Post by lunias »

shadowgovt wrote: post #233
lunias wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, labor is not that powerful anymore... especially when the company has the capital to replace you with 5 people tomorrow. I think the political power can only be regained by pooling your labor with your peers.

And that's what distinguishes a Googler walking out from most walkouts: Google still struggles to hire fast enough to fill open roles.

Because of the nature of the roles or because they are selective to a fault? It's my experience that most people at a company of that size are "just there". If you have 2 employees, both of them have to be excellent. If you have 200 employees, 2 of them have to be excellent.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#247

Post by perl4ever »

tomnipotent wrote: post #238
koheripbal wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that as long as you remain an employee, you have a LEGAL obligation to act in the interests of the Corporation. That is the nature of Fiduciary Duty - something all employees are legally bound by. You may "voice your concerns" all you like, but while you're an employee, it is your duty to ACT in accordance with the directions you're given, and in the absence of explicit direction, in the interests of t…

> LEGAL obligation to act in the interests of the Corporation This is a myth. The only time this applies is if there's an actual written contract of fiduciary duty. Running a company or having investors does not magically enact some federal law.

As we see by all the talk about stakeholders. Not to mention ethics, obeying the law, etc.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#248

Post by shadowgovt »

lunias wrote: post #246
shadowgovt wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's what distinguishes a Googler walking out from most walkouts: Google still struggles to hire fast enough to fill open roles.

Because of the nature of the roles or because they are selective to a fault? It's my experience that most people at a company of that size are "just there". If you have 2 employees, both of them have to be excellent. If you have 200 employees, 2 of them have to be excellent.

The nature of the software Google rights still requires quite a bit of specialization or quite a bit of adaptability, in general.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#249

Post by perl4ever »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #221
koheripbal wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that as long as you remain an employee, you have a LEGAL obligation to act in the interests of the Corporation. That is the nature of Fiduciary Duty - something all employees are legally bound by. You may "voice your concerns" all you like, but while you're an employee, it is your duty to ACT in accordance with the directions you're given, and in the absence of explicit direction, in the interests of t…

At risk of being the "[Citations Needed] Guy," I don't think this is true. This sounds an awful lot like the canard that corporations have a legal duty to act in the interests of their shareholders, but there is no fact no such legal or even regulatory obligation for that. This misapprehension comes from a paper written by Milton Friedman in 1975 in which he argued corporations have a moral duty to maximize sharehold…

"It's literally just Friedman's opinion, and one that's come under increasing challenge"

If you are flexible enough about what "maximizing shareholder value" means, then it's not an endorsement of any behavior anyone disapproves of. You could say the real issue is just that people do bad stuff and say that it is maximizing value.

Corporations often say they have to do stuff to maximize shareholder value, but they also often say they have to act in the worst possible way permitted by law, because that is the standard the law sets. That is, without referencing shareholder value. Maybe it's all just nonsense excuses by people who do bad stuff?

Bondholders (as well as employees and others) come before shareholders in bankruptcy, so it seems like in a very concrete way, maximizing shareholder value is not a feature of it and never has been.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#250

Post by lunias »

shadowgovt wrote: post #248
lunias wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the nature of the roles or because they are selective to a fault? It's my experience that most people at a company of that size are "just there". If you have 2 employees, both of them have to be excellent. If you have 200 employees, 2 of them have to be excellent.

The nature of the software Google rights still requires quite a bit of specialization or quite a bit of adaptability, in general.

I agree, but I hear more stories from / about ex-googlers along the lines of: I have 20 years experience and 2 PhDs and they have me writing unit tests.

I think its likely hard to hire smart people who don't rock the boat; and thus it takes a long time to hire. It's of course possible (and reasonably likely) that there are only a handful of people that can do the work, but I dunno... with the kind of money that Google has you just open a school and start grooming people specifically for the roles that you have open. Build a pipeline of qualified workers, don't wait for them to come to you.

Post reply on HN