On Resigning from Google • Hacker News Board

Re: On Resigning from Google

#251

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 4:31 AM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #109

aaomidi wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay thank you for your input. We'll continue to fight for the rights of everyone who is being discriminated against. You should learn more about intersectional activism :)

Please do, but doing so in the name of LGBTQ+ and not simply as a fellow human/coworker is hurting the label, as @maps said.

They're not going to stop; they actually think they're doing good for the oppressed.

What's needed to stop them is for the people of the groups they're purportedly standing up for to repudiate them, loudly, publically, and en masse.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#252

Post by 75dvtwin » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 4:34 AM UTC

There seems to be at least 2 undercurrents

- (a) righteousness of the process to go about internal activism that's critical of company's business partners, company's internal policies, company's hiring and firing practices. And Company's response.

- (b) the actual position of an individual(s) on the above topics.

Would we have a problem with Google's actions if Bruce Hahne, (hypothetically) advocate bad things (eg polygamy, forced organ donations, child labor and so on) ?...

We would not have problem with Google STFU message to him and his supporters, in that hypothetical case ( a ), right?

Therefore, we should not really have problem with Google's action, if we accept that Bruce Hahne's positions ( b ) are not that good (and not shared by tens of millions of people that live in the country where Alphabet is headquartered), in the first place

About ( b ). Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. This is not really presented in his writing. Eg. >"... I see far too many similarities to what we experienced in the PCUSA twenty years ago ..."

Is not an extraordinary evidence..

Therefore, I find that this type of high-volume, low-evidence activism is overall bad. They should be told STFU while on company's time, and get out of the company if they do not like it.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#253

Post by ocdtrekkie » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 4:43 AM UTC

jimthrow wrote: post #234

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone who participated in the Google Walkout (20% of their workforce) stayed out until Google addressed their complaints, rather than returning to work after their lunch hour was over, all seven demands would've been met, instead of one. (And they probably would've still got paid!) I have my doubts that tech companies could operate with a sudden loss of 20% of their workforce and talent base. If a company knows…

Considering the massive over supply of labor, I’d say they could very easily replace that 20% several times over before they had any problems finding more engineers.

The issue isn't finding more engineers, the issue would be the sudden loss of institutional knowledge, the paralysis while trying to maintain basic functionality, and the distinct possibility of critical, catastrophic failure due to broken processes from missing people. What's the chances that the 20% of employees who don't show up include everyone needed to prevent a failure of Google's entire Ads product?

When say, the teachers go on strike in Chicago, it's not that it's impossible to hire new teachers, it's that someone in the meantime of negotiation has to watch over (and ideally educate) all of the kids that those teachers are responsible for teaching.

Wherever you work, try to imagine a random 1 out of every 5 employees missing one day. How likely are you (and everyone else still there) likely to run into problems conducting your general work. And imagine that that is going to continue until your company manages to interview, vet, hire, onboard, and train all of those people back.

...Or, the corporation could just capitulate to demands. Collective action is incredibly powerful.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#254

Post by xtreme » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 4:51 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #138

baddox wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's true, precisely because the employee with a complaint can potentially increase their leverage significantly by educating and organizing other employees around the cause. Your analysis seems to assume that there's some fixed percentage of employees who think some action from their employer is bad, and if that percentage is high enough, then all those employees could quit, which would either someho…

If everyone who participated in the Google Walkout (20% of their workforce) stayed out until Google addressed their complaints, rather than returning to work after their lunch hour was over, all seven demands would've been met, instead of one. (And they probably would've still got paid!) I have my doubts that tech companies could operate with a sudden loss of 20% of their workforce and talent base. If a company knows…

But it is also plausible that if an indefinite strike was on the agenda only 1% of them had joined the walkout instead of 20%, making them easier to let go.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#255

Post by lunias » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:03 AM UTC

lunias wrote: post #226

samsonradu wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like an union, it has been brought up in tech from time to time. https://mobile.twitter.com/codinghorror/status/1172279395035...

Yup, but one brought together by morals and ethics for the sake of morals and ethics. As Jeff points out, tech is not known for poor compensation or working environments. Tech is pervasive because convenience is a hot commodity. Technology disrupts, tech can make or break monopolies / monopsonies by changing the status quo. Having the ability to get another job on a whim doesn't matter much if you one day unintention…

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/02/comca...

Re: On Resigning from Google

#256

Post by akhilcacharya » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

scardycat wrote: post #42

I currently work at Google, but I am a newbie, i.e less than 5 years at Google. I frequently run in to people who are: 1) always been at Google and enjoyed the fruits of its rise or at another similar environment 2) never had to deal with frugality or lack of funding for anything 3) see themselves are superior to everyone else - in terms of how enlightened they are, how they know whats best for everyone 4) feel that…

Honestly, Im inclined to agree with their general worldview but their arrogance and elitism disgusts me, especially as someone valued at a fraction by the fair labor market.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#257

Post by fargle » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:58 AM UTC

Good job you! I wish that many more principled folks were willing to actually stand up for what they believe in. I think it would make this entire democratic+capitalism system work much better.

People who profess to have "strong beliefs", but are unwilling to back that up with, potentially scary economic, action are big giant hypocrites. And liars and other hypocrites aren't helping anyone.

P.S. I'm pretty sure googles' response starts with "don't let the door", MEH! let them swing.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#258

Post by rapind » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 6:04 AM UTC

lunias wrote: post #250

shadowgovt wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Googl…

They've setup shop in Waterloo (ON, Canada) specifically to influence the University and scoop kids up as they graduate.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#259

Post by Twixes » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 6:19 AM UTC

johnmarcus wrote: post #204

scardycat wrote: post #42

I currently work at Google, but I am a newbie, i.e less than 5 years at Google. I frequently run in to people who are: 1) always been at Google and enjoyed the fruits of its rise or at another similar environment 2) never had to deal with frugality or lack of funding for anything 3) see themselves are superior to everyone else - in terms of how enlightened they are, how they know whats best for everyone 4) feel that…

I font work at Google, but it was exactly my thought when I read >”I’m not switching to another employer – instead, I hope to spend my time working on justice issues, and on growing and strengthening the nascent tech labor movement." Basically, Google paid them enough to retire early, and they cashed all those checks and now want to bite the hand that fed them. Must be nice.

No company is a benevolent hand feeding you – it's a machine for making the owners and decision-makers as much money as possible. If you get something out of it in the process, that's just luck. So biting is the correct reaction to the company's bullshit.

Re: On Resigning from Google

#260

Post by chipotle_coyote » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 6:28 AM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #249

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 als…

Friedman explicitly argued that a company has no social responsibility other than "to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game." I don't think he was endorsing bad behavior, per se, but he was condemning any behavior that could be considered "good" but even modestly value-reducing.

There are certainly some economists who might argue that indeed it's become nonsense excuses, including The Economist, which wrote in 2016 that shareholder value theory had become "a license for bad conduct, including skimping on investment, exorbitant pay, high leverage, silly takeovers, accounting shenanigans and a craze for share buy-backs."

(Also, apparently I had the year wrong -- Friedman wrote in 1970, not 1975.)