Workers Leaving the Googleplex • Hacker News Board

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#71

Post by Maro » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 8:55 AM UTC

strictfp wrote: post #43

tkahn6 wrote: post #13

This is literally one of the craziest things I have ever seen. Google is doing absolutely nothing wrong or unethical at all. The guy got fired because he started accusing Google of racism. Wow. Just wow. The sense of entitlement and self-righteousness is just mind blowing.

To me it's much more shocking to what great length you go to defend the rights of the company. It seems to me that freedom of speech should come before the right of firing at will. Or is your opinion that companies are about as souverign as states?

IANAL, but I think there are some things you can't fire people for, like race, age, being pregnant, etc. But other than that, I'd think you're free to 'fire at will'.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#72

Post by learc83 » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 8:56 AM UTC

kylec wrote: post #35

There's nothing surprising about a company having different classes of employees. If that was all that the article was about, it would be a minor curiosity. However, Google's extreme overreaction to someone trying to get some very basic information about the other set of employees is what's concerning. It's difficult to know how much of this story is speculation vs fact - whether or not the yellow badged employees ar…

There probably is a number on the back of the badge to call. There is a lot of ongoing litigation dealing with Google's book scanning.

The simple explanation is that Google doesn't want these workers talking about the work they are doing. The easiest way to keep them from talking is to limit social interactions with other employees, by sequestering them.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#73

Post by pstack » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 8:57 AM UTC

gradstudent wrote: post #59

tkahn6 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the part where he kept talking about race and unequal treatment and the ScanOps people of being mostly 'people of color'. He said these things explicitly in his letter that Google Legal reviewed. That is exactly why he was fired. Google did the absolutely correct thing. They don't want to deal with that shit. There's no conspiracy.

No accusations were leveled and, as far as I can tell, at best, Google overreacted. To make an analogy: the guy points out the sky is blue and he's promptly fired. Wtf?

To put it bluntly, he was the employee of a company that Google hired to do some work for them and he was bothering employees and then he become someone else's problem up the chain and it then become his direct employer's problem who value their contract and the employment of their other employees over the personal project and whims of someone who was hired to do some film work and not to conduct an investigation into the socio-economic makeup of the campus.

Now that he's no longer employed, he can go ahead with his pursuit without doing it under the advantage of his employment or his employer and I'm sure that if his insinuations are remotely true, then there are sure to be a bunch of people beating down his door for the opportunity to speak with him about their work at Google, under journalistic protection.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#74

Post by reubenyeah » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 8:59 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #61

guard-of-terra wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being treated equally to the people around you is a human right, should be anyway. Because being treated inequally, deprived of things people around you take for granted, can damage oneself seriously.

So if I work at a company where the CEO gets a corporate jet, that jet becomes a "human right"?

No, but if you work at a company where even the janitors get free lunch, you should get free lunch.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#75

Post by tlrobinson » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 9:00 AM UTC

pstack wrote: post #52

kylec wrote: post #35

There's nothing surprising about a company having different classes of employees. If that was all that the article was about, it would be a minor curiosity. However, Google's extreme overreaction to someone trying to get some very basic information about the other set of employees is what's concerning. It's difficult to know how much of this story is speculation vs fact - whether or not the yellow badged employees ar…

I don't think it's highly concerning that a badge has a number for employees to call if someone starts asking questions. The last three companies I've worked for are very big heavy hitting technology industry names and every single one had a policy that employees are not to give interviews and that if anyone asks you questions, you should refer them to the PR department or other relevant division within the company.…

"Almost surreal, it's so silly."

The ominous monotone voiceover in the video reminded me of 9/11 conspiracy theory videos.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#76

Post by pstack » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 9:05 AM UTC

anonymous246 wrote: post #51

pstack wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this guy wasn't a journalist and he wasn't a whistle-blower and he wasn't a documentarian. He was an employee of a company providing a service who was exploiting the access (and presumably paid-resources) to pursue his own agenda. They don't owe him an explanation or benefit of the doubt or anything else and he doesn't raise any questions and there isn't anything of interest in his commentary that suggests it'…

Umm, I fail to see the relevance of your response to the comment you're responding to.

I was responding to the suggestion that it "deserves exploration" simply because some disgruntled contracted employee was trying to cut his teeth on what he tried desperately to make into a juicy expose.

Simply making an accusation or insinuation doesn't in itself warrant exploration of something. Insinuations about anyone can be made by anyone and they don't all deserve a response or an investigation. This guy has no particular credibility and with is particular attitude, under the particular circumstances and with the distinct lack of . . . anything . . . that he has to back up his concerns . . . falls into the category of "not worth the time".

Now, if some employees come out tomorrow -- even under anonymity -- and start sharing the tales of terrible treatment to some SF Chronicle reporter or something, then you might have something.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#77

Post by pstack » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 9:09 AM UTC

tlrobinson wrote: post #75

pstack wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's highly concerning that a badge has a number for employees to call if someone starts asking questions. The last three companies I've worked for are very big heavy hitting technology industry names and every single one had a policy that employees are not to give interviews and that if anyone asks you questions, you should refer them to the PR department or other relevant division within the company.…

"Almost surreal, it's so silly." The ominous monotone voiceover in the video reminded me of 9/11 conspiracy theory videos.

The only reason I kept watching the video, was because I expected him to drop some huge bomb. It definitely had the "surveilance footage obtained during one afternoon of filming clearly shows two yellow badgers being violently sodomized by the white badged employees, behind the building - viewers of a weaker disposition may want to turn away, now" vibe.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#78

Post by gradstudent » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 9:12 AM UTC

tkahn6 wrote: post #68

gradstudent wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No accusations were leveled and, as far as I can tell, at best, Google overreacted. To make an analogy: the guy points out the sky is blue and he's promptly fired. Wtf?

> No accusations were leveled It doesn't matter. That's exactly what was being implied. Google wants to prevent any legal disputes or inquiries into their operations which can be very costly. The guy is a low-level low-importance asset so they had him terminated. It makes perfect sense.

His importance to the Google machinery is irrelevant. According to the post, he was fired for using Google video equipment during working hours. Even though he'd been given explicit permission to do so. At worst he should have been given a warning. I hope, for the sake of consistency, "Carl" was also fired.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#79

Post by pstack » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 9:12 AM UTC

Sapient wrote: post #55

Uhhrrr wrote: post #2

Note to young videographers: When a company asks whether you're working on an expose, the phrase "I’m interested in issues of class, race, and labor" will not defuse the situation.

When I read that phrase, I was thinking he MUST have known it was going to get him fired.

Of course! What kind of traction would his insinuations have if he hadn't baited them for termination and he had to end the "expose" with "we had a sit down where I explained my intentions and we sorted it all out and had a beer and a laugh". The "and they fired me!" that is intended to add to the suspicion. It causes most viewers to ask "wait, if there was nothing to hide, then why'd they fire him?".

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#80

Post by g123g » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 9:12 AM UTC

Lots of people are commenting that maybe the yellow badges might be working on something secretive that Google does not want them to share with others. But this does not make sense for 2 reasons - 1) I am pretty sure there will be some software engineers in Google who are currently working on something secretive but they will not be under these draconian restrictions of not to talk to others or call the security immediately if a fellow Googler approaches them.

2) These ppl can go home and can talk to their spouses, their friends etc. and let them know what they are working on. So making sure that they don't talk to anyone in Google during their office hours is not going to help keep their projects secretive.

So there has to be some other angle to this story which does not involve secretiveness of their projects.