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

Workers Leaving the Googleplex

andrewnormanwilson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 421 posts

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#81

Post by tkahn6 »

gradstudent wrote: post #78
tkahn6 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> he was fired for using Google video equipment during working hours. Even though he'd been given explicit permission to do so.

Yes they used that as a reason to fire him but that's not why they fired him.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#82

Post by pstack »

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?

Google is not a branch of government in any way whatsoever and, like any other business or private organization, can tell you how to speak and how to dress and how to behave without it being censorship.

My company requires that employees not speak with the press unless they are granted direct permission to do so and that they should, instead, refer them to an internal rep who will speak with them. That is not censorship. That is my company looking out for their best interests so that some dumb ass like me doesn't say something stupid that misrepresents them. My company also has the right to tell me to watch my crude language while working for them and not to dress like I'm attending a beach party.

There are already whistle-blower laws and protections to address what you are referring to, which is the exposition of unethical or illegal business practices by an employee.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#83

Post by gradstudent »

pstack wrote: post #64
gradstudent wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the point: the guy was fired for recording conversations with other employees. After being given permission from his supervisor to do exactly that. On his lunch break. Wtf is that all about?

That is incorrect. He was not given permission by his supervisor to record conversations with other employees. He only asked for permission to videotape yellow-badges leaving the building. Nothing more. Unless someone wants to show me where I am missing a statement, I don't see any point at which he even claims that he was given permission to film and interview employees - much less about the issues he has taken it u…

You're splitting hairs. He was given permission to film the yellow badge people. On his lunch break. Using Google equipment. The latter two are the reasons given for his termination and not, as you imply, because he was "bothering people" or not doing "actual work".

The whole affair seems to me a severe overreaction considering they could have just sat the guy down and talked the issue through.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#84

Post by systems »

Hey, first I am from Egypt.

Second, I have to admit, I am kind of struct by most of the comments here. Most of the comment are pro google and think andrew here got it for himself.

I believe this have to do a lot with cultural differences here. Most people in Egypt, would stand with the employee against the corporation. Most egyptians would definitely be pro andrew. I believe the reason here is that most Egyptians are either employees or owners of very small businesses, and would not perceive themselves as even potentially large business owners. Egypt being a poorer country and all. This is why most Egyptian would never try to put themselves in google's foot and try to see things from their perspective.

I guess the opposite is true from most of the ppl commenting here, they must think if I was google, I would have done the same, and it's probably because they don't see it as too far fetched. Either that or the western population is becomming alarmingly submissive to authority and unwilling to question their action.

Google are clearly being unfair, this should not be acceptable.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#85

Post by [deleted] »

gradstudent wrote: post #78
tkahn6 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#86

Post by gradstudent »

tkahn6 wrote: post #81
gradstudent wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> he was fired for using Google video equipment during working hours. Even though he'd been given explicit permission to do so. Yes they used that as a reason to fire him but that's not why they fired him.

Perhaps things are different in the U.S. but here -- in Australia -- you can only be fired for breach of contract. If that didn't occur, as the blog post seems to suggest, then he was unfairly dismissed.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#88

Post by [deleted] »

learc83 wrote: post #66
yesbabyyes wrote: post #46

It sounds curious that people with a yellow badge are forbidden to speak to people with badges of another color. If that's true, Google has some explaining to do, methinks.

Why wouldn't Google want them talking to other employees? Could it be b/c they are working on a confidential project?

[deleted]

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#89

Post by dangrossman »

tkahn6 wrote: post #81
gradstudent wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> he was fired for using Google video equipment during working hours. Even though he'd been given explicit permission to do so. Yes they used that as a reason to fire him but that's not why they fired him.

@gradstudent Most employment in the US is at-will; either party can terminate at any time without reason.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#90

Post by [deleted] »

gradstudent wrote: post #78
tkahn6 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN