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

101–110 of 421 posts

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#101

Post by asmithmd1 »

gradstudent wrote: post #86
tkahn6 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In CA you can be fired for no reason or any reason except: Age, Ancestry, Color, Creed, Disability, Genetics, Marital status , Nat’l Origin, Race, Religion, Sex, or Sexual Orientation. Every state has a slightly different subset of these factors. Here is a good summary:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0641.htm

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#102

Post by [deleted] »

paganel wrote: post #97
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.

> They don't want to deal with that shit. There's no conspiracy. I totally agree with you. Why would any Übermensch in his right mind eat and drink in the same room as a yellow-badged Untermensch? That's heresy.

[deleted]

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#103

Post by davidw »

gradstudent wrote: post #83
pstack wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I came away with a couple things:

His tone and mentality feel a bit confrontational (and we're only hearing his perspective), and mentioning the skin color of various people involved seems anachronistic, but...

... at a smaller company, maybe the boss would have just sat down and had a talk with him "look, these people get good wages, and we're keeping the jobs in the US" or whatever. It doesn't sound like it was handled in a very "human" way, where someone directly above him who knows him was given the authority to straighten things out and make sure no further problems occurred.

Legal...security... all starts to sound like "lowest common denominator", and a good reason to work at a startup or small business rather than a large corporation.

(Edit: not that legal, security, etc... are not needed or don't do useful things... it's just inevitably a bit bureaucratic)

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#104

Post by scotty79 »

pstack wrote: post #91
gradstudent wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As dangrossman points out, above, you can be fired for any reason whatsoever, on the spot. I believe the only protections are sex, race, gender, religion, and age. And as for sex, that means you can't be fired for being a male or a female. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, for which you can still be fired in something like two or three dozen states. (Look into the ENDA which has been repeatedly proposed f…

US seem like horrible country to work in. You are expected to donate unpaid overtime to your company, you can be fired on a whim. What else?

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#105

Post by illumen »

pstack wrote: post #91
gradstudent wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As dangrossman points out, above, you can be fired for any reason whatsoever, on the spot. I believe the only protections are sex, race, gender, religion, and age. And as for sex, that means you can't be fired for being a male or a female. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, for which you can still be fired in something like two or three dozen states. (Look into the ENDA which has been repeatedly proposed f…

This person was fired for pointing out systematic racism at google.

If it is true that they have a separate building where the 'people of color' work segregated from the others, that is pretty outrageous.

It really does say something about the corporate culture there.

I hope it is investigated more closely by other parties, and that Google can make it better If there is something like this happening.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#106

Post by andrewcooke »

systems wrote: post #84

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…

yeah - it's (some) americans. [edited] their response to power and its abuse depends on the source: they don't care about corporations, but go crazy with the government. it's as though they have been completely indoctrinated by massive corporate interests...

welcome to the internet :o(

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#107

Post by illumen »

paganel wrote: post #98
mruniverse wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's hilarious. His letter to Ralph was so passive–aggressive. I would have left out these nuggets: 1)... now that I know it's so super-secret 2)... are mostly people of color and cannot eat Google meals 3)... I wasn’t approaching this as an act of muckraking 4)... nice way to meet people who work right next to me but are very clearly not the same class as me

> 2)... are mostly people of color and cannot eat Google meals That's a bummer, because those were indeed people of color who were not allowed to eat Google meals. Well, at least I know why it took you guys in the States 100 years to actually give equal rights to your fellow black citizens: you were all too afraid of losing your jobs.

There are over 2 million african americans working for free in USA prisons. I'm not sure they've moved on all that much.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#108

Post by scotty79 »

It's a funny thing when secret rules you have never agreed to and are not the part of the law get you fired despite you complete honesty and openness.

It has very totalitaristic look&feel when you have to be careful all the time so you always obey unknown rules, breaking of which might lead to severe consequences.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#109

Post by nkassis »

systems wrote: post #84

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…

It's not that we think Google did it because they were hiding something but imaging those insinuations he was making end up in the press, and snowball, they decided they didn't want to deal with it and let him go, which is completely legal in most of the US with no reason needed.

Employment in the US is at-will or whatever it's called. You can leave your employment when you want and your employer can fire you when they want. This can obviously be overridden by a contract. I don't know what his said but it probably put some severance package in there. (1 month pay or whatever).

Not that might sound crazy why would that be OK but I prefer to work for someone who wants me to work for them then have some laws telling them they can't fire me without some crazy reason and have to go through a large process to do so.

As for the 4 classes of employees, I dunno about that but I mean those perks aren't rights they are used to entice people to work for a company and stay there. If they can get employees without them then why not. It's a for profit thing is it not?

And all this is why you can just go out and start your own company and never have to deal with that stuff ;p

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#110

Post by hackerblues »

gradstudent wrote: post #83
pstack wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely the context of the filming is important though. If he had gone into the bathroom and was filming people using the toilet then it wouldn't be enough that "He was given permission to film the yellow badge people. On his lunch break. Using Google equipment."
Post reply on HN