Live data from Hacker News

Workers Leaving the Googleplex

andrewnormanwilson.com

231–240 of 421 posts

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#231
Seems to me there are two issues:

1.) Yellow badge worker treatment -- most of the comments here seem to accept his description of their work life (right or wrong) as fact, it is unsubstantiated to me. I see a video of people getting in their cars and going home, that is all. Considering he claims to have never spoken to any of them, except for a brief encounter before security grabbed him, it would seem even he is admitting he does not have first hand knowledge of anything he said. It is an entirely less than complete view (and possibly incorrect description) to which to draw any conclusion.

For that reason most of the discussion seems premature to me. With that said, no luxury transport, no free meals, etc -- does in fact describe the working conditions of 99.9% of Americans. A company treating people normally is not substantially interesting, tho apparently juxtaposition makes it so -- because what is interesting, and has always been interesting about Google, is that they treat their employees extraordinarily well.

2.) Was Google "right" for wanting him off the campus? Sure -- they contracted with his employer to provide some service, not to film an expose about Google itself,made possible only by being on the Google campus with unfettered access to the grounds. I realize he says he did not film it with the idea it would be an expose, but film is shot to be shown, and in his letter he makes it fairly clear what his interest was in filming, the assumptions and/or understanding he had while filming -- which gives a fairly clear picture of why he was filming. And it resulted in just about the kind of film you would expect. That isn't what he was there for. There is nothing that even remotely rises to a whistleblower type defense, as there is nothing remotely illegal about what he claims to be the yellow badge worker treatment. If he had in fact been filming something illegal (or at least in some way out of the norm in a negative fashion, even), my opinion would be more substantially in his favor -- in relation to how egregious the treatment actually was.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#232
post #190

I've heard Google accused of having a "caste system" before, always because contractors aren't allowed X Google perk. They may not realize that Google walks a fine line with the IRS here. Its cheaper to pay contractors (write off the fees vs. payroll tax, for instance), so many companies use contractors like employees. This is illegal, and if the IRS decides your contractor is really an employee, they will force you…

I think your confusing two separate things. Independant contractors that receive a 1099, and "contractors" where a company pays another company for services.

The IRS doesn't care if companies contract services from other companies. They don't like full time employees being treated as 1099 employees because tax collection is more difficult. 1099 employees, as independent business owners, can write off many expenses which are hard to audit and result in lower tax revenue.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#233
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the combination of all these strange rules and Google's reaction in this case that makes me think the issue is slightly larger than bus schedules. They pride themselves of creative thinking, they hire lots of academics, even economists and sociologists. Some of these people should be able to figure out a reasonably cost effective way of organizing these things without making the place resemble a 19th century cot…

> They pride themselves of creative thinking, they hire lots of academics, even economists and sociologists. Some of these people should be able to figure out a reasonably cost effective way of organizing these things without making the place resemble a 19th century cotton plantation. Wait, so being offered a job that pays reasonably well with decent work conditions but for which you must solve for yourself the probl…

No, I'm suggesting that the way they stucture these perks and their security arrangements is not as good as it could be. It creates more segregation than necessary. I think that money works pretty well as a general equivalent and perks that require social segregation are not the best way to pay according to different levels of performance or competence.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#235
post #178

I don't think he understands how contractors work (Google didn't hire you you git, Google contracted your company and your company placed you there to fill the contract) or hourly labor works (you don't get privileges or benefits), so he turns it into a ridiculous conspiracy. Breaking news! Google has hourly employees! - You don't say?! Google has contractors! - Really?! Let's explore the narcissistic exploration of…

You're getting a little mixed up. People with red badges (like the author) are contractors. The article is about people with yellow badges, who receive far fewer perquisites and are kept separate from the general googler population.

Who are the people with yellow badges? The author never found out. And Google does not appear to have made the information public.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#236
As far as sociology or expose goes, the article is uninteresting. What, a giant corporation uses every legal means at its disposal to make sure it gets only good PR? What, there exist serious race and class disparities in the United States that manifest themselves in the workplace? What, Google has a good PR department that doesn't reflect actual internal practices? Quelle horreur!

What's more interesting from a sociological perspective is the range of most of the reactions here on Hacker News, which seem to vary between "he doesn't understand that this is just how things work" to brick shitting freak out ("passive aggressive", "nitwit", "see a psychologist").

If you find yourself immediately jumping into defense mechanisms, stop for a second and think about why that is.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#237
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's face it, if they were doing something legal they wouldn't care if they were getting videotaped. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt once said, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." It was a preposterous statement assuming that the only value of privacy is to protect one's self when they do something morally, ethically or legally wrong. It wa…

I agree that people ought to be entitled to keep secrets. But Google is not a person, it is a publicly traded corporation which wields economic power on the same scale as state governments. I don't argue that they aren't entitled to secrets, but if they are, it is for different reasons and the comparison of those rights is misleading.

Entitled or not, it's clear that organizations have many reasons to want to keep secrets.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Employment may be at will, but the courts are full of lawsuits against employers for wrongful termination/dismissal. If you've ever dealt with a large HR dept you know that one of their main jobs is to prevent lawsuits brought/caused by employees.

"Wrongful termination" is largely a myth. I know a lot of educated professionals who believe they have the right to a "fair" termination, but except for very specific instances, it isn't the case, and these threats go nowhere.

In most cases, unless there is a smoking gun, employers just sidestep the issue by targeting "layoffs", rather firing for cause.

The bigger issue HR deals with is sexual harassment or discrimination cases. And, even nuisance lawsuits can be expensive to deal with, and HR/clerical staff is a lot cheaper than lawyers.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#239
I agree that Google is within its right to deny them lunch, shuttle services or whatever fancy perks they dish out to their regular employees. But what I can't understand is the discrimination that Google is perpetrating against them by denying them the basic human privilege of talking to another human being.

As employees Vic Gundotra or Marissa Mayer will be knowing more company secrets than these guys will know in their lifetime. Do they also have a phone number on the back of their badge to call if somebody unknown approaches them? Are they also prevented from talking to other employees so that they don't leak those secrets? Why is Google afraid that only the yellow badges cannot keep the company secrets? What if their supervisor simply tells them that what they are working on is a company secret. Like almost any other employees why Google thinks they can' keep it a secret? Why do they have to impose this almost draconian measure of human segregation only for them?

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#240
post #191

Interesting. My Dad once sued microsoft because they had many "temporary" workers who did not get the full benefit of full time workers. These workers were labelled as contract workers however, he was able to win his case because at the end of the day, they were working full time for Microsoft. Not only that, they were often employed by microsoft for many years, even though the claim was generally that these employee…

I'm guessing there's a difference (legally) between benefits like health insurance and a retirement account versus luxuries like disneyland trips, massage chairs, gourmet food, etc.
Post reply on HN