Workers Leaving the Googleplex • Hacker News Board

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#261

Post by flomo » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 5:31 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #104

pstack wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Many states allow ridiculous non-compete agreements.

(Fortunately not California, which is one reason so many startups are located here.)

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#262

Post by yanw » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 5:31 PM UTC

dspeyer wrote: post #235

bane wrote: 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.

They might be contracted by another company with shittier terms. And Google doesn't have to make it's inner workings public.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#263

Post by jbooth » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 5:34 PM UTC

marshray wrote: post #253

jbooth wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying there hasn't been a significant anti-labor campaign the last 40 years? Take a look at attitudes towards American Labor in the 50s-60s and now. Big difference, right?

Are you saying there hasn't been a significant anti-labor campaign the last 40 years? Take a look at attitudes towards American Labor in the 50s-60s and now. Big difference, right? Sure there's a difference, but I wouldn't attribute even half of that difference to some kind of vast propaganda campaign.

You've got most of the working class opposed to the idea of organized labor during a period of time when working class salaries have stagnated and shrunk relative to baseline inflation, and definitely shrunk relative to household costs like healthcare and gasoline.

Yeah, I'm sure they're against it because they're scholars of austrian economics. They probably read Hayek to their kids when they get home from their shift at the Sunoco.

Here's a question. Read my first paragraph again, that's all basically true.. how often is that picture painted in the media? Almost never? How often is the opposite picture painted of unions being a bunch of quote "thugs"? Hmm.. That sure sounds like a multi-decade propaganda campaign to me.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#264

Post by dspeyer » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 5:37 PM UTC

worldvoyageur wrote: post #132

Minor point of clarification, as the tone of many comments seems to presume that google fired the author of this blog. This could be, but seems unlikely based on the blog. The author was not employed by Google, but by a contracting firm hired by Google. The author's actions spooked the owner of the contracting firm, who did not want to risk his relationship and business with Google. The author even reports his direct…

Indeed. I know of a case in the past where Google expressed concern about something a contractor had done, and the contracting agency immediately fired them. Google then turned around and demanded the worker be rehired with backpay (which the contracting company also did) because the concerns were nowhere near firing level.

It seems that when a customer says "jump", a contracting firm doesn't even paused to ask "how high?"

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#265

Post by algorias » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 5:38 PM UTC

yanw wrote: post #258

allenbrunson wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it would certainly have been possible for the comment author (bane) to have made that point without all the nasty name-calling.

The blog author made his fair share of 'nasty name-calling' as well (bordering on slander, really).

...which does not, in fact, suddenly make it acceptable for others to follow suit.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#266

Post by alsomike » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 5:42 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #200

Large companies work by inertia. Google is actually more agile for its size, but it's still a big company and ruled by inertia. In a large company, the majority of people don't know each other, and don't communicate on a daily basis. This means that things of interest get passed from person to person, usually by email, and so the original intent of the message tends to get lost due to the 3rd or 4th reader having no…

I agree, it's totally outrageous that people with "backgrounds in sociology and political philosophy" are preying on our most vulnerable global corporations and infiltrating their most sensitive and secret labor camps!

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#267

Post by jbooth » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 5:42 PM UTC

patrickk wrote: post #246

yequalsx wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American (but grew up in Panama). My experience in the U.S. is that Americans tend to believe a company has no moral responsibility beyond maximizing profits and not violating laws. Even when companies do violate the law (Enron, Horizon, Chevron, etc.) there is a segment of society that rushes to minimize the wrongdoing. My anecdotal experience on HN is that a lot people on the site defend the pursuit of money…

Thanks for taking the time to offer a balanced opinion. I find myself largely agreeing with your sentiments. I think there must be a better balance to be struck between the approach taken in Europe (seen as too difficult to fire people, which isn't conducive to a healthy business environment) and to the American approach (you can be fired at-will). I myself like to watch US-based documentaries like Gasland, Food Inc.…

Slight nitpick, the PIIGS countries (great acronym btw) didn't lose their sovereignty just by being weak.. they lost their sovereignty by being having a bubble blow up without enough background economic strength to withstand it, plus due to some facts of life as an EU member.

Lots of countries are economically weaker than them but didn't blow up a bubble on themselves.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#268

Post by AlexC04 » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 5:43 PM UTC

mikecane wrote: post #188

adaml_623 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've presented some arithmetic and no information at all. If the story is that these employees are being employed at minimum wage then that's something that contradicts the "Don't be evil" ethos.

Wait, how do you know they're getting minimum wage? I've done lots of temping in my life. Anyone handling anything that requires some brains never gets minimum wage. Hell, once I counted ballots -- and didn't even get miniwage for that . I really doubt Google is giving them minimum wage.

I don't know that they're getting minimum wage, in fact I'd assume they're paid a fair and reasonable wage. Their cars were nice, their clothes not shabby.

All said and done though, my point was that the lunches are an unnecessary and significant cost.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#269

Post by codeographer » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 5:45 PM UTC

latch wrote: post #45

guard-of-terra wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not allowed to communicate with other employees and are told to report such occurences. Screams exploitation to me.

IANAL. I'll grant you that this is sketchy. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects employees from engaging in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. In the US you can't stop person A from talking to person B if the purpose is to make your job better (better benefits/working conditions/almost anything). IANAL (again)..but, yes, if they aren't al…

We understand you're not a lawyer. (Thanks)

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#270

Post by Lewisham » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 5:48 PM UTC

motters wrote: post #158

I think someone from Google needs to explain what went on here. Why is what's going on in the 3.14159 building regarded as top secret? If they're just OCRing documents surely that's no big deal. People shouldn't be fired simply because they're interested in sociology.

OK, I'm an intern at Google, and I'm NDA'd, so I can only tell you what could be deduced from if you were a visitor at Google and walking through the halls.

It's not that stuff is top secret, it's that information access is regulated to those who aren't full-time employees. Interns (green IDs) and contractors (red IDs) are given what they need to perform their job role, and little more than that. This guy was beginning to look at information he wasn't allowed to, and that should have been fairly clear to him. It's not that there is something to "hide", it's that information is limited for temporary employees, and that's just normal information security practice at any company of real size.

In regards to the race claim he's fishing for, I think it's rubbish. Regardless of what the make up of the temporary workers at 3.14 are, I see lots of contractors who are non-white (and contractors get access to most perks), lots of full-time employees are Indian and Asian. He's trying to draw out some conclusion that Google has discriminatory hiring practices based on the lower-income, lower-skilled jobs being made up of non-white, but that's just the statistical make-up of that demographic in California.