Workers Leaving the Googleplex • Hacker News Board

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#371

Post by patrickk » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 9:21 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #355

patrickk wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Is the U.S. rich in happiness? contentment? My perception is no." Happiness is relative. Struggling to scrape by on a dollar a day, and wondering where your next meal is going to come from must be pretty awful. Perhaps more people should do volunteer work to realise just how lucky we have it in the west. I think that by being wealthier, you can "move up" Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs[1], and if you reach 'self-a…

A problem solver needs enough money (have the means) in order to pursue solutions. I don't think a great scientific discovery has ever been made because the discoverer wanted to get rich. Capitalism provides an allocation mechanism so that money (the means of discovery) makes its way to enough problem solvers. Capitalism might even be the best mechanism for doing this to ever be practiced. We agree on these points (s…

That's a fair summation.

Regarding number 1, there's no divergence, I agree with you 100% on capitalism not dealing with negative externalities. I think that no financial system we will ever come up with will ever be perfect.

Regarding 2, this appears to be a disadvantage one must accept with a capitalist system.

Regarding 3, I would be more positive. I think technology and human ingenuity will overcome pollution eventually, maybe by nanotechnology or clean tech etc. Maybe even human colonies in outer space, like the movie Wall-E or something. In the 1960s there was a theory that the world's population would grow faster than our ability to feed it. The Haber-Bosch process now feeds one-third of the world's population.[1]

Good talking to you. It's good hearing different perpectives on these issues.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#372

Post by AlexC04 » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 9:39 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #271

AlexC04 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they don't get free ice cream sandwiches when the ice cream truck pulls up. Is that racism or is it economics? Scanning books is a manual process that is much like sewing or factory work in the repetitiveness. (Maybe less skilled than sewing). The "racism" of the situation happened years before anyone walked onto the Google campus. The socio-economic opportunities of things like safety, education, nutrition, book…

In a corporation the size of Google there will be a lot of other low-paid workers, secretaries, post-room, catering, etc. Are they all yellow badge too? And do they all steal secrets as you seem to imply every low-paid person is bound to do? Seriously, just because someone is low paid doesn't mean they're any less trust worthy. That's one fucked up world view you have there. Also it doesn't make much sense as it's th…

I'm sorry you took my statement to read that I think they're less trustworthy. I don't in any way shape of form believe that they are less trustworthy than anyone else on campus. However, from a security point of view, if you could successfully eliminate 100% of the risk for a given group of individuals, wouldn't you?

Anyways, I've either misspoke or you've misunderstood.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#373

Post by opello » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 10:19 PM UTC

yanw wrote: post #278

alsomike wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Labor camps?! the fuck! they are being paid regular salary. The author doesn't quite understand the concept of social injustice (nor do you) and so he tries to apply it on patterns he'd found with disastrous consequences. He thinks that if you're gonna give your employees Google type perks you have to give these to everyone who steps inside the plex?! security personnel and cleaning ladies?! contract workers?! that d…

But do you realize that the security personnel, cleaning ladies, and contract workers [your classes of employees] do get the perks? Just the special contractors with their golden badges don't.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#374

Post by scotty79 » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 10:30 PM UTC

jcnnghm wrote: post #368

scotty79 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was fired for talking to other employees (he secretly not supposed to) and acquiring gear and permision to film some of them and actually doing it (what he secretly not supposed to) but mainly about being honest and transparent about reasons for his curiosity. You are right. He must have been a retard and as such he wasn't fit to do any job for Google contractor.

I'm pretty sure he was fired because the honest and transparent reasons he had were totally inappropriate, and he was condescending and argumentative while positing some rather harsh allegations. I did not say anything about him being a "retard", I said they should have fired him for stupidity. There is a difference.

I guess that I'm not that sensitive to racial issues as I was born and raised in all white country, to see more than just curiosity about what yellow badgers do why they are mostly people of color and why they don't have perks and why people generally don't know them.

I also fail to see how him being perceived as argumentative and condescending makes him unfit for the job.

I used "retard" as a synonym for "having the quality of stupidity" perhaps incorectly. I apologize.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#375

Post by rdtsc » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 10:40 PM UTC

haberman wrote: post #295

mmaunder wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discrediting the source or his delivery doesn't change what this looks like on face value: People of color coming out of a building who have no access to the same perks as other employees and where the intention is clearly to avoid publicity of their low cost labor.

There are lots of white people who come out of buildings at Google every day who don't have access to the same perks as the CEOs. Is this news? The intention is to avoid someone making a big stink over a non-issue, because empirically people like yourself will latch onto Michael Moore style "exposes" and make a non-issue into a big problem.

> The intention is to avoid someone making a big stink over a non-issue

A better way to do that is to ... not raise a big stink over it. That is exactly what Google didn't do. If they'd just let this guy talk to people and post his video or photos online, maybe a a couple hundred readers of his blog would have seen the story and it would have been a real "non-issue" as you say. By getting the guy (especially a guy they determined likes to film "exposes") fired they pretty much guaranteed this to become and "issue". This the basic Streisand effect in action : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#376

Post by rdtsc » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 10:45 PM UTC

mekoka wrote: post #369

mmaunder wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discrediting the source or his delivery doesn't change what this looks like on face value: People of color coming out of a building who have no access to the same perks as other employees and where the intention is clearly to avoid publicity of their low cost labor.

That's what it looks like at face value , but consider these facts and tell me your perception of this story doesn't get swayed a bit: - This guy was an employee of Transvideo, a company subcontracting for Google. - He was filming other employees from another company, we'll call it ScanOps, also subcontracting for Google. - Neither he, nor the ScanOps employees he filmed were employees of Google. - As per the arrange…

> sensitive enough issues that their badge specifies a number to call if someone asks questions.

Nobody doubts that there are sensitive issues, we are just debating what those issues are.

Presumably you are implying they are security issues relating to what they are scanning (Well because ... Google told us that). I read sensitive as an euphemism of "please don't let anyone know how much you make or the benefits you don't have".

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#377

Post by sean12345 » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 10:46 PM UTC

I think this is the job: http://us.randstad.com/content/findjobs/job-details/index.xm...

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#378

Post by haberman » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 10:59 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #375

haberman wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of white people who come out of buildings at Google every day who don't have access to the same perks as the CEOs. Is this news? The intention is to avoid someone making a big stink over a non-issue, because empirically people like yourself will latch onto Michael Moore style "exposes" and make a non-issue into a big problem.

> The intention is to avoid someone making a big stink over a non-issue A better way to do that is to ... not raise a big stink over it. That is exactly what Google didn't do. If they'd just let this guy talk to people and post his video or photos online, maybe a a couple hundred readers of his blog would have seen the story and it would have been a real "non-issue" as you say. By getting the guy (especially a guy th…

> If they'd just let this guy talk to people and post his video or photos online, maybe a a couple hundred readers of his blog would have seen the story and it would have been a real "non-issue" as you say.

Most of the indignant comments on this story are about the faux-racism/classism, not about his getting fired. Slacktivism on reddit and even HN loves stories about purported injustice. Those flames have plenty of fuel whether or not "the man" is involved in shutting down the messenger.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#379

Post by mekoka » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 11:01 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #376

mekoka wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what it looks like at face value , but consider these facts and tell me your perception of this story doesn't get swayed a bit: - This guy was an employee of Transvideo, a company subcontracting for Google. - He was filming other employees from another company, we'll call it ScanOps, also subcontracting for Google. - Neither he, nor the ScanOps employees he filmed were employees of Google. - As per the arrange…

> sensitive enough issues that their badge specifies a number to call if someone asks questions. Nobody doubts that there are sensitive issues, we are just debating what those issues are. Presumably you are implying they are security issues relating to what they are scanning (Well because ... Google told us that). I read sensitive as an euphemism of "please don't let anyone know how much you make or the benefits you…

> I read sensitive as an euphemism of "please don't let anyone know how much you make or the benefits you don't have".

Well, the author went and asked them, where are his answers? He carefully worded their isolation a social arrangement. On what grounds?

Everything he reported simply pointed to the fact that these ScanOps workers are carefully prevented to mingle, they start at 4am, finish at 2:15pm. If you ask them questions they call a supervisor. They have yellow badges that restrict their access.

Yes, maybe the official position is that the work is classified because there is sensitive material. At least it is an official position. You don't refute it with speculations, you need to bring some data.

Re: Workers Leaving the Googleplex

#380

Post by rdtsc » Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 11:05 PM UTC

yanw wrote: post #350

georgieporgie wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He doesn't seem to understand the difference between being an employee for a company that was hired by Google and being a Google employee He differentiated between being a red badge contractor and getting many of the on-site perquisites, versus being a yellow badge, who gets no (visible) benefits whatsoever. He also clearly states that Google leaned on his employer to fire him, not that Google fired him. I don't see…

Well then he doesn't seem to understand that contracts vary from one employer to another and that temp/contract workers are there to be fired and be hired again by someone else, it's the nature of the job.

As far as most people see it whether these people are contractors, subcontractors, part-time employees doesn't matter. This story is becoming an issue because most people don't care. This is how it looks and this is how people react.

For some reason, some have an aversion to situations where a group of different race ends up having to wear a different color badge and start work at 4am and get less benefits than those of another race ...

They way Google reacted and the way it looks is what makes the story interesting. Classification based on badges, surprisingly matches well with a race-based classification as well. Isn't that interesting? These employees work in a separate building, get to work at 4am! Isn't that interesting to at least talk to them? Mention it to your friend? At least I found it interesting even without any class or culture overtones mixed in. Even with a class critique attached onto this, one can at least make another tired comment on the lack of education and job prospects for minorities in California and Google is just one example.

I think the author wanted to do just that. The way Google reacted to it, they pretty much guaranteed for this to become an issue. It is akin to someone who does something that is slightly shameful and a little wrong, and then there is an ambiguous reference made to whatever they are doing, but then they start overreacting, thus betraying that they know they are doing something that not quite right. They could have just acted cool and got away with it. But it is the reaction that in this case betrays the guilty corporate conscience.