Margaret Mitchell fired from Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#531

Post by JamesBarney » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:46 AM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #523

JamesBarney wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They literally denied firing her to begin with, stating that they had instead had simply accepted her resignation. Gebru sent a conditional resignation(ultimatum) letter to Google. Google rejected those conditions and accepted her resignation. Whether or not you count that as resigned or fired is a definitional issue. But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. The gene…

> But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. California is not one of those jurisdictions. She was fired. That is a verifiable fact. > This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move. Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her.

https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm

> In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit.

This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions.

> Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her.

It really seems like if your planning on suing your employer for wrongful termination, giving them a good reason to terminate you is a bad idea. You could always get those emails later via subpoena.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#532

Post by JamesBarney » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:49 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #522

JamesBarney wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suppose that depends on whether you think an "Ethical AI" group's job is as window dressing or to actually make an ethical impact. 1. You can make an ethical impact without applying external pressure. Usually through internal channels. That is their expectations when they hire you. 2. Do you really think "apply external pressure via bad publicity on companynwhen necessary leaking internal documents" was in their…

Point 1 depends on the internal channels. If you have never had the experience of management not listening to you, I congratulate you on your luck and/or your youth. As to point 2, I think that if Google didn't put "make a public stink if necessary" in the job description itself, they should have known it was part of the deal. You can't hire people for their independence and their ethics and then not expect them to b…

I've definitely had management not listen to me. But I wouldn't share that information publicly in order to get them to coerce them into making the right call. And if I did I definitely wouldn't expect to be working there for long.

Should have known that they were hiring people they would later consider trouble makers is a very different goal post than part of the job description.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#533

Post by JamesBarney » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:54 AM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #526

JamesBarney wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if she's released them to the press. What's your best guess for why she was running a script to exfiltrate a bunch of e-mails related to Gebru? Mine is it involves releasing them to the press.

Who said she ran a script to exfiltrate a bunch of emails related to Gebru? The Google statements I saw weren't so specific. She allegedly copied the documents a month ago. The simplest explanation of why they aren't public is she didn't want them to be. I don't think it's useful to speculate about her motives when we don't even know what she did specifically.

The verge and the observer mentioned it. I swear I also saw it on another site that was more reputable too but I can't remember which one.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#534

Post by JamesBarney » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:55 AM UTC

choppaface wrote: post #514

JamesBarney wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if she's released them to the press. What's your best guess for why she was running a script to exfiltrate a bunch of e-mails related to Gebru? Mine is it involves releasing them to the press.

Dr Gebru was talking with a lawyer before they fired her. Mitchell was likely contributing to the case because she herself was experiencing retaliation from Google. At this point it doesn’t really matter if it goes to the press or ends up in a complaint—- Google’s retaliation here is illegal. You can’t reproach an employee for simply talking to a lawyer and that’s exactly what Jeff Dean and co did.

Talking to a lawyer != running a script to exfiltrate confidential corporate documents, even if the purpose is to help you talk with a lawyer.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#535

Post by monocasa » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:58 AM UTC

refenestrator wrote: post #520

monocasa wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a big corp vs small corp distinction; it's a question of how important the employees in question at the company are who were in the more powerful position. A large company isn't going to bend over backwards for a seven rungs down middle manager committing the wrongful termination, but when the most influential members of the company are involved all the stops come out. It's just more likely that a small comp…

Do you think this is going to work out for her?

What does "work out for her" mean?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#536

Post by pseudalopex » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 6:01 AM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #409

crazygringo wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so vague it's hard to draw any conclusion without specifics. "Exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents" could be nefariously downloading proprietary research for personal gain... or innocently downloading a Slides presentation to your personal phone as a PDF in preparation for a client meeting in case it's impossible to connect to their Wi-Fi. Or saving e-mail communications with your manager in…

According to an Axios scoop from Jan, she was running a script to find emails in her Inbox related to Gebru and sending thousands of files "to multiple external parties". https://i.imgur.com/fDV9kKV.png

The image doesn't say anything about a script or Gebru.

"multiple external accounts" could mean her own and her lawyer's.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#537

Post by fuzzfactor » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 6:01 AM UTC

pbreit wrote: post #511

bradlys wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money isn’t usually enough. I walked away from a job paying more than $1m/yr (to be clear - I am not rich or financially independent, the stock is still illiquid atm and I live in a 400sqft in-law unit). You need satisfaction overall with your environment. I kept asking myself how much a year of my life was worth and it turns out - unless it’s fucking insane money ($10mil+ liquid) then I can’t suffer through somethin…

I should have explained better: why are smart people so bad at navigating the workplace? Gebru’s email was insane.

>why are smart people so bad at navigating the workplace?

Maybe the workplace just isn't made for them?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#538

Post by pseudalopex » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 6:05 AM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #531

monocasa wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. California is not one of those jurisdictions. She was fired. That is a verifiable fact. > This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move. Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her.

https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. > Unless she was work…

Gebru proposed discussing a resignation date. Google fired her immediately.

> In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged...

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#539

Post by monocasa » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 6:05 AM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #531

monocasa wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. California is not one of those jurisdictions. She was fired. That is a verifiable fact. > This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move. Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her.

https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. > Unless she was work…

> > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit.

> This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions.

She didn't provide a legal notice of resignation for California law, because she didn't specify an end date to her employment. Therefore the sentence you've cited doesn't apply. That's more to cover "I said I was quitting on the 17th if you as the company don't hire this person", and trying to claim that the otherwise voluntary quit was a termination because the company "had a choice".

> It really seems like if your planning on suing your employer for wrongful termination, giving them a good reason to terminate you is a bad idea. You could always get those emails later via subpoena.

Maybe, maybe not. I've seen wrongful termination cases play out in favor of the employee only because they made copies of the relevant emails. A company that's already committing illegal acts terminating someone doesn't always comply with the discovery process the way they should.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#540

Post by bg24 » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 6:06 AM UTC

Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #387

“After conducting a review of this manager’s conduct, we confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our security policies, which included the exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents and private data of other employees,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. This feels pretty cut and dry to me. Meg exported business material from the company. That a fire-abl…

What is a business-sensitive data? If I am working on my laptop and download a 1GB customer orders CSV to my laptop for analysis, is that sensitive data? Who does not do it?

Private data for other employees - is that like downloading the accessible intranet profile of an user (say in the HR portal), or hacking into HR portal to download their private info? In a 1k+ employee company, who does not look up employee details everyday?