Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#851

Post by pas »

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.

https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...

this one?

I'm not familiar with US (nor FAANG) workplace culture, could you please explain what's so insane about it and why?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#852

Post by dan-robertson »

1123581321 wrote: post #811
Aeolun wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An external party could be her own email account at a different service. Probably because she was worried that something exactly like this would happen.

I don't have Google experience, but you can be summarily fired for forwarding to a personal address at many companies with a security or compliance policy. You would have known this in advance, whether through training, a manual, or warnings inside the email client. I remember an all hands where someone forwarded a relatively innocuous email to her Yahoo, once, and we all received a big reminder.

It’s true that companies don’t like that. It’s also true that common advice to people experiencing some kind of workplace harassment or abuse or bullying is to follow up to verbal conversations in writing, and to keep your own copies of those documents in case the company decides to accidentally delete them before they get a subpoena or whatever.

So a question is then whether it’s morally sufficient for someone to be fired for this sort of behaviour. It feels to me like the reason for the firing was not really at all related to breaking the written policies in the company handbook and a lot more related to breaking the unwritten policies about stirring up trouble and dissent.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#853

Post by knorker »

Dayshine wrote: post #838
knorker wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite comparable though. More like storming in and demanding "either you give me root access to all systems, and the building to myself, and a promotion, or i quit!" It's a grey area, and I agree there are cases that are not de facto resignations. But Gebru's demands were absolutely not of the compromising kind. She was effectively demanding dictator powers. And if "i can't do my job if i can't run the com…

I just find it strange to focus on the very subjective whether or not the "demands" of an employee are reasonable, rather than the far more objective "Is this an explicit resignation". To the company, every demand is unreasonable... And every negotiation/collective bargaining begins with overstated demands, that's hardly unusual.

Sometimes things aren't that grey area in reasonableness and acceptable behavior.

I like my comparison in another comment: Having an affair and getting caught is not literally filing for divorce.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#854

Post by anonygler »

333c wrote: post #562
anonygler wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is a "literal act of violence" to these people. Google is run by naive idealists who hire activists in droves and are then surprised to realize that those people are a bunch of unemployables.

Putting "random words in quotes that people didn't actually say" is not conducive to productive and healthy discussion.

lmao, seriously? Timnit herself crows about "Data Violence". Stringing "violence" into sentences is what these people do non fucking stop.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#855

Post by d1zzy »

monocasa wrote: post #391
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…

The rumor going around is that she thought she was going to be retaliated against, and the documents were her backing up some of her emails in case she was fired illegally to discuss with her lawyer.

And how does that matter in terms of:

1. Google's statement, is it still accurate then? Seems to me.

2. Firing the employee. There's one thing for the law to shield employee from legal repercussions in a situation of them sending communications to their lawyer and quite another for the company still being within rights to fire them because of that. A large set of perfectly legal actions can get you fired at almost any workplace.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#856

Post by d1zzy »

throwawaygooge wrote: post #659
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…

The language that Google use is consistent with simply bcc-ing outgoing e-mails to a personal account and a lawyer's account. That is exactly what I have done and would do whenever my job has been threatened - so that I have access to relevant written evidence after my e-mail is switched off.

And you should expect to be fired for doing so. I think both parties can be right to act as they did.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#857

Post by d1zzy »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #625
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…

The thing is, if a company wants to fire an employee they can usually find a reason. It takes extreme care for a person to work for any length of time at a company that wants to fire that person. The employee must change the behaviour that is causing the company to want to get rid of them. It is usually not expected people will change their behaviour and as such, HR and outside lawyers are always available to assist…

You don't need a fireable offense to fire an "at will" employee. I'm not even sure you need a reason for it. There are restrictions in terms of not being able to fire a person because of their gender, race, etc but beyond that anything goes.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-e...

"At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

At-will also means that an employer can change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences. For example, an employer can alter wages, terminate benefits, or reduce paid time off. In its unadulterated form, the U.S. at-will rule leaves employees vulnerable to arbitrary and sudden dismissal, a limited or on-call work schedule depending on the employer’s needs, and unannounced cuts in pay and benefits."

Welcome to the US :D

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#858

Post by manicdee »

Aunche wrote: post #529
mleonhard wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You use the term "these activists" and describe a problem of two people. I think you are trying to imply that activists in general have the problem. That would be the "hasty generalization" fallacy [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Hasty_generalization

I'm referring to "her and the rest of her team," though to be fair, they may not feel the same way.

Because they are stressed from an unexpected and public termination, you think they're "activists"? Activists for what? Or is "activist" the new "communist"?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#859

Post by yuliyp »

knorker wrote: post #831
yuliyp wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you ever leave a notebook that had work notes at home or in your car? Ever gotten an e-mail on your work account that should have gone to a personal one? Use any SaaS service that would get access to company data?

Are you honestly saying this is what happened here? I think your question is ridiculous.

No, what I'm saying is that dismissing a complaint of the company doing something wrong is missing the point. Deferring to a policy whose theoretical purpose is to defend against leaks and protect trade secrets as a justification for firing someone who was archiving their own e-mails is naive.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#860

Post by pbreit »

pas wrote: post #851
pbreit wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a... this one? I'm not familiar with US (nor FAANG) workplace culture, could you please explain what's so insane about it and why?

It's extremely poorly written and mostly nonsense.
Post reply on HN