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

Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 258 posts

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#111

Post by labster »

AlbertCory wrote: post #107
zamfi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the intent behind the modern usage of "the exception that proves the rule" is that: a) the rule is a heuristic, not a hard-and-fast rule, and b) the notability of exceptions suggests that the heuristic is pretty good. In other words, if the exception is, in fact, exceptional, it reinforces that the heuristic is reasonably valid for non-exceptional cases. In this case, the fact that it took the intervention of…

Another commonly misused phrase is "begging the question" which you have done here. It means "assuming that which you need to prove." You have no proof that it was exceptional. All you have is one case . You have no idea what other people in pay disputes end up doing.

This kind of pedantry about which words people use to make an argument is literally garbage.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#112

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

bjohnson225 wrote: post #58
walshemj wrote: post #7

Rather odd as in the UK id expect to get paid a lot more as a contractor for the same roll as a FTE. A bit of "schadenfreude " that clerical jobs in HR are some of the one in the UK Update Having said that I was underpaid as full timer when I worked for a BT subsidiary back in the day and the HR director was a "piece of work"

> Rather odd as in the UK id expect to get paid a lot more as a contractor for the same roll as a FTE As a software dev/management contractor, sure, but as a “self-employed Yodel delivery driver” or similar low skill role? (Which it seems to be in this case)

In the UK it’s fairly common for SWEs to also work on a contractor basis (but they own their own personal company which contracts directly with the contracting company’s HR dept: no bodyshops or consulting firms are involved in this particular style of employment). This happens a lot because of how the UK’s tax-law is set-up (by accident, not by-design, though).

———————-

Outside of the games industry, the UK’s been less-and-less of an attractive location to be as an SWE, which I personally attribute to the UK’s corporate culture which places engineering as strictly subordinate to management instead of embracing engineering-led management, which (in my opinion) is tied to the entrenched class-system (e.g. upper-management read classics at Oxbridge, why on earth would they allow a MEng from an industrial redbrick like UMIST or B’ham into the board-room for even a briefing, let alone help making decisions for the company? /s)

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#113

Post by blamazon »

pembrook wrote: post #52

My question is, if it's so advantageous to employ people via onsite staffing firms (basically half of FAANG's workforce is employed this way), why doesn't Google stop directly employing people altogether? Without fail, if it's a giant publicly-traded company, a huge percentage of the workforce will always be onsite vendors. It seems so bizarrely arbitrary where they decide to hire direct vs. contract. And I'm not tal…

Blame the bean counters. What I see in FAANG today is that departments fill as many FTE roles as they can until they hit their headcount limit, and then they employ a bunch of contractors on top of that as they feel are needed on top of the approved head count.

This is allegedly why the NSA was employing Edward Snowden as a contractor.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#114

Post by joshuamorton »

ffggvv wrote: post #76
pembrook wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ironic then, because a huge percentage of the full-time employees at FAANG are actually former contractors who've been converted. So that would suggest a large chunk of their full-time employees are sub-par. And that still doesn't answer the question--why hire anybody directly at all? If you're so much better than the other contractors, they could just pay you higher rates. It'd be the same thing.

"huge percentage".. got any numbers to back that up? i can tell you its a single digit percent at G.

It depends heavily on the role. For SWE and SRE you're probably correct, but for a number of UX engineering roles, temp-to-hire is weirdly common.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#115

Post by sli »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #34
aemreunal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only one I can think of was Anthony Levandowski for stealing Waymo's trade secrets but he was pardoned a few months later.

That's not really a similar crime; that's a crime against another corporation.

Even still, the guy got a pardon after 33 federal charges and pleading guilty to one of them. The average person would never get even a hint of a chance at that (or, frankly, such a tiny sentence -- 18 months, 6 served before pardon).

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#116

Post by heavenlyblue »

ggm wrote: post #87
AlbertCory wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jerf's explanation makes sense. The negative certainly does not reinforce the positive.

Yes. They said it better. It certainly doesn't reinforce the positive, yet people seem to insist on using it as if it does. "Well, yes, that penny did land on it's edge but the exception proves the rule it had to be either heads or tails" type statements abound. No.. the exception proved pennies have three states not two: your argument is busted.

Exception proves the rule comes from Roman law: if there is a sign saying you can’t park here on Saturdays, it means that you can park here on any other day.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#117

Post by kongin »

joe_the_user wrote: post #74
AlbertCory wrote: post #37

Personal Googler story: In Ads and in Search, at least as of 2010 or so, Google employed independent companies who hired "raters" to provide "ground truth" for the ML systems. For example, they would rate proposed ads for a given query, so that the ML system could learn from their "truth". For Search, they'd rate proposed search results for a given query. There was a whole pipeline to bring in the raters' results and…

I can't make any general statements about what happens to everyone, but in this particular case, I can't complain at all about HR's handling. That's kind of the exception that proves the rule , you think? That is, your outlining of the situation gives a strong suggestion that this sort of thing is common and unless the contractor has pull (say, a relative that works at Google), they can't do anything.

I can summarize OPs post even more succinctly: Nepotism in google only way to get paid.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#118

Post by inerte »

aemreunal wrote: post #30
Ansil849 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any chance this ends up with serious repercussions like prison time When has any staff member of a FAANG company faced prison time for a similar crime? Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious though my instinct is to say 'never'.

The only one I can think of was Anthony Levandowski for stealing Waymo's trade secrets but he was pardoned a few months later.

Not similar, but https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executiv... I am not really sure if he was arrested yet, or ever.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#119

Post by Nition »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #106
AlbertCory wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always thought the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is nonsense, btw. There's no such "proof."

It's so misused most of the time. The clearest, correct example of it I've seen is a sign that says "No Parking from 10PM to 5AM". This is an exception to the otherwise unstated rule that parking is allowed during all other times, therefore proving it exists. I disagree with most of the commenters that want to apply the phrase to heuristic claims.

This is currently the only reply that's downvoted below zero, but this is also the only reply that matches the definition of the phrase as I understood it.

Re: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers

#120

Post by burlesona »

yupper32 wrote: post #79
burlesona wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Executives need to start getting personal punishment if we want corporate behavior to change. Alternatively, start issuing fines such that it’s X percent of revenue plus Y percent of salary from all employees. Even a fine of 1% of annual pay would light a big angry fire under most employees, and perhaps incentivize them to stand up to the execs and refuse to follow illegal or unethical decisions.

You want to directly fine low level employees for the actions of execs? My god, no. That's such an evil idea. They're fined indirectly with stock prices already, but man is your idea really bad.

All employees would include execs obviously. I admit it's unorthodox and might feel a little unfair, but I imagine for these big tech companies that are so often guilty of just ignoring the law and paying fines to make their problems "go away," having the employees be furious at the bosses would be a far, far more effective punishment.

In terms of dollars, I don't think it would take much to make the point. Suppose you set the fine to 0.5% of salary from all employees. Someone in an entry level job earning $40k would only owe $200. But they'd be really flipping mad and might quit over it. That scales up pretty well - a middle-manager at Facebook who makes $600k would owe $3k. Not enough to really affect their life, but enough to make them really pissed off and potentially bail on the company.

In the end, if we as society want corporations to follow the law, we have to start recognizing that corporations are made up of regular humans following incentives, and if the corporate shield means the people who work in the company and carry out its actions feel no personal consequences of illegal actions, then it's not surprising they'll ignore the law.

Post reply on HN