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

A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 582 posts

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#101

Post by irrational »

prirun wrote: post #90
FiloSottile wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original link presented a detailed argument for what is Google specific about this, namely that it was enabled by the two tier workforce system. https://twitter.com/alphabetworkers/status/15373969466917724...

From the Twitter link: "I was a TVC — which stands for “temps, vendors, and contractors,” a designation within Google for workers who aren’t full-time employees and are hired by third parties companies, not by Google itself. We do the same work as full-time Google employees — I worked right alongside them — but we don’t have the same corporate benefits." This is another way to screw workers, allowing large companies…

Didn’t this already go through the court system long ago because of Microsoft and this is why these kinds of workers can only work for a particular company for 11 months and then have to be off for 3 months before they can get a new contract with the same company?

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#102

Post by lupire »

IYasha wrote: post #86

Is this another case of "corporate religion"? It's not new, I've seen studies of cases a few years ago. Terrifying to know some managers are adopting it and people get dragged into it. I understand individuality, free will and consciousness are not exactly valued in the brave new world paradigm, but I'd rather stay clear from such places.

As the article explains, no.

This is an external group that got a foothold and nepotistically hired more from its ranks and made purchases from its businesses.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#103

Post by chicob »

“We have longstanding employee and supplier policies in place to prevent discrimination and conflicts of interest, and we take those seriously.”

Isn't adding a superfluous "and we take those seriously" the rhetorical equivalent of pouting?

Every time I read this - after an account suspension, for example - the impression I get is that no, they don't really take those things seriously. They're just improvising or leaving it for the algorithm.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#104

Post by lupire »

FiloSottile wrote: post #66
thrownawayalre wrote: post #52

It is Google so it gets that much publicity which is good for that particular case because it will be investigated and sorted out. Sexual abuse and discrimination enablers will be investigated. Good. Too bad for the other large size company where similar things happen which won't get similar publicity and won't ever be investigated. Not working at GOOG, but I don't get the hate in the comments or the idea that it is…

The original link presented a detailed argument for what is Google specific about this, namely that it was enabled by the two tier workforce system. https://twitter.com/alphabetworkers/status/15373969466917724...

The two-tier system is bad, but it's not at all Google specific. It's extremely common.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#106

Post by robonerd »

lisper wrote: post #85

This is just one example of a much bigger issue, which is religious institutions quietly taking over secular businesses without anyone realizing it. It is so pervasive and so stealthy that it is hard to even talk about it without sounding like a crackpot. It has become a little more evident recently with the emergence of evangelical Christian activism in politics, but it runs much, much deeper than that. The LDS Chur…

> It is so pervasive and so stealthy that it is hard to even talk about it without sounding like a crackpot

You're sitting in the intersection of 'it's pervasive', 'nobody is noticing it', and not listing the evidence for it. So yeah, it sounds crackpotty.

> It has become a little more evident recently with the emergence of evangelical Christian activism in politics

Christians, evangelical or otherwise, have been generally active in politics for as long as Christianity has existed. To say this is an 'emerging' problem as though America started from a position of mainstream secularism seems entirely ahistorical. If anything, the generational trend has been the decline of superstition in all aspects of American society. 60 years ago it was common for public schools to make children recite christian prayers, but that's almost unheard of now. The trend is obviously towards secularization, and while that trend may not be happening fast enough to suit some of us, it's wildly disingenuous to suggest the trend is in the reverse direction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer_in_the_United_St...

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#107

Post by e40 »

coryrc wrote: post #94
prirun wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Twitter link: "I was a TVC — which stands for “temps, vendors, and contractors,” a designation within Google for workers who aren’t full-time employees and are hired by third parties companies, not by Google itself. We do the same work as full-time Google employees — I worked right alongside them — but we don’t have the same corporate benefits." This is another way to screw workers, allowing large companies…

TVCs are W-2 employees of a company, with the relevant taxes paid and benefits present.

Of "a" company but not Google. It's unclear how the benefits of Google and the other company compare. I'd guess not well.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#108

Post by Simon_O_Rourke »

derevaunseraun wrote: post #105

From the podcast: "He was the golden chain to heaven. The only way to get to heaven was to allow him sexual activity with me." ... What makes people join these groups to begin with?? Why do they believe such obvious lies?

Lack of self esteem, family pressures, cultural "norms", a desire for belonging etc. etc.

It's the exploitation that's as old as time itself.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#109

Post by bena »

typon wrote: post #31
mcntsh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to dream about working at Google until I interviewed with them. I got dragged along for months and largely ignored between interviews. The interviews themselves were impersonal and non interactive. They gave the impression that I should just shut up and write code in front of them and when I asked clarifying questions I barely got anything in response.

Had a similar experience. The recruiting part of the process went pretty smoothly, until I got to the onsite. Had 5 on-site interviews (excluding lunch), all exactly the same format: walk in the room where my interviewer is waiting with a question written on the white board, they say "hello" to me and I'm expected to read the question, clarify it a little bit and start coding. Not a single interviewer cared about my…

I've done a live on-site and a virtual on-site during COVID.

I was mostly stationary during the live on-site. I was taken to a room and the interviewers came to me. Some chit-chat, then given the problem, then working on the problem. A break for lunch, then I was taken to a room near where the first was for the rest of my interviews. Much the same deal. I stayed in the room while the interviewers cycled through. I was told that the lunch portion wasn't part of the interview and the person escorting me around didn't have any influence on the hiring decision. That may or may not be true, but it is what they told me.

About a week after, I was informed of my rejection. I'm fairly sure I know one interview I particularly bombed. The question involved something I had done before, but a while ago and I floundered a bit trying to recall all the bits and bobs of the syntax and structure. The other four I felt could go either way.

During the virtual on-site, it was just being passed off to various Google Meet rooms. I think I wrote code in a shared Google Doc. I felt ok in most of them. None particularly stuck out. A few days after the interview, I was informed I was being passed to the hiring committee. And then a few days after that, I was informed the hiring committee passed on me.

All the questions I got were vaguely LeetCode-ish. They were all of the template: Here's a vague problem with loose requirements. I'd ask some questions about particulars, "Can I assume this?", "Is this true for all?", "Is this sorted?", "Can I go to the bathroom?" "No, now I really have to go, last time was to avoid answering a question" etc. Then I'd write up a solution in my language of choice, trying to explain why I was doing what I was going while doing it. Just stream of conscious style stuff. Occasionally, I'd get comments or questions as I talked. Stuff about assumptions I was making or why I was trying this method. Then if there was time and they were satisfied with my solution, they'd ask me to essentially scale it up. "Ok, that works when you can hold the dataset in memory, but what if the dataset was three bazillion petabytes?"

I personally enjoy puzzles and challenges, so I found the process fun even though the fact that it is an interview makes it a little more. But since I have also had a job both times I interviewed, the stakes are a bit lower for me, which also helps.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#110

Post by robonerd »

derevaunseraun wrote: post #105

From the podcast: "He was the golden chain to heaven. The only way to get to heaven was to allow him sexual activity with me." ... What makes people join these groups to begin with?? Why do they believe such obvious lies?

Cults like this generally target and recruit damaged or otherwise vulnerable people. Also, they generally keep the crazy dialed down to a minimum in the beginning, then slow boil people over the course of several years. It often starts with "love bombing"; the cult heaps positive attention and praise on somebody who is unaccustomed to receiving anything like that.
Post reply on HN