331–340 of 582 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be picky, but everyone can read the article. They just have to pay. We have to support journalism some how.
While I agree that journalism needs to be supported somehow, saying that "everyone can read the article" is classist and out of touch. HN's audience extends far outside of the glorious realm of Silicon Valley, where everyone makes 6 figures and never has to worry about money.
Not gonna lie, this is a pretty clever recruiting technique.
> One of the things they became known for was placing bookmarks in metaphysical bookstores — some members have described looking for guidance in a book, coming across a Fellowship of Friends bookmark, and joining the group as a result. Not gonna lie, this is a pretty clever recruiting technique.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Quoting the article: > "The group is well-documented: There are allegations of child abuse, human trafficking, forced abortions, and rape within the group, which has some 1,500 members worldwide and makes frequent prophecies of an imminent apocalypse." Those seem like issues for prosecutors to pursue, not for Google, unless the abuses were happening in Google offices or were sponsored by them.
> Those seem like issues for prosecutors to pursue, not for Google, unless the abuses were happening in Google offices or were sponsored by them. I'm glad someone else gets my point. These were all someone else's problems to deal with, but this guy kept sticking his nose in even when he was repeatedly asked by his friend, a manager, to butt out.
That manager could very well have been complicit in corruption. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in wine purchases isn't exactly trivial.
That said, it sounds like the guy was just trying to keep the GDS division afloat, lest it be struck down from above after being seen as problematic. Perhaps noble depending on how you look at it, but certainly protecting his own paycheck either way.
Regardless, I don't see the justification in hating on someone for blowing the whistle here. In fact, one could argue it's very likely a necessary step in making it someone else's problem to deal with in the first place. Sunlight is a very effective disinfectant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At minimum Google could have investigated the odd clustering of employees that indicated some sort of nepotistic hiring practice. Of course they might be doing exactly that, but it's not the sort of thing they can really comment on. Edit: also the self-dealing on hundreds of thousands of dollars in wine.
Well if you expand that to a more generic "employees shouldn't be involved in hiring people who they know and associate with outside of work" then they'd have to fire half the company.
There's also a difference between hiring someone you know vs. only hiring a person because you know them.
Besides which it is possible to have hiring practices that make this abuse more difficult: where I work friends & family of a candidate are obligated to identify such prior relationships during the hiring process so that another person can review any decision to hire that candidate.
Maybe things are that bad at Google, but that would be precisely the reason for casting more light on the issue in order to change things.
this reads like the plot of a Goosebumps novel
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well if you expand that to a more generic "employees shouldn't be involved in hiring people who they know and associate with outside of work" then they'd have to fire half the company.
I work at a large tech firm and do interviewing and referrals almost routinely. I have regularly excused myself from the opportunity to sit on panels or provide feedback. I can provide all the input I want, but the people making the decision need to not be me or feel pressured by me. That's not a deep ethical challenge in the slightest.
So, if the author was fired for the reasons they believe, that's pretty bad behavior. But if he had not been fired, what was management supposed to have done about the cult members working for this department? Yes, the cult's leader sounds like a pretty awful person, but he wasn't working there. What were the cult members doing in their work in the department that was clearly wrong? It's suggested that there was favo…
At minimum Google could have investigated the odd clustering of employees that indicated some sort of nepotistic hiring practice. Of course they might be doing exactly that, but it's not the sort of thing they can really comment on. Edit: also the self-dealing on hundreds of thousands of dollars in wine.