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

Exxon’s Exodus

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#41

Post by Retric »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #22
UIUC_06 wrote: post #13

A dinosaur media company cheers on a dinosaur energy company's demise. > a culture that’s increasingly out of step with the world around it. Those interviewed describe an organization trapped in amber, whose insular and fear-based culture—once a beacon of corporate America—has become a drag on innovation, risk taking, and career satisfaction. It's a giant, old company, with 1000s of employees who were not at that tow…

The article does read like a political hack job. I'm not denying the individual stories. Just that it is logical to make conclusions about the greater company from a few people with a grievance. Indeed, the high profitability suggests that the people working there can function pretty well and work together efficiently. The company didn't win the lotto. Every few pennies the company earned must come from a very comple…

Toxic cultures thrive in companies like Exxon where todays profits are largely the result of past investments.

A disgruntled employee isn’t going to destroy walk in business at Exxon, and they don’t need to constantly innovate to keep up with changing customer demands. It’s essentially a one dimensional business where increasing production and lowering costs is enough to reach profitability. That makes useful metrics straightforward and a lot of nuances of effective management seemingly pointless.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#42

Post by prottog »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #28

It should be clear that working at a fundamentally harmful company, like Exxon, Marlboro, or Peabody is going to self-select for certain types of people [late clarification: in leadership roles] and those people are simply not care about the wellbeing of others as much. I feel for the people highlighted in the article, and everybody wants to feed there family so I don't begrudge people working hard on land rigs in th…

You're comparing two fossil fuel companies (Exxon and Peabody) to a tobacco company (Marlboro). I get calling the latter a "fundamentally harmful company", but to say that fossil fuel companies are fundamentally harmful is ridiculous the point of satire. Cheap energy from fossil fuels have done more to lift people around the globe out of crushing poverty than any company you think is above "unbelievably harming" the planet.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#43

Post by [deleted] »

stocknoob wrote: post #23
scottLobster wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of systems do you think run the oil drills/manages refineries? Or simulate potential drilling sites? You think Exxon doesn't have data-centers? Or that everything is still analog buttons with a digital device driver on the end like the 80s? I work for a large defense contractor, you know what I'm working on right now? I'm coding up REST services, and a couple of months ago I was helping to spin up a Kuberne…

The question is whether you are a cost center to the company. In IT when your revenue doesn’t come from software? You’re a cost center.

[deleted]

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#44

Post by throwaway5752 »

prottog wrote: post #42
throwaway5752 wrote: post #28

It should be clear that working at a fundamentally harmful company, like Exxon, Marlboro, or Peabody is going to self-select for certain types of people [late clarification: in leadership roles] and those people are simply not care about the wellbeing of others as much. I feel for the people highlighted in the article, and everybody wants to feed there family so I don't begrudge people working hard on land rigs in th…

You're comparing two fossil fuel companies (Exxon and Peabody) to a tobacco company (Marlboro). I get calling the latter a "fundamentally harmful company", but to say that fossil fuel companies are fundamentally harmful is ridiculous the point of satire. Cheap energy from fossil fuels have done more to lift people around the globe out of crushing poverty than any company you think is above "unbelievably harming" the…

I'm happy to stand by my comment. Tobacco by comparison causes negligible harm, it's just the callous disrespect for harm to others in comparison to profit that they have in common. Fossil fuel is going to end human civilization as we know it within the lifetime of people born in this century, at current rates. Saying that it has lifted people out of poverty is like saying heroin makes people happy.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#45

Post by mjr00 »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #28

It should be clear that working at a fundamentally harmful company, like Exxon, Marlboro, or Peabody is going to self-select for certain types of people [late clarification: in leadership roles] and those people are simply not care about the wellbeing of others as much. I feel for the people highlighted in the article, and everybody wants to feed there family so I don't begrudge people working hard on land rigs in th…

> It should be clear that working at a fundamentally harmful company, like Exxon, Marlboro, or Peabody is going to self-select for certain types of people and those people are simply not care about the wellbeing of others as much.

I don't really buy this. Have you seen Palantir's commitment to DEI?[0] How about Lockheed-Martin's commitment to the LGBT community?[1] On the flip side, I've heard plenty of people say Intel is a nightmare to work in, and they're (for the most part) fairly neutral in terms of "harmfulness." And hey, Blizzard-Activision just makes video games, certainly they have a positive and welcoming culture that cares about the wellbeing of their employees, right?

My point is, company culture is completely orthogonal to the industry a company serves. Pretending that big oil or tobacco employs exclusively people wearing 19th century robber baron outfits holding big sacks with dollar signs painted on them is naive. Everyone below the executive level is a person trying to feed their family before anything else.

[0] https://blog.palantir.com/tagged/diversity-and-inclusion

[1] https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2021/16-y...

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#46

Post by mistrial9 »

dylan604 wrote: post #4
Covzire wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> and whether Exxon was willing to raise pay to the level of major tech companies. Why would oil companies need to hire the same kinds of engineers that a SV giant would need? If they can get that kind of salary, more power to them, but I don't see the challenges being similar enough except on a smaller scale with device drivers for industrial equipment, etc.

Sounds like you believe Big Oil only exists to pull crude out of the ground which is limiting your imagination on why they need these kinds of engineers.

I met an academically trained modeller who worked for some Big Oil.. it was a stretch for him to even mention what he did, since the whole industry is a big villain among most of the educated people. This fellow wrote custom 3D modelling for geological exploration.. it was all "bespoke" and very little to do with FOSS or emerging tech. He was paid well enough, and it was specialized.. so his models went on for more than a decade last I heard..

So I have to laugh a bit when apologists here declare Big Oil Tech with the "power of HPC" or whatever.. they are in a ghetto niche full of expensive equipment. Also I think it is telling that the math guy was not a rank-and-file employee, but instead sheltered in an academic town with lots of time for careful math at a very decent salary.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#47

Post by klyrs »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #22
UIUC_06 wrote: post #13

A dinosaur media company cheers on a dinosaur energy company's demise. > a culture that’s increasingly out of step with the world around it. Those interviewed describe an organization trapped in amber, whose insular and fear-based culture—once a beacon of corporate America—has become a drag on innovation, risk taking, and career satisfaction. It's a giant, old company, with 1000s of employees who were not at that tow…

The article does read like a political hack job. I'm not denying the individual stories. Just that it is logical to make conclusions about the greater company from a few people with a grievance. Indeed, the high profitability suggests that the people working there can function pretty well and work together efficiently. The company didn't win the lotto. Every few pennies the company earned must come from a very comple…

> I submit that the profits show that they're few and relatively rare.

I submit that a person making such a statement cannot know the history of workers rights. Naked oppression & exploitation is highly profitable; this has been proven repeatedly throughout history.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#48

Post by politician »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #28

It should be clear that working at a fundamentally harmful company, like Exxon, Marlboro, or Peabody is going to self-select for certain types of people [late clarification: in leadership roles] and those people are simply not care about the wellbeing of others as much. I feel for the people highlighted in the article, and everybody wants to feed there family so I don't begrudge people working hard on land rigs in th…

Energy isn't fundamentally harmful. It's your opinion that carbon-based energy sources are evil.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#49

Post by politician »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #44
prottog wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing two fossil fuel companies (Exxon and Peabody) to a tobacco company (Marlboro). I get calling the latter a "fundamentally harmful company", but to say that fossil fuel companies are fundamentally harmful is ridiculous the point of satire. Cheap energy from fossil fuels have done more to lift people around the globe out of crushing poverty than any company you think is above "unbelievably harming" the…

I'm happy to stand by my comment. Tobacco by comparison causes negligible harm, it's just the callous disrespect for harm to others in comparison to profit that they have in common. Fossil fuel is going to end human civilization as we know it within the lifetime of people born in this century, at current rates. Saying that it has lifted people out of poverty is like saying heroin makes people happy.

The device you are typing on is made from materials mined from the planet using the fuel sources you despise.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#50

Post by splitstud »

Retric wrote: post #41
xhkkffbf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article does read like a political hack job. I'm not denying the individual stories. Just that it is logical to make conclusions about the greater company from a few people with a grievance. Indeed, the high profitability suggests that the people working there can function pretty well and work together efficiently. The company didn't win the lotto. Every few pennies the company earned must come from a very comple…

Toxic cultures thrive in companies like Exxon where todays profits are largely the result of past investments. A disgruntled employee isn’t going to destroy walk in business at Exxon, and they don’t need to constantly innovate to keep up with changing customer demands. It’s essentially a one dimensional business where increasing production and lowering costs is enough to reach profitability. That makes useful metrics…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN