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

I worked at Google for -10 days

andgein.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 462 posts

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#451

Post by gdilla »

xnorswap wrote: post #187
cleansy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never had to deal with multinationals - not much of a corporate guy. I was reading through the comments here and it seemed to be common that "well, there's nothing you can do". Actually, there is, write it in your contract and see what comes back. If your new employer does not allow for this, at least a) you tried and b) you are fully aware of the risk that the employer might just leave you out cold. In which case,…

I've also not worked for mega-corps, but I've also had good experience with writing things into contracts and having them agreed to. I find it odd that people are fine with contract negotiation when it comes to remuneration but treat actual contract clauses like holy text that can't be changed. There's even a good chance that what you think is "unchanging boilerplate" is boilerplate that gets updated all the time and…

oh, it can be changed. The real question is, would they bother changing it (and having legal review blah blah) for you.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#452

Post by Jare »

ido wrote: post #431
Jare wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's becoming more and more widespread. It's idiotic and counterproductive but apparently companies love some fake sense of security.

I think this is more for "traditional" companies, I've never seen a startup here (Berlin) do that in the 10 years I've been living here.

In my experience it's becoming more and more widespread specifically in startups. I hope you're right and I'm just seeing the bad outliers.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#453

Post by bagacrap »

abdabab wrote: post #427
bagacrap wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eh... Google, more than your average publicly traded company, does rely on external investment by way of the stock in order to conduct its operations. In particular, a very large percent of compensation, especially for the most valued employees, is equity-based. Google's revenues were flat last year but costs were up. Hence, profits were down. The C-suite's insight into the future seems to be that future revenues are…

> Google's revenues were flat last year but costs were up. Wrong. Google made 181.69 billion in 2020, 256.74B in 2021 [1] and 283B in 2022 [2]. A 10% YoY increase [2] is better than most of the years they have been public. They possibly made more money in last 2.5 years than all the years they have been public combined. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-gl... [2] https://www.sec.gov/Archiv…

The point is that profits were down --- over 20% as per your source. Are you denying that?

The fact that revenues were actually up while profits were down reinforces that Google has let costs spiral out of control.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#454

Post by abdabab »

bagacrap wrote: post #453
abdabab wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google's revenues were flat last year but costs were up. Wrong. Google made 181.69 billion in 2020, 256.74B in 2021 [1] and 283B in 2022 [2]. A 10% YoY increase [2] is better than most of the years they have been public. They possibly made more money in last 2.5 years than all the years they have been public combined. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266206/googles-annual-gl... [2] https://www.sec.gov/Archiv…

The point is that profits were down --- over 20% as per your source. Are you denying that? The fact that revenues were actually up while profits were down reinforces that Google has let costs spiral out of control.

Point taken.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#455

Post by yebyen »

conductr wrote: post #447
yebyen wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you can be terminated at any time, but that would not be your resignation anymore. You are an at-will employee at all times. You can be fired, or you can quit. But let's not conflate the two. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/fired-after-giving-notice-... I'm pretty sure this lawyer knows a thing or two. And anyway, nothing is open-and-shut. Giving notice isn't "cause for termination" by any reasonable stan…

> Are you willing to take that risk? The financial risk is small, can often be less than the cost of paying the salary over those 2 weeks. The risk the person is going to lawyer up is also fairly small, but at that point you just settle, you've probably lost the gamble at that point. If let it go to court, you're definitely going to lose on a financial perspective. Either way, it's not a hill I'd die upon, my policy…

It is a courtesy to give notice, and one must generally be prepared to extend courtesies in order to receive them in kind. You sound like a person who understands all of this. It is certainly going to vary from state to state.

As far as risks go, increasing UI premiums is one risk; it might be easy to invent a valid cause for immediate termination when someone gives notice, but also quite transparent in terms of ethics as you say. Concretely, that would also be leaving employers at a greater risk that word gets around with the remaining employees, and then you likely won't see employees giving notice anymore, or affecting morale of the remaining employees, or what else.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-...

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that I won't find the precedent I'm looking for in my own state either, but the link above is interesting: if your company has a policy that employees must give notice to quit, whether it was legally enforceable or not, with a termination after notice is given that policy could be used as evidence against you!

I guess it's a good idea to have a firm grasp of the law and review your own company's policies regularly, to be sure they align with the law! For another example in the same vein, I thought that only California made non-competes illegal but there are at least two other states, and it may be illegal to try to enforce a non-compete at a federal level soon.

https://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/ftc-proposes-rule...

(Not that this has anything to do with notice or unemployment...)

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#456

Post by loco5niner »

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #361
VikingCoder wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Carlin: Everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everyone who drives faster than you is an asshole.

It's a good joke, but isn't that accurate? If I'm driving at the proper speed, anyone driving faster or slower is wrong.

First you have to define proper speed. At least in the US, it's not the posted speed limit. It's condition-dependent (rain, fog, etc)

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#457

Post by alanfranz »

taylodl wrote: post #386
alanfranz wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that they may terminate immediately as soon as you give them notice. Which is nonsense, because it’s the employee that chooses when to tell the employer. If I want to exfiltrate confidential data, I’ll do it first, then I resign. It’s different on layoffs, where disgruntled employees could break havoc.

That's not how Corporate Accountability works. If you tender your resignation and I continue to provide you access to the systems then I'm accountable for having continued your access to those systems. If you exfiltrated confidential data prior to tendering your resignation then no one remaining in the organization is responsible for your actions. It may trigger a policy review to minimize the exfiltration of confide…

> No, what most employees do instead - for those who do these kinds of things, which is exceedingly rare - is destroy data.

So the employee could destroy data first, then resign.

> If you tender your resignation and I continue to provide you access to the systems then I'm accountable for having continued your access to those systems.

Well, if the employee is still an employee, and they need access to the systems to do their work… what would the alternative be? How could you honour the pre-resignation time otherwise?

I’m perplexed by the sudden drop in trust at resignation time. If an employee is trustworthy, why should their attitude change just because they resigned? And if they aren’t trustworthy, you have a problem even before their resigning.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#458

Post by kleiba »

mathgeek wrote: post #38
comprev wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you've been downvoted so much as it's the brutal truth. The author cannot put "worked at Google" on their CV.

I assume the downvotes are because the reply attempts to "correct" what the author wrote as satire (or another similar term if you don't feel "satire" is accurate here).

You got that wrong, I am trying to point out that this article really actually contains no content other than sporting a click-baity headline.

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#459

Post by kleiba »

comprev wrote: post #25
kleiba wrote: post #6

I worked at Google for 0 days. There. Fixed that for you.

Not sure why you've been downvoted so much as it's the brutal truth. The author cannot put "worked at Google" on their CV.

Thanks, and sorry you got downvoted as well (for no good reason, obviously - that's just the way HN works sometimes).

Re: I worked at Google for -10 days

#460

Post by kleiba »

kevinmgranger wrote: post #43
comprev wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you've been downvoted so much as it's the brutal truth. The author cannot put "worked at Google" on their CV.

Nowhere did the author imply they would put that. The author is talking about the strange situation of being fired before they had started. The person you're replying to is being downvoted because it adds zero value to the conversation here. Or perhaps, aptly... negative value.

Value lies in the eye of the beholder. If you think there is value in a factually incorrect, nonsensical, and obviously click-baity titles then sure, go on enjoying articles like that.
Post reply on HN