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

What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 382 posts

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#341

Post by deadmik3 »

eropple wrote: post #337
deadmik3 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think she's an SJW and putting quotes around it doesn't mean I ever said that (I didn't). I just think she's a shitty employee. Whether or not it's legal for her to discuss those things, it's also legal for her employer to be upset that she's making the work environment more difficult for others. The problem with these noble issues is that there's a view that you can do no wrong as long as you're fighting for…

> it's also legal for her employer to be upset that she's making the work environment more difficult for others I guess I'm not done, because I am compelled to point out that this is completely false. That's the entire point of all of the legality around the protection of these discussions under United States law: that, no, your employer cannot be "upset" at you for choosing to exercise that right.

But they didn't actually do anything to her! What did they do? Please, I am clearly missing it.

Yes they can absolutely be unhappy that their employees are causing a problem, that's why they tried to discuss it with her. But they didn't do anything to her for it.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#342

Post by rrss1122 »

chasing wrote: post #171

This is not journalism. Do not treat it as such. Molly McHugh and Wired need to reach out to this woman and ask a few questions. They need to reach out to Google and ask a few questions. Otherwise, this information is just a shade better than useless. There's a lot of detail missing in these tweets. There's a lot of handwaving where the audience is essentially invited to fill in the blanks with whatever stereotypes -…

It's too time-consuming to actually do journalism when you can just paste a twitter timeline and then move on to the next headline before your competitors can.

It's not about journalism anymore, it's about getting clicks.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#343

Post by eropple »

deadmik3 wrote: post #341
eropple wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's also legal for her employer to be upset that she's making the work environment more difficult for others I guess I'm not done, because I am compelled to point out that this is completely false. That's the entire point of all of the legality around the protection of these discussions under United States law: that, no, your employer cannot be "upset" at you for choosing to exercise that right.

But they didn't actually do anything to her! What did they do? Please, I am clearly missing it. Yes they can absolutely be unhappy that their employees are causing a problem, that's why they tried to discuss it with her. But they didn't do anything to her for it.

An employer is the power-holder in almost any employer/employee relationship. And so even the "discussion" exists to have a chilling effect upon that worker. The act of having that uncomfortable and fraught discussion is in itself a threat. You have those "discussions" to get a worker to stop exercising their rights. There's no other reason to have it.

When your employee does something that is entirely legal and protected, you don't have a "discussion" with them. You nod, say "OK", and you do absolutely nothing else, because nothing you do in response to it, as it pertains to that employee, can be anything other than hostile--and hostility of your direction. Not the employee's, not now and not ever.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#344

Post by cbr »

danielweber wrote: post #78

> Salary sharing is only 1 example. Blogger porn. Real names. Many others. I can't tell from context whether she was supporting or stopping "blogger porn" and/or "real names."

"blogger porn" and "real names" refer to two cases where Google made an unpopular decision internally and then later reversed itself: https://plus.google.com/+googleplus/posts/V5XkYQYYJqy https://productforums.google.com/forum/m/#%21category-topic/...

I take "fighting for justice & fairness" to indicate that she approved of the reversals.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#345

Post by pyre »

deadmik3 wrote: post #47

Was stringing together a couple dozen tweets really the best format to share a story like this? There is a lot that's left out. Once she vaguely mentions that another employee who was "involved" was still getting all of his peer bonuses (which may or may not have been PB's for his "involvement", we don't know), the whole thing just crumbled into a victim story for me. OF COURSE the MALE coworker can do WHATEVER HE WA…

> OF COURSE the MALE coworker can do WHATEVER HE WANTS, as long as we don't actually have any details about it.

I read that differently. My reading:

* The fact that he was still getting them points how how arbitrary this was, and that she was being retaliated against.

* The whole story leaves me with the impression that she had ownership/credit for the spreadsheet, and that is why she was specifically being targeted with the rejected Peer Bonuses.

* He may have still be getting the Peer Bonuses because he was under a different manager/supervisor that was more forgiving.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#346

Post by cpncrunch »

emodendroket wrote: post #201
chasing wrote: post #171

This is not journalism. Do not treat it as such. Molly McHugh and Wired need to reach out to this woman and ask a few questions. They need to reach out to Google and ask a few questions. Otherwise, this information is just a shade better than useless. There's a lot of detail missing in these tweets. There's a lot of handwaving where the audience is essentially invited to fill in the blanks with whatever stereotypes -…

Certainly it's damning if it's an accurate depiction but I agree with you that just using Storify on a bunch of tweets isn't really anything like "journalism."

I'm not sure how it's damning except against Erica herself. She strongly implies racism is involved, but it sounds like she just doesn't understand the PB system. (The fact that her white friend got multiple PBs for the same thing seems more like his manager also didn't understand how it works).

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#347

Post by msutherl »

lagadu wrote: post #156
msutherl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "making money" mean?

What they pay. I didn't sign off 37 of my hours each week because I like a company's logo. I did it because they pay me for it.

My question was a rhetorical one to get the OP to think about what the relationship between "making money" and "generating value" might be. The way he put it, it's as if they are completely disconnected. Another way to phrase "making money" is "providing a service that people are willing to trade some of their livelihood for." Could that not be a proxy for at least some "positive change"? And anyway, is "change" the only thing of value?

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#348

Post by eropple »

res0nat0r wrote: post #339
eropple wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company decides that exercising one's rights is "troublemaking", that company should be utterly destroyed without hesitation or remorse. The corporation exists solely at the sufferance of the society that grants it its charter. Someday maybe we'll remember this instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.

Sorry but not really...You could be totally in the right to say whatever you want on a conference call, make promises to a customer that you've decided for yourself matter that the company has no way of fulfilling, these things are all legal and fine, but you aren't going to be getting promoted any time soon. The world is not black and white, no matter how naive folks here believe it to be.

I don't think you have a particularly strong conception of what a right is. I do not have the right to represent my company to a third party (though I may be tasked with doing so in the course of my duties, as an agent of the company). I do have the right to discuss compensation with my colleagues, as enshrined by the government that ensures that company's legal status.

The world is not black-and-white. This is. I do not understand, Steinbeck notwithstanding, the steadfast desire to take the minimal power of the worker out of the worker's hands.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#349

Post by msutherl »

eropple wrote: post #338
res0nat0r wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not be illegal, but you have to realize you've labeled yourself as a pain in the ass, or someone willing to irritate and cause problems for a company, thus this will probably affect your ability to be promoted, or work on important projects / teams. Everyone can respond how it is legal, their right, etc, but the fact that you are now known as a troublemaker won't bode well for you.

If a company decides that exercising one's rights is "troublemaking", that company should be utterly destroyed without hesitation or remorse. The corporation exists solely at the sufferance of the society that grants it its charter. Someday maybe we'll remember this instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.

You seem to be equating 'acting within the law' with both moral conduct and efficacy (from the perspective of the charter). This is denying that efficacy from the perspective of the company, contra the law, moral code, or the charter could have a positive outcome. In fact, it appears that successful corporations are constantly pushing on all 3 restraints, and in the marketplace, corporations that ride the edge are more competitive, thus more successful, and therefore deliver greater benefit. How then does it make sense to immediately dismantle a corporation that breaks the rules even in a small way (destroying huge amounts of value)?

It seems that you're advocating a 'punishment as deterrent' strategy for society along the lines of capital punishment. "If you violate the rules even slightly, you will be executed." Is that a good strategy for encouraging lawfulness while preserving efficacy? And is law the perfect (or the best) mechanism for encoding moral behavior?

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#350

Post by msutherl »

eropple wrote: post #343
deadmik3 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they didn't actually do anything to her! What did they do? Please, I am clearly missing it. Yes they can absolutely be unhappy that their employees are causing a problem, that's why they tried to discuss it with her. But they didn't do anything to her for it.

An employer is the power-holder in almost any employer/employee relationship. And so even the "discussion" exists to have a chilling effect upon that worker. The act of having that uncomfortable and fraught discussion is in itself a threat. You have those "discussions" to get a worker to stop exercising their rights. There's no other reason to have it. When your employee does something that is entirely legal and prot…

Isn't it possible that employee and employer can have a non-antagonistic relationship? What if the "discussion" was intended entirely in the interest of the employee?

In any event, it seems to me that it was good advice given the context.

Post reply on HN