231–240 of 295 posts
What's interesting is that this thread is getting a ton of new accounts defending Google. Suspicious.
Please also note the bit about not using this site for ideological battle.
I currently work at Google, but I am a newbie, i.e less than 5 years at Google. I frequently run in to people who are: 1) always been at Google and enjoyed the fruits of its rise or at another similar environment 2) never had to deal with frugality or lack of funding for anything 3) see themselves are superior to everyone else - in terms of how enlightened they are, how they know whats best for everyone 4) feel that…
All employees, contractors and business partners who are working with or for Google have had those or similar pitches thrown at them. They are hopefully part of the reasons why they chose Google and each has a right to complain when they don't get what they signed up for.
If people apply their conscience anywhere then great, but surely one step at a time, maybe the author will run for president one day, fix homelessness and buy everyone SUVs, but we can only do one battle at a time and it seems like he's got some good domain knowledge about Google to tackle this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your labor is your only real political power.
Sadly, labor is not that powerful anymore... especially when the company has the capital to replace you with 5 people tomorrow. I think the political power can only be regained by pooling your labor with your peers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's true, precisely because the employee with a complaint can potentially increase their leverage significantly by educating and organizing other employees around the cause. Your analysis seems to assume that there's some fixed percentage of employees who think some action from their employer is bad, and if that percentage is high enough, then all those employees could quit, which would either someho…
If everyone who participated in the Google Walkout (20% of their workforce) stayed out until Google addressed their complaints, rather than returning to work after their lunch hour was over, all seven demands would've been met, instead of one. (And they probably would've still got paid!) I have my doubts that tech companies could operate with a sudden loss of 20% of their workforce and talent base. If a company knows…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If everyone who participated in the Google Walkout (20% of their workforce) stayed out until Google addressed their complaints, rather than returning to work after their lunch hour was over, all seven demands would've been met, instead of one. (And they probably would've still got paid!) I have my doubts that tech companies could operate with a sudden loss of 20% of their workforce and talent base. If a company knows…
Considering the massive over supply of labor, I’d say they could very easily replace that 20% several times over before they had any problems finding more engineers.
One of Google's biggest assets is their huge army of talented techies. I'd go so far as to say losing that would be an existential threat to the business.
What's interesting is that this thread is getting a ton of new accounts defending Google. Suspicious.
This comment breaks the site guideline against insinuations of astroturfing on HN. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here. Please also note the bit about not using this site for ideological battle.
Weird rule to have though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering the massive over supply of labor, I’d say they could very easily replace that 20% several times over before they had any problems finding more engineers.
Techies work in a seller's market (as evidenced by the comparatively huge salaries they command). There is definitely no "over supply of labor". One of Google's biggest assets is their huge army of talented techies. I'd go so far as to say losing that would be an existential threat to the business.
Techies make a lot of money compared to other professions because we genuinely produce a disproportionate amount of value, but that doesn't imply we're in a seller's market.
One way you can tell that there's no dearth of labor is that most companies round an "unsure" in the interview process to "no," not "yes."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider what happens if everyone who has a moral complaint about their employer immediately quits rather than staying around and attempting to chase the complaint up the management hierarchy and/or educate and organize other employees to voice the complaint. I think utilizing one's power as a worker and aligning other workers to increase workers' power is far from hypocritical. It's a great way (perhaps the only rel…
The problem is that as long as you remain an employee, you have a LEGAL obligation to act in the interests of the Corporation. That is the nature of Fiduciary Duty - something all employees are legally bound by. You may "voice your concerns" all you like, but while you're an employee, it is your duty to ACT in accordance with the directions you're given, and in the absence of explicit direction, in the interests of t…
This is a myth. The only time this applies is if there's an actual written contract of fiduciary duty. Running a company or having investors does not magically enact some federal law.
“Oil and gas companies use cloud computing so I’m not going to work on cloud computing” doesn’t seem much more valid to me than “child pornographers use encryption so I’m not going to work on encryption”. It’s a technology that exists, and people will use it to further their goals no matter what you personally do. There is a simple, well-established way for society to discourage certain activities without damaging th…
However, your ordinary political vote as 1 of 300,000,000 Americans is probably less impactful than your job as 1 of 100,000 Googlers. And you still get to vote regardless of your job status. Heck, this post is on the frontpage of hn getting viewed by thousands of people in relevant industries.
Certainly most ex-FAANG employees can afford more financial sacrifice than your typical person. I think there is a tradeoff here, and at certain levels it can make sense.
This reminds me of arguments about protests vs. legislation (e.g. "why are you making a protest instead of trying to change the law?"). You aren't a legislator. You can't just write a bill and conduct a vote on it tomorrow. Instead, you make public protests to bring attention to your cause and build support.
E.g. if Google can't get its employees to work for oil and gas companies, maybe they should lobby for a carbon tax so that they become acceptable companies again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If everyone who participated in the Google Walkout (20% of their workforce) stayed out until Google addressed their complaints, rather than returning to work after their lunch hour was over, all seven demands would've been met, instead of one. (And they probably would've still got paid!) I have my doubts that tech companies could operate with a sudden loss of 20% of their workforce and talent base. If a company knows…
Considering the massive over supply of labor, I’d say they could very easily replace that 20% several times over before they had any problems finding more engineers.
Most (white collar) employees are not as fungible as people assume, first of all. Two "Senior Back-end Developers" might have such different work experience that one would ramp up on a project in 5 days, and the other would take a couple of weeks.
Second, all turnover is expensive. For a large company like Google, turnover of 100 people could easily cost millions.
Unfortunately, unless those people worked on ads, Google's investors (and therefore C-suite) probably wouldn't miss them much.