No, I still don't want to work for Google • Hacker News Board

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#261

Post by joeblubaugh » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 9:55 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #186

michaelochurch wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At Google, "Perv" history is part of the transfer packet, which means that people with average political-success (sorry, I mean "performance") histories become immobile, creating a low-morale underclass that is good for mailing-list drama but bad for the company. It turns average employees and no-fault lack-of-fit cases into problem employees who have to be pushed out. It's disgusting, and people who believe this is…

"Perv" history? They can see what you search for in incognito mode? :-O

Typo for "Perf" - or maybe you are making a joke I didn't get.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#262

Post by eli_gottlieb » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 9:56 PM UTC

kenko wrote: post #255

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At-will employment, unfortunately, makes that doctrine legally useless for workers in America. A friend of mine came to this country (Israel) to work as a chemical engineer. His salary isn't large by American standards ($27,000 USD/year take-home pay), but for here it's pretty good and the benefits package is superb . The thing that really hit me, though, was that his job offer was a literal, written contract specify…

"Honestly, which bastard came up with at-will employment?" Some bastard, and they are not in short supply, who was not a fan of unions or the strengthened bargaining position that they give employees. See also "right to work" states, where "right to work" means "right to find yourself without work and without recourse".

But at-will employment is actually a separate issue from unionization. At-will employment goes against what most countries and cultures regard as a cornerstone of capitalism itself: clarity and enforcement of contracts.

At-will employment: anyone can terminate the employment relationship at any time, unilaterally, for any reason or no reason. The party in the stronger bargaining position can unilaterally demand changes at threat of leaving/firing, more or less whenever they want.

No at-will, no union: employment is governed by a contract negotiated and bound at the start of the job. There are set terms, and agreed amounts of leeway. Either party who decides to unilaterally cheat the other can be taken to court and legally held responsible to the other party.

Seriously, why should Americans consider it normal to sign a Nondisclosure Agreement when beginning work for a new company but completely out-of-the-blue to have the employer be legally responsible for granting so simple a "privilege" as a 40 hour work-week without threatening to fire you?

(Which, by the way, doesn't mean things like long work-weeks don't exist in "contract employment" countries. My friend I mentioned has a standard week of 45 hours. That length is set by his contract, which he agreed to. What they can't do is sign him to a 45-hour week and then start regularly demanding 55 hours each week. This pleasant standardization of his hours allows my friend to attend language-immersion classes after work to get his Hebrew up to par -- an absolute must for integrating fully into the Israeli economy as a competent worker.)

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#263

Post by stroboskop » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 9:57 PM UTC

Key quote.

Since I’ve been out of the Silicon-Valley-centred tech industry, I’ve become increasingly convinced that it’s morally bankrupt and essentially toxic to our society. Companies like Google and Facebook — in common with most public companies — have interests that are frequently in conflict with the wellbeing of — I was going to say their customers or their users, but I’ll say “people” in general, since it’s wider than that. People who use their systems directly, people who don’t — we’re all affected by it, and although some of the outcomes are positive a disturbingly high number of them are negative: the erosion of privacy, of consumer rights, of the public domain and fair use, of meaningful connections between people and a sense of true community, of beauty and care taken in craftsmanship, of our very physical wellbeing. No amount of employee benefits or underfunded Google.org projects can counteract that.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#264

Post by redler » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 9:58 PM UTC

As a side question, is it common practice for Google to hire people using employment contracts with fixed terms? Is there an underclass of employees who join as a result of an acquisition, but who have expiration dates?

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#265

Post by eli_gottlieb » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 10:06 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #251

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PL man to PL man, what would you say the prospects are for taking a brain soaked in PL, compilers and software-engineering research expertise outside academia? You know, for when they boot me out of grad-school with a so-called "degree" in a bunch of years ;-).

You have a lot of choices, basically look for anyone with big iron requirements (big data systems/infrastructure). Microsoft, Google, Facebook love PL people. Many startups would be happy to have you also.

Oh wow. Given that my university (Technion) has strong ties to Intel and Marvell, and substantial ties to the local branches of Microsoft and Google too, it sounds like life should someday be good. That'll be nice :-).

Actually, I was at a presentation today for new grad-students, and one of the older grad-student mentors helping to present mentioned that the coursework phase of grad-school is a good time to get a bit of industrial experience in the summers. Once I actually have real grad-level PL experience under my belt I'd quite like to go and see what it's all about.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#266

Post by genwin » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 10:08 PM UTC

kenko wrote: post #255

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At-will employment, unfortunately, makes that doctrine legally useless for workers in America. A friend of mine came to this country (Israel) to work as a chemical engineer. His salary isn't large by American standards ($27,000 USD/year take-home pay), but for here it's pretty good and the benefits package is superb . The thing that really hit me, though, was that his job offer was a literal, written contract specify…

"Honestly, which bastard came up with at-will employment?" Some bastard, and they are not in short supply, who was not a fan of unions or the strengthened bargaining position that they give employees. See also "right to work" states, where "right to work" means "right to find yourself without work and without recourse".

Basically any state where the majority of people there see "right to work" and that's all the info they need to believe it means something good.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#267

Post by eli_gottlieb » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 10:09 PM UTC

stroboskop wrote: post #263

Key quote. Since I’ve been out of the Silicon-Valley-centred tech industry, I’ve become increasingly convinced that it’s morally bankrupt and essentially toxic to our society. Companies like Google and Facebook — in common with most public companies — have interests that are frequently in conflict with the wellbeing of — I was going to say their customers or their users, but I’ll say “people” in general, since it’s w…

Well hold on a damn minute. True community? The internet didn't erode that, bad city planning and work-centered, geographically unrooted lifestyles did that. Craftsmanship? Commodification and mass manufacturing did that. Physical well-being? Cheap, shitty food and sedentary lifestyles centered around sedentary jobs did that.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#268

Post by welebrity » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 10:12 PM UTC

Fascinating article. A truly unique voice and perspective, although after reading all the comments and reviews, maybe their is a groundswell here!? Nonetheless, thanks for opening one brain, and keep on keepin' on!

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#269

Post by michaelochurch » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 10:12 PM UTC

durin42 wrote: post #259

wisty wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 20% time can easily destroy your career. Most managers view it either as a waste of time or a flight risk. So at Google, you're job isn't to make Google more successful, but to make your manager look good.

This statement out of michaelochurch is just silly. Most managers I know consider 20% time to be important to those engineers that desire taking it. That said, not everyone tries, and you can lose your ability to do 20% if you underperform. michaelochurch appears to have had a very strongly negative experience with his time at Google - I'd implore you (and everyone) to not base your assessment of what the company is…

Actually, my reason for spilling on Google is that someone from Google did something unethical after I left and Google refused to investigate (knowing they'd have to fire the person if they did). If Google had done the proper investigation and canned the person, I would never have said a word about them.

I'm pretty much over it by this point, but I still think the terrorists who thought it would be fun to destroy Google from the inside with their imbecilic "calibration scores" need to be named, shamed, and buried. They have attacked what was once a great company, and they are destroying it. I am pointing this out as a public service.

Google is a great place if you have a good manager and an interesting project. If you land on an interesting, relevant project, and your manager supports you in the political processes, it's a great place to work. I've never argued against that, because it's true.

The same is true of 20% time. If your manager believes in 20% time, you have that benefit. If your manager thinks it's a waste of time and will express it by threatening you with a perf smear, then you don't have 20% time.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#270

Post by genwin » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 10:12 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #262

kenko wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Honestly, which bastard came up with at-will employment?" Some bastard, and they are not in short supply, who was not a fan of unions or the strengthened bargaining position that they give employees. See also "right to work" states, where "right to work" means "right to find yourself without work and without recourse".

But at-will employment is actually a separate issue from unionization. At-will employment goes against what most countries and cultures regard as a cornerstone of capitalism itself: clarity and enforcement of contracts. At-will employment: anyone can terminate the employment relationship at any time, unilaterally, for any reason or no reason. The party in the stronger bargaining position can unilaterally demand chang…

> Seriously, why should Americans consider it normal to sign a Nondisclosure Agreement when beginning work for a new company but completely out-of-the-blue to have the employer be legally responsible for granting so simple a "privilege" as a 40 hour work-week without threatening to fire you?

The same reason half of Americans wholeheartedly approve anything else that screws them over. At least it's not so bad here that the employer has at-will capability but the employee must give notice to quit.