31–40 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like a good reason not to work somewhere. I'm curious; why do you feel that way?
I worked somewhere with free coke and kit kats. Turns out, I've got willpower when in the supermarket, but not when there's a fridge in the office. I could just about limit myself to 1 of each a day, but even that was too much.
> 8. Free snacks and drinks This seems like a good reason not to work somewhere.
> This means we base employment decisions exclusively on our current business needs and the given merit of a candidate. We encourage excellence at all levels in our organization, and are not influenced by race, color, gender, sexual orientation, age, handicap, religion, or any other factor irrelevant to doing a great job. Not anymore eh?
What do you mean?
The original comment was also probably a reference to the "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" memo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A workplace that offers free snacks, drinks, ping-pong tables and relaxation pods is set up to maximize your time spent in the office and encourages a culture that excludes people who value their time off work, for example because they have a family.
I've worked at plenty of places with free snacks/drinks (some even considered enterprise), but never a place that had ping pong tables or relaxation pods, so casually introducing those to the argument is a tough sell and changes the context enough so that I don't think the rest of your point still stands. What are your thoughts on a more fitting comparison, such as snacks/drinks provided vs. BYO/vending machine/go to…
I never buy anything at the automated machines at my workplace, but when my colleagues bring some food for others to share, I always take some, for instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google were not "evil" for a long time after this. They really were a force for good in the world for a long time. I have never admired a large company so much as I did the Google of the early 2000s. Youthful, gifted, moral, crazily ambitious, constantly doing things I thought impossible… The "evil" only really crept in once they started to take over all of the world's advertising.
So they were “not evil” as long as they were being funded by investors and didn’t have a self sustaining business plan...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2nd requirement: BS or MS in Computer Science or equivalent (Ph.D. a plus) So, sure, they were fine with hobby experience. But only if backed by solid CS chops.
I am quite sure Google has always picked fellas without college degrees, provided they proved solid hobby based achievements.
Not just men! Men, Women, and everything in between.
> This means we base employment decisions exclusively on our current business needs and the given merit of a candidate. We encourage excellence at all levels in our organization, and are not influenced by race, color, gender, sexual orientation, age, handicap, religion, or any other factor irrelevant to doing a great job. Not anymore eh?
Edited to add: In 1998 I probably would have read this and cheered it as a place where diversity was recognised and welcomed; in 2018 I read it as "we don't feel we have to do anything about our unconscious biases, which we're satisfied with"
Back when Google was really cool! Who got hired into some of these positions?
Somewhere somehow things took a different turn...
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+salary+discrimination
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+race+discrimination
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+age+discrimination
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+religion+discriminati...