441–450 of 543 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google would still be making a ton of money even with a CEO that did nothing. For a $226M compensation, we should be able to demand a bit more don't you think?
> we should be able to demand a bit more Are you a major shareholder?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. The entire tech sector had one of the strongest labor positions in the country for the last decade. It was short sighted not to unionize. Now, layoffs are widespread, compensation is way down, while all the profits go to shareholders. This applies to Google and many other profitable tech companies.
You anti-work guys are again showing your ignorance. A large chunk of techie compensation is in stock.
Do you have an actual argument, or do you just plan on name-calling until people shut up and fall in line?
> A large chunk of techie compensation is in stock.
Oh ok, I guess they can fire Sundar Pichai/Mark Zuckerberg when he underperforms, then? What? They don't own enough stocks to do that?
There you go. That's your problem.
... And getting caught flat-footed against Microsoft (and Adobe, but but not as loudly) in the precise field Alphabet is supposedly the insurmountable leader. Remind me again how big-co CEOs assume "all the risk"?
The upper management at Google are so lucky that the company is filled with timid people who are averse to change and didn't unionize. Now they can safely siphon the profits for another several years until they inevitably drive the company into the ground when the ad revenue dries up, and they move to similar positions at other places with healthy revenue streams. And the rank-and-file Googlers will defend this becau…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The larger the company, the larger the power differential between employer and employee. Power comes with responsibility.
This doesn't answer my question at all. I asked about employees, not companies. What responsibilities should employees have?
Companies however also have some responsibility to not make themselves too dependent on individual employees, to the extent practical. The responsibility for the harm caused to the company by an employee quitting is therefore shared. This is in contrast to a layoff, where the employee usually shares very little responsibility for the harm caused to them by the layoff, because it’s largely out of their control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He’s destroyed googles reputation with developers. He has? How did he do that? Literally, curious, first I've heard of it. > Led Google to third place in cloud computing. You don't need to be number 1 to make a profit. > AND been thrashed by Microsoft / ChatGPT, putting Googles core business at risk. I suspect you think google search is their core business. When it's ads. Also, just because Microsoft is ahead just…
I think you may underestimate how much ads is dependent on search. Google ads is an attractive place to buy ads (as opposed to the n + 1 other web ad exchanges) because of the ability to place ads on Google search through that platform. If search and YouTube weren't dominant in their market, there would be no reason to choose to use Google ads as opposed to a cheaper ad exchange.
There are no real other exchanges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that this is currently the third highest voted comment is just sad. As other sibling commenters have said virtually every sentence here contains ridiculous falsehoods or is just "r/antiwork" levels of nonsense. And it's not that Google doesn't have major problems, a lot of which can be laid at Sundar's feet, or that he's wildly overpaid. It's that these types of reactionary missives just miss the point in ev…
I disagree. The entire tech sector had one of the strongest labor positions in the country for the last decade. It was short sighted not to unionize. Now, layoffs are widespread, compensation is way down, while all the profits go to shareholders. This applies to Google and many other profitable tech companies.
I'm not anti-union generally, and I'm glad to see a revival of unionization where it makes sense, e.g. places like Starbucks and Amazon, where workers are largely treated like interchangeable cogs by management already, and so a union improves employee bargaining power. And I also think it would make sense for certain areas of tech, and certain software companies, to want to unionize.
But this is Google. As others have commented, many software engineers at Google easily make hundreds of thousands annually in stock awards alone. I can't imagine any highly competent software engineer there wanting a union, because it means that their bargaining power is no better than the "average" software dev, which is obviously false.
I think Sundar's compensation is absurd, but I also think layoffs were warranted given the obscene levels of overhiring many of these tech companies did during the pandemic. And when you say "compensation is way down", at big FAANGs that is largely due to the value of stock awards, but many people would rather get compensated in stock to begin with - Google employees especially reaped gargantuan rewards up until 2022 based on stock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Remind me again how big-co CEOs assume "all the risk"? Does anyone seriously believe this? I see it all the time as a "comeback" against CEOs, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone arguing that they actually are the ones that assume all the risk.
Zuckerberg took "full responsibility" in the last round of failures too. Though he isn't injecting his money back into the company. Full responsibility, but not too much.
i.e. a lead surgeon can and should take "full responsibility" for what happens in the OR, but they obviously neither can nor will (and I also don't think should) shoulder "all the risk" for what happens in the OR (or even most of it).