Ex-Google recruiter: I was fired because I resisted “illegal” diversity efforts

Post by xxcode » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 5:53 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #304

jknoepfler wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people should take ownership of the consequences of their actions, especially when those actions are part of their professional identity and are reasonably within their control. Google is by almost no account a "stressful" working environment in the sense that its employees are well paid even within the context of a wealthy developed nation, have the freedom to leave, have ample access to health care, sick days, and…

"people should take ownership of the consequences of their actions, especially when those actions are part of their professional identity and are reasonably within their control." That's a normative statement, which I personally agree with, along with the rest of your post, so this is by no means disagreement with anything you said. But it's really easy for people to rationalize away normative statements. I prefer so…

Post by xxcode » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 6:06 PM UTC

memo_ree wrote: post #236

Slansitartop wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I'm not so surprised. A lot of stuff about employment Google reads like hagiographies. Maybe it was that way in the distant past, but its most notable perks (20% time, etc.) have been cut and it's big and publicly traded now, so rot has definitely had time to set in.

20% projects have been cut? I wish someone told me that before I started a 20% project which spanned multiple quarters, and still did well in my last performance review. If an engineer isn't doing well on their 80% project, a 20% project might be frowned upon, that is true.

Post by jerf » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 10:37 PM UTC

xxcode wrote: post #451

jerf wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"people should take ownership of the consequences of their actions, especially when those actions are part of their professional identity and are reasonably within their control." That's a normative statement, which I personally agree with, along with the rest of your post, so this is by no means disagreement with anything you said. But it's really easy for people to rationalize away normative statements. I prefer so…

Agreed and I did. I quit Google this Friday.

Post by jerf » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 10:46 PM UTC

JustAnotherPat wrote: post #406

jerf wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The MLK quote is such a red herring. It's a nice statement, but what one guy said 50 years ago doesn't define a culture or society." You misunderstand my point entirely. I am not "advocating" for that position today. Nor am I not advocating for it. I am staying neutral on the "ought" in this series of posts. I am saying that when I was 10, that was the "left-wing" position. Many people still think it is, because the…

Race-blindness was never the left-wing position, unless your definition of left wing is maybe the feel-good commentary of prominent elected moderate Democrats, who had to appeal to the majority rural white populists. I don't think many or any prominent minority civil rights leaders led on any sort of color blindness platform. In fact, the 70's and 80's were all about embracing blackness. If i were prickly, i'd be mak…

Post by astrange » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 11:58 PM UTC

eloisant wrote: post #291

dmihal wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free food & other perks will keep their "cool" image going for a while. But it's certainly dipping.

They were the first to do it in the 2000's, but now isn't every SV company doing that already?