451–460 of 888 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even when a company places values over profits, it is still in an attempt to maximize profits over the long term. This might sound weird but some people (and companies) don't subscribe to the notion that money is the only thing that matters.
Shareholders do.
ahem... DUH!
Look, I am a huge Google critic, you can view my past posts, but a lot of what employees are complaining about seems pretty laughable, unattainable and shows a lack of maturity. In my estimation, Google's power struggle between making money and its employees creeping political stances is and has been unsustainable. I think censoring results in China is one thing, but there are so many other cultural problems at Google that honestly just don't belong in a corporate environment. Google has long been seen as a playhouse, and has let employees be too dramatic and vocal about politics as well. In a normal company, it is -not- normal to have a sit down after an election to baby sit staff members, and offer grief counseling.
So while, yes Google certainly has some problems with "values," I think there are two problems, not just one. It's not so much that leadership has moved to drive profits no matter the cost (Google has long done that!) it's that while that is still happening there has been a shift in the company's politics. Again, I'm not talking about the Chinese censorship itself, I want Google/Microsoft/Facebook etc to not empower Xi. But it's all the other stuff going on that just seem so counter productive, not only to culture but to profits.
I think, what these employees don't realize is: Even when a company places values over profits, it is still in an attempt to maximize profits over the long term. By placing values above profits, it increases it's goodwill with customers thus increasing it's moat and it's retention, as well as it's employee retention. This strategy made sense in the early days. Not anymore. As Google's position becomes increasingly st…
What are some potential solutions here? Some form of intervention by the US government? I think many of us will agree that the sort of behavior these employees are speaking out against is at least unethical, and it also seems this "profits-over-values" behavior is a common one for large tech companies to gradually start engaging in. To your point, corporations in all sectors always do what makes the most economic sen…
I think, what these employees don't realize is: Even when a company places values over profits, it is still in an attempt to maximize profits over the long term. By placing values above profits, it increases it's goodwill with customers thus increasing it's moat and it's retention, as well as it's employee retention. This strategy made sense in the early days. Not anymore. As Google's position becomes increasingly st…
There's something you've overlooked: companies are ultimately run by humans. Humans who make decisions at all levels of the hierarchy, in order to further their own personal priorities, even if it dramatically conflicts with the shareholders' goals of maximizing profits. In some cases, the personal priorities can be personal advancement. We see this all the time when managers hire/promote their friends, sexually hara…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Besides who are we to decide for the Chinese what is best for them? You do realize that the "people" do not have a voice in China right? It is not a democracy...
The Chinese appear to think, collectively, that authoritarianism is better than democracy. They could revolt. The Chinese military is under funded with failing equipment, though they are trying to improve in areas. The sheer size of their military makes it difficult to have common weapons and gear available. 100 million citizens throwing themselves against that machine, would wear it down quickly. They don't do this.…
Democracy is no more a native idea for western culture; 250 years ago every state was a monarchy, and political ideologies based in hierarchy still regularly win elections.
And if the employees placed thier values over profits, why are they still there? I wonder if they are going to refuse their stock based compensation?
There is probably more than one kind of profit. I think that if you've got a mortgage on a SV condo or house, and made plans for your financial life based on your income without knowing what the company you work for was or would be up to, you may be in a pretty good position to say that it's okay for you to accept a salary as you protest the action or actions of the company. Not to mention, strikes or other means of civil (commercial) disobedience might have more of an impact than simply leaving. By placing the onus on Google to fire you, you have PR and legal leverage (wrongful termination, if your moves are careful (IANAL)) to change the situation, whereas if you leave, you just go quietly into that good night, and the situation is guaranteed to continue. Complicity isn't always a black and white matter.
> I wonder if they are going to refuse their stock based compensation?
Stock-based compensation, I imagine, is on a vesting schedule. The same discussion as above applies, except that some of that compensation represents value that may be notionally "clean," having been earned outside the scope of the bad acts, either temporally or organizationally. It also represents earned compensation. Finally, its refusal would only serve to enrich Google, the ostensible bad actor in this instance.
However, what sickens me most about the OP's drive-by rhetoric is its reflexive turn toward reactionary complacency. It seems to say that those without sin only are allowed to cast the first stone, but really universalizes something like original sin to justify complete complacency. Further, it ignores the power imbalance between employer and employee, and minimizes the bravery of those who are speaking and acting out against injustice. It's despicable.
"Many of us accepted employment at Google with the company’s values in mind, including its previous position on Chinese censorship and surveillance, and an understanding that Google was a company willing to place its values above its profits." When has it ever put values above profits? Google is selling our data to everyone. What values?
Just like Facebook, Google is NOT selling anyone’s data! What they are selling is the ability to run targeted ads based on that data. But the data never leaves Google!
I think, what these employees don't realize is: Even when a company places values over profits, it is still in an attempt to maximize profits over the long term. By placing values above profits, it increases it's goodwill with customers thus increasing it's moat and it's retention, as well as it's employee retention. This strategy made sense in the early days. Not anymore. As Google's position becomes increasingly st…
Even when a company places values over profits, it is still in an attempt to maximize profits over the long term. This might sound weird but some people (and companies) don't subscribe to the notion that money is the only thing that matters.
It's not to say that the employees don't have some power. Shareholders may play along with their request while figuring out how to maximize the profits and avoid such road bumps as this in the future.
So in the end you have to weigh the wants/needs of the employees and how much money might be lost or gained if you go along with their demands vs how much money can be made or lost if you ignore them.
I could see a argument that upsetting your employees could lead to a value drop that might be greater than whatever contract they are protesting. But it is hard to judge, and it will often only be looked at quarter to quarter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh, that's an excellent point. When a company is so big and entrenched it doesn't need to seem like the nice guy anymore. Perhaps similarly to anti-monopoly laws we should also have size caps on companies.
> we should also have size caps on companies As a thought experiment, I've often wondered the best way to maintain the positive corporate culture that small companies tend to lose as they grow. It's not clear it's simply growth, or whether it's profits. I wonder if a non-charity oriented non-profit would maintain a better corporate culture.