Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#761

Post by username90 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #698
JamesBarney wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is "Did Google verifiably lie?" I'm not trying to prove she "voluntarily quit" vs was "discharged" via California law. I'm arguing that Google used resigned in a way that wasn't a lie, and referencing California law to show how it uses the word resignation, and is therefore a reasonable use of the word. Did Google use the word resigned in a reasonable way? 1. Gebru submitted a conditional resignation, an…

California law says conditional resignations count when the conditions are met. Gebru proposed discussing a resignation date after she was back from vacation.[1] Those conditions were not met. California law allows the employer to accelerate the last day of work. Not the effective date of resignation. Gebru advised coworkers to stop writing documents about DEI initiatives. Not to stop work. [1] https://twitter.com/ti…

Is it illegal to say they resigned when you fired them? It makes sense to say that they resigned when you accelerated their termination after they said they want to quit, even if you still legally treat it as a normal firing. Pretty sure Google still filed the paperwork's correctly so she got her unemployment benefits, and if they didn't then I trust their lawyers view on it much better than yours.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#762

Post by username90 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #696
JamesBarney wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get back to basics, the definition of resign is "voluntarily leave a job or other position." It doesn't mentioning leaving at the exact date and time you choose. She didn't want to work @ Google anymore, and she told them she didn't and she'd find a good time to leave with her boss. Google responded with "now is the best time to leave".

It isn't voluntary if the date and time is chosen for you. California allows the employer to choose the last day of work. Not the effective date of resignation. "An involuntary leaving of work occurs when the employer is the moving party in causing the unemployment of an employee at a time when the employee is able and willing to continue working."[1] Gebru said she would respond after she was back from vacation.[2]…

The legal definition doesn't matter. She resigned. Google almost surely reported it as a firing so she got her unemployment etc, but in practice they just accelerated her resignation.

Easy to understand example: You say you will quit in 2 weeks. The company fires you on the spot. If people ask the company what happens do you think it is more accurate for them to say you were fired? Would you prefer a company to say you were fired if that happened to you and you used them as a reference?

Pretty sure almost everyone would see that as you quitting and not you being fired. Legally you were fired but in practice you quit.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#763

Post by Aunche »

logicchains wrote: post #574
cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google, by virtue of its sheer influence in the industry, is primarily responsible for the activist-driven grief that has shat itself all over the tech industry in recent years. So fuck them. Watching the toxic crops they've planted and tended to go for their own creator's throats is nothing short of delightful.

"Go woke, go broke"

All the world's trillion-dollar companies have gone woke, so I'd wager it's quite profitable. It may not seem like it to you because you're not the intended audience.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#764

Post by pseudalopex »

username90 wrote: post #761
pseudalopex wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California law says conditional resignations count when the conditions are met. Gebru proposed discussing a resignation date after she was back from vacation.[1] Those conditions were not met. California law allows the employer to accelerate the last day of work. Not the effective date of resignation. Gebru advised coworkers to stop writing documents about DEI initiatives. Not to stop work. [1] https://twitter.com/ti…

Is it illegal to say they resigned when you fired them? It makes sense to say that they resigned when you accelerated their termination after they said they want to quit, even if you still legally treat it as a normal firing. Pretty sure Google still filed the paperwork's correctly so she got her unemployment benefits, and if they didn't then I trust their lawyers view on it much better than yours.

I don't know if it's illegal. And I don't think it matters. What matters to me it casts doubt on everything else Google claimed. And it's petty.

They didn't just say she resigned. They said they accepted her resignation. You can't accept what wasn't offered.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#765

Post by pseudalopex »

username90 wrote: post #762
pseudalopex wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't voluntary if the date and time is chosen for you. California allows the employer to choose the last day of work. Not the effective date of resignation. "An involuntary leaving of work occurs when the employer is the moving party in causing the unemployment of an employee at a time when the employee is able and willing to continue working."[1] Gebru said she would respond after she was back from vacation.[2]…

The legal definition doesn't matter. She resigned. Google almost surely reported it as a firing so she got her unemployment etc, but in practice they just accelerated her resignation. Easy to understand example: You say you will quit in 2 weeks. The company fires you on the spot. If people ask the company what happens do you think it is more accurate for them to say you were fired? Would you prefer a company to say y…

The factual definition is the same as the legal definition.

I would say they fired me after I gave notice. Saying I resigned would be inaccurate. What I would want them to say doesn't matter. Gebru wanted them to say they fired her. And she didn't give notice.

I would say I resigned before they could fire me if it was the other way around. Or resigned under duress if that's what happened. I know people who did. None of them said they were fired.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#766

Post by pas »

dbbk wrote: post #620
Aunche wrote: post #417

"Firing @timnitGebru created a domino effect of trauma for me and the rest of the team, and I believe we are being increasingly punished for that trauma." Wow. These activists are truly living in an alternate reality.

Your colleague leaving their job is not a traumatic experience, I'm sorry

I think the trauma comes from the percieved unjustness of the firing. (Which is understandable, but it seems - based on the linked r/ML thread and comments - they have a rather warped sense of victimhood.)

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#767

Post by jahewson »

choppaface wrote: post #172
sillysaurusx wrote: post #94

It's pretty important to get this story straight: She moved files when she wasn't supposed to. This seems like a pretty standard firing. People are already claiming on twitter that Google is assaulting ethical AI, and I just don't see it. Google did not immediately comment on those claims. Its statement said of Mitchell: “We confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our secur…

It's pretty important to get it straight: what files did she move and why? So far it appears she did NOT do an Anthony Levandowski and steal IP. In particular Google has said zero about the actual dollar value of those files, or cited any damages from the movement of the files. It appears much more likely she was talking to a lawyer, which is a perfectly legal thing to do, and probably pretty wise given Google's maxi…

Just so everyone knows, in CA your assertions are false. CA courts have ruled that if a company protects documents or email systems then they earn the status of a trade secret. Theft of trade secrets is a felony criminal offence in CA. Do I think the CA AG is going to charge her? Unlikely. But there’s no need to demonstrate damages here like in a civil suit.

Illegally exfiltrating documents to your lawyer is also, illegal. Such documents would not be admissible in court and should be obtained through the usual lawful channels of legal discovery.

In short, don’t do this. It’s theft.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#768

Post by bradlys »

gassius wrote: post #616
bradlys wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money isn’t usually enough. I walked away from a job paying more than $1m/yr (to be clear - I am not rich or financially independent, the stock is still illiquid atm and I live in a 400sqft in-law unit). You need satisfaction overall with your environment. I kept asking myself how much a year of my life was worth and it turns out - unless it’s fucking insane money ($10mil+ liquid) then I can’t suffer through somethin…

Unless we are talking about a job with inherently long term health risk and/or ilegal activity with prosecution risk I would be willing to put up a year or two in order to secure a life long financial independence. 2M USD is enough to confortable spend the rest of your life doing what you really want to do. But hey, maybe is me

Depends on where you want to live and the lifestyle you want. Personally for me, it’s not enough. I’d need $10mil+ to retire. Even then, I don’t want to retire. I’d prefer to keep learning and growing. I have goals of eventually running a large organization or doing my own startup.

Also, again, you’re literally trading years of your life away.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#769

Post by rmk »

xiaolingxiao wrote: post #439
rmk wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard that academic departments literally bend over backwards to cultivate women as professors and extend every possible advantage to them in order to promote them. This is from a classmate who did her PhD and is now a tenure-track professor at a prominent school. I know for a fact that she was also the recipients of various scholarships, grants etc. while she was in school, many of which she attributed to bei…

Yeha I’ve noticed structural programs that help women, especially at the undergrad level. And the grad level (where people mentioned operated) it’s highly advisor/manager dependent. At the academy, each PI run their own independent fiefdom so some can be very abusive across the board. This is where being a minority makes it worse because it’s more difficult to form commodory with those around you. These are all first…

Having been through grad school I can assure you it’s tough no matter your gender. In fact, women stand a higher chance of getting more financial assistance for their studies because of the structural support for women that continues at the graduate level. Also, in my experience, men tended to have much more conflicts with their advisors and left the graduate program in larger numbers than women (perhaps even proportionally, men walked out more). Ironically, my women colleagues in grad school complained much more about interpersonal conflict with their female professors and research group members than the men. On the personal front, it seems to me that it’s neither here nor there: it’s so subjective that it’s practically impossible to see any pattern whatsoever.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#770

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pseudalopex wrote: post #702
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> legal way to handle that is for Dr. Gebru to sue Google and get the emails through discovery The not-quite-legal but defensible way might also involve openly forwarding those emails to her lawyer. Sending them anywhere else removes the shadow of doubt one needs when strategically but willfully violating a contract.

It's quite legal in some jurisdictions. Multiple external accounts could mean her lawyer's account and her own. Or 2 accounts at her lawyer's firm. So we don't know if she sent them anywhere else.

> It's quite legal in some jurisdictions

In addition: legal and protected from termination are distinct.

Post reply on HN