3 ms·

> I don't like their chances either way, management will persist in making management decisions even if they need to fire people to do so I'm not sure this is

by geofft 8y ago

> I don't like their chances either way, management will persist in making management decisions even if they need to fire people to do so I'm not sure this is true - Google's legendarily high salaries and retention incentives are high because management has high demand for good people and specifically for people who have been at the company for a while. They might fire people, yes, but they won't do so casually. They might give in to the protesters out of rational self-interest. So I think the protestors' chances are better with this approach than with politely trying to change management's mind by debate. (I also suspect that there are plenty of other Rubins in management, and rational debate that Google was too nice to Rubin is not ever going to be convincing to other rich abusers.)

roenxi 8y ago
Anything is possible. But there is a world of difference between an employee getting a lot of compensation and an employee who won't work on something the company thinks is important. This could be an existential challenge to the company's owners being in control. The reason employees don't get % share of the profits is literally because they don't control what the company does. If employees seriously can control what the company does, like turning down military projects for moral reasons or circumstances around making hiring/firing decisions, they become something like shareholders and the question becomes why aren't they exposed to the financial implications of their decisions in the same way shareholders are. Ie, why are they being paid a wage if not to have their decisions subsumed by a management structure?
- geofft 8y ago
  Seems like a reasonable question to ask, but one less urgent for the employees (or anyone, really) to resolve than these other policy questions they're interested in. I do agree that Google should operate as a worker's collective instead of as a corporation with shareholders, but I don't think it's a prerequisite for anything. (Also I'm pretty sure literally every employee involved is a shareholder with personal finances exposed to the state of the company. Stock is a serious form of compensation at Google.)
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  > If employees seriously can control what the company does ... they become something like shareholders yes, but, in another sense, as a tech company, Google hires high-powered individuals precisely because they will control what the company does. i mean Google management knows it doesn't have all the answers itself and truly needs such high-powered employees to discover new markets and create technology to successfully exploit those markets and push the company in new directions.

by geofft 8y ago

roenxi 8y ago

Anything is possible. But there is a world of difference between an employee getting a lot of compensation and an employee who won't work on something the company thinks is important. This could be an existential challenge to the company's owners being in control. The reason employees don't get % share of the profits is literally because they don't control what the company does. If employees seriously can control what the company does, like turning down military projects for moral reasons or circumstances around making hiring/firing decisions, they become something like shareholders and the question becomes why aren't they exposed to the financial implications of their decisions in the same way shareholders are. Ie, why are they being paid a wage if not to have their decisions subsumed by a management structure?

geofft 8y ago
Seems like a reasonable question to ask, but one less urgent for the employees (or anyone, really) to resolve than these other policy questions they're interested in. I do agree that Google should operate as a worker's collective instead of as a corporation with shareholders, but I don't think it's a prerequisite for anything. (Also I'm pretty sure literally every employee involved is a shareholder with personal finances exposed to the state of the company. Stock is a serious form of compensation at Google.)
HillaryBriss 8y ago
> If employees seriously can control what the company does ... they become something like shareholders yes, but, in another sense, as a tech company, Google hires high-powered individuals precisely because they will control what the company does. i mean Google management knows it doesn't have all the answers itself and truly needs such high-powered employees to discover new markets and create technology to successfully exploit those markets and push the company in new directions.