5 ms·

I love how the headline is "Google Employees" instead of "35 Google Employees." I guess the latter would make it too obvious that this is just Techcrunch pushin

I love how the headline is "Google Employees" instead of "35 Google Employees." I guess the latter would make it too obvious that this is just Techcrunch pushing an agenda.

detcader 8y ago
Every journalist has an agenda... remember NY Times' "enhanced interrogation"?
- tareqak 8y ago
  Let’s be honest and ask, “Who doesn’t have an agenda?”
  - munk-a 8y ago
    > “Who doesn’t have an agenda?” People who are lying. And journalists having an agenda isn't a bad thing, they just need to stop listening to modern journalist "fair and balanced" lessons from college. When ever you're writing an article make it clear what your general opinion on the subject is so that people can incorporate it into their understanding of your statements. I'd much rather just have transparency of opinion than today's "fair and balanced". Today's news is (generally) written to avoid authors expressing their opinion openly, but sources and statistics will be cherry picked to reinforce their opinion. If that opinion was openly stated it'd be easier to confirm whether the statistics are reasonable neutral or misleading.
    - tareqak 8y ago
      I totally agree. I actually find the "X has an agenda argument" misleading at best in that person stating it is implying that they don't have their own, or that their own agenda is beyond reproach.
  - ddingus 8y ago
    As long as that agenda is known, it can be factired into process to arrive at more equitable outcomes. Not talking honestly about agendas actually does everyone a lot of harm.
    - tareqak 8y ago
      I’m not entirely convinced that you’d actually get more equitable outcomes, but I would definitely appreciate the transparency. I can’t help but think that some people would just stop reading altogether if they saw that article stated their agenda of X, but the reader held their own of Y.
sdenton4 8y ago
It's also a mischaracterization to imply that only 35 googlers care about this. Removing arbitration for sexual harassment was one of the core demands that 20k Googlers walked out for last month. So the number of supporters is somewhere between 35 and 20k...
- jMyles 8y ago
  > So the number of supporters is somewhere between 35 and 20k... This is actually a pretty good summary of micro-political science in a nutshell.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  > So the number of supporters is somewhere between 35 and 20k... With 95% confidence.
- walshemj 8y ago
  And getting 20k to walk out on a wildcat would be considered a stunning success by any M&P (managerial and professional) union.
- walshemj 8y ago
  And not all supporters will have walked out so the actual support will be higher.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  It's probably well higher than 20k, considering that that's only ~20% of the company. You'd need to do a representative poll to find the real number, which I suspect is well above 50%.
rmason 8y ago
Actually I think it takes guts for even 35 employees to stand up like that at I'd assume a considerable risk to their careers.
- the_af 8y ago
  Who was that guy?
- make3 8y ago
  you mean the blatantly sexist guy
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Not even remotely comparable situations. That guy went to great lengths to create a hostile workplace environment for a great number of his co-workers, and just doubled-down on his idiocy when asked (politely) to stop. He wasn't fired immediately--he was given a chance to take down his manifesto and chose not to. This group, today? They're just asking for their employer not to engage in unethical legal practices.
  - ArchTypical 8y ago
    > doubled-down on his idiocy Ironic, given the topic of seeking the afforded freedoms...even if it's idiotic. > Not even remotely comparable situations. Pretty close, especially since what you have successfully done. I mean it's not the end of the career for anyone Google fires, so that's hyperbole, granted. It's comparable because you baked it down to a phrase in both cases, which describes behavior that runs contrary to Google's interests (in one way or another).

I love how the headline is "Google Employees" instead of "35 Google Employees." I guess the latter would make it too obvious that this is just Techcrunch pushing an agenda.

detcader 8y ago

Every journalist has an agenda... remember NY Times' "enhanced interrogation"?

tareqak 8y ago
Let’s be honest and ask, “Who doesn’t have an agenda?”
- munk-a 8y ago
  > “Who doesn’t have an agenda?” People who are lying. And journalists having an agenda isn't a bad thing, they just need to stop listening to modern journalist "fair and balanced" lessons from college. When ever you're writing an article make it clear what your general opinion on the subject is so that people can incorporate it into their understanding of your statements. I'd much rather just have transparency of opinion than today's "fair and balanced". Today's news is (generally) written to avoid authors expressing their opinion openly, but sources and statistics will be cherry picked to reinforce their opinion. If that opinion was openly stated it'd be easier to confirm whether the statistics are reasonable neutral or misleading.
  - tareqak 8y ago
    I totally agree. I actually find the "X has an agenda argument" misleading at best in that person stating it is implying that they don't have their own, or that their own agenda is beyond reproach.
- ddingus 8y ago
  As long as that agenda is known, it can be factired into process to arrive at more equitable outcomes. Not talking honestly about agendas actually does everyone a lot of harm.
  - tareqak 8y ago
    I’m not entirely convinced that you’d actually get more equitable outcomes, but I would definitely appreciate the transparency. I can’t help but think that some people would just stop reading altogether if they saw that article stated their agenda of X, but the reader held their own of Y.

sdenton4 8y ago

It's also a mischaracterization to imply that only 35 googlers care about this. Removing arbitration for sexual harassment was one of the core demands that 20k Googlers walked out for last month. So the number of supporters is somewhere between 35 and 20k...

jMyles 8y ago
> So the number of supporters is somewhere between 35 and 20k... This is actually a pretty good summary of micro-political science in a nutshell.
mywittyname 8y ago
> So the number of supporters is somewhere between 35 and 20k... With 95% confidence.
walshemj 8y ago
And getting 20k to walk out on a wildcat would be considered a stunning success by any M&P (managerial and professional) union.
walshemj 8y ago
And not all supporters will have walked out so the actual support will be higher.
CydeWeys 8y ago
It's probably well higher than 20k, considering that that's only ~20% of the company. You'd need to do a representative poll to find the real number, which I suspect is well above 50%.

rmason 8y ago

Actually I think it takes guts for even 35 employees to stand up like that at I'd assume a considerable risk to their careers.

the_af 8y ago
Who was that guy?
make3 8y ago
you mean the blatantly sexist guy
gamblor956 8y ago
Not even remotely comparable situations. That guy went to great lengths to create a hostile workplace environment for a great number of his co-workers, and just doubled-down on his idiocy when asked (politely) to stop. He wasn't fired immediately--he was given a chance to take down his manifesto and chose not to. This group, today? They're just asking for their employer not to engage in unethical legal practices.
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  > doubled-down on his idiocy Ironic, given the topic of seeking the afforded freedoms...even if it's idiotic. > Not even remotely comparable situations. Pretty close, especially since what you have successfully done. I mean it's not the end of the career for anyone Google fires, so that's hyperbole, granted. It's comparable because you baked it down to a phrase in both cases, which describes behavior that runs contrary to Google's interests (in one way or another).