11 ms·
Google fires employee who leaked memo on raises
- tszming 16y agoGoogle is going to fire the employee who leaked the firing.
- rdtsc 16y ago... all in a determined effort to increase employee morale.
- d2viant 16y ago"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
- sp332 16y agoSometimes, to raise morale, you just have to fire all the unhappy people.
- pyre 16y agoThat strategy works best when the firings cause previously happy people to become unhappy.
- prodigal_erik 16y agoI never thought of Dwarf Fortress as management training before, though I probably should have. http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Tantrum http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Tantrum
- PakG1 16y agoIt's true. Unhappy people can poison a culture and be a drag on everyone. The big question is whether they're unhappy because they're just unhappy people in general, or if they're unhappy because the company truly sucks.
- loewenskind 16y agoYou probably have to assume the former because if it's the latter you're probably not in a position to do anything about it anyway.
- aubonpanzer 16y agoGoogle is going to fire Google for hiring the employee that leaked the firing of the employee who leaked the raises.
- variety 16y agoI'd love to hire that person.
- sliverstorm 16y agoWe apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked. ... Møøse trained by YUTTE HERMSGERVØRDENBRØTBØRDA Special Møøse Effects OLAF PROT Møøse Costumes SIGGI CHURCHILL
- mmastrac 16y agoIs Google using some subtle permutation on every version of the email sent out? All it would take would be swapping "--" for "...", "ie"/"i.e."/"eg"/"e.g." You should probably compare your local copy of an email with someone else before leaking it!
- olalonde 16y agoI doubt there are 23,300 possible permutations. Moreover, I doubt a Googler wouldn't think of this classic before leaking his e-mail. Any other theory? Perhaps no one was fired and it's just link bait?
- rflrob 16y agoI heard from a Googler before the article came out that the leaker was fired. While one could imagine a second, as-yet unleaked email about the fake firing, isn't it much simpler just to assume that the leaker was fired?
- d2viant 16y agoMost likely somebody just forwarded it to their favorite blog, especially if they didn't think the email was confidential. Pretty easy to track outgoing email.
- jedc 16y agoWith "CONFIDENTIAL: INTERNAL ONLY GOOGLERS ONLY (FULL TIME AND PART TIME EMPLOYEES)" at the top it's hard to believe they might have thought it wasn't confidential.
- alextgordon 16y agoAssuming a worst case of two possibilities for each difference, that comes out as ceil(log_2(23300)) = 15 differences necessary. You could easily get that by swapping out words for synonyms (especially if you use more than two synonyms per difference).
- 16y ago
- ajaimk 16y agoHonestly, I'd fire an employee who leaks a memo out. Not for doing it. But for being stupid enough to get caught.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- variety 16y agoSo your point is that it's ok to leak internal memos or commit other acts of sabotage, as long as you don't get caught?
- ajaimk 16y agoPoint is don't be stupid enough to get caught
- variety 16y agoAlso, the fact that they didn't hide their tracks indicates that they most likely aware completely unaware that they might be causing any harm to the company. A lapse in judgement, maybe -- but if so, the appropriate response would be a private reprimand, not a bullet to the head. Especially considering that no conceivable harm has come to Google as a result of this leaking, and that it's impossible to keep news like this secret in the Valley, anyway.
- ktsmith 16y agoThe memo says: CONFIDENTIAL: INTERNAL ONLY GOOGLERS ONLY (FULL TIME AND PART TIME EMPLOYEES) right at the top. When an employee starts working at google they go to orientation where they get briefed on a lot of things about the company, fill out HR paperwork etc. One of the documents they get and one of the discussions they have is how you don't release confidential information of the companies or its clients. I don't see how it's possible to go through employee orientation and not know that releasing a document that says "INTERNAL ONLY" would be a terminable offense.
- 16y ago
- jpwagner 16y agoSo was there really an ad smack in the middle of the email?
- staktrace 16y agoDidn't they just redo the AdSense interface? Maybe you can bid for ads on internal memos now.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- scott_s 16y agoTelling the world that Googlers are all going to be walking around with $1000 cash in their pockets is a threat to their safety. I think that's a weak argument. First, I doubt Google is literally going to give everyone cash. Second, a 10% pay increase is not a life-changing amount of money.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- tedunangst 16y agoI heard it really was going to be cash. Nothing encourages "go out and have some fun" like real deal pieces of green paper in your wallet. The raise says "we're a good place to work", the cash says "we're a fun place to work".
- catch23 16y agoIt's usually cash. They do it so that you'll actually spend it and be happy instead of just depositing it into your bank. Googler friends of mine say it happens every year a few weeks before christmas. This instance was unusual because the cash was given out so early. A friend of mine also recalls a team who stuffs envelopes full of cash -- it's a lot of work stuffing 10,000 envelopes (this was for the MV offices)
- seldo 16y agoGoogler friends of mine also confirmed it was actual cash. WHICH IS CRAZY. Because it means somewhere on Google's campus right now is 10,000x$1k = $10 million in cash. The great Google Bank Robbery of 2010 is just around the corner.
- loewenskind 16y ago1) You're googler friend is now fired. 2) Sounds worse than a 3rd world country is $1k is such a meaty target. In Europe I often have more than that in my wallet without thinking anything about it.
- joshu 16y agoOr maybe they announced that they dis it just to keep people from doing it in the future. Not like someone is going to stand up and say that they weren't caught (or at least not till they leave their jobs.)
- patrickgzill 16y agoHe probably used his Gmail account ...
- bretthellman 16y agowait a sec... Is it really a 10% raise? "we're moving a portion of your bonus into your base salary"
- gvb 16y agoThe bonus to base salary is an additional change. The 10% raise is discussed in the previous paragraph, and then the bonus change is in the next paragraph, starting with "There's more."
- nspiegelberg 16y agoGood thing Google took a hard stance on data protectionism! Wait, where have I heard about data protectionism again? http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/09/facebook-slaps-google-openness-doesnt-mean-being-open-when-its-convenient/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/09/facebook-slaps-google-openn...
- InclinedPlane 16y agoThose responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked.
- variety 16y agoTalk about carrots on a stick. What underscores the utter ruthlessness of Google's actions is that it's impossible to imagine that the leaker meant any harm at all coming to Google from their what they did. If anything, they were probably nothing if not deeply proud of Google in that moment; and giddily euphoric -- and thought it could only help Google for the world at large to know of its generosity to its employees. Had they only known.
- kragen 16y agoLook at the constant media beating Google takes over the leaked, internal "don't be evil" slogan.
- tedunangst 16y agoIt's hard to imagine what harm would be caused by waiting a day to leak the memo, except for the missed opportunity for the leaker to be the hero. The timing would indicate the leaker's motive was not "hey, our PR department keeps sitting on this awesome news."
- aneth 16y agoIf they didn't take action, then "CONFIDENTIAL: INTERNAL ONLY GOOGLERS ONLY (FULL TIME AND PART TIME EMPLOYEES)" would turn into a joke. Now people might listen - or at least leak more carefully.
- michaelhart 16y agoWhich leads me to think that this just may be a setting stone to future, more important memos. No sense in scaring them unless they wanted to secure the channel for something else.
- hartror 16y agoWhen is ensuring employee confidentiality not good general business practice?
- michaelhart 16y agoLarge companies have often used internal memos on purpose for leaking information. On some level, they want the information to be leaked (companies with thousands of staff makes it nearly impossible for it not to be).
- mkarmac 16y agoA somewhat classier, less-heavy-handed approach would have been to simply not give that employee a raise.
- throwaway1675 16y agoI work at Google, and I am really happy that someone got punished for leaking this memo. A firing like this increases accountability and shows that loyalty and keeping confidentiality mean something. When it is done fairly and with cause, firing an employee can make a huge positive difference in an organization. The best situation is where a problem employee who was lowering the morale of others is fired.
- seldo 16y agoWow, that just seems kind of mean. Obviously the notice at the top says otherwise, but there's really nothing very sensitive in this memo and it was so broadly distributed there's no way it wouldn't have found its way out eventually. Why, personally, is your morale lowered by knowing people leak stuff? I just don't see get it.
- nostrademons 16y agoImagine the following hypothetical situations: You come from a working-class family, but through long years of studying hard, you get a job at Google. Your extended family all have blue-collar or service jobs. Your cousin gets laid off, and then reads in the paper that you just got a 10% raise, plus $1000 holiday bonus, plus a portion of your bonus pay up-front. Awkward Thanksgiving ensues. You have a long-time sibling rivalry with your brother, including a game of one-upmanship that extends back to grade school. Finally, you got tired of it, and after his latest raise, you just stopped telling him your salary. Now he hears on CNN that you just got a 10% raise, which leads to much whining about how come you're making more money than him. Awkward Thanksgiving ensues. He goes to his boss and asks for a raise because Google gave one, and his boss replies that he's not worth it, which results in him quitting his job with no plans for what to do next. Awkward Christmas ensues. Your mom calls you because she just heard on the radio that you got a 10% raise and $1000 bonus, and you didn't tell her, and why do you never talk to her anymore? Awkward...oh hell, if your mother is that neurotic, Thanksgiving would probably be awkward anyway. You go out for drinks with your friends from other companies, but since you are now apparently rolling in dough, the expectation is that you're buying. These people probably aren't the type that you'd invite to Thanksgiving anyway. You've been trying to teach your kid about the importance of managing money prudently, and so have restricted their allowance. They come home from school saying, "My friend told me that her daddy said that he heard on the radio that you just got a raise, but you said that you didn't have money to give me a raise. I hate you forever." Sullen, miserable Thanksgiving ensues. The point isn't that any one person was financially harmed by the leak: it's that by leaking, the leaker has robbed his coworkers of the ability to control to whom and when they break the news. There's no way that the leaker could possibly know the personal circumstances of 30,000 Google employees. Many of them may have very valid reasons for not having details of their compensation plastered across the evening news. When and how they reveal that should be for them to decide, not for one person to decide.
- kragen 16y agoSilicon Valley owes much of its existence to people sharing information between companies: at the Homebrew Computer Club, at Hackers, at First Tuesdays, at user groups, on tours, at parties, in lectures. Some of that sharing was officially sanctioned, and some of it was not. It's a special part of its culture, and I think accounts for much of its innovation. Apple has always been an exception. Google grew up in the shadow of much bigger, better-funded competitors: Microsoft, then later Yahoo. I speculate, without having asked anybody, that this accounts for the culture of fanatical secrecy, outstripping even that of Apple, that has enveloped the company since its early days, and which I think now is a permanent part of Google's culture, even though the bigger, better-funded competitors are now the underdogs, unable to execute. This firing is a symptom of that tradition of secrecy. I fear that the next half-century of the Valley will be poisoned by this, because Google is today's Fairchild, Mountain View's Microsoft. Every new startup will be backed by Googlers or Xooglers, founded by Xooglers, or at least advised by [GX]ooglers. So this poisonous culture of secrecy, which kills innovation, will fill the Valley like a vile miasma, along with the many wonderful things that come from Google experience.
- gregable 16y agoThis may all be true, but the particular example we are discussing does not support your point. I don't see how whether or not another company knows who received raises has an rats ass to do with innovation.
- jonhendry 16y agoSilicon Valley also owes much of its existence to the defense industry.
- krishna2 16y agoHmm..If only Yahoo had followed (or would follow) such a procedure! [there used to be confidential VP-only meetings and information and that would also somehow end up on blogs..imagine that].
- mfukar 16y agoSo, to summarize: Google managed to appear more intimidating to any and all its competitors (by giving everyone a 10% raise) and fuck up its public image, all in two days. Zuckerberg must be laughing his ass off right now.
- adambyrtek 16y agoI don't see how it could possibly affect the public image in a negative way. Google, like any other company who shares a lot of information internally, is very serious about confidentiality. A guy who deliberately leaked a memo clearly marked as "internal only" deserves to be fired, period.
- blueben 16y agoYou think Facebook wouldn't fire an employee who leaked confidential internal company information?
- mfukar 16y agoNo, but it's irrelevant anyway. Google should've fired the guy (gal?) anyway, but it's publicized as well. That, in anybody's eyes, shows a greater lack of professionalism and company adherence to confidentiality than leaking a (positive!) memo.
- JoachimSchipper 16y agoDoes anyone know if the leaker got paid for revealing this memo? If so, I have little sympathy...
- seldo 16y agoI just don't understand why they would care that this information leaked. It's not like they could possibly keep it a secret that every single Googler got a 10% raise at the same time.
- robryan 16y agoSets a bad precedent, that it's okay just to forward any confidential memos on.
- known 16y agoDo no evil.
- johnyzee 16y agoWay to destroy the goodwill you just spent millions of dollars on.