4 ms·

Google staff call out treatment of temp workers in 'historic' show of solidarity

22 points by jsty 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
erikpukinskis 8y ago
Tech leaders really seem to love the idea that they have two "castes" of employee: 1) experienced "culture fit" employees who need big salaries and deliver big value. These people build your product. They are "R&D". 2) interchangeable "human robots" who have no skills that a billion other people don't have, who are a "cost center" and their per-hour cost and number should be driven as low as possible, so the company can flex its "unit costs" while still spending $30/week on Kind Bars for their React Programmer. I think it's both bad business and a sick demonstration of Supremacism. But holy crap it's like every tech company thinks this way. Amazon is at least up front with Mechanical Turk that this is not a real job, it's something you do from a third world country if you have the opportunity. But many companies seem to think they should use this concept within their San Francisco office.
- turtlecloud 8y ago
  Is it a surprise when you have an Indian CEO that has first hand experience of the caste system from growing up in India? To him, this would seem “natural” to tier people like this. If not consciously then as an implicit bias.
  - dang 8y ago
    National (or racial, or whatever this is) slurs are not allowed on HN. Please don't post like this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - turtlecloud 8y ago
      Yea dude. I don't think its a slur either. let me rephrase as: 'people who grew up in caste system societies', are more likely to normalize 'caste systems'. I think it is a bit disingenuous for you to censor that and really makes me question the integrity. That is in no way shape or form racist or national. It just so happens that there is one particular country that has a predominant caste system. For you to censor that fact I believe goes against the spirit of this community.
      - dang 8y ago
        The objectionable part is not the factual mention of a caste system. It's the facile generalization you make from it, and then apply to a specific person. The comment somehow managed to combine several kinds of nastiness: racial glibness, psychologizing glibness, internet glibness. You singled out the racial/national background of a CEO who is simply manifesting generic CEOness. Google is obviously no more of a "caste system" than the hierarchies of other corporations. Criticizing "people like this" for implicit bias seems, to me, like implicit bias in its own right. I don't mean to come down so hard on you as that sounds. I don't think there was malicious intent behind your comment—it was just a speculation of the kind many of us might make over beers or whatever with friends. In such a context, such a comment is probably harmless. The problem is, on an internet forum like HN you're broadcasting to an audience of millions. You can't simply import intimate conversation into this context: it doesn't survive the transition, and sometimes it turns out nastier and more harmful than you intended. In this respect the medium is the message and we all have to live with that.

22 points by jsty 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Tech leaders really seem to love the idea that they have two "castes" of employee: 1) experienced "culture fit" employees who need big salaries and deliver big value. These people build your product. They are "R&D". 2) interchangeable "human robots" who have no skills that a billion other people don't have, who are a "cost center" and their per-hour cost and number should be driven as low as possible, so the company can flex its "unit costs" while still spending $30/week on Kind Bars for their React Programmer. I think it's both bad business and a sick demonstration of Supremacism. But holy crap it's like every tech company thinks this way. Amazon is at least up front with Mechanical Turk that this is not a real job, it's something you do from a third world country if you have the opportunity. But many companies seem to think they should use this concept within their San Francisco office.

turtlecloud 8y ago
Is it a surprise when you have an Indian CEO that has first hand experience of the caste system from growing up in India? To him, this would seem “natural” to tier people like this. If not consciously then as an implicit bias.
- dang 8y ago
  National (or racial, or whatever this is) slurs are not allowed on HN. Please don't post like this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - turtlecloud 8y ago
    Yea dude. I don't think its a slur either. let me rephrase as: 'people who grew up in caste system societies', are more likely to normalize 'caste systems'. I think it is a bit disingenuous for you to censor that and really makes me question the integrity. That is in no way shape or form racist or national. It just so happens that there is one particular country that has a predominant caste system. For you to censor that fact I believe goes against the spirit of this community.
    - dang 8y ago
      The objectionable part is not the factual mention of a caste system. It's the facile generalization you make from it, and then apply to a specific person. The comment somehow managed to combine several kinds of nastiness: racial glibness, psychologizing glibness, internet glibness. You singled out the racial/national background of a CEO who is simply manifesting generic CEOness. Google is obviously no more of a "caste system" than the hierarchies of other corporations. Criticizing "people like this" for implicit bias seems, to me, like implicit bias in its own right. I don't mean to come down so hard on you as that sounds. I don't think there was malicious intent behind your comment—it was just a speculation of the kind many of us might make over beers or whatever with friends. In such a context, such a comment is probably harmless. The problem is, on an internet forum like HN you're broadcasting to an audience of millions. You can't simply import intimate conversation into this context: it doesn't survive the transition, and sometimes it turns out nastier and more harmful than you intended. In this respect the medium is the message and we all have to live with that.