8 ms·

It's a another version of the argument "If you don't like our country behaving the way I think it should behave, you should leave the country". Absolutely some

by ska 8y ago

It's a another version of the argument "If you don't like our country behaving the way I think it should behave, you should leave the country". Absolutely sometimes the best thing for an individual to do is take their marbles and go home. But equally, sometimes the best thing to do is put your shoulder to pushing the wheels in [what you perceive as] a better direction. Companies (and countries) after all are not stand-alone entities; they are an expression of their constituent parts. Some of this is history/momentum, but a lot of it is just people. [edit] of course I think the bar for "when should I leave my company" is an awful lot lower than "when should I leave my country".

alistairSH 8y ago
I'm not sure I agree. At least not completely. A person is within their rights to try and change the company from within before leaving. But, that will likely come with personal costs (right or wrong). If those costs get to be too high, the correct action might be to leave. At a company, the impact of leaving could be much higher than the impact of moving to a different country on politics... Google very much relies on "smart people" to earn money. If enough leave in protest, Google will eventually suffer. It would take a LOT of people leaving the US for there to be any noticeable impact.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Google will suffer a lot more if it continually takes big PR hits over crap like this.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    I don’t see people stop using Gmail, Maps, and Search over little PR problems only a small minority care about.
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      I don't see them doing so over a small amount of "smart people quitting" either.
    - cloakandswagger 8y ago
      Because those products are unrelated to AI. Big players will not (and are not) touching GCP's AI solutions for this exact reason: it's only a matter of time before the virtue signalers are no longer content with policing the decisions of their own company and start targeting customer workloads.
  - strictnein 8y ago
    No one outside of the HN crowd and a couple of bubbles on twitter has heard a single thing about this, or cares in the slightest. There was no PR hit.
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      We are talking about the realm of "Google being a place people want to work" Demonstrating that management takes petty actions like this is far more convincing than people silently quitting.
      - DuskStar 8y ago
        I'd be more willing to work for Google if they had a history of not caving in to lynch mobs and punishing the leaders, instead of the other way around.
        kelnos 8y ago
        I'm confused. Are you likening people who are upset about mishandled sexual misconduct allegations to lynch mobs?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        TKWasRight 8y ago
        I currently work for Google and share your sentiment. There is a small minority of employee activists that really drag the place down and their voices are unfortunately the ones that seem to get amplified. I don't get how they aren't put on PIPs or told to hit the road.
        dekhn 8y ago
        I'd like to say, clearly: I worked at Google and really felt uncomfortable with how a small fraction of the employees dominated the inner communication channels and pretended like everybody agreed with them. Many of us were afraid to speak up after a number of incidents due to the climate. However, over team it really became clear that a small number of people were repeatedly dominating the discourse in an unreasonable way. I don't think the management is just gonna toss the protestors on PIPs without strong evidence they aren't getting their daily jobs done.
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    Yeah, I bet they suffer as much as Equifax did for leaking 100M American adults’ credit information, or Facebook has suffered for literally experimenting with human subjects by manipulating the home feed to see if users’ mood was influenced. I could go on. There’s only one meaningful punishment a corporation can suffer, and it’s by design: the death penalty.
- njepa 8y ago
  > A person is within their rights to try and change the company from within before leaving. But, that will likely come with personal costs (right or wrong). It is generally the opposite. You usually don't have any right to influence, or even sometimes speak about, the company. The right you do have is to suspend your work and go on strike. Companies are free to negotiate collective agreements that prevent worker to go on strike and instead have them complain to their representatives. Google have opted for another model where there is no agreement. As such it is up to Google to win the trust of their employees. > If those costs get to be too high, the correct action might be to leave. At a company, the impact of leaving could be much higher than the impact of moving to a different country on politics... Impact isn't the same as change. If all people who like ice cream leave Google it doesn't make Google (or necessarily any place) better for people who like ice cream. Which is what they would want. The whole point of taking action is that you think you are right and therefor shouldn't be the one to have to change, or at least not end up worse for it.
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    I meant “right” in the “it’s not illegal and your employer can’t physically silence you” sense, not the “you’re legally protected from repercussions” sense. I think we’re generally in agreement.
int_19h 8y ago
The analogy doesn't work too well, because employees of a company are distinct from its owners and decision makers. An employee in a private company is more akin to a civil service bureaucrat in a government, hired to perform some function. And we generally expect civil servants to be apolitical - they still get to vote etc, of course, but in their capacity as citizens, not government workers. Mind you, I don't think that means that employees (or public workers, for that matter) should just shut up. But the argument for "should just leave" is stronger in this case than it is for citizens.
- ska 8y ago
  Hence the bar being much lower. It's not an exact parallel, but it works pretty well. No company is it's executives alone, no country is its government alone.
anarchop 8y ago
The analogy fails as one can’t simply “start” their own country, as one can start their own company. Further, a corporation isn’t a democratic institution which openly invites discord. There is a word for when one does this however: insubordination. Here’s an analogy that does work: The owner of a home has the right to determine who abodes in it, and by extension what actions they can engage in. You’re essentially arguing that the opposite, i.e. that private property doesn’t exist. Political institutions exist to provide a forum for discourse. Private property exists so that the individual can be free of the tyranny of the other by not being forced to make a bargain with whomever decides they want in. Having said all this, I agree with the spirit of your argument. However, going public and or legal makes you an enemy of the organisation and will more than likely result in having to leave the organisation sooner or later.
kerng 8y ago
A lot of it depends if someone likes/respecte the company or not I think. If I don't care about my employer and their vision, I'd just leave. If you care about the company and customers you might want to stay and try to help achieve change.

by ska 8y ago

alistairSH 8y ago

I'm not sure I agree. At least not completely. A person is within their rights to try and change the company from within before leaving. But, that will likely come with personal costs (right or wrong). If those costs get to be too high, the correct action might be to leave. At a company, the impact of leaving could be much higher than the impact of moving to a different country on politics... Google very much relies on "smart people" to earn money. If enough leave in protest, Google will eventually suffer. It would take a LOT of people leaving the US for there to be any noticeable impact.

throwaway2048 8y ago
Google will suffer a lot more if it continually takes big PR hits over crap like this.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  I don’t see people stop using Gmail, Maps, and Search over little PR problems only a small minority care about.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    I don't see them doing so over a small amount of "smart people quitting" either.
  - cloakandswagger 8y ago
    Because those products are unrelated to AI. Big players will not (and are not) touching GCP's AI solutions for this exact reason: it's only a matter of time before the virtue signalers are no longer content with policing the decisions of their own company and start targeting customer workloads.
- strictnein 8y ago
  No one outside of the HN crowd and a couple of bubbles on twitter has heard a single thing about this, or cares in the slightest. There was no PR hit.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    We are talking about the realm of "Google being a place people want to work" Demonstrating that management takes petty actions like this is far more convincing than people silently quitting.
    - DuskStar 8y ago
      I'd be more willing to work for Google if they had a history of not caving in to lynch mobs and punishing the leaders, instead of the other way around.
      - kelnos 8y ago
        I'm confused. Are you likening people who are upset about mishandled sexual misconduct allegations to lynch mobs?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - TKWasRight 8y ago
        I currently work for Google and share your sentiment. There is a small minority of employee activists that really drag the place down and their voices are unfortunately the ones that seem to get amplified. I don't get how they aren't put on PIPs or told to hit the road.
        dekhn 8y ago
        I'd like to say, clearly: I worked at Google and really felt uncomfortable with how a small fraction of the employees dominated the inner communication channels and pretended like everybody agreed with them. Many of us were afraid to speak up after a number of incidents due to the climate. However, over team it really became clear that a small number of people were repeatedly dominating the discourse in an unreasonable way. I don't think the management is just gonna toss the protestors on PIPs without strong evidence they aren't getting their daily jobs done.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  Yeah, I bet they suffer as much as Equifax did for leaking 100M American adults’ credit information, or Facebook has suffered for literally experimenting with human subjects by manipulating the home feed to see if users’ mood was influenced. I could go on. There’s only one meaningful punishment a corporation can suffer, and it’s by design: the death penalty.
njepa 8y ago
> A person is within their rights to try and change the company from within before leaving. But, that will likely come with personal costs (right or wrong). It is generally the opposite. You usually don't have any right to influence, or even sometimes speak about, the company. The right you do have is to suspend your work and go on strike. Companies are free to negotiate collective agreements that prevent worker to go on strike and instead have them complain to their representatives. Google have opted for another model where there is no agreement. As such it is up to Google to win the trust of their employees. > If those costs get to be too high, the correct action might be to leave. At a company, the impact of leaving could be much higher than the impact of moving to a different country on politics... Impact isn't the same as change. If all people who like ice cream leave Google it doesn't make Google (or necessarily any place) better for people who like ice cream. Which is what they would want. The whole point of taking action is that you think you are right and therefor shouldn't be the one to have to change, or at least not end up worse for it.
- alistairSH 8y ago
  I meant “right” in the “it’s not illegal and your employer can’t physically silence you” sense, not the “you’re legally protected from repercussions” sense. I think we’re generally in agreement.

int_19h 8y ago

The analogy doesn't work too well, because employees of a company are distinct from its owners and decision makers. An employee in a private company is more akin to a civil service bureaucrat in a government, hired to perform some function. And we generally expect civil servants to be apolitical - they still get to vote etc, of course, but in their capacity as citizens, not government workers. Mind you, I don't think that means that employees (or public workers, for that matter) should just shut up. But the argument for "should just leave" is stronger in this case than it is for citizens.

ska 8y ago
Hence the bar being much lower. It's not an exact parallel, but it works pretty well. No company is it's executives alone, no country is its government alone.

anarchop 8y ago

The analogy fails as one can’t simply “start” their own country, as one can start their own company. Further, a corporation isn’t a democratic institution which openly invites discord. There is a word for when one does this however: insubordination. Here’s an analogy that does work: The owner of a home has the right to determine who abodes in it, and by extension what actions they can engage in. You’re essentially arguing that the opposite, i.e. that private property doesn’t exist. Political institutions exist to provide a forum for discourse. Private property exists so that the individual can be free of the tyranny of the other by not being forced to make a bargain with whomever decides they want in. Having said all this, I agree with the spirit of your argument. However, going public and or legal makes you an enemy of the organisation and will more than likely result in having to leave the organisation sooner or later.

kerng 8y ago

A lot of it depends if someone likes/respecte the company or not I think. If I don't care about my employer and their vision, I'd just leave. If you care about the company and customers you might want to stay and try to help achieve change.