6 ms·

Most of the Google Walkout Organizers Have Left the Company

4 points by ChuckMcM 7y ago

ChuckMcM 7y ago
I have said it before that your best option when you discover the company you work for no longer (or perhaps never did) shares your values about what is right and what is wrong, you only have two choices; work from within to see if the rank and file the same way and try to change it before you get fired, or leave on your terms. I found this comment in the story kind of ironic, “I’m certain many in leadership—who learned what Google was and why it was great over a decade ago—don’t truly understand the direction in which Google is growing. Nor are they incentivized to.” I don't know Meredith so I don't know how she reasoned to this statement but my experience was that many in Google's leadership understand exactly which direction Google is growing in and they like it that way. I had to poke and prod to get around the way things were presented to get to the actual reasons, and those reasons and actions are remarkably consistent.
- RepAgent 7y ago
  I'm assume that you say 'only two options' as a rhetorical device to deny the validity of third option. It's different thing to say that worker activism is not proper than saying that it's not effective. I think your opinion is former but you try to argue the latter. Creating larger bargaining unit from current employers is more effective than working as an individual. As these big tech companies have increasing number of workers who do not fear losing their job, it will create political power that is most effectively used collectively withing companies. This can work as traditional unions or just plain political activist groups.
  - ChuckMcM 7y ago
    Actually I was subsuming the option of unionizing into the choice of 'stay there and see how many people agree with you before you get fired.' In my experience at Google it was clear that in Mountain View there was a program of 'managing out of the company' people who created problems. The sorts of problems they sought to minimize were disagreement or discussion that made actionable criticisms of management decisions. As much as I dislike the actions of James Damore, his case, if it proceeds[1], has the potential to put a lot of this activity on the part of leadership into the public record. I personally think they will figure out what it will cost to buy his silence and make the case go away which won't serve the interests of the current employees. [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/07/google-discrimination-case-first-brought-by-james-damore-can-proceed/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/07/google-discrimination...
    - RepAgent 7y ago
      As a outsider I have never understood how the Google culture can work for long term. It looks like there are platforms where informal power is gained or lost without responsibility. People who are active or vocal or member in informal groups and cliques may get into positions where they can influence corporate decision making or HR policy. Yet they are not responsible or chosen by their peers to represent them. Damore case is good example. Allowing random individual to soapbox is not the right way to implement workplace democracy or openness in my opinion. If you want to involve workers in workplace democracy, you better have a organization for it where issues can be separated from people.

4 points by ChuckMcM 7y ago

I have said it before that your best option when you discover the company you work for no longer (or perhaps never did) shares your values about what is right and what is wrong, you only have two choices; work from within to see if the rank and file the same way and try to change it before you get fired, or leave on your terms. I found this comment in the story kind of ironic, “I’m certain many in leadership—who learned what Google was and why it was great over a decade ago—don’t truly understand the direction in which Google is growing. Nor are they incentivized to.” I don't know Meredith so I don't know how she reasoned to this statement but my experience was that many in Google's leadership understand exactly which direction Google is growing in and they like it that way. I had to poke and prod to get around the way things were presented to get to the actual reasons, and those reasons and actions are remarkably consistent.

RepAgent 7y ago
I'm assume that you say 'only two options' as a rhetorical device to deny the validity of third option. It's different thing to say that worker activism is not proper than saying that it's not effective. I think your opinion is former but you try to argue the latter. Creating larger bargaining unit from current employers is more effective than working as an individual. As these big tech companies have increasing number of workers who do not fear losing their job, it will create political power that is most effectively used collectively withing companies. This can work as traditional unions or just plain political activist groups.
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  Actually I was subsuming the option of unionizing into the choice of 'stay there and see how many people agree with you before you get fired.' In my experience at Google it was clear that in Mountain View there was a program of 'managing out of the company' people who created problems. The sorts of problems they sought to minimize were disagreement or discussion that made actionable criticisms of management decisions. As much as I dislike the actions of James Damore, his case, if it proceeds[1], has the potential to put a lot of this activity on the part of leadership into the public record. I personally think they will figure out what it will cost to buy his silence and make the case go away which won't serve the interests of the current employees. [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/07/google-discrimination-case-first-brought-by-james-damore-can-proceed/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/07/google-discrimination...
  - RepAgent 7y ago
    As a outsider I have never understood how the Google culture can work for long term. It looks like there are platforms where informal power is gained or lost without responsibility. People who are active or vocal or member in informal groups and cliques may get into positions where they can influence corporate decision making or HR policy. Yet they are not responsible or chosen by their peers to represent them. Damore case is good example. Allowing random individual to soapbox is not the right way to implement workplace democracy or openness in my opinion. If you want to involve workers in workplace democracy, you better have a organization for it where issues can be separated from people.