9 ms·

>In each of these cases, I brought these issues to HR Well there's your mistake. It's like going to the other guy's lawyer saying you're building a case agains

>In each of these cases, I brought these issues to HR Well there's your mistake. It's like going to the other guy's lawyer saying you're building a case against him. Better go for the jugular because they sure will.

close04 7y ago
I think most people tend to anthropomorphize the company and expect such issues would be solved "human to human". So they hesitate to escalate them into a war, which lawyering up first and asking questions later tends to do. In reality a company acts less like a human and more like a machine programmed to finish any fight in one blow and minimize exposure. Any "unfairness" is spread among too many people to burden their conscience, they do it for the company. P.S. Is it me or did this post stay on the first page less than a discussion with no comments and barely a handful of votes [The Bones of Marianna]? It has at least 2-3 times more votes and comments than any topic on the front page in some of the shortest time yet it's relegated already to the bottom of the second page.
- zepto 7y ago
  Doesn’t seem like that you - it is back on the front page but low given the number of votes and comments.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  I think out propensity to anthropomorphise companies is pathological. Most of the time it's a bunch of people following instructions/policy, like gears in a combine harvester. If you are in the way, you get run over.
- radicaldreamer 7y ago
  People flag posts like this all the time, sometimes out of loyalty to their employer or a general distaste for hearing from ex-employees, especially of companies they have an emotional connection to.
  - Psyladine 7y ago
    I suspect but have no professional qualification, that it's the same root as stockholm syndrome, in that there is a tendency to form emotional sympathetic bonds with entities strong enough to kill us in some sense, or at least exerting significant control over our lives. The immense leverage a company has over an employee, especially when made clear, such as in layoffs or changes that are not conducive to the workforce enforced by management, leads people to rationalize this lack of security and control by creating control in the form of a narrative, that the company cares about them and they should recognize and respect that caring.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  it's relegated already to the bottom of the second page. I am not suggesting it’s an organised voting ring or anything like that but it is noticeable that any anti-Google sentiment that gets upvoted in European or East Coast hours gets pounded as soon as the West Coast wakes up.
cdumler 7y ago
I cannot not stress this enough. One of the things I do to mentor talent is to affirm two things: First, the relationship is a merely a meeting of minds. If it's useful for you to be around and they find you useful to be around then you have a job. If that ever stops, it is irrelevant what the past is: you will be gone whether it is by your choice or not. At one point, labor unions were the means to fix companies, but that has long since passed in the U.S. Second, the term "Human Resources" are perfectly named. A resource is something that is explored, extracted, exploited and expended. H.R. is not your friend. Their job is protect management's goals. You are a resource and fully replaceable.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > If it's useful for you to be around and they find you useful to be around then you have a job. I do this as well, although I tend to put in in starker terms: the only reason that anyone is giving you a paycheck is because they are getting value in excess of the amount they're paying you. Your job will vanish the instant that value proposition changes. This means two important things: 1) There's no such thing as actual job security. Always have an escape plan. 2) Whatever amount of job security you can wrangle comes only when you consistently appear to be providing value in excess of your compensation. Also, although I don't usually say this in relation to holding down a specific job, I try to make newcomers understand that nobody will care about what you did 20 years ago. It's what you did yesterday that matters. What you say about HR is spot on as well. It seems obvious to me, but I'm frequently surprised that it's not obvious to everybody.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    > only when you consistently appear to be providing value in excess of your compensation. The word 'appear' should be bolded. I'll point out another thing which is the amount of effort needed to manage you is even more important than that.
  - pm90 7y ago
    > What you say about HR is spot on as well. It seems obvious to me, but I'm frequently surprised that it's not obvious to everybody. Why is that? If you work at a company you enjoy and admire that treats you well and compensates you well, its quite natural for us as humans to feel invested in the thing. You can't both try and empower employees to feel ownership while also making them feel wary. Which is exactly what Google is doing.
ChuckMcM 7y ago
It took me a while of hearing every single story of a colleague or friend who went to HR to point out a problem with the company being moved out of the company to realize that HR was not your friend, or your advocate. Their only concern was keeping the company from being successfully sued. All of their activities speak to that mandate. The only way you fix something like this at the executive level is to develop leverage on another executive who can change things and then using that to make them do so. It is sad. It is wrong. It is dysfunctional. But as far as I can tell the only people that survive these sorts of things are the ones that "play dirty." Personally, I value my integrity over this kind of gamesmanship and just move on to some other company when I can.
- tossmeabone 7y ago
  As a manager at a company that I believe is sincere about its message that I am required to report harassment and discrimination even if the aggrieved party does not specifically come to me or want me to (they say it’s required by law), I wonder what the actual outcome of doing so would be. Legally I believe companies cannot retaliate in those two circumstances (harassment and discrimination), but of course nobody is going to enforce that outside of the expense and hassle of suing them if they do actually retaliate. Any advice for this circumstance?
  - knodi123 7y ago
    document, document, document.

close04 7y ago

I think most people tend to anthropomorphize the company and expect such issues would be solved "human to human". So they hesitate to escalate them into a war, which lawyering up first and asking questions later tends to do. In reality a company acts less like a human and more like a machine programmed to finish any fight in one blow and minimize exposure. Any "unfairness" is spread among too many people to burden their conscience, they do it for the company. P.S. Is it me or did this post stay on the first page less than a discussion with no comments and barely a handful of votes [The Bones of Marianna]? It has at least 2-3 times more votes and comments than any topic on the front page in some of the shortest time yet it's relegated already to the bottom of the second page.

zepto 7y ago
Doesn’t seem like that you - it is back on the front page but low given the number of votes and comments.
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
I think out propensity to anthropomorphise companies is pathological. Most of the time it's a bunch of people following instructions/policy, like gears in a combine harvester. If you are in the way, you get run over.
radicaldreamer 7y ago
People flag posts like this all the time, sometimes out of loyalty to their employer or a general distaste for hearing from ex-employees, especially of companies they have an emotional connection to.
- Psyladine 7y ago
  I suspect but have no professional qualification, that it's the same root as stockholm syndrome, in that there is a tendency to form emotional sympathetic bonds with entities strong enough to kill us in some sense, or at least exerting significant control over our lives. The immense leverage a company has over an employee, especially when made clear, such as in layoffs or changes that are not conducive to the workforce enforced by management, leads people to rationalize this lack of security and control by creating control in the form of a narrative, that the company cares about them and they should recognize and respect that caring.
goatinaboat 7y ago
it's relegated already to the bottom of the second page. I am not suggesting it’s an organised voting ring or anything like that but it is noticeable that any anti-Google sentiment that gets upvoted in European or East Coast hours gets pounded as soon as the West Coast wakes up.

cdumler 7y ago

I cannot not stress this enough. One of the things I do to mentor talent is to affirm two things: First, the relationship is a merely a meeting of minds. If it's useful for you to be around and they find you useful to be around then you have a job. If that ever stops, it is irrelevant what the past is: you will be gone whether it is by your choice or not. At one point, labor unions were the means to fix companies, but that has long since passed in the U.S. Second, the term "Human Resources" are perfectly named. A resource is something that is explored, extracted, exploited and expended. H.R. is not your friend. Their job is protect management's goals. You are a resource and fully replaceable.

JohnFen 7y ago
> If it's useful for you to be around and they find you useful to be around then you have a job. I do this as well, although I tend to put in in starker terms: the only reason that anyone is giving you a paycheck is because they are getting value in excess of the amount they're paying you. Your job will vanish the instant that value proposition changes. This means two important things: 1) There's no such thing as actual job security. Always have an escape plan. 2) Whatever amount of job security you can wrangle comes only when you consistently appear to be providing value in excess of your compensation. Also, although I don't usually say this in relation to holding down a specific job, I try to make newcomers understand that nobody will care about what you did 20 years ago. It's what you did yesterday that matters. What you say about HR is spot on as well. It seems obvious to me, but I'm frequently surprised that it's not obvious to everybody.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > only when you consistently appear to be providing value in excess of your compensation. The word 'appear' should be bolded. I'll point out another thing which is the amount of effort needed to manage you is even more important than that.
- pm90 7y ago
  > What you say about HR is spot on as well. It seems obvious to me, but I'm frequently surprised that it's not obvious to everybody. Why is that? If you work at a company you enjoy and admire that treats you well and compensates you well, its quite natural for us as humans to feel invested in the thing. You can't both try and empower employees to feel ownership while also making them feel wary. Which is exactly what Google is doing.

ChuckMcM 7y ago

It took me a while of hearing every single story of a colleague or friend who went to HR to point out a problem with the company being moved out of the company to realize that HR was not your friend, or your advocate. Their only concern was keeping the company from being successfully sued. All of their activities speak to that mandate. The only way you fix something like this at the executive level is to develop leverage on another executive who can change things and then using that to make them do so. It is sad. It is wrong. It is dysfunctional. But as far as I can tell the only people that survive these sorts of things are the ones that "play dirty." Personally, I value my integrity over this kind of gamesmanship and just move on to some other company when I can.

tossmeabone 7y ago
As a manager at a company that I believe is sincere about its message that I am required to report harassment and discrimination even if the aggrieved party does not specifically come to me or want me to (they say it’s required by law), I wonder what the actual outcome of doing so would be. Legally I believe companies cannot retaliate in those two circumstances (harassment and discrimination), but of course nobody is going to enforce that outside of the expense and hassle of suing them if they do actually retaliate. Any advice for this circumstance?
- knodi123 7y ago
  document, document, document.