12 ms·

I'm no Google apologist, but there's nothing nefarious about this. Why on earth would any company encourage its employees to speculate and talk freely, when doi

by whack 6y ago

I'm no Google apologist, but there's nothing nefarious about this. Why on earth would any company encourage its employees to speculate and talk freely, when doing so would get them into legal/PR trouble. It's the equivalent of a lawyer telling his client to go drinking and have a fun night out with the district attorney. Rule #1: Never talk to the police without your lawyer being present Rule #2: Don't create a paper trail that is going to make you look bad when it gets subpoenaed I personally think that Google needs to be broken up into 10 different companies. And I would love to live in a world where companies face antitrust enforcement because of concrete actions. Unfortunately, we live in a world where a carelessly worded email is going to cause you more legal troubles than actual anti-competitive behavior.

cblconfederate 6y ago
i mean this is kind of elementary. You wouldn't go work for a church if you wanted to preach atheism. Its against the immediate interest of the company which you re supposed to be working for, so by definition you are a deadweight employee
Vaslo 6y ago
Completely agree here, and I hate Google. A business is not a democracy. I have worked for a company acquired by a Private Equity that was universally hated by managers and employees alike. They didn’t even want to hear problems internally in quiet. It still wasn’t appropriate to trash them or talk to the media while you were an employee. If you don’t like it and you complain to HR or your manager and they don’t or can’t address the problem, you should work somewhere else. If enough people leave, change will happen. Before that, don’t expect much.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > I have worked for a company acquired by a Private Equity that was universally hated by managers and employees alike. They didn’t even want to hear problems internally in quiet. It still wasn’t appropriate to trash them or talk to the media while you were an employee. > If you don’t like it and you complain to HR or your manager and they don’t or can’t address the problem, you should work somewhere else. If enough people leave, change will happen. Before that, don’t expect much. I'm curious, how did the PE situation you described work out? Did enough people leave to make change happen?
macspoofing 6y ago
>I'm no Google apologist, but there's nothing nefarious about this. Why on earth would any company encourage its employees to speculate and talk freely, when doing so would get them into legal/PR trouble. Similarly, why the heck would Google want to have employees discuss controversial topics like politics and religion as well? Workplaces are a neutral environment. You want activism, do it outside of work.
- vore 6y ago
  I mean, given Google operates both a PAC (https://ballotpedia.org/Google_NetPAC https://ballotpedia.org/Google_NetPAC) and spends millions on lobbying (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/09/google-is-techs-top-spender-on-lobbying-but-facebook-amazon-also-up.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/09/google-is-techs-top-spender-...), it would be pretty two-faced to claim a neutral environment for workers but also with their executives actively engaging in unequivocal political activism.
  - SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
    It hurts my soul every time I reminded that companies have no cap on how much they can 'donate' to politicians. Imagine a world where there was no money in politics.
    - some_account99 6y ago
      you know guanxi functions without money...
      - toomanyrichies 6y ago
        For those unfamiliar with the term "guanxi"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi You can think of it as tantamount to one's network, and the amount of influence within that network. Basically, "it's not what you know, it's who you know". Source- lived in Shanghai for 5+ years.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gggfarov 6y ago
>It's the equivalent of a lawyer telling his client to go drinking and have a fun night out with the district attorney. No it’s not. The lawyer works for the lawyer’s client, employers don’t work for their employees. Opposite.
75dvtwin 6y ago
> Why on earth would any company encourage its employees to speculate and talk freely, when doing so would get them into legal/PR trouble. There is another view, and another analogy. A monopoly that closes ads accounts without any explanation (pointing to their 'terms of use' is not an explanation) A monopoly that removes apps without any explanation A monopoly that swallows competition, their patents to further suffocate market space Is just evil. Small businesses hurt, consumers manipulated and fair competition practices are poisoned. So an analogy would be a private contractor for state prison system, is threatening their employees not to talk in public about their practices. While being investigated for corruption, unfair usage of federal and state empowerment, and unfair treatment of the prisoners. I think this would be ok as far as legal practice, but hardly something one would applaud to, given the context.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
scoot_718 6y ago
Sure, but I feel like any judge will treat this the same as employees talking about anti-trust. This alone is evidence.
learnstats2 6y ago
"Don't create a paper trail" shouldn't be a thing you demand of employees if you have "Don't be evil" as a motto. They appear to be mutually incompatible.

by whack 6y ago

cblconfederate 6y ago

i mean this is kind of elementary. You wouldn't go work for a church if you wanted to preach atheism. Its against the immediate interest of the company which you re supposed to be working for, so by definition you are a deadweight employee

Vaslo 6y ago

Completely agree here, and I hate Google. A business is not a democracy. I have worked for a company acquired by a Private Equity that was universally hated by managers and employees alike. They didn’t even want to hear problems internally in quiet. It still wasn’t appropriate to trash them or talk to the media while you were an employee. If you don’t like it and you complain to HR or your manager and they don’t or can’t address the problem, you should work somewhere else. If enough people leave, change will happen. Before that, don’t expect much.

webmaven 6y ago
> I have worked for a company acquired by a Private Equity that was universally hated by managers and employees alike. They didn’t even want to hear problems internally in quiet. It still wasn’t appropriate to trash them or talk to the media while you were an employee. > If you don’t like it and you complain to HR or your manager and they don’t or can’t address the problem, you should work somewhere else. If enough people leave, change will happen. Before that, don’t expect much. I'm curious, how did the PE situation you described work out? Did enough people leave to make change happen?

macspoofing 6y ago

>I'm no Google apologist, but there's nothing nefarious about this. Why on earth would any company encourage its employees to speculate and talk freely, when doing so would get them into legal/PR trouble. Similarly, why the heck would Google want to have employees discuss controversial topics like politics and religion as well? Workplaces are a neutral environment. You want activism, do it outside of work.

vore 6y ago
I mean, given Google operates both a PAC (https://ballotpedia.org/Google_NetPAC https://ballotpedia.org/Google_NetPAC) and spends millions on lobbying (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/09/google-is-techs-top-spender-on-lobbying-but-facebook-amazon-also-up.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/09/google-is-techs-top-spender-...), it would be pretty two-faced to claim a neutral environment for workers but also with their executives actively engaging in unequivocal political activism.
- SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
  It hurts my soul every time I reminded that companies have no cap on how much they can 'donate' to politicians. Imagine a world where there was no money in politics.
  - some_account99 6y ago
    you know guanxi functions without money...
    - toomanyrichies 6y ago
      For those unfamiliar with the term "guanxi"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi You can think of it as tantamount to one's network, and the amount of influence within that network. Basically, "it's not what you know, it's who you know". Source- lived in Shanghai for 5+ years.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gggfarov 6y ago

>It's the equivalent of a lawyer telling his client to go drinking and have a fun night out with the district attorney. No it’s not. The lawyer works for the lawyer’s client, employers don’t work for their employees. Opposite.

75dvtwin 6y ago

> Why on earth would any company encourage its employees to speculate and talk freely, when doing so would get them into legal/PR trouble. There is another view, and another analogy. A monopoly that closes ads accounts without any explanation (pointing to their 'terms of use' is not an explanation) A monopoly that removes apps without any explanation A monopoly that swallows competition, their patents to further suffocate market space Is just evil. Small businesses hurt, consumers manipulated and fair competition practices are poisoned. So an analogy would be a private contractor for state prison system, is threatening their employees not to talk in public about their practices. While being investigated for corruption, unfair usage of federal and state empowerment, and unfair treatment of the prisoners. I think this would be ok as far as legal practice, but hardly something one would applaud to, given the context.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

scoot_718 6y ago

Sure, but I feel like any judge will treat this the same as employees talking about anti-trust. This alone is evidence.

learnstats2 6y ago

"Don't create a paper trail" shouldn't be a thing you demand of employees if you have "Don't be evil" as a motto. They appear to be mutually incompatible.