4 ms·

This is literally one of the craziest things I have ever seen. Google is doing absolutely nothing wrong or unethical at all. The guy got fired because he starte

by tkahn6 15y ago

This is literally one of the craziest things I have ever seen. Google is doing absolutely nothing wrong or unethical at all. The guy got fired because he started accusing Google of racism. Wow. Just wow. The sense of entitlement and self-righteousness is just mind blowing.

queensnake 15y ago
You have to admit it /could/ be like something out of Brave New World, so, it demands exploring. I mean they come in at 4 and leave at 2. It conflicts with Google's ethos (perhaps) to have truly 2nd class citizens, so they hide it. That's curiosity-provoking.
- tkahn6 15y ago
  > to have truly 2nd class citizens, How is this any different than having guards and janitors that work odd hours? You think they get all the Google perks that software engineers get?
  - othermaciej 15y ago
    The guy making the video implied that the security guards and janitors have "red badge" status, getting the same perks as any other contractor, but not the perks reserved only to full-time employees.
    - tkahn6 15y ago
      Ok? The point is that Google has tiered benefits. The outrage that guards have more benefits than other people in their building makes zero sense to me.
      - othermaciej 15y ago
        The fact that some employees have have lower benefits than others is not necessarily outrageous or even that unusual. The fact that Google apparently really wants to avoid having this documented is rather strange, though.
- pstack 15y ago
  Except this guy wasn't a journalist and he wasn't a whistle-blower and he wasn't a documentarian. He was an employee of a company providing a service who was exploiting the access (and presumably paid-resources) to pursue his own agenda. They don't owe him an explanation or benefit of the doubt or anything else and he doesn't raise any questions and there isn't anything of interest in his commentary that suggests it's deserving of any followup. This smells of someone wanting to play 'Morgan Spurlock'. Google might be evil. They certainly aren't pure of heart and all that. But there's nothing in this ten minute monotone "expose" that really gives any legitimate concern.
  - anonymous246 15y ago
    Umm, I fail to see the relevance of your response to the comment you're responding to.
    - pstack 15y ago
      I was responding to the suggestion that it "deserves exploration" simply because some disgruntled contracted employee was trying to cut his teeth on what he tried desperately to make into a juicy expose. Simply making an accusation or insinuation doesn't in itself warrant exploration of something. Insinuations about anyone can be made by anyone and they don't all deserve a response or an investigation. This guy has no particular credibility and with is particular attitude, under the particular circumstances and with the distinct lack of . . . anything . . . that he has to back up his concerns . . . falls into the category of "not worth the time". Now, if some employees come out tomorrow -- even under anonymity -- and start sharing the tales of terrible treatment to some SF Chronicle reporter or something, then you might have something.
      - queensnake 15y ago
        I don't mean 'deserve' in a legal sense, just, when you've got captive Oompa Loompas in front of you anyone'd feel curious. As for evidence, Google took it, right? But you thought I meant /legally/ deserve which, sure, there's no sign any wrongdoing.
- paulrademacher 15y ago
  > I mean they come in at 4 and leave at 2. The article failed to mention that there are shifts throughout the entire day. There's lots of books to scan!
- glenra 15y ago
  The author's main gripe seems to be that contractors don't get treated like employees. Does he realize that it's illegal to treat contractors exactly like employees? Does he realize that if Google started giving contractors exactly the same treatment, they could get in big trouble with the IRS and other regulatory groups, have the contractors retroactively declared employees, be forced to withhold payroll taxes on their behalf, pay big fines? He seems to be shocked, shocked that Google acts...the way every other tech firm acts, and for the same reasons.
  - patrickk 15y ago
    "The author's main gripe seems to be that contractors don't get treated like employees." I thought the main point was that they weren't treated like other contractors like the author was (red badges)?
    - glenra 15y ago
      My impression was that he's a contractor (under salary) for one contract firm while they're contractors (probably on an hourly wage) for a different contract firm. Why would he expect the two to have the exact same benefits package?
      - gtirloni 15y ago
        Your impression could be wrong so there's no point in arguing both cases. All the guy know is that both groups were contractors. Do you know of any law that distinguishes contractors based on hourly or salary rules? If not, I don't see your point.
        glenra 15y ago
        >Do you know of any law that distinguishes contractors based on hourly or salary rules? If not, I don't see your point. The point is purely practical, not so much legal. When employees are on salary, it's worth doing whatever you can to make it convenient for them to stick around and stay longer. Providing perks such as free food helps with that - it helps get more work hours out of people for a given salary. The perks are in some way a substitute for extra salary, and likely to save the company money in the long run. Especially perks that save employees time, like letting them start work on the bus during their commute or letting them have meals right on campus so they don't lose time driving elsewhere. Whereas hourly employees get paid for each specific hour they work so there's little benefit to encouraging them to stick around longer than they would otherwise be inclined. In fact, you generally want to discourage hourly workers from doing any overtime, since you'd have to pay them time-and-a-half.
strictfp 15y ago
To me it's much more shocking to what great length you go to defend the rights of the company. It seems to me that freedom of speech should come before the right of firing at will. Or is your opinion that companies are about as souverign as states?
- Maro 15y ago
  IANAL, but I think there are some things you can't fire people for, like race, age, being pregnant, etc. But other than that, I'd think you're free to 'fire at will'.
  - hollerith 15y ago
    Please call it "at-will employment". "Fire at will" is a command given to riflemen.
- pstack 15y ago
  Google is not a branch of government in any way whatsoever and, like any other business or private organization, can tell you how to speak and how to dress and how to behave without it being censorship. My company requires that employees not speak with the press unless they are granted direct permission to do so and that they should, instead, refer them to an internal rep who will speak with them. That is not censorship. That is my company looking out for their best interests so that some dumb ass like me doesn't say something stupid that misrepresents them. My company also has the right to tell me to watch my crude language while working for them and not to dress like I'm attending a beach party. There are already whistle-blower laws and protections to address what you are referring to, which is the exposition of unethical or illegal business practices by an employee.
- benmccann 15y ago
  Both rights are fully in tact. A company or individual has a right to enter into and terminate contracts with anyone it wishes at any time. An individual has a right to say anything he wants. No one stopped him from saying anything or from posting a video to his blog for example. You seem to infer some other right that doesn't exist - the right to never be fired. But a law forcing such a measure would decrease the freedom of individuals to freely enter into and terminate contracts with each other. If both parties enter into a contract by their own free will, why should there be some law restricting their freedom to structure that contract in a manner that both parties agree to?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ribosome 15y ago
This will be good promotion for his art in general. I agree with your assessment of self-righteousness. I do think some of the concepts he's exploring are interesting, though. In my opinion, FlowSpot is too critical. I find Mental Tootscapes charming. http://www.andrewnormanwilson.com/portfolios/84941-flowspot http://www.andrewnormanwilson.com/portfolios/84941-flowspot http://www.andrewnormanwilson.com/portfolios/61101-mental-tootscapes http://www.andrewnormanwilson.com/portfolios/61101-mental-to...
pnathan 15y ago
I didn't watch his video clip, but the article read like a very curious person looking into a weirdness. Kind of like a journalist....
- tkahn6 15y ago
  You should watch it. It sounds like a 9-11 conspiracy video.

by tkahn6 15y ago

queensnake 15y ago

You have to admit it /could/ be like something out of Brave New World, so, it demands exploring. I mean they come in at 4 and leave at 2. It conflicts with Google's ethos (perhaps) to have truly 2nd class citizens, so they hide it. That's curiosity-provoking.

tkahn6 15y ago
> to have truly 2nd class citizens, How is this any different than having guards and janitors that work odd hours? You think they get all the Google perks that software engineers get?
- othermaciej 15y ago
  The guy making the video implied that the security guards and janitors have "red badge" status, getting the same perks as any other contractor, but not the perks reserved only to full-time employees.
  - tkahn6 15y ago
    Ok? The point is that Google has tiered benefits. The outrage that guards have more benefits than other people in their building makes zero sense to me.
    - othermaciej 15y ago
      The fact that some employees have have lower benefits than others is not necessarily outrageous or even that unusual. The fact that Google apparently really wants to avoid having this documented is rather strange, though.
pstack 15y ago
Except this guy wasn't a journalist and he wasn't a whistle-blower and he wasn't a documentarian. He was an employee of a company providing a service who was exploiting the access (and presumably paid-resources) to pursue his own agenda. They don't owe him an explanation or benefit of the doubt or anything else and he doesn't raise any questions and there isn't anything of interest in his commentary that suggests it's deserving of any followup. This smells of someone wanting to play 'Morgan Spurlock'. Google might be evil. They certainly aren't pure of heart and all that. But there's nothing in this ten minute monotone "expose" that really gives any legitimate concern.
- anonymous246 15y ago
  Umm, I fail to see the relevance of your response to the comment you're responding to.
  - pstack 15y ago
    I was responding to the suggestion that it "deserves exploration" simply because some disgruntled contracted employee was trying to cut his teeth on what he tried desperately to make into a juicy expose. Simply making an accusation or insinuation doesn't in itself warrant exploration of something. Insinuations about anyone can be made by anyone and they don't all deserve a response or an investigation. This guy has no particular credibility and with is particular attitude, under the particular circumstances and with the distinct lack of . . . anything . . . that he has to back up his concerns . . . falls into the category of "not worth the time". Now, if some employees come out tomorrow -- even under anonymity -- and start sharing the tales of terrible treatment to some SF Chronicle reporter or something, then you might have something.
    - queensnake 15y ago
      I don't mean 'deserve' in a legal sense, just, when you've got captive Oompa Loompas in front of you anyone'd feel curious. As for evidence, Google took it, right? But you thought I meant /legally/ deserve which, sure, there's no sign any wrongdoing.
paulrademacher 15y ago
> I mean they come in at 4 and leave at 2. The article failed to mention that there are shifts throughout the entire day. There's lots of books to scan!
glenra 15y ago
The author's main gripe seems to be that contractors don't get treated like employees. Does he realize that it's illegal to treat contractors exactly like employees? Does he realize that if Google started giving contractors exactly the same treatment, they could get in big trouble with the IRS and other regulatory groups, have the contractors retroactively declared employees, be forced to withhold payroll taxes on their behalf, pay big fines? He seems to be shocked, shocked that Google acts...the way every other tech firm acts, and for the same reasons.
- patrickk 15y ago
  "The author's main gripe seems to be that contractors don't get treated like employees." I thought the main point was that they weren't treated like other contractors like the author was (red badges)?
  - glenra 15y ago
    My impression was that he's a contractor (under salary) for one contract firm while they're contractors (probably on an hourly wage) for a different contract firm. Why would he expect the two to have the exact same benefits package?
    - gtirloni 15y ago
      Your impression could be wrong so there's no point in arguing both cases. All the guy know is that both groups were contractors. Do you know of any law that distinguishes contractors based on hourly or salary rules? If not, I don't see your point.
      - glenra 15y ago
        >Do you know of any law that distinguishes contractors based on hourly or salary rules? If not, I don't see your point. The point is purely practical, not so much legal. When employees are on salary, it's worth doing whatever you can to make it convenient for them to stick around and stay longer. Providing perks such as free food helps with that - it helps get more work hours out of people for a given salary. The perks are in some way a substitute for extra salary, and likely to save the company money in the long run. Especially perks that save employees time, like letting them start work on the bus during their commute or letting them have meals right on campus so they don't lose time driving elsewhere. Whereas hourly employees get paid for each specific hour they work so there's little benefit to encouraging them to stick around longer than they would otherwise be inclined. In fact, you generally want to discourage hourly workers from doing any overtime, since you'd have to pay them time-and-a-half.

strictfp 15y ago

To me it's much more shocking to what great length you go to defend the rights of the company. It seems to me that freedom of speech should come before the right of firing at will. Or is your opinion that companies are about as souverign as states?

Maro 15y ago
IANAL, but I think there are some things you can't fire people for, like race, age, being pregnant, etc. But other than that, I'd think you're free to 'fire at will'.
- hollerith 15y ago
  Please call it "at-will employment". "Fire at will" is a command given to riflemen.
pstack 15y ago
Google is not a branch of government in any way whatsoever and, like any other business or private organization, can tell you how to speak and how to dress and how to behave without it being censorship. My company requires that employees not speak with the press unless they are granted direct permission to do so and that they should, instead, refer them to an internal rep who will speak with them. That is not censorship. That is my company looking out for their best interests so that some dumb ass like me doesn't say something stupid that misrepresents them. My company also has the right to tell me to watch my crude language while working for them and not to dress like I'm attending a beach party. There are already whistle-blower laws and protections to address what you are referring to, which is the exposition of unethical or illegal business practices by an employee.
benmccann 15y ago
Both rights are fully in tact. A company or individual has a right to enter into and terminate contracts with anyone it wishes at any time. An individual has a right to say anything he wants. No one stopped him from saying anything or from posting a video to his blog for example. You seem to infer some other right that doesn't exist - the right to never be fired. But a law forcing such a measure would decrease the freedom of individuals to freely enter into and terminate contracts with each other. If both parties enter into a contract by their own free will, why should there be some law restricting their freedom to structure that contract in a manner that both parties agree to?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ribosome 15y ago

This will be good promotion for his art in general. I agree with your assessment of self-righteousness. I do think some of the concepts he's exploring are interesting, though. In my opinion, FlowSpot is too critical. I find Mental Tootscapes charming. http://www.andrewnormanwilson.com/portfolios/84941-flowspot http://www.andrewnormanwilson.com/portfolios/84941-flowspot http://www.andrewnormanwilson.com/portfolios/61101-mental-tootscapes http://www.andrewnormanwilson.com/portfolios/61101-mental-to...

pnathan 15y ago

I didn't watch his video clip, but the article read like a very curious person looking into a weirdness. Kind of like a journalist....

tkahn6 15y ago
You should watch it. It sounds like a 9-11 conspiracy video.