20 ms·

True story, a person I know who was offered a job at Google got the employment agreement (prior to arriving which was pretty standard at the time) and read that

True story, a person I know who was offered a job at Google got the employment agreement (prior to arriving which was pretty standard at the time) and read that bit about "allowing Google to protect it's IP by installing a rootkit" and they red lined it to change it "May only access Google related information and no personal information." When they showed up HR started with "But that isn't how we use it, we would never access your personal data." To which this person said, "Great then we're agreed, all this does is make that limitation explicit.", To which HR said, "But we don't have a changed agreement", the person responded "Here is the agreement red-lined and clear, this is the only change, feel free to have legal review it." The day proceeded until the point in the normal on-boarding process where your "mentor" would pick you up. No mentor, no employment agreement back from HR yet. Two hours later HR came back, asked for all the equipment and the badge to be returned and said, "We're sorry Google has decided we do not wish to proceed with your hire. Thanks." I was pretty amazed by that.

jedberg 6y ago
I'm not. Legal doesn't want to deal with everyone having a different employment contract. Google has always leaned towards being ok with a ton of false negatives to avoid false positives. They'd rather give up 10 good hires than make one bad one. This is just an extension of that. They don't want any exceptions and they aren't willing to make any.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  Isn't it great when even something as huge and life-changing as a job is subject to a contract of adhesion with no negotiation allowed? I'm sure glad to live in such a free country with great worker rights. (Sarcasm intended.)
  - willcipriano 6y ago
    I have no idea how those contracts are enforceable. Quit your job, move across the country and then on your first day here are nine contracts to sign, no you can't take them home we need them now. If you don't sign you are unemployed and we want that relocation money back. I used to ask potential employers when I got deep into interviews with them. "Is there any way I can see all the contracts I would need to sign on my first day?" and my experience is employers are very taken aback the question. How can you possibly talk remuneration when there also is some hidden contract that is part of it that you can't see until your first day?
    - realityking 6y ago
      I was un are of this system until I hired in the US. It blows my mind. Here (Germany) offer letters are used to outline the general terms of an offer however the next step will then be that you’re sent a contract (some of mine have been > 10 pages) outlining a lot of relevant things such: - role (ideally even with a job description but that is rare) - place of employment (city/country) - IP assignment - length of probation - length of notice period for both sides - expectation of work travel - vacation - compensation And a bunch of other things that I’m forgetting. Similar to the above story, there’s always some resistance from employers to customize terms. It’s operationally much simpler for a company to have unified terms. However at every company I’ve been at I’ve been able to secure changes to the IP assignment clauses. Of course all of this only works because these contracts are enforceable. There’s no such thing as at will employment here.
      - fogetti 6y ago
        If you want to know, the same system happens in Japan too. When you get the offer letter it's an outline only. Then you either accept the offer letter as it is, or walk away. Asking for the detailed contract (called 就業規則 in Japanese) will always end up losing your job offer, because you have no legal right to see the contract before you join the company. Some companies are so hostile (and this is the norm in my experience), that even very valid questions along the line of "Do I get severance pay if I am forced to retire?" or "How do stock options work?" will end your job application process right there because you will get labeled as overzealous. Also, Japanese law doesn't require to state in the contract the exact position that you are hired into. So you will often get hired with the job description: "engineering team member". Of course HR will tell you mealy-mouthed or mellifluously that you are a senior/principal engineer and/or a manager, but none of that will hold any legal water in a lawsuit since your contract doesn't say so. If you ask me, Japan and the US, some of the largest economies of the world are constant labor right abusers and the UN and other nations simply turn their head when this ever gets brought up.
        rablackburn 6y ago
        I still remember the furore it caused when I asked for a copy of the 業務規則. (because the new overtime pay policy was paying ~$3/hr worked after 10pm and I wanted to see the section that covered that calculation) I just wanted to read the actual language around hours worked and overtime because it was never stated what the policy was. Turns out you couldn’t read it without a director sitting next to you, and it was in a binder that you weren’t allowed to touch. My conversation with the CEO: “Why would you need to read that?” “Because my contract says ‘in accordance with the 業務規則’ and I’d like to know what my contract is” “Well you can ask me a question and ill tell you if it’s in there” Glad I got off that sinking ship.
  - sneak 6y ago
    If you don't like the way Google does business, you are free to not do business with them, either as an employee or customer. I don't understand your snark.
    - MereInterest 6y ago
      If you don't know the way Google does business, because you don't know the terms of the contract, then you cannot make an informed choice. You are not free to choose unless you have information to guide that choice.
      - lopmotr 6y ago
        You know that you will have to sign a contract. And even if you don't, they're in an "at will" state so they can fire you whenever they want (eg. on your first day) without giving a reason. You know all that going in and can choose to work in a state or country with stronger labor laws if you don't like it.
        pretendscholar 6y ago
        Just move to a different country bro
        MereInterest 6y ago
        Holy cow, that's some monstrous reasoning. To paraphrase, you're saying that going in, before even seeing a contract, you should be prepared to agree to anything because it is your role to agree to anything. And then you go on to say that it is their own fault for not moving to a location that forbids it. The choices are not just "like it or leave it". Another is to recognize that the options being presented are unreasonable, and that the entire situation should be changed to make it impossible. I agree that the solution is stronger labor laws. I disagree vehemently that people should be forced to relocate as a condition of those stronger labor laws.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      This is helpful information - the next time I'm working on promoting my website I'll remember that it's entirely optional whether my business thrives or I go destitute due to refusing to be indexed by their search index. Your statement is accurate when a healthy market and competitors exist but you are not free to avoid doing business with Google since they have an insane amount of market control.
  - throwaway667555 6y ago
    The person redlined a contract instead of spending +$2000/yr (out of a likely $250,000+ salary) on a second personal phone. Such short-sidedness is a bad trait in an employee. Second, their protest is laudable. But their decision was consciously: "the legal department of this $xxx billion company (that spends $xx million maintaining this employment contract template) will bend to my will, or I will {quit OR relent}". If they'd quit? Job well done. If they'd relent? Then why try? You're screaming into a void, and if you didn't recognize this prior to redlining, you have a bad trait for an employee. All scenarios point to a competent red-liner achieving their desired outcome -- an ethical win in whatever case. Only an incompetent/shortsighted/kneejerk/low-critical-thinking red-liner would achieve an undesired outcome, because they didn't consider the game before playing.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      Agreed, this is not a factory job for a few dollars here and there.
    - MereInterest 6y ago
      Honestly, that is the sort of solution I would expect the legal department to suggest as a counter-offer, with Google paying the difference. Having the legal department review contract changes is something I would expect to be standard for them, not a deal breaker. It is the reason for having the legal department there in the first place.
      - throwaway667555 6y ago
        Some details of an offer & acceptance of employment are trivial and not worth spoiling good will. Me: "Hey manager, can I make an expense report for this work phone?" No matter the response, I'm ok with it, because I make Google money, and that's policy. I should work towards becoming management if I want that to change. But I probably have better things to do than such a trivial disagreement. I wish corporations were less psychopathic, too, but this is not the hill I'd die on. Or, I'd be damn sure ready to die if I redlined as a "nice to meet you" first act.
  - gowld 6y ago
    What would "negotiation allowed" mean? Negotiation includes saying "no". The remedy for that is labor law, not some right to negotiate. An interesting labor law challenge is "one side repeatedly making assertions that don't accord with contract, and I rely on those assertions, or the other side should be punished for making statements that suggest bad faith."
    - kelnos 6y ago
      It's not much of a "negotiation" when the power imbalance is such that the employer can say no to your every request, but if you say no to any of theirs, you're unemployed.
      - MereInterest 6y ago
        Not only unemployed, but potentially unemployed in a new city, and liable for returning the relocation package. There is zero leverage in such a position if a company alters the deal, and tells you to pray they don't alter it further. Thankfully that that didn't happen to me, but it was in the back of my mind that after moving, I wasn't in the greatest of positions if there were to be any objectionable clauses.
      - jbay808 6y ago
        It's especially not much of a negotiation if they fire you for daring to negotiate, rather than saying "no".
  - geofft 6y ago
    Here's my question for everyone on this thread: what are you going to do about it? My rough guesses of what you could do: - unionize your shop / commit to working at unionized shops (addresses the power imbalance between individual employees and the employer by treating employees as a group) - use the power you have as an employee to drive change at your workplace, if you're one of those employees who is well-treated by your employer and doesn't need to unionize - advocate for stronger labor protections in law / vote for lawmakers who will create them - advocate for existing labor/contract protections to be interpreted the way you want (e.g. advocate or vote for judges who share that interpretation, donate to or create non-profits who can file amicus briefs or write law review articles advocating for this interpretation) If this is what's at the top of the HN discussions on a barely-related article, it's pretty clear to me that tech workers, a relatively powerful group, feel pretty strongly about this issue. So why don't we do something about it?
    - dleslie 6y ago
      As tech workers, likely making American wages, many of the folks here would be better served paying a congressperson and joining a PAC than they would be by paying union dues.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Don't kid yourself. Your employer will always be better connected and more influential politically than you, unless you organize. You'll be fired for donating to that PAC if it's actually becoming controversial and effective. Fortunately, unions have the same status in campaign contribution laws as PACs, so your best bet to do some lobbying as a worker is to join a union and use it as a PAC.
        dleslie 6y ago
        I watched my parents suffer throughout their careers because their Unions were politically toxic and also deigned it necessary to keep their wages below market in order to apply pressure on the employer to raise the wages of others in the bargaining unit. As though a lineman and a telecontrol technologist are similarly skilled and trained. My father spent the better part of a decade trying to hire his replacement because the union wage was so attrociously below market for his labour. And then the politics, favouritism, bullying and abuse that occurs under a union; because the shop steward et al formed a social clique to get themselves and their buddies the best hours and best positions. My two siblings went to work in unions and now regail me with similar tales. No, I'm happy working for small and independent game studios and negotiating for myself, thanks. I happily donate the money to political organizations that would otherwsie be used to pay union dues.
  - balena 6y ago
    From the standpoint of a European, this would have been totally fine some 200 years ago
  - foogazi 6y ago
    Negotiation doesn’t mean that you get your way and they agree to your demands Sounds like both parties had a hard line on what they would accept
    - framecowbird 6y ago
      I think the takeaway is that the hard line for Google is being able to rootkit your phone
      - machinelabo 6y ago
        Then don't give your phone to Google. Don't use personal phone for work. Ask them for a phone if they want you to use it. Why is this difficult? Why complain about something that is 100% in your control? Employer that has thousands of employees don't have the time to amend contracts on per employee basis. Seems fair to me. Google has HIPA-level access for personal data, even some medical data about people, security is tight. They don't want some righteous asshat arguing about contract agreements.
        est31 6y ago
        IDK the legal details of the contract, but Google has root level access to all Android phones with gapps installed. It's definitely possible for them to figure out which phone you use privately and rootkit it.
        machinelabo 6y ago
        This is an extremely broad claim, do you have anything to back that up with? Saying that Google would snoop your personal phone (which doesn't have your Google work account) as a Google employee needs some hard facts to back that up. Since you don't know the legal details of the contract, how about we stop speculating conspiracy theories? Please keep the discussion factual and reasonable.
        est31 6y ago
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    People absolutely negotiate successfully with Google. New hires fresh out of uni do. Tens of thousands of more dollars. It just seems that invading their employees privacy is table stakes for them.
    - howlgarnish 6y ago
      You can (and should) negotiate salary, they expect that and have the authority to bump up your pay. However, trying to negotiate the legal terms of a contract with a FAANG is highly unlikely to succeed, since HR is not authorized to change anything and Legal doesn't give a shit about you.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    Moving to the UK from Norway was a shock to me in the sheer length of employment contracts. Prior to that most of my contracts had been a single page: Norwegian law regulates default terms so strictly that long contracts are rarely needed. In fact, they are hard to make enforceable, because any additional concession to the employer needs to be justified, usually by extra consideration. But many rights are inalienable. It's a recognition that few employer-employee relationship approaches a negotiation between equals.
- harha 6y ago
  From what I've seen, the ratio is quite different. They'd rather make many less good hires who do as they're told than a more complicated one, even if that person were better at all the attributes. You can tell people a lot about culture and how some things are just formalities, but the contract is what remains, everything else changes with the next reorg. From the point of view of the person at legal it makes sense (too much complexity and extra work), from higher management it makes sense (potential risk with someone who can think for themselves and won't accept everything that is handed to them), and the hiring manager will probably not pick a fight for someone who's not even on the team yet.
- ChuckMcM 6y ago
  Oh I "understood" it, California is a "Right to Work" state and signing the agreement was clearly a requirement of working and by not signing the unchanged agreement, it was a voluntary action of elimination etc etc. So Google was well within their rights to rescind their job offer as they did. That said, it was at a time where Google was complaining bitterly about how hard it was to hire engineers, and their much vaunted hiring process would only offer 1 in 10,000 applicants. That they would have a candidate who had made it through the gauntlet, and some manager was waiting for them to show up, be turned away at the last minute based on an explicit clarification of a clause that Google, through the HR rep at the intake session, had already said was consistent with the intent of the agreement? That surprised me. If the HR rep was speaking truthfully, then I would have expected to Google legal to just adopt the updated text in this agreement and all future agreements. It literally got tweaked at least once a year so the problem of "multiple agreements" wasn't really a problem. So my amazement was first the cognitive dissonance between what they said and what they did, then the realization that what was written was what they meant, and thus what HR had said was a misrepresentation of the intent. I don't know how many people have lawyers review these things, I do, but I may be unusual in that regard. My lawyer said that there were a number of things in the agreement that were unenforceable, and a few that were likely unlawful, but when they came up I would probably already be on my way out so it wasn't particularly harmful to sign. And some advice on how to avoid getting on the wrong side of the agreement and thus giving them a reason to separate me "for cause." (legal or not). And now we have this story where the NLRB which suggests that Google is not above doing illegal things to protect their interests.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    California is not a Right to work state. It is an At-will employment state (as are all states). "Right to Work" laws concern union contracts requiring all employees to pay union dues.
    - ChuckMcM 6y ago
      Thanks for the correction!
  - 6y ago
- snotrockets 6y ago
  And a great reason for collective bargaining from the employees.
- hinkley 6y ago
  If the security folks don’t get to dictate corporate strategy, why do the legal folks? I mean, is this company making widgets for money, or legal briefs?
- thraway12 6y ago
  how do you know it's just an extension of that?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mdesq 6y ago
  Agreed. It's not surprising at all since they don't want to manage a bunch of different contracts. However, I'm of the opinion (and I am a lawyer) that the contracts should then always be especially construed even more strictly than usual against the drafter.
- cupofcoffee 6y ago
  Google isn't as selective as it's made out to be.
- peglasaurus 6y ago
  Or they do in fact want that clause just as it is. By design. They simply don't want to change it. This likely isn’t about having different contracts for different hires. Its about their intrinsic need, or more precisely, their deep requirement, to have that clause in.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  Yea, this shouldn't be surprising at all. Every company I've ever worked had some wiggle room with salary and equity, but when it came to the legal terms, they were not negotiable. I tried the cute "redlining" thing a few times, and without exception it always ended up with a stern letter from Legal: "Sign it unmodified or GTFO!" I don't know who all these Captains Of Industry are who claim to be able to actually negotiate any of these terms with their company's legal department. Unless you are some kind of unicorn super-star or exec, I don't see any company wanting to deal with the hassle of negotiating a special snowflake contract for you.
- zxienin 6y ago
  > different employment contracts Then make all contracts explicit with such a fair statement? How many employees would one imagine, objecting to it? Even if there are contract variations, Google has resources and talent to manage it with tools.
llampx 6y ago
Was this supposed to be on a work phone or a personal phone? If a personal phone, was it a requirement to use it for work purposes? Most times, I believe a change to the employment agreement made by the employee would result in the employer not going forward with the hire, unless it was agreed upon in the negotiation phase. So unfortunately I am not surprised at the outcome.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  What surprises me is how common it is to not provide full contracts during the negotiation phase. How can you know if there is a clause that needs to be negotiated out without first seeing what clauses there are?
dheera 6y ago
> by installing a rootkit On what? A phone or laptop? They should provide the device, if so. As long as they are providing the hardware and I'm not forced to carry it around during personal time, I don't see a problem with it; I just wouldn't log into my personal accounts with it, and maintain separate personal hardware.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  I completely agree. They can put whatever they want on a work phone that I don't need to take with me without it being an explicit part of the job. I very much mind on a personal device.
tareqak 6y ago
I wonder if Google legal department's hires also have that clause in their contract.
- dannyw 6y ago
  I’m sure Google isn’t going to reject a legal department hire for negotiating their contract. I’d be surprised if any lawyer hires DON’T redline their contract. Fact is: at a BigCorp you are a “human resource”. You are barely different to a node in their datacentre.
- thw0rted 6y ago
  I don't have any knowledge of the matter but I can say with absolute confidence that yes, of course Google's legal department employees have corporate management software on their (corporate) devices, because Google's IT security department is not run by a bunch of volunteers working for the middle school PTA.
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
You'd think they'd offer the guy a job still, but without the contract changes, instead of immediately pulling out. It sounds like he was firm, but given a chance to take the job without said changes, he may still have accepted. Geez. It is unreasonable and in bad faith to completely like a candidate and then reject them for merely asking for a contract change.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  It sounds like he didn't just ask for a contract change: He simply crossed it out and expected them to take it. I'm honestly surprised people do that. I always go with the assumption that a job offer comes with the implication that you agree to the legal stuff as you are signing it: If you don't, you have refused the job. If you don't agree to something that has been updated, you have quit. The only thing that might actually protects you in the last scenario is something like a job contract, but a lot of places in the states simply don't have them for everyone.
  - silverpepsi 6y ago
    Haven't you ever thought it odd that the document is entirely authored on one end and hence entirely nothing but a list of terms advantageous to one party? From this perspective, a single deletion is a pathic barely countable concession at best. Imagine B2B contracts were written this way...whatever company has the bigger ego authors every last word and walks away the moment a detail is questioned. You could only afford negotiation tactics at that abuse level if you literally have customers begging it the alter of death to buy your product at a willingness to surrender all in order to make it happen. Plus they would sign but still hate you can hope to end the relationship with 0 loyalty the moment an alternative appeared on the market.
    - waheoo 6y ago
      This is essentially the same outcome. They start relationships with everyone poorly and they pay the price. There is a reason stuff like the danmore debacle can even happen. They're a huge echo chamber.
e40 6y ago
Does this mean you are required to have an Android phone? What if you have an iPhone? Rootkit required there, too?
- dheera 6y ago
  Google probably has their corporate app for iOS too. Just have a phone with an obscure OS and escape all compatibility with their corporate crap. They should provide you with a phone if they want you to install their corporate app.
  - qmarchi 6y ago
    So, as a Google employee, they do. If you don't want to run corp software, you can easily just request a corporate phone and that's that.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      It is unfortunate (and a reflection of the power imbalance in US employment) that Google doesn't simply offer a corporate phone as a matter of practice - it benefits both the employee and the employer in the long run (with dishonest actions put aside).
      - cortesoft 6y ago
        Some people don't like carrying two phones.
        munk-a 6y ago
        Those people aren't barred from suffering from invasions of privacy and rootkits for the sake of a minor convenience. Most places outside of tech folks with tolls need to carry company tools where they go - doctors carrying hospital beepers was essentially a meme in the 90's.
        6y ago
ajsnigrutin 6y ago
This is not a rare policy.... but they give you a work phone, and you only use it for work. If they don't pay you for being available after work, you turn it off after you stop working, and turn it back on in the morning.
lokar 6y ago
You don't have to put the corp stuff on your device. They will provide you with a company phone that you can then use for only company stuff.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Why not just get a work phone?
z6 6y ago
They have no shortage of people wanting to work for them. Why bother taking on a 'difficult' person?
- wpietri 6y ago
  Why take on a person who reads things closely, thinks about them carefully, values privacy, and has a sense of integrity? There are a bunch of reasons. But the business one is that modern companies can't concentrate power at the top if they want to be successful in the long term. Innovation and adaptation don't happen because the SEVP of whatever has a brainstorm. They happen because people doing the work are intelligent, well informed, and care about the customers, their colleagues, and the company. If the most important characteristic in hiring is "agree instantly with all authority figures" that's a recipe for organizational rigidity and stagnation. Some of the best hires I've made have been "difficult". Because some kinds of "difficult" are just taking values seriously.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    > values privacy I'd expect this to be a negative for a company whose entire business is based on stalking people.
- csa 6y ago
  Rank and file Googlers used to be interesting people. Now they are mostly mediocre engineers who excel at jumping through hoops -- and much less interesting as people. Luckily for Google, they just need to keep the juggernaut moving rather than functioning optimally.
- jbay808 6y ago
  One reason would be: Negotiating contract terms in good faith proves that it's not a contract of adhesion. By making the contract non-negotiable in this way, Google also risks its existing employment contracts being deemed unenforceable, having certain terms voided, or being read in the least favourable interpretation in court. So it's in Google's interest to at least pretend to negotiate.
enraged_camel 6y ago
Potential employees asking for special provisions in employment contracts would be a red flag. Nobody deals with tracking every employee and the slight differences in the terms they agreed to.
mleonhard 6y ago
I guess the person didn't really want the job. If they wanted it, they could have just gotten a company phone and laptop, used them only for work, and kept them in the office. Company devices are occasionally stolen for their internal data: emails, docs, code, and config. This data can be useful to investors and competitors. Companies hire expensive people to limit the amount of data exposed in theft incidents. Understandably, they don't let individual employees opt-out of their expensive data security processes.
- lokar 6y ago
  Also, these companies (not just Google) face the very real threat of outside groups (and nation states) attempting to infiltrate them via new hires. They need full control and detailed forensics for all authorized access devices.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > When they showed up HR started with "But that isn't how we use it, we would never access your personal data." So, what, was HR lying? More to the point, Google shouldn't be putting critical business information on personal devices, that's a security risk. If they're that worried about it, they should be issuing every employee a separate phone. "We don't trust you enough to have your own device without a rootkit, but we somehow still think it's a good idea to send sensitive company emails to somebody's random custom-ROM 3rd-party Android phone or Macbook, which might have who-knows-what 3rd-party malware installed on it." Why would you want to put company secrets on the same device that somebody is using to play Pokemon Go, Among Us, and to connect to whatever IoT disaster that they've just been gifted for Christmas?
  - mleonhard 6y ago
    Google Security has a list of supported devices & OS versions that can run their rootkit. Google corporate accounts cannot sign in on other devices. When a device gets too old and rolls off the supported list, they automatically log it out and wipe any company data on it. I believe most large companies operate like this. Google is actually more flexible than most companies: Any employee can get a company phone and employees are allowed to use their personal phones if they want (and don't mind the rootkit and spying). Surprisingly, a lot of people opt for the rootkit & spying to avoid carrying two phones. This saves the company some money on phones & mobile service contracts. And it makes those employees happy.
phendrenad2 6y ago
Google is the expert at scaling, and that probably applies to hiring as well. If someone takes too long to get through onboarding, kicking them out is preferable to allowing it to disrupt onboarding other engineers. Would you waste time trying to debug an oddly broken kubernetes node, or just drop it and bring up a new one?
- nmfisher 6y ago
  This is probably the most overlooked comment here. I'm guessing that Google just DGAF about any individual employee. They're not short of candidates, so why waste even a tiny amount of time customizing their contract terms when they can just revoke it and move to the next in line.
  - soup10 6y ago
    That's not actually what happened, Google, much like any company wants to hire people that are "good team players" "will be loyal to the company", "don't cause trouble", and "show gratitude for the opportunity given to them". So either you play the game or you have enough leverage to get special treatment(or you work somewhere else). They want good corporate drones, not individualists that protest when privacy rights are signed away.
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      There's also the option to just not install corporate apps on your personal device.
- kthejoker2 6y ago
  Exactly, they want cattle, not pets.
lacker 6y ago
It’s a shame they didn’t figure something practical out! For me, I didn’t want Facebook to have access to my phone, so I just used my personal phone for personal issues instead of using my corporate phone for everything in my life. That worked fine, I just had to pay for my own phone.
jkaplowitz 6y ago
If they did that after the person turned down other job offers and possibly incurred explicit financial expenses in reliance on Google accepting the redlined changes - assuming they highlighted the changes when they provided them instead of trying to sneak it past - Google could possibly be liable for damages caused by that reliance if they were to be sued or arbitrated against. It says really bad things about the corporatist labor culture in the US that Google doesn't have any reason to fear that type of lawsuit in practice. (I.e., they could make it too expensive to win, they'd still hire without a problem going forward, and the person who sued them would have trouble getting jobs even if they win.)
nautilus12 6y ago
This actually makes me glad I never got a google job
kamaal 6y ago
I think the very existence of such a person would be giant trouble maker red flag. Wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to get rid of him as soon as they noticed it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
krageon 6y ago
Big companies never want to give you a changed contract. It's a power trip thing and generally has nothing to do with what you actually want to change.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jedberg 6y ago

I'm not. Legal doesn't want to deal with everyone having a different employment contract. Google has always leaned towards being ok with a ton of false negatives to avoid false positives. They'd rather give up 10 good hires than make one bad one. This is just an extension of that. They don't want any exceptions and they aren't willing to make any.

MereInterest 6y ago
Isn't it great when even something as huge and life-changing as a job is subject to a contract of adhesion with no negotiation allowed? I'm sure glad to live in such a free country with great worker rights. (Sarcasm intended.)
- willcipriano 6y ago
  I have no idea how those contracts are enforceable. Quit your job, move across the country and then on your first day here are nine contracts to sign, no you can't take them home we need them now. If you don't sign you are unemployed and we want that relocation money back. I used to ask potential employers when I got deep into interviews with them. "Is there any way I can see all the contracts I would need to sign on my first day?" and my experience is employers are very taken aback the question. How can you possibly talk remuneration when there also is some hidden contract that is part of it that you can't see until your first day?
  - realityking 6y ago
    I was un are of this system until I hired in the US. It blows my mind. Here (Germany) offer letters are used to outline the general terms of an offer however the next step will then be that you’re sent a contract (some of mine have been > 10 pages) outlining a lot of relevant things such: - role (ideally even with a job description but that is rare) - place of employment (city/country) - IP assignment - length of probation - length of notice period for both sides - expectation of work travel - vacation - compensation And a bunch of other things that I’m forgetting. Similar to the above story, there’s always some resistance from employers to customize terms. It’s operationally much simpler for a company to have unified terms. However at every company I’ve been at I’ve been able to secure changes to the IP assignment clauses. Of course all of this only works because these contracts are enforceable. There’s no such thing as at will employment here.
    - fogetti 6y ago
      If you want to know, the same system happens in Japan too. When you get the offer letter it's an outline only. Then you either accept the offer letter as it is, or walk away. Asking for the detailed contract (called 就業規則 in Japanese) will always end up losing your job offer, because you have no legal right to see the contract before you join the company. Some companies are so hostile (and this is the norm in my experience), that even very valid questions along the line of "Do I get severance pay if I am forced to retire?" or "How do stock options work?" will end your job application process right there because you will get labeled as overzealous. Also, Japanese law doesn't require to state in the contract the exact position that you are hired into. So you will often get hired with the job description: "engineering team member". Of course HR will tell you mealy-mouthed or mellifluously that you are a senior/principal engineer and/or a manager, but none of that will hold any legal water in a lawsuit since your contract doesn't say so. If you ask me, Japan and the US, some of the largest economies of the world are constant labor right abusers and the UN and other nations simply turn their head when this ever gets brought up.
      - rablackburn 6y ago
        I still remember the furore it caused when I asked for a copy of the 業務規則. (because the new overtime pay policy was paying ~$3/hr worked after 10pm and I wanted to see the section that covered that calculation) I just wanted to read the actual language around hours worked and overtime because it was never stated what the policy was. Turns out you couldn’t read it without a director sitting next to you, and it was in a binder that you weren’t allowed to touch. My conversation with the CEO: “Why would you need to read that?” “Because my contract says ‘in accordance with the 業務規則’ and I’d like to know what my contract is” “Well you can ask me a question and ill tell you if it’s in there” Glad I got off that sinking ship.
- sneak 6y ago
  If you don't like the way Google does business, you are free to not do business with them, either as an employee or customer. I don't understand your snark.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    If you don't know the way Google does business, because you don't know the terms of the contract, then you cannot make an informed choice. You are not free to choose unless you have information to guide that choice.
    - lopmotr 6y ago
      You know that you will have to sign a contract. And even if you don't, they're in an "at will" state so they can fire you whenever they want (eg. on your first day) without giving a reason. You know all that going in and can choose to work in a state or country with stronger labor laws if you don't like it.
      - pretendscholar 6y ago
        Just move to a different country bro
      - MereInterest 6y ago
        Holy cow, that's some monstrous reasoning. To paraphrase, you're saying that going in, before even seeing a contract, you should be prepared to agree to anything because it is your role to agree to anything. And then you go on to say that it is their own fault for not moving to a location that forbids it. The choices are not just "like it or leave it". Another is to recognize that the options being presented are unreasonable, and that the entire situation should be changed to make it impossible. I agree that the solution is stronger labor laws. I disagree vehemently that people should be forced to relocate as a condition of those stronger labor laws.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    This is helpful information - the next time I'm working on promoting my website I'll remember that it's entirely optional whether my business thrives or I go destitute due to refusing to be indexed by their search index. Your statement is accurate when a healthy market and competitors exist but you are not free to avoid doing business with Google since they have an insane amount of market control.
- throwaway667555 6y ago
  The person redlined a contract instead of spending +$2000/yr (out of a likely $250,000+ salary) on a second personal phone. Such short-sidedness is a bad trait in an employee. Second, their protest is laudable. But their decision was consciously: "the legal department of this $xxx billion company (that spends $xx million maintaining this employment contract template) will bend to my will, or I will {quit OR relent}". If they'd quit? Job well done. If they'd relent? Then why try? You're screaming into a void, and if you didn't recognize this prior to redlining, you have a bad trait for an employee. All scenarios point to a competent red-liner achieving their desired outcome -- an ethical win in whatever case. Only an incompetent/shortsighted/kneejerk/low-critical-thinking red-liner would achieve an undesired outcome, because they didn't consider the game before playing.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    Agreed, this is not a factory job for a few dollars here and there.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    Honestly, that is the sort of solution I would expect the legal department to suggest as a counter-offer, with Google paying the difference. Having the legal department review contract changes is something I would expect to be standard for them, not a deal breaker. It is the reason for having the legal department there in the first place.
    - throwaway667555 6y ago
      Some details of an offer & acceptance of employment are trivial and not worth spoiling good will. Me: "Hey manager, can I make an expense report for this work phone?" No matter the response, I'm ok with it, because I make Google money, and that's policy. I should work towards becoming management if I want that to change. But I probably have better things to do than such a trivial disagreement. I wish corporations were less psychopathic, too, but this is not the hill I'd die on. Or, I'd be damn sure ready to die if I redlined as a "nice to meet you" first act.
- gowld 6y ago
  What would "negotiation allowed" mean? Negotiation includes saying "no". The remedy for that is labor law, not some right to negotiate. An interesting labor law challenge is "one side repeatedly making assertions that don't accord with contract, and I rely on those assertions, or the other side should be punished for making statements that suggest bad faith."
  - kelnos 6y ago
    It's not much of a "negotiation" when the power imbalance is such that the employer can say no to your every request, but if you say no to any of theirs, you're unemployed.
    - MereInterest 6y ago
      Not only unemployed, but potentially unemployed in a new city, and liable for returning the relocation package. There is zero leverage in such a position if a company alters the deal, and tells you to pray they don't alter it further. Thankfully that that didn't happen to me, but it was in the back of my mind that after moving, I wasn't in the greatest of positions if there were to be any objectionable clauses.
    - jbay808 6y ago
      It's especially not much of a negotiation if they fire you for daring to negotiate, rather than saying "no".
- geofft 6y ago
  Here's my question for everyone on this thread: what are you going to do about it? My rough guesses of what you could do: - unionize your shop / commit to working at unionized shops (addresses the power imbalance between individual employees and the employer by treating employees as a group) - use the power you have as an employee to drive change at your workplace, if you're one of those employees who is well-treated by your employer and doesn't need to unionize - advocate for stronger labor protections in law / vote for lawmakers who will create them - advocate for existing labor/contract protections to be interpreted the way you want (e.g. advocate or vote for judges who share that interpretation, donate to or create non-profits who can file amicus briefs or write law review articles advocating for this interpretation) If this is what's at the top of the HN discussions on a barely-related article, it's pretty clear to me that tech workers, a relatively powerful group, feel pretty strongly about this issue. So why don't we do something about it?
  - dleslie 6y ago
    As tech workers, likely making American wages, many of the folks here would be better served paying a congressperson and joining a PAC than they would be by paying union dues.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Don't kid yourself. Your employer will always be better connected and more influential politically than you, unless you organize. You'll be fired for donating to that PAC if it's actually becoming controversial and effective. Fortunately, unions have the same status in campaign contribution laws as PACs, so your best bet to do some lobbying as a worker is to join a union and use it as a PAC.
      - dleslie 6y ago
        I watched my parents suffer throughout their careers because their Unions were politically toxic and also deigned it necessary to keep their wages below market in order to apply pressure on the employer to raise the wages of others in the bargaining unit. As though a lineman and a telecontrol technologist are similarly skilled and trained. My father spent the better part of a decade trying to hire his replacement because the union wage was so attrociously below market for his labour. And then the politics, favouritism, bullying and abuse that occurs under a union; because the shop steward et al formed a social clique to get themselves and their buddies the best hours and best positions. My two siblings went to work in unions and now regail me with similar tales. No, I'm happy working for small and independent game studios and negotiating for myself, thanks. I happily donate the money to political organizations that would otherwsie be used to pay union dues.
- balena 6y ago
  From the standpoint of a European, this would have been totally fine some 200 years ago
- foogazi 6y ago
  Negotiation doesn’t mean that you get your way and they agree to your demands Sounds like both parties had a hard line on what they would accept
  - framecowbird 6y ago
    I think the takeaway is that the hard line for Google is being able to rootkit your phone
    - machinelabo 6y ago
      Then don't give your phone to Google. Don't use personal phone for work. Ask them for a phone if they want you to use it. Why is this difficult? Why complain about something that is 100% in your control? Employer that has thousands of employees don't have the time to amend contracts on per employee basis. Seems fair to me. Google has HIPA-level access for personal data, even some medical data about people, security is tight. They don't want some righteous asshat arguing about contract agreements.
      - est31 6y ago
        IDK the legal details of the contract, but Google has root level access to all Android phones with gapps installed. It's definitely possible for them to figure out which phone you use privately and rootkit it.
        machinelabo 6y ago
        This is an extremely broad claim, do you have anything to back that up with? Saying that Google would snoop your personal phone (which doesn't have your Google work account) as a Google employee needs some hard facts to back that up. Since you don't know the legal details of the contract, how about we stop speculating conspiracy theories? Please keep the discussion factual and reasonable.
        est31 6y ago
- austhrow743 6y ago
  People absolutely negotiate successfully with Google. New hires fresh out of uni do. Tens of thousands of more dollars. It just seems that invading their employees privacy is table stakes for them.
  - howlgarnish 6y ago
    You can (and should) negotiate salary, they expect that and have the authority to bump up your pay. However, trying to negotiate the legal terms of a contract with a FAANG is highly unlikely to succeed, since HR is not authorized to change anything and Legal doesn't give a shit about you.
- vidarh 6y ago
  Moving to the UK from Norway was a shock to me in the sheer length of employment contracts. Prior to that most of my contracts had been a single page: Norwegian law regulates default terms so strictly that long contracts are rarely needed. In fact, they are hard to make enforceable, because any additional concession to the employer needs to be justified, usually by extra consideration. But many rights are inalienable. It's a recognition that few employer-employee relationship approaches a negotiation between equals.
harha 6y ago
From what I've seen, the ratio is quite different. They'd rather make many less good hires who do as they're told than a more complicated one, even if that person were better at all the attributes. You can tell people a lot about culture and how some things are just formalities, but the contract is what remains, everything else changes with the next reorg. From the point of view of the person at legal it makes sense (too much complexity and extra work), from higher management it makes sense (potential risk with someone who can think for themselves and won't accept everything that is handed to them), and the hiring manager will probably not pick a fight for someone who's not even on the team yet.
ChuckMcM 6y ago
Oh I "understood" it, California is a "Right to Work" state and signing the agreement was clearly a requirement of working and by not signing the unchanged agreement, it was a voluntary action of elimination etc etc. So Google was well within their rights to rescind their job offer as they did. That said, it was at a time where Google was complaining bitterly about how hard it was to hire engineers, and their much vaunted hiring process would only offer 1 in 10,000 applicants. That they would have a candidate who had made it through the gauntlet, and some manager was waiting for them to show up, be turned away at the last minute based on an explicit clarification of a clause that Google, through the HR rep at the intake session, had already said was consistent with the intent of the agreement? That surprised me. If the HR rep was speaking truthfully, then I would have expected to Google legal to just adopt the updated text in this agreement and all future agreements. It literally got tweaked at least once a year so the problem of "multiple agreements" wasn't really a problem. So my amazement was first the cognitive dissonance between what they said and what they did, then the realization that what was written was what they meant, and thus what HR had said was a misrepresentation of the intent. I don't know how many people have lawyers review these things, I do, but I may be unusual in that regard. My lawyer said that there were a number of things in the agreement that were unenforceable, and a few that were likely unlawful, but when they came up I would probably already be on my way out so it wasn't particularly harmful to sign. And some advice on how to avoid getting on the wrong side of the agreement and thus giving them a reason to separate me "for cause." (legal or not). And now we have this story where the NLRB which suggests that Google is not above doing illegal things to protect their interests.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  California is not a Right to work state. It is an At-will employment state (as are all states). "Right to Work" laws concern union contracts requiring all employees to pay union dues.
  - ChuckMcM 6y ago
    Thanks for the correction!
- 6y ago
snotrockets 6y ago
And a great reason for collective bargaining from the employees.
hinkley 6y ago
If the security folks don’t get to dictate corporate strategy, why do the legal folks? I mean, is this company making widgets for money, or legal briefs?
thraway12 6y ago
how do you know it's just an extension of that?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mdesq 6y ago
Agreed. It's not surprising at all since they don't want to manage a bunch of different contracts. However, I'm of the opinion (and I am a lawyer) that the contracts should then always be especially construed even more strictly than usual against the drafter.
cupofcoffee 6y ago
Google isn't as selective as it's made out to be.
peglasaurus 6y ago
Or they do in fact want that clause just as it is. By design. They simply don't want to change it. This likely isn’t about having different contracts for different hires. Its about their intrinsic need, or more precisely, their deep requirement, to have that clause in.
ryandrake 6y ago
Yea, this shouldn't be surprising at all. Every company I've ever worked had some wiggle room with salary and equity, but when it came to the legal terms, they were not negotiable. I tried the cute "redlining" thing a few times, and without exception it always ended up with a stern letter from Legal: "Sign it unmodified or GTFO!" I don't know who all these Captains Of Industry are who claim to be able to actually negotiate any of these terms with their company's legal department. Unless you are some kind of unicorn super-star or exec, I don't see any company wanting to deal with the hassle of negotiating a special snowflake contract for you.
zxienin 6y ago
> different employment contracts Then make all contracts explicit with such a fair statement? How many employees would one imagine, objecting to it? Even if there are contract variations, Google has resources and talent to manage it with tools.

llampx 6y ago

Was this supposed to be on a work phone or a personal phone? If a personal phone, was it a requirement to use it for work purposes? Most times, I believe a change to the employment agreement made by the employee would result in the employer not going forward with the hire, unless it was agreed upon in the negotiation phase. So unfortunately I am not surprised at the outcome.

MereInterest 6y ago
What surprises me is how common it is to not provide full contracts during the negotiation phase. How can you know if there is a clause that needs to be negotiated out without first seeing what clauses there are?

dheera 6y ago

> by installing a rootkit On what? A phone or laptop? They should provide the device, if so. As long as they are providing the hardware and I'm not forced to carry it around during personal time, I don't see a problem with it; I just wouldn't log into my personal accounts with it, and maintain separate personal hardware.

Broken_Hippo 6y ago
I completely agree. They can put whatever they want on a work phone that I don't need to take with me without it being an explicit part of the job. I very much mind on a personal device.

tareqak 6y ago

I wonder if Google legal department's hires also have that clause in their contract.

dannyw 6y ago
I’m sure Google isn’t going to reject a legal department hire for negotiating their contract. I’d be surprised if any lawyer hires DON’T redline their contract. Fact is: at a BigCorp you are a “human resource”. You are barely different to a node in their datacentre.
thw0rted 6y ago
I don't have any knowledge of the matter but I can say with absolute confidence that yes, of course Google's legal department employees have corporate management software on their (corporate) devices, because Google's IT security department is not run by a bunch of volunteers working for the middle school PTA.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

You'd think they'd offer the guy a job still, but without the contract changes, instead of immediately pulling out. It sounds like he was firm, but given a chance to take the job without said changes, he may still have accepted. Geez. It is unreasonable and in bad faith to completely like a candidate and then reject them for merely asking for a contract change.

Broken_Hippo 6y ago
It sounds like he didn't just ask for a contract change: He simply crossed it out and expected them to take it. I'm honestly surprised people do that. I always go with the assumption that a job offer comes with the implication that you agree to the legal stuff as you are signing it: If you don't, you have refused the job. If you don't agree to something that has been updated, you have quit. The only thing that might actually protects you in the last scenario is something like a job contract, but a lot of places in the states simply don't have them for everyone.
- silverpepsi 6y ago
  Haven't you ever thought it odd that the document is entirely authored on one end and hence entirely nothing but a list of terms advantageous to one party? From this perspective, a single deletion is a pathic barely countable concession at best. Imagine B2B contracts were written this way...whatever company has the bigger ego authors every last word and walks away the moment a detail is questioned. You could only afford negotiation tactics at that abuse level if you literally have customers begging it the alter of death to buy your product at a willingness to surrender all in order to make it happen. Plus they would sign but still hate you can hope to end the relationship with 0 loyalty the moment an alternative appeared on the market.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    This is essentially the same outcome. They start relationships with everyone poorly and they pay the price. There is a reason stuff like the danmore debacle can even happen. They're a huge echo chamber.

e40 6y ago

Does this mean you are required to have an Android phone? What if you have an iPhone? Rootkit required there, too?

dheera 6y ago
Google probably has their corporate app for iOS too. Just have a phone with an obscure OS and escape all compatibility with their corporate crap. They should provide you with a phone if they want you to install their corporate app.
- qmarchi 6y ago
  So, as a Google employee, they do. If you don't want to run corp software, you can easily just request a corporate phone and that's that.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    It is unfortunate (and a reflection of the power imbalance in US employment) that Google doesn't simply offer a corporate phone as a matter of practice - it benefits both the employee and the employer in the long run (with dishonest actions put aside).
    - cortesoft 6y ago
      Some people don't like carrying two phones.
      - munk-a 6y ago
        Those people aren't barred from suffering from invasions of privacy and rootkits for the sake of a minor convenience. Most places outside of tech folks with tolls need to carry company tools where they go - doctors carrying hospital beepers was essentially a meme in the 90's.
        6y ago

ajsnigrutin 6y ago

This is not a rare policy.... but they give you a work phone, and you only use it for work. If they don't pay you for being available after work, you turn it off after you stop working, and turn it back on in the morning.

lokar 6y ago

You don't have to put the corp stuff on your device. They will provide you with a company phone that you can then use for only company stuff.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

Why not just get a work phone?

z6 6y ago

They have no shortage of people wanting to work for them. Why bother taking on a 'difficult' person?

wpietri 6y ago
Why take on a person who reads things closely, thinks about them carefully, values privacy, and has a sense of integrity? There are a bunch of reasons. But the business one is that modern companies can't concentrate power at the top if they want to be successful in the long term. Innovation and adaptation don't happen because the SEVP of whatever has a brainstorm. They happen because people doing the work are intelligent, well informed, and care about the customers, their colleagues, and the company. If the most important characteristic in hiring is "agree instantly with all authority figures" that's a recipe for organizational rigidity and stagnation. Some of the best hires I've made have been "difficult". Because some kinds of "difficult" are just taking values seriously.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  > values privacy I'd expect this to be a negative for a company whose entire business is based on stalking people.
csa 6y ago
Rank and file Googlers used to be interesting people. Now they are mostly mediocre engineers who excel at jumping through hoops -- and much less interesting as people. Luckily for Google, they just need to keep the juggernaut moving rather than functioning optimally.
jbay808 6y ago
One reason would be: Negotiating contract terms in good faith proves that it's not a contract of adhesion. By making the contract non-negotiable in this way, Google also risks its existing employment contracts being deemed unenforceable, having certain terms voided, or being read in the least favourable interpretation in court. So it's in Google's interest to at least pretend to negotiate.

enraged_camel 6y ago

Potential employees asking for special provisions in employment contracts would be a red flag. Nobody deals with tracking every employee and the slight differences in the terms they agreed to.

mleonhard 6y ago

I guess the person didn't really want the job. If they wanted it, they could have just gotten a company phone and laptop, used them only for work, and kept them in the office. Company devices are occasionally stolen for their internal data: emails, docs, code, and config. This data can be useful to investors and competitors. Companies hire expensive people to limit the amount of data exposed in theft incidents. Understandably, they don't let individual employees opt-out of their expensive data security processes.

lokar 6y ago
Also, these companies (not just Google) face the very real threat of outside groups (and nation states) attempting to infiltrate them via new hires. They need full control and detailed forensics for all authorized access devices.
danShumway 6y ago
> When they showed up HR started with "But that isn't how we use it, we would never access your personal data." So, what, was HR lying? More to the point, Google shouldn't be putting critical business information on personal devices, that's a security risk. If they're that worried about it, they should be issuing every employee a separate phone. "We don't trust you enough to have your own device without a rootkit, but we somehow still think it's a good idea to send sensitive company emails to somebody's random custom-ROM 3rd-party Android phone or Macbook, which might have who-knows-what 3rd-party malware installed on it." Why would you want to put company secrets on the same device that somebody is using to play Pokemon Go, Among Us, and to connect to whatever IoT disaster that they've just been gifted for Christmas?
- mleonhard 6y ago
  Google Security has a list of supported devices & OS versions that can run their rootkit. Google corporate accounts cannot sign in on other devices. When a device gets too old and rolls off the supported list, they automatically log it out and wipe any company data on it. I believe most large companies operate like this. Google is actually more flexible than most companies: Any employee can get a company phone and employees are allowed to use their personal phones if they want (and don't mind the rootkit and spying). Surprisingly, a lot of people opt for the rootkit & spying to avoid carrying two phones. This saves the company some money on phones & mobile service contracts. And it makes those employees happy.

phendrenad2 6y ago

Google is the expert at scaling, and that probably applies to hiring as well. If someone takes too long to get through onboarding, kicking them out is preferable to allowing it to disrupt onboarding other engineers. Would you waste time trying to debug an oddly broken kubernetes node, or just drop it and bring up a new one?

nmfisher 6y ago
This is probably the most overlooked comment here. I'm guessing that Google just DGAF about any individual employee. They're not short of candidates, so why waste even a tiny amount of time customizing their contract terms when they can just revoke it and move to the next in line.
- soup10 6y ago
  That's not actually what happened, Google, much like any company wants to hire people that are "good team players" "will be loyal to the company", "don't cause trouble", and "show gratitude for the opportunity given to them". So either you play the game or you have enough leverage to get special treatment(or you work somewhere else). They want good corporate drones, not individualists that protest when privacy rights are signed away.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    There's also the option to just not install corporate apps on your personal device.
kthejoker2 6y ago
Exactly, they want cattle, not pets.

lacker 6y ago

It’s a shame they didn’t figure something practical out! For me, I didn’t want Facebook to have access to my phone, so I just used my personal phone for personal issues instead of using my corporate phone for everything in my life. That worked fine, I just had to pay for my own phone.

jkaplowitz 6y ago

If they did that after the person turned down other job offers and possibly incurred explicit financial expenses in reliance on Google accepting the redlined changes - assuming they highlighted the changes when they provided them instead of trying to sneak it past - Google could possibly be liable for damages caused by that reliance if they were to be sued or arbitrated against. It says really bad things about the corporatist labor culture in the US that Google doesn't have any reason to fear that type of lawsuit in practice. (I.e., they could make it too expensive to win, they'd still hire without a problem going forward, and the person who sued them would have trouble getting jobs even if they win.)

nautilus12 6y ago

This actually makes me glad I never got a google job

kamaal 6y ago

I think the very existence of such a person would be giant trouble maker red flag. Wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to get rid of him as soon as they noticed it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

krageon 6y ago

Big companies never want to give you a changed contract. It's a power trip thing and generally has nothing to do with what you actually want to change.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]