3 ms·

As I understand, she first sent out mass email to large group of employees that outright violated Google's policy. This act alone was sufficient for immediate t

As I understand, she first sent out mass email to large group of employees that outright violated Google's policy. This act alone was sufficient for immediate termination. However, she then tried to bargain with her manager. Her manager basically let her know that bargaining was irrelevant and her action was serious enough that she is being terminated immediately. Then she comes back and tells the story with twist that Google ignored her bargaining and terminated her even while she initiated that bargaining. She goes on to reveal a lot of things except the content of her email or even hint of exactly what was so incriminating. Now she wants to keep lid closed in the name of future lawsuit all the while launching attacks on everyone. I feel whole thing is super muddy. If she is truly ethical, she needs to come out clean on exactly what happened or just stop attacking everyone and keep playing victim.

kenjackson 6y ago
The email has been posted in full and it sounds like it was to a standard mailing list. Nothing in the email sounds like something you would be fired over. But Google seems really sensitive these days.
- bananaface 6y ago
  Do you have a link?
- trhway 6y ago
  after 20 years at several US BigCo-s i see such an email as a totally fireable offense for a manager in a US company (and in Russia the boss would do bad things to you and would still probably fire you after that if you don't come to your senses :): https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-an-ethical https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a... It also sounds like she did lawyer-rammed the Google a year before, so they were tip-topping around her strictly by the book, and with such clear an offense as that email she just threw the HR a freebie, as another commenter put it, so they could now get rid of her strictly by the book.
cmiles74 6y ago
Could you outline what content in the email as an "outright violation of Google's policy"? Having read the email, it did not strike me as a fire-able offense.
- x0x0 6y ago
  Couple things > Have you ever heard of someone getting “feedback” on a paper through a privileged and confidential document to HR? Does that sound like a standard procedure to you or does it just happen to people like me who are constantly dehumanized? Taking a dispute with your management chain re: feedback that said management chain felt they had to take actions like a private, hr-involved feedback session, and broadcasting that dispute to a mailing list of peers, downlevels, etc. > But now there’s an additional layer saying any privileged person can decide that they don’t want your paper out with zero conversation. This was, from the perspective of google management, probably very much not a reasonable characterization of the aforementioned circumstances. Managers represent the company, including publicly. Timnit was obviously in an awkward position where she seems to have been a player coach, ie a manager also doing IC level work (in this case, research). It feels like she expected her actions as an IC not to be viewed as actions that also came from a manager. That's a very hard dual role to have. Third, maybe shouldn't get you fired in a perfect world, but prolly will in ours: Public internal criticism of DEI efforts on the part of your management chain. Imagine how that reads to a line-level employee at Google. Particularly an URM. Fourth, same vein -- auguring on an internal mailing list to get the CBC to criticize your employer > I believe that the Congressional Black Caucus is the entity that started forcing tech companies to report their diversity numbers I'm only paying attention because I'm curious if Timnit was hired to -- if you will excuse the phrase -- whitewash google's policies, and she didn't understand what Google was buying; or if there genuinely was some conflict here. I suspect both from different players in the executive ranks.
cloudfiend 6y ago
Finally, someone who got what this is about; attacking anyone and everyone that dared to question her right to attack the company that employed her and the people that work there.

kenjackson 6y ago

The email has been posted in full and it sounds like it was to a standard mailing list. Nothing in the email sounds like something you would be fired over. But Google seems really sensitive these days.

bananaface 6y ago
Do you have a link?
trhway 6y ago
after 20 years at several US BigCo-s i see such an email as a totally fireable offense for a manager in a US company (and in Russia the boss would do bad things to you and would still probably fire you after that if you don't come to your senses :): https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-an-ethical https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a... It also sounds like she did lawyer-rammed the Google a year before, so they were tip-topping around her strictly by the book, and with such clear an offense as that email she just threw the HR a freebie, as another commenter put it, so they could now get rid of her strictly by the book.

cmiles74 6y ago

Could you outline what content in the email as an "outright violation of Google's policy"? Having read the email, it did not strike me as a fire-able offense.

x0x0 6y ago
Couple things > Have you ever heard of someone getting “feedback” on a paper through a privileged and confidential document to HR? Does that sound like a standard procedure to you or does it just happen to people like me who are constantly dehumanized? Taking a dispute with your management chain re: feedback that said management chain felt they had to take actions like a private, hr-involved feedback session, and broadcasting that dispute to a mailing list of peers, downlevels, etc. > But now there’s an additional layer saying any privileged person can decide that they don’t want your paper out with zero conversation. This was, from the perspective of google management, probably very much not a reasonable characterization of the aforementioned circumstances. Managers represent the company, including publicly. Timnit was obviously in an awkward position where she seems to have been a player coach, ie a manager also doing IC level work (in this case, research). It feels like she expected her actions as an IC not to be viewed as actions that also came from a manager. That's a very hard dual role to have. Third, maybe shouldn't get you fired in a perfect world, but prolly will in ours: Public internal criticism of DEI efforts on the part of your management chain. Imagine how that reads to a line-level employee at Google. Particularly an URM. Fourth, same vein -- auguring on an internal mailing list to get the CBC to criticize your employer > I believe that the Congressional Black Caucus is the entity that started forcing tech companies to report their diversity numbers I'm only paying attention because I'm curious if Timnit was hired to -- if you will excuse the phrase -- whitewash google's policies, and she didn't understand what Google was buying; or if there genuinely was some conflict here. I suspect both from different players in the executive ranks.

cloudfiend 6y ago

Finally, someone who got what this is about; attacking anyone and everyone that dared to question her right to attack the company that employed her and the people that work there.