4 ms·

Pretty sure she was ready to leave though, from the tone of the tweet atleast. On the other hand, as an employer firing people this way is not very smart eithe

Pretty sure she was ready to leave though, from the tone of the tweet atleast. On the other hand, as an employer firing people this way is not very smart either. This brings a lot of attention and seems very vindictive. Especially given the context, this reeks of fire her before she collects proof of <<insert whatever immoral thing google is doing now>> to me.

jaywalk 6y ago
I disagree. If my employee sends out a group email listing demands that must be met in order for them to stay with the company, unless those demands are incredibly reasonable, I'm firing them on the spot. What's the point in keeping someone that disgruntled around? They can only make things worse.
- pr0zac 6y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree with your point regarding letting a disgruntled employee go (and do agree with both grandparent that mentioning resignation was a dangerous negotiating tactic and parent that this seems like Google attempting to quickly revoke an unhappy employee's access to internal information that could paint them in a bad light) I do think its important to note that the email documenting her demands was only sent to her managers and wasn't a group email. Based on the responses to her tweets about this her team was blindsided by her being let go. Also important to the discussion is that her managers (and thus Google) appear to be framing this as "accepting her resignation" as opposed to firing her (tying into GP's point) which likely has consequences with regard to separation benefits and lets Google frame this as not being their decision (or at least would be if it weren't for Twitter/articles like this). It seems like Gebru did things correctly with regard to reporting her unhappiness to her management team but made the mistake of mentioning possible resignation in response to a lack of change which Google jumped on as a method to protect themselves by immediately removing a possibly disgruntled employee in a way that allows them to avoid the downsides of firing her (that simple description alone not meant to imply any judgment). Its a rather murky situation to untangle though when combined with Google's firing of employees participating in organization and other events over the last few years giving the general impression of Google "becoming evil" I does seem like the bad PR this will cause means Google's handling of the situation was a bad choice.
lacker 6y ago
It’s pretty common to handle employee departures this way. I wouldn’t call it “firing” - the employee says they will quit, the company is just deciding the date the quitting happens. Usually it happens when the manager thinks the employee will be disruptive at work during the last couple weeks or so. I can’t speak to this specific situation - perhaps a Google manager is making a poor decision in this case - but in general this is motivated by considerations internal to the company and the team the employee is on, so you can’t really tell from the outside whether it’s a good idea or not.

jaywalk 6y ago

I disagree. If my employee sends out a group email listing demands that must be met in order for them to stay with the company, unless those demands are incredibly reasonable, I'm firing them on the spot. What's the point in keeping someone that disgruntled around? They can only make things worse.

pr0zac 6y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with your point regarding letting a disgruntled employee go (and do agree with both grandparent that mentioning resignation was a dangerous negotiating tactic and parent that this seems like Google attempting to quickly revoke an unhappy employee's access to internal information that could paint them in a bad light) I do think its important to note that the email documenting her demands was only sent to her managers and wasn't a group email. Based on the responses to her tweets about this her team was blindsided by her being let go. Also important to the discussion is that her managers (and thus Google) appear to be framing this as "accepting her resignation" as opposed to firing her (tying into GP's point) which likely has consequences with regard to separation benefits and lets Google frame this as not being their decision (or at least would be if it weren't for Twitter/articles like this). It seems like Gebru did things correctly with regard to reporting her unhappiness to her management team but made the mistake of mentioning possible resignation in response to a lack of change which Google jumped on as a method to protect themselves by immediately removing a possibly disgruntled employee in a way that allows them to avoid the downsides of firing her (that simple description alone not meant to imply any judgment). Its a rather murky situation to untangle though when combined with Google's firing of employees participating in organization and other events over the last few years giving the general impression of Google "becoming evil" I does seem like the bad PR this will cause means Google's handling of the situation was a bad choice.

lacker 6y ago

It’s pretty common to handle employee departures this way. I wouldn’t call it “firing” - the employee says they will quit, the company is just deciding the date the quitting happens. Usually it happens when the manager thinks the employee will be disruptive at work during the last couple weeks or so. I can’t speak to this specific situation - perhaps a Google manager is making a poor decision in this case - but in general this is motivated by considerations internal to the company and the team the employee is on, so you can’t really tell from the outside whether it’s a good idea or not.