7 ms·

The next two tweets contain more: > However, we believe the end of your employment should happen faster than your email reflects because certain aspects of the

The next two tweets contain more: > However, we believe the end of your employment should happen faster than your email reflects because certain aspects of the email you sent last night to non-management employees in the brain group reflect behavior that is inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager. > As a result, we are accepting your resignation immediately, effective today. We will send your final paycheck to your address in Workday. When you return from your vacation, PeopleOps will reach out to you to coordinate the return of Google devices and assets. This third part they make "the resignation" the same as firing the person in practice. No way to plan a coordinated rampdown, transition and handover of projects and responsibilities. Just an unconditional goodbye, don't come to work again.

idlewords 6y ago
No, this is more like giving two weeks' notice and then being asked to leave the building immediately. It's not pleasant but it also isn't the same as being fired. Google called her bluff here.
- draw_down 6y ago
  That's right.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Without the specific wording of the original email, I don't think that you can draw this conclusion. I'll note also that this is rather unusual practice for Google. There are a number of people, far more critical of Google, who have resigned, and who have been able to rampdown for 2+ weeks.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    The posted email specifically says something about behavior not expected of her position. So it seems possible if you are critical, but fulfill your obligations, they would accept your 2 weeks resignation. Is there an example you have, even self-reported, of a person who was merely critical of Google and was not given a rampdown? Or someone who was critical and did not fulfill their job obligations, and was given a rampdown?
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > The posted email specifically says something about behavior not expected of her position. Yes, and its unclear what this behavior was. > Is there an example you have, even self-reported, of a person who was merely critical of Google and was not given a rampdown? No, which is my point. This is unusual behavior on the part of Google, because it's not explained (and certainly not obvious) what the failure was.
      - oh_sigh 6y ago
        > Yes, and its unclear what this behavior was. The email clearly states: "certain aspects of the email you sent last night to non-management employees in the brain group reflect behavior that is inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager" > No, which is my point. No, that is the opposite of your point. You said that people critical of Google have been given a rampdown, so it is unusual for her to not be given a rampdown. My point was that there may be other reasons for her not being given a rampdown - that being exactly what was in the email shared about her not behaving as a manager. If you think that she was fired solely for being critical and not given a rampdown, then there should be other examples of people being fired without a rampdown for merely being critical.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        Yes, and having read the email, I will reiterate my assertion that it is "certainly not obvious" what behavior is being characterized as "inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager". Repeating the vague justification message is not a response to criticism of the vague justification message. The email she was fired for (it's quoted in this thread) does not contain any content that I find to be fireable. > No, that is the opposite of your point. No, it's exactly my point. The vague justification is not borne out by any evidence.
        oh_sigh 6y ago
        I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the email from google management. Presumably it wasn't to lay out a case so that the email could be leaked and twitter could understand their rationale. It was just telling her the reason they are not letting her take her last 2 weeks. She still gets paid, she just can't come into the office. I don't understand why you think that email should be convincing evidence to you, an outsider who has absolutely zero to do with the employment contract between Timnit and Google. Surely, Timnit and relevant parties at Google have more context than you or I do. > The vague justification is not borne out by any evidence. ...that's been leaked onto twitter.
- uoaei 6y ago
  But she didn't ask for two weeks' notice. She signaled she was considering giving notice but had not done so yet.
  - compiler-guy 6y ago
    She said, "If you can't meet these conditions, I will resign effective <XY date>." Google said, "We can't meet these conditions, we accept your resignation and move it to <much earlier date>."
    - uoaei 6y ago
      No, she didn't say that. She said she may set a date in the future for her resignation. That is non-committal and non-specific. Your characterization is inaccurate.
      - compiler-guy 6y ago
        People will have to find the source document, which to the best of my knowledge is not public (note, not the message to Women and Allies), read it, and then reach their own conclusions. I stand by my characterization. She characterizes it herself thusly: "I said here are the conditions. If you can meet them great I’ll take my name off this paper, if not then I can work on a last date." https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334341991795142667 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334341991795142667
        xibalba 6y ago
        I think this is a major source of confusion in this whole conversation. There is clearly a follow up conversation between Timnit and some manager(s) (the name Megan is mentioned) in which this ultimatum was proffered.
        uoaei 6y ago
        That's not clear to me, nor apparently to most people who are interpreting this situation.
- effingwewt 6y ago
  I think this isn't nearly so bad as forcing an early termination of two weeks notice. I had a job pretty recently, was senior tech and was eager to please, which ended up meaning having to take the hard/after hours calls no one else wanted to handle. It also meant I eventually became the only on-call tech for over 4 months straight. This in turn meant I knew the most about all of our accounts, knew the most about their systems, scheduling for jobs as well as subcontractors, I handled it all, right down to installing the CCTV systems at our new location, single handedly. When I decided I'd had enough of being taken advantage of and being lied to, I gave my two weeks notice. They assumed I was going to work for a competitor (I wasn't I was taking some much needed personal time), and they fired me on the spot. While walking me out they also informed me that since they had my resignation letter if I tried to claim unemployment they would use it to claim I had resigned. I didn't care as I wasn't in need of unemployment I was just even happier now about leaving. They were rude, talked down to me and belittled me all the way out. 2 hours after I left the calls began 'how do we' 'how does this' 'this job's permits' 'how do we log into'. I politely told them to fuck off. They even went so far as to have other workers call/text me asking the same questions ver batim. I will never again give 2 weeks notice unless I have in writing they must give me 2 weeks notice upon release for any reason other than something illegal. This person offered an ultimatum and their employer made a choice. I just don't think its as bad as early termination of 2 weeks notice.
  - harrisonjackson 6y ago
    Did you get paid for those 2 weeks? If not then I would say you got fired. After those 2 weeks, if the employer still wants help/answers then they should expect to pay a very very expensive hourly rate. :D As an employer, it makes a lot of sense to accelerate someone out the door that has given notice. That said, you still want them on the hook to answer questions so you should send them home but pay them for those 2 weeks (or however long).
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    The usual practice is to give 2 weeks notice, you get escorted out immediately, and you get paid for those 2 weeks. It's technically not early termination as you're still getting paid. There's no reason to be rude, talk down, belittle, however.
- pwthornton 6y ago
  The Bloomberg model! You put in your two weeks notice and you have two hours to leave the building and never come back.

idlewords 6y ago

No, this is more like giving two weeks' notice and then being asked to leave the building immediately. It's not pleasant but it also isn't the same as being fired. Google called her bluff here.

draw_down 6y ago
That's right.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
joshuamorton 6y ago
Without the specific wording of the original email, I don't think that you can draw this conclusion. I'll note also that this is rather unusual practice for Google. There are a number of people, far more critical of Google, who have resigned, and who have been able to rampdown for 2+ weeks.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  The posted email specifically says something about behavior not expected of her position. So it seems possible if you are critical, but fulfill your obligations, they would accept your 2 weeks resignation. Is there an example you have, even self-reported, of a person who was merely critical of Google and was not given a rampdown? Or someone who was critical and did not fulfill their job obligations, and was given a rampdown?
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > The posted email specifically says something about behavior not expected of her position. Yes, and its unclear what this behavior was. > Is there an example you have, even self-reported, of a person who was merely critical of Google and was not given a rampdown? No, which is my point. This is unusual behavior on the part of Google, because it's not explained (and certainly not obvious) what the failure was.
    - oh_sigh 6y ago
      > Yes, and its unclear what this behavior was. The email clearly states: "certain aspects of the email you sent last night to non-management employees in the brain group reflect behavior that is inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager" > No, which is my point. No, that is the opposite of your point. You said that people critical of Google have been given a rampdown, so it is unusual for her to not be given a rampdown. My point was that there may be other reasons for her not being given a rampdown - that being exactly what was in the email shared about her not behaving as a manager. If you think that she was fired solely for being critical and not given a rampdown, then there should be other examples of people being fired without a rampdown for merely being critical.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Yes, and having read the email, I will reiterate my assertion that it is "certainly not obvious" what behavior is being characterized as "inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager". Repeating the vague justification message is not a response to criticism of the vague justification message. The email she was fired for (it's quoted in this thread) does not contain any content that I find to be fireable. > No, that is the opposite of your point. No, it's exactly my point. The vague justification is not borne out by any evidence.
        oh_sigh 6y ago
        I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the email from google management. Presumably it wasn't to lay out a case so that the email could be leaked and twitter could understand their rationale. It was just telling her the reason they are not letting her take her last 2 weeks. She still gets paid, she just can't come into the office. I don't understand why you think that email should be convincing evidence to you, an outsider who has absolutely zero to do with the employment contract between Timnit and Google. Surely, Timnit and relevant parties at Google have more context than you or I do. > The vague justification is not borne out by any evidence. ...that's been leaked onto twitter.
uoaei 6y ago
But she didn't ask for two weeks' notice. She signaled she was considering giving notice but had not done so yet.
- compiler-guy 6y ago
  She said, "If you can't meet these conditions, I will resign effective <XY date>." Google said, "We can't meet these conditions, we accept your resignation and move it to <much earlier date>."
  - uoaei 6y ago
    No, she didn't say that. She said she may set a date in the future for her resignation. That is non-committal and non-specific. Your characterization is inaccurate.
    - compiler-guy 6y ago
      People will have to find the source document, which to the best of my knowledge is not public (note, not the message to Women and Allies), read it, and then reach their own conclusions. I stand by my characterization. She characterizes it herself thusly: "I said here are the conditions. If you can meet them great I’ll take my name off this paper, if not then I can work on a last date." https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334341991795142667 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334341991795142667
      - xibalba 6y ago
        I think this is a major source of confusion in this whole conversation. There is clearly a follow up conversation between Timnit and some manager(s) (the name Megan is mentioned) in which this ultimatum was proffered.
        uoaei 6y ago
        That's not clear to me, nor apparently to most people who are interpreting this situation.
effingwewt 6y ago
I think this isn't nearly so bad as forcing an early termination of two weeks notice. I had a job pretty recently, was senior tech and was eager to please, which ended up meaning having to take the hard/after hours calls no one else wanted to handle. It also meant I eventually became the only on-call tech for over 4 months straight. This in turn meant I knew the most about all of our accounts, knew the most about their systems, scheduling for jobs as well as subcontractors, I handled it all, right down to installing the CCTV systems at our new location, single handedly. When I decided I'd had enough of being taken advantage of and being lied to, I gave my two weeks notice. They assumed I was going to work for a competitor (I wasn't I was taking some much needed personal time), and they fired me on the spot. While walking me out they also informed me that since they had my resignation letter if I tried to claim unemployment they would use it to claim I had resigned. I didn't care as I wasn't in need of unemployment I was just even happier now about leaving. They were rude, talked down to me and belittled me all the way out. 2 hours after I left the calls began 'how do we' 'how does this' 'this job's permits' 'how do we log into'. I politely told them to fuck off. They even went so far as to have other workers call/text me asking the same questions ver batim. I will never again give 2 weeks notice unless I have in writing they must give me 2 weeks notice upon release for any reason other than something illegal. This person offered an ultimatum and their employer made a choice. I just don't think its as bad as early termination of 2 weeks notice.
- harrisonjackson 6y ago
  Did you get paid for those 2 weeks? If not then I would say you got fired. After those 2 weeks, if the employer still wants help/answers then they should expect to pay a very very expensive hourly rate. :D As an employer, it makes a lot of sense to accelerate someone out the door that has given notice. That said, you still want them on the hook to answer questions so you should send them home but pay them for those 2 weeks (or however long).
- WalterBright 6y ago
  The usual practice is to give 2 weeks notice, you get escorted out immediately, and you get paid for those 2 weeks. It's technically not early termination as you're still getting paid. There's no reason to be rude, talk down, belittle, however.
pwthornton 6y ago
The Bloomberg model! You put in your two weeks notice and you have two hours to leave the building and never come back.