6 ms·

If she was truly removed for her abrasiveness, we would have a completely separate discussion entirely. What transpired, from both her disclosures and Google's

by tmotwu 6y ago

If she was truly removed for her abrasiveness, we would have a completely separate discussion entirely. What transpired, from both her disclosures and Google's leaderships response, has justifiably reigned in a lot of concern and skeptism from the broader research community.

teen 6y ago
She was, they said her email was not befitting of a manager. Which is clearly true
- whatshisface 6y ago
  The case being made in this thread is that that was how they got her, not why they fired her. I know none of the facts and am perfectly ignorant about this situation, but I have seen people get kicked out for semi-justifiable surface reasons that were totally unrelated to why their superiors didn't like them. So a-priori, the theory that the difference between someone's not-so-significant faults being tolerated or not being tolerated, is their willingness to comply with the goals that for whatever reason the leadership doesn't feel they can make explicit, is a reasonable suggestion.
  - srean 6y ago
    > The case being made in this thread is that that was how they got her, not why they fired her Conjecturing what could be the real reason, person A conjecturing why a person B does what he does (hates our freedom, for example) and why one should not take B's own explanation of his own actions -- these to me are an avoidable form of discourse. Nothing good comes of it other than an obligate outrage.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      Well, refusing to consider the idea that someone might do something with more than zero layers of subtlety... would lead to falling for every trick anybody ever tries to play. ;) A more appropriate response would be to admit that it's not easy to tell the difference, and maybe, if the interlocutor cares enough, to do some research to determine whether or not it's still suspicious once the facts are known. One example of some facts that could resolve or strengthen the suspicion would be: How many other emails of equal or greater verbal strength were sent at Google, but then not followed up by dismissal?
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        > would lead to falling for every trick anybody ever tries to play Welcome to engineers playing organizational politics.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  I've seen way worse emails. Doesn't seem like a fireable offense to me. At least I've seen people not fired for worse and never seen anyone fired for something similar (or less). As someone I saw post on Twitter relate to this... the best way to discriminate is to have rules, but apply them discriminately. So you can always point to the rule, but it really only applies to certain people.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > he best way to discriminate is to have rules, but apply them discriminately. So you can always point to the rule, but it really only applies to certain people. And HN falls for it every single time. Oh yeah, we totally didn't fire this Googler for the unionization push, it was because he looked at one of his bosses' publicly available calendar.
- contemporary343 6y ago
  Ah yes, Google, where behavior befitting a manager such as sexual harassment (which is found to be credible by internal investigation) gets you $90 Million exit packages (Andy Rubin), or silence (Amit Singhal).
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
How the hell is firing someone who offered an ultimatum not a justifiable reason for accepting said resignation? By definition the default position was "leave the company"
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Yes, they fired her after requiring her to retract her approved paper criticizing some of Google's practices. I agree with you that it was a "firing", we can debate over whether it was justified, but it wasn't a resignation.
  - darkarmani 6y ago
    Didn't she say: "if these things aren't given to me, I will leave the company?" Isn't that technically resigning if those things aren't given to her?
akarma 6y ago
> "You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity... is acknowledged or valued in this company," she said in the email. "Stop writing your documents because it doesn't make a difference." This was the email she sent, as a manager at the company.
- actuator 6y ago
  She might be really great at her work but personally I would never want to work with someone like this. Even if the current issue gets resolved, this will just sow acrimony for future.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  WOW what a misleading quote. Here's the full paragraph that that is from: > Imagine this: You’ve sent a paper for feedback to 30+ researchers, you’re awaiting feedback from PR & Policy who you gave a heads up before you even wrote the work saying “we’re thinking of doing this”, working on a revision plan figuring out how to address different feedback from people, haven’t heard from PR & Policy besides them asking you for updates (in 2 months). A week before you go out on vacation, you see a meeting pop up at 4:30pm PST on your calendar (this popped up at around 2pm). No one would tell you what the meeting was about in advance. Then in that meeting your manager’s manager tells you “it has been decided” that you need to retract this paper by next week, Nov. 27, the week when almost everyone would be out (and a date which has nothing to do with the conference process). You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity (let alone expertise recognized by journalists, governments, scientists, civic organizations such as the electronic frontiers foundation etc) is acknowledged or valued in this company.
  - akarma 6y ago
    Thank you for the full quote, it does give it much more perspective! (It wasn't in the linked article). If a manager within the company wants to publicly express her frustration with leadership, then this is an alright message to send — leaving aside the very implicative final sentence. It still seems reasonable to fire anyone who sends such a message to their colleagues rather than working through the office's politics more quietly, but it also seems reasonable for staff to protest and rally behind that person in support of them.
infoseek12 6y ago
Let’s be honest, Google knew this was going to blow up and they didn’t want to have a public conversation about whether she’s “abrasive”. Whether you agree or not with what Google did, it seems clear that they wanted to fire her for a while. They made the calculation that using this as a justification would allow them to get rid of her at a PR cost that was acceptable to them. None of the comments coming out of either side should be taken at face value, what’s being said is just window dressing and justification of the real motivations.

by tmotwu 6y ago

teen 6y ago

She was, they said her email was not befitting of a manager. Which is clearly true

whatshisface 6y ago
The case being made in this thread is that that was how they got her, not why they fired her. I know none of the facts and am perfectly ignorant about this situation, but I have seen people get kicked out for semi-justifiable surface reasons that were totally unrelated to why their superiors didn't like them. So a-priori, the theory that the difference between someone's not-so-significant faults being tolerated or not being tolerated, is their willingness to comply with the goals that for whatever reason the leadership doesn't feel they can make explicit, is a reasonable suggestion.
- srean 6y ago
  > The case being made in this thread is that that was how they got her, not why they fired her Conjecturing what could be the real reason, person A conjecturing why a person B does what he does (hates our freedom, for example) and why one should not take B's own explanation of his own actions -- these to me are an avoidable form of discourse. Nothing good comes of it other than an obligate outrage.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    Well, refusing to consider the idea that someone might do something with more than zero layers of subtlety... would lead to falling for every trick anybody ever tries to play. ;) A more appropriate response would be to admit that it's not easy to tell the difference, and maybe, if the interlocutor cares enough, to do some research to determine whether or not it's still suspicious once the facts are known. One example of some facts that could resolve or strengthen the suspicion would be: How many other emails of equal or greater verbal strength were sent at Google, but then not followed up by dismissal?
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > would lead to falling for every trick anybody ever tries to play Welcome to engineers playing organizational politics.
kenjackson 6y ago
I've seen way worse emails. Doesn't seem like a fireable offense to me. At least I've seen people not fired for worse and never seen anyone fired for something similar (or less). As someone I saw post on Twitter relate to this... the best way to discriminate is to have rules, but apply them discriminately. So you can always point to the rule, but it really only applies to certain people.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > he best way to discriminate is to have rules, but apply them discriminately. So you can always point to the rule, but it really only applies to certain people. And HN falls for it every single time. Oh yeah, we totally didn't fire this Googler for the unionization push, it was because he looked at one of his bosses' publicly available calendar.
contemporary343 6y ago
Ah yes, Google, where behavior befitting a manager such as sexual harassment (which is found to be credible by internal investigation) gets you $90 Million exit packages (Andy Rubin), or silence (Amit Singhal).

NikolaeVarius 6y ago

How the hell is firing someone who offered an ultimatum not a justifiable reason for accepting said resignation? By definition the default position was "leave the company"

whimsicalism 6y ago
Yes, they fired her after requiring her to retract her approved paper criticizing some of Google's practices. I agree with you that it was a "firing", we can debate over whether it was justified, but it wasn't a resignation.
- darkarmani 6y ago
  Didn't she say: "if these things aren't given to me, I will leave the company?" Isn't that technically resigning if those things aren't given to her?

akarma 6y ago

> "You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity... is acknowledged or valued in this company," she said in the email. "Stop writing your documents because it doesn't make a difference." This was the email she sent, as a manager at the company.

actuator 6y ago
She might be really great at her work but personally I would never want to work with someone like this. Even if the current issue gets resolved, this will just sow acrimony for future.
whimsicalism 6y ago
WOW what a misleading quote. Here's the full paragraph that that is from: > Imagine this: You’ve sent a paper for feedback to 30+ researchers, you’re awaiting feedback from PR & Policy who you gave a heads up before you even wrote the work saying “we’re thinking of doing this”, working on a revision plan figuring out how to address different feedback from people, haven’t heard from PR & Policy besides them asking you for updates (in 2 months). A week before you go out on vacation, you see a meeting pop up at 4:30pm PST on your calendar (this popped up at around 2pm). No one would tell you what the meeting was about in advance. Then in that meeting your manager’s manager tells you “it has been decided” that you need to retract this paper by next week, Nov. 27, the week when almost everyone would be out (and a date which has nothing to do with the conference process). You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity (let alone expertise recognized by journalists, governments, scientists, civic organizations such as the electronic frontiers foundation etc) is acknowledged or valued in this company.
- akarma 6y ago
  Thank you for the full quote, it does give it much more perspective! (It wasn't in the linked article). If a manager within the company wants to publicly express her frustration with leadership, then this is an alright message to send — leaving aside the very implicative final sentence. It still seems reasonable to fire anyone who sends such a message to their colleagues rather than working through the office's politics more quietly, but it also seems reasonable for staff to protest and rally behind that person in support of them.

infoseek12 6y ago

Let’s be honest, Google knew this was going to blow up and they didn’t want to have a public conversation about whether she’s “abrasive”. Whether you agree or not with what Google did, it seems clear that they wanted to fire her for a while. They made the calculation that using this as a justification would allow them to get rid of her at a PR cost that was acceptable to them. None of the comments coming out of either side should be taken at face value, what’s being said is just window dressing and justification of the real motivations.