6 ms·

While I’m a spectator to this unfolding story and am reacting to a pretty cursory overview of what happened, this has the distinct feeling that Google thought t

by bnj 6y ago

While I’m a spectator to this unfolding story and am reacting to a pretty cursory overview of what happened, this has the distinct feeling that Google thought they were moving in for a checkmate by, in their words, “accepting a resignation”, only to have it — very predictably? - blow up in their faces completely. Even if Google is acting presenting the chain of events faithfully, their final move to jump on an opportunity to remove the researcher and call it resignation seems so aggressive and incongruous that from the outside it makes it seem like this conflict is rooted in a larger and more difficult relationship that they calculated was no longer in their interest. I’m wondering if the cost benefit analysis is still looking that way on the inside, because this move and the attention it’s causing is so contrary to their stated goals that I have to wonder if Google is committed to those goals at all. Others must be wondering exactly the same thing.

pm90 6y ago
This sums it up almost perfectly. The only thing I would add is that things like these tend to have a pattern. If a single person speaks up and you have multiple others claiming similar treatment, it significantly increases the likelihood of the workplace being hostile to such persons. Also: Googles bar for hiring is extremely high. For multiple senior engineers/managers to corroborate this description is rather damning.
noitpmeder 6y ago
I don't see what else they should have done? This researcher made some ultimatum. As part of it, she said if Google refused, she would set a date to leave the company. Google obviously did not concede to her demand, and obviously didn't think it beneficial to let her be a thorn any longer, so took her up on her offer.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  She didn't offer to resign immediately. Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just accepted her actual offer.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    Seriously, I'm kinda a little wondering how people expect that when someone makes an extremely demanding ultimatum that includes challenging the rights of other people in the company, and the company declines to agree to that ultimatum, that we should be shocked that the person doesn't get to dictate all of the details around their resignation. What I get most from this whole discussion is the extremely nauseating level of entitlement from some employees at Google.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just called the firing a firing.
      - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
        If I storm into my manager's office and demand a set of conditions, or else I resign on some date, and my manager says "Well, fine, we accept your resignation, but it's effective immediately" I don't really have a problem with my manager calling it a resignation.
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        Firing someone who's given notice is still firing them.
  - johncena33 6y ago
    > She didn't offer to resign immediately. Just out of curiosity why would Google let her resign on a sepcific date given that she was already sending inflammatory emails to her coworkers? > Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just accepted her actual offer. Highly unlikely. This issue has become politicized, so people would keep ciriticizing Google even if they let her.
that_guy_iain 6y ago
> While I’m a spectator to this unfolding story and am reacting to a pretty cursory overview of what happened, this has the distinct feeling that Google thought they were moving in for a checkmate by, in their words, “accepting a resignation”, only to have it — very predictably? - blow up in their faces completely. I wouldn't say this has blown up in their face. But to be honest, I've not seen that much drama about it than one post. Have I been missing something? This seems a very solid move from Google. Someone tried to bully their way into getting information from Google they shouldn't give out. If you go to HR in confidence that confidence should be upheld. The fact someone had to go to HR for a peer review and the fact it was upheld states something. If someone says "Do X or I'll quit" when you're not going to do X, it is a resigination and seems quite standard that they don't want such an active detractor within their company ranks. I believe she basically sent an email to fellow employees basically telling them to stop working. That alone is a firable. That is completely nuts and unacceptable work place behaviour. The fact Google didn't fire her for that should speak volumes. To me, from a HR point of view, this is completely the right move to make.
- zaksoup 6y ago
  If somebody used HR as the mechanism to communicate feedback on the scientific rigor of research I was leading I would also find that concerning and objectionable. Human Resources is not peer review.
  - that_guy_iain 6y ago
    Honestly, if someone had to use HR to give feedback on anything, I would be more concerned as to why they couldn't say it directly to me. HR wouldn't have made the final decision here, it seems other departments did. HR was just how someone felt it was safe to communicate that feedback, which for me is a major issue in a workplace.
    - zaksoup 6y ago
      I think there's a place for HR to help somebody give feedback about social or work-style issues. If somebody has a track record of getting defensive with face-to-face feedback it might be useful to have a manager present as a mediator and go through a formal process. That's just not the same as giving scientific feedback in the review process for research and shouldn't be in the way there.
karmasimida 6y ago
One thing that is missing here is the demands the said researcher had brought up to the leadership. Didn't see either party bring it up in their side of story.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
quotemstr 6y ago
Did it blow up in Google's face? A bunch of perpetually angry people on Twitter are angry. So what? Google's actual operations are affected not only tiny bit by this episode. Outrage has no power. Social media is not real life. Every company, Google included, needs to simply ignore social media outrage and focus on their mission instead. Internet outrage only has power because companies give it power. Angry words and hit pieces from biased media do nothing on their own. If you don't let them make you afraid, you have no reason to be afraid of them. The internet screamed at Coinbase after the company showed their internal activists the door, but Coinbase is doing just fine. See? Nothing to be afraid of. Just get rid of troublemakers.
Aunche 6y ago
I think that Google viewed her as a ticking time bomb, so they might as well detonate it early to try to contain explosion. She had threatened to sue Google in the past and was most likely gathering even more ammunition for her lawyers. Edit: I'm not sure what this tweet is referencing, but it's an indicator of her attitude towards her superiors, I can see why they would want to let go of her. https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824
- visarga 6y ago
  You might be on to something. The paper doesn't seem too controversial or especially amazing, the objections seem minor (some citations and updates), maybe it's just a pretext. Could be about a lawsuit.

by bnj 6y ago

pm90 6y ago

This sums it up almost perfectly. The only thing I would add is that things like these tend to have a pattern. If a single person speaks up and you have multiple others claiming similar treatment, it significantly increases the likelihood of the workplace being hostile to such persons. Also: Googles bar for hiring is extremely high. For multiple senior engineers/managers to corroborate this description is rather damning.

noitpmeder 6y ago

I don't see what else they should have done? This researcher made some ultimatum. As part of it, she said if Google refused, she would set a date to leave the company. Google obviously did not concede to her demand, and obviously didn't think it beneficial to let her be a thorn any longer, so took her up on her offer.

pseudalopex 6y ago
She didn't offer to resign immediately. Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just accepted her actual offer.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  Seriously, I'm kinda a little wondering how people expect that when someone makes an extremely demanding ultimatum that includes challenging the rights of other people in the company, and the company declines to agree to that ultimatum, that we should be shocked that the person doesn't get to dictate all of the details around their resignation. What I get most from this whole discussion is the extremely nauseating level of entitlement from some employees at Google.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just called the firing a firing.
    - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
      If I storm into my manager's office and demand a set of conditions, or else I resign on some date, and my manager says "Well, fine, we accept your resignation, but it's effective immediately" I don't really have a problem with my manager calling it a resignation.
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        Firing someone who's given notice is still firing them.
- johncena33 6y ago
  > She didn't offer to resign immediately. Just out of curiosity why would Google let her resign on a sepcific date given that she was already sending inflammatory emails to her coworkers? > Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just accepted her actual offer. Highly unlikely. This issue has become politicized, so people would keep ciriticizing Google even if they let her.

that_guy_iain 6y ago

> While I’m a spectator to this unfolding story and am reacting to a pretty cursory overview of what happened, this has the distinct feeling that Google thought they were moving in for a checkmate by, in their words, “accepting a resignation”, only to have it — very predictably? - blow up in their faces completely. I wouldn't say this has blown up in their face. But to be honest, I've not seen that much drama about it than one post. Have I been missing something? This seems a very solid move from Google. Someone tried to bully their way into getting information from Google they shouldn't give out. If you go to HR in confidence that confidence should be upheld. The fact someone had to go to HR for a peer review and the fact it was upheld states something. If someone says "Do X or I'll quit" when you're not going to do X, it is a resigination and seems quite standard that they don't want such an active detractor within their company ranks. I believe she basically sent an email to fellow employees basically telling them to stop working. That alone is a firable. That is completely nuts and unacceptable work place behaviour. The fact Google didn't fire her for that should speak volumes. To me, from a HR point of view, this is completely the right move to make.

zaksoup 6y ago
If somebody used HR as the mechanism to communicate feedback on the scientific rigor of research I was leading I would also find that concerning and objectionable. Human Resources is not peer review.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  Honestly, if someone had to use HR to give feedback on anything, I would be more concerned as to why they couldn't say it directly to me. HR wouldn't have made the final decision here, it seems other departments did. HR was just how someone felt it was safe to communicate that feedback, which for me is a major issue in a workplace.
  - zaksoup 6y ago
    I think there's a place for HR to help somebody give feedback about social or work-style issues. If somebody has a track record of getting defensive with face-to-face feedback it might be useful to have a manager present as a mediator and go through a formal process. That's just not the same as giving scientific feedback in the review process for research and shouldn't be in the way there.

karmasimida 6y ago

One thing that is missing here is the demands the said researcher had brought up to the leadership. Didn't see either party bring it up in their side of story.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

quotemstr 6y ago

Did it blow up in Google's face? A bunch of perpetually angry people on Twitter are angry. So what? Google's actual operations are affected not only tiny bit by this episode. Outrage has no power. Social media is not real life. Every company, Google included, needs to simply ignore social media outrage and focus on their mission instead. Internet outrage only has power because companies give it power. Angry words and hit pieces from biased media do nothing on their own. If you don't let them make you afraid, you have no reason to be afraid of them. The internet screamed at Coinbase after the company showed their internal activists the door, but Coinbase is doing just fine. See? Nothing to be afraid of. Just get rid of troublemakers.

Aunche 6y ago

I think that Google viewed her as a ticking time bomb, so they might as well detonate it early to try to contain explosion. She had threatened to sue Google in the past and was most likely gathering even more ammunition for her lawyers. Edit: I'm not sure what this tweet is referencing, but it's an indicator of her attitude towards her superiors, I can see why they would want to let go of her. https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824

visarga 6y ago
You might be on to something. The paper doesn't seem too controversial or especially amazing, the objections seem minor (some citations and updates), maybe it's just a pretext. Could be about a lawsuit.