7 ms·

She gave her employer an ultimatum, threatening to quit if she didn't get her way. They called her bluff. I don't see how that is the same as being fired. At t

She gave her employer an ultimatum, threatening to quit if she didn't get her way. They called her bluff. I don't see how that is the same as being fired. At that point she was on her way out, one way or another; most employers would rather not work with people like this.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dmarchand90 6y ago
I think the subtle, yet important, difference is that she said she would quit by a certain date and they terminated her immediately. Given her role is likely just for PR it seems rather foolish not to at least give her two weeks notice or something.
- peeters 6y ago
  This isn't at all unusual when someone is quitting on bad terms, is it?
- yulaow 6y ago
  In her group email she also asked other employees to stop working in any other related project. I mean, I don't see how google could NOT terminate her after such an event. I am in a nation with extremly strong worker protection law but that action alone would be enough to fire you on the spot.
  - lostjohnny 6y ago
    > but that action alone would be enough to fire you on the spot. They are not as strong as you think then. In countries where there are strong work protections law striking is a right, you don't get paid for the time you don't show up at work but you can obviously convince an entire department or an entire company workforce to go on strike, without consequences. Without it the protection is not strong, it means an entire company against the individual worker, which is obviously unfair (regardless of what you think about work protections law, Google against a single human being it's an unfair battle, that's why "strong protection" means that the worker deson't have to fight alone and can call other workers to join the fight).
    - yulaow 6y ago
      As I said in another sibling post, you cannot strike that way. You have to follow procedures to organize a legit strike. If I wrote an email like that not only my union would not protect me, they would most probably tell me the employer took the right decision because I put at risk other employees positions (if they followed my reccomandations to stop working just because I said it)
  - tinalumfoil 6y ago
    Reading the comments here I feel like HN lives in a completely parallel universe. The number of employees who have the ability to threaten to quit and not immediately get fired are very very few. Even at the executive level you can't just make ultimatums for your employment and expect that they won't consider just firing you. Even if you're the representative of a union speaking on behalf of thousands of employees you need make sure you have enough leverage before making demands like that. This not some crazy conspiracy that she got fired. It would be noteworthy if someone who did what she did didn't get fired.
    - beisner 6y ago
      The reality is that the research organizations at big tech companies have always been a very different kind of labor relationship than typical rank-and-file business units. Many of the senior or otherwise high-profile researchers at FAANG companies would otherwise be professors or academics, in positions where there is essentially unbridled academic freedom and no expectation of separating personal convictions and principles from the academic environment. Google lured many of these researchers away from academic roles, with the tacit promise that they would be able to continue their research - and at times political - endeavors relatively unencumbered. Google has built a research empire on this promise, which has been responsible in part for their continued dominance in various markets. My point here is that these researchers have a lot of leverage. Advocating for action within an organization, counter to the current immediate goals of management, is only taboo (and thus “fireable”) in most companies because workers have almost no leverage, generally speaking. Not because it’s some inherently “bad” thing. If Google becomes seen as a place that fires researchers for advocating for their beliefs, especially in a capacity that they’ve been explicitly hired to do, then I think a lot of researchers would - and rightly should - reconsider whether such an environment is consistent with their values as academics and, often times, activists. Google’s research group is enormously valuable to the company, and there’s only so much reputational damage of this nature the organization can sustain before academics decide to take their talents elsewhere.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    > with extremly strong worker protection law Serious question: what makes them strong if employers can't organize a simple strike?
    - yulaow 6y ago
      You can organize a strike BUT this is absolutely not the way you do it. You have to follow strict procedures, work with your union and go into one or more formal negotiating tables with all the representatives of all the interested parts before even thinking about giving an ultimatum like that. And for sure you cannot communicate in that way using directly your work email
      - romanoderoma 6y ago
        But can you or can't you be fired for that? Because in my country you can't be fired for using the work email for that. Communicating with other workers using their work email is absolutely allowed, courts ruled about it several times [1]. I usually receive trade unions (there are several of them) communications on my work email from the unions' work email, because they have been authorized by the company to send them. In this case she wrote directly to workers using work email, but having no union or labor protection laws it doesn't make any difference whether she could or couldn't, she could be fired anyway without having to provide any reason. In countries where there are strong laws protecting workers she would have written to the union members and they would have done the same thing: write directly to the workers. Of course she did it at Google so it is different, but here the strict procedures to call a strike are only necessary if a public service that requires continuity risk to be interrupted, otherwise unions are only required to alert the company that the strike is going to happen, but have no requirement whatsoever on how to organise it. Which sound logical to me,strong protection means IMO freedom to collectively counter the actions of the company, if that's not allowed the protection is not strong. [1] Court of Catania, Labor Section, February 2, 2009 "The RSU employee can send trade union communications by e-mail to the employees of the company during their working hours and to their company e-mail address using his personal e-mail address"
        6y ago
- ystad 6y ago
  What's the point of the two week notice in this case?
  - chippy 6y ago
    as I understand it, she was on vacation at the time
    - refurb 6y ago
      In California you get paid for accrued vacation when you are terminated. She's not out any money, so why keep her on as an employee while she's out?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- iab 6y ago
  I think that would have been the civilized thing to do. But that is the exception, not the rule in the bay; I.e once you have made your intentions known, and are perceived as someone who could cause damage in the interim, you are out straight away. Feels like a natural consequence of at-will employment.
- pontus 6y ago
  You can't hand in your resignation effective at a future date. That's not how it works. If you resign, you resign. It's then up to the employer whether or not to hold you to whatever notice period is set out in your contract. Many places will not do so and release you effective immediately. Of course, if you leave on good terms, your superiors might look at you kindly and work with you to meet not just their needs, but also your needs. That's why it pays to be humble and generous in your interactions with other people.
- rafiki6 6y ago
  This is par for the course at most companies with IP to protect. If you quit they just walk you out.
  - krzyk 6y ago
    In the US, in countries with more worker protections it is not. (unless they pay you for that 2-week, month, 3-month period when you aren't working for them, but they can't remove you from worker list).
    - rafiki6 6y ago
      Yes this is correct. The primary difference in at will employment is that I also am not required to give my employer notice, whereas in the countries you mentioned I am.
      - romanoderoma 6y ago
        That's not true. You can as an employer walk away whenever you want, you just don't get the salary for the difference between the notice and when you left. Example: if you have to give 30 days notice (very common in Italy) and leave on the spot, after your resignation have been accepted, you have to give the company the equivalent of 30 days of pay. Which is exactly the money they should give you aniway if you stayed for the entire notice time. But usually the employer and company find an agreement before coming to that.
- telltruth 6y ago
  If employee is found using company resources inappropriately (in this case, mailing list to rant) then you can't give that employee 2 weeks notice. Google will then have to consider possibility that she will abuse their mailing lists.
  - zomglings 6y ago
    Google has internal mailing lists dedicated solely to rants (and related discussions) and others on which rants are certainly well accepted. Google exercises a subjective standard to determine whether or not an employee is using mailing lists inappropriately (e.g. James Damore). Source: ex-google
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
claudeganon 6y ago
So if you don’t do what your boss says at a job, even if you disagree, your boss can fire you, and this is good. But if you tell your boss that they should do something or you’ll quit, this is bad and makes you unemployable. You realize that this is just an argument that whoever is in a position of authority over you is right by virtue of having that authority?
- tantalor 6y ago
  It's called "insubordination".
  - loopz 6y ago
    Is insubordination to have a different opinion, and then offer paths to agreement between professionals? Is insubordination to represent your responsibility area, as Ethical AI Researcher? Is insubordination to send an email in order to establish dialogue around matters of disagreement between professionals?
    - jollofricepeas 6y ago
      Good point. I think its important to leave a link to the paper here for HN. Please read it or at least its intro & conclusion. https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF After reading, it seems very much in line with her role as an ethicist. She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets. Its a bit sad that they attempted to censure such an innocuous paper that without malice states “there are risks to consider.”
      - tertius 6y ago
        > She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets. What's the strongest argument against her "merely" doing this?
        loopz 6y ago
Jabbles 6y ago
Do we have the email with the "ultimatum" in it? I think there's a world of difference between "Do these things or I'm gone and taking my team with me" and "These things are so fundamental to my role as an ethical AI researcher that it's difficult to see myself doing this job without them" IANAL, but I suspect a court would also interpret them differently. And even so, Google likes to position itself as a nice employer, which listens to their employees' concerns. De-escalating the situation would have been nice - immediately terminating the concerned employee makes Google seem like another giant faceless emotionless multinational corporation (which it may well be).
telltruth 6y ago
Initially I took Google's side given Gebru has history of bullying so aggressively and has no qualms to play race/gender cards at every opportunity she gets. But now that more details (including the paper in question) has been revealed, it's hard to stay on Google's side. It is clear that the peer review process that Jeff Dean had described has been optional for all intent and purpose. It says along similar lines that right there on their internal website. Too many Googlers have attested that they have bypassed the process with no consequences. Gebru's paper itself has no real technical novelty. There was no reason to fire her. It doesn't seem out of line that Gebru was befuddled, frustrated and made a threat on the basis that she had right for the information. Jeff Dean could have easily offered her feedback and transparency in decision process. He could have agreed to let her make corrections later in the submission process. He did none of that and doesn't want to come out clean. Having said that I still feel Gebru is extra-ordinarily self-entitled person. Few months ago she insisted that Jeff Dean take her side in Twitter feud she initiated. She has the mindset of either you are with me all the time or you are racist+misogynist. She complains about "micro agressions" towards her from everyone but she herself is super aggressive. When disagreement arise, she marks you down as enemy and launches attacks to destroy you completely with sole purpose of making you homeless, jobless and making sure your kids die of hunger. I wouldn't wish upon her as colleague to anyone. You might have right to disagree with me but this is what I have felt. I still take her side in this current episode nonetheless because I think she is on the right side. Ultimately we are all playing opinion game here and only few people knows what really happened.
- PunchTornado 6y ago
  What I do know is that you don't hire a PR team to make you look bad. You hire them to make you look good. You don't hire an ethicist to make you look bad. You hire them to make you look good at what you do: diversity in AI. Gebru failed at her job.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    I think you aren't necessarily wrong that internal committees like this are about PR. It is simple industry self-regulation. Expectations should be adjusted accordingly. But that would also mean Google exploited her for that.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
> "would rather not work with people like this." Her clout/skills/PR and her attitude are a package deal. Google wants to use her for PR, but expects her to be a lapdog. I conflicted about many things, but respect her for having backbone.
sam0x17 6y ago
She said "at a later date" leaving it up to her discretion. Google accepted a resignation that didn't exist, and will probably be liable for it in some way.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dmarchand90 6y ago

I think the subtle, yet important, difference is that she said she would quit by a certain date and they terminated her immediately. Given her role is likely just for PR it seems rather foolish not to at least give her two weeks notice or something.

peeters 6y ago
This isn't at all unusual when someone is quitting on bad terms, is it?
yulaow 6y ago
In her group email she also asked other employees to stop working in any other related project. I mean, I don't see how google could NOT terminate her after such an event. I am in a nation with extremly strong worker protection law but that action alone would be enough to fire you on the spot.
- lostjohnny 6y ago
  > but that action alone would be enough to fire you on the spot. They are not as strong as you think then. In countries where there are strong work protections law striking is a right, you don't get paid for the time you don't show up at work but you can obviously convince an entire department or an entire company workforce to go on strike, without consequences. Without it the protection is not strong, it means an entire company against the individual worker, which is obviously unfair (regardless of what you think about work protections law, Google against a single human being it's an unfair battle, that's why "strong protection" means that the worker deson't have to fight alone and can call other workers to join the fight).
  - yulaow 6y ago
    As I said in another sibling post, you cannot strike that way. You have to follow procedures to organize a legit strike. If I wrote an email like that not only my union would not protect me, they would most probably tell me the employer took the right decision because I put at risk other employees positions (if they followed my reccomandations to stop working just because I said it)
- tinalumfoil 6y ago
  Reading the comments here I feel like HN lives in a completely parallel universe. The number of employees who have the ability to threaten to quit and not immediately get fired are very very few. Even at the executive level you can't just make ultimatums for your employment and expect that they won't consider just firing you. Even if you're the representative of a union speaking on behalf of thousands of employees you need make sure you have enough leverage before making demands like that. This not some crazy conspiracy that she got fired. It would be noteworthy if someone who did what she did didn't get fired.
  - beisner 6y ago
    The reality is that the research organizations at big tech companies have always been a very different kind of labor relationship than typical rank-and-file business units. Many of the senior or otherwise high-profile researchers at FAANG companies would otherwise be professors or academics, in positions where there is essentially unbridled academic freedom and no expectation of separating personal convictions and principles from the academic environment. Google lured many of these researchers away from academic roles, with the tacit promise that they would be able to continue their research - and at times political - endeavors relatively unencumbered. Google has built a research empire on this promise, which has been responsible in part for their continued dominance in various markets. My point here is that these researchers have a lot of leverage. Advocating for action within an organization, counter to the current immediate goals of management, is only taboo (and thus “fireable”) in most companies because workers have almost no leverage, generally speaking. Not because it’s some inherently “bad” thing. If Google becomes seen as a place that fires researchers for advocating for their beliefs, especially in a capacity that they’ve been explicitly hired to do, then I think a lot of researchers would - and rightly should - reconsider whether such an environment is consistent with their values as academics and, often times, activists. Google’s research group is enormously valuable to the company, and there’s only so much reputational damage of this nature the organization can sustain before academics decide to take their talents elsewhere.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > with extremly strong worker protection law Serious question: what makes them strong if employers can't organize a simple strike?
  - yulaow 6y ago
    You can organize a strike BUT this is absolutely not the way you do it. You have to follow strict procedures, work with your union and go into one or more formal negotiating tables with all the representatives of all the interested parts before even thinking about giving an ultimatum like that. And for sure you cannot communicate in that way using directly your work email
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      But can you or can't you be fired for that? Because in my country you can't be fired for using the work email for that. Communicating with other workers using their work email is absolutely allowed, courts ruled about it several times [1]. I usually receive trade unions (there are several of them) communications on my work email from the unions' work email, because they have been authorized by the company to send them. In this case she wrote directly to workers using work email, but having no union or labor protection laws it doesn't make any difference whether she could or couldn't, she could be fired anyway without having to provide any reason. In countries where there are strong laws protecting workers she would have written to the union members and they would have done the same thing: write directly to the workers. Of course she did it at Google so it is different, but here the strict procedures to call a strike are only necessary if a public service that requires continuity risk to be interrupted, otherwise unions are only required to alert the company that the strike is going to happen, but have no requirement whatsoever on how to organise it. Which sound logical to me,strong protection means IMO freedom to collectively counter the actions of the company, if that's not allowed the protection is not strong. [1] Court of Catania, Labor Section, February 2, 2009 "The RSU employee can send trade union communications by e-mail to the employees of the company during their working hours and to their company e-mail address using his personal e-mail address"
      - 6y ago
ystad 6y ago
What's the point of the two week notice in this case?
- chippy 6y ago
  as I understand it, she was on vacation at the time
  - refurb 6y ago
    In California you get paid for accrued vacation when you are terminated. She's not out any money, so why keep her on as an employee while she's out?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
iab 6y ago
I think that would have been the civilized thing to do. But that is the exception, not the rule in the bay; I.e once you have made your intentions known, and are perceived as someone who could cause damage in the interim, you are out straight away. Feels like a natural consequence of at-will employment.
pontus 6y ago
You can't hand in your resignation effective at a future date. That's not how it works. If you resign, you resign. It's then up to the employer whether or not to hold you to whatever notice period is set out in your contract. Many places will not do so and release you effective immediately. Of course, if you leave on good terms, your superiors might look at you kindly and work with you to meet not just their needs, but also your needs. That's why it pays to be humble and generous in your interactions with other people.
rafiki6 6y ago
This is par for the course at most companies with IP to protect. If you quit they just walk you out.
- krzyk 6y ago
  In the US, in countries with more worker protections it is not. (unless they pay you for that 2-week, month, 3-month period when you aren't working for them, but they can't remove you from worker list).
  - rafiki6 6y ago
    Yes this is correct. The primary difference in at will employment is that I also am not required to give my employer notice, whereas in the countries you mentioned I am.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      That's not true. You can as an employer walk away whenever you want, you just don't get the salary for the difference between the notice and when you left. Example: if you have to give 30 days notice (very common in Italy) and leave on the spot, after your resignation have been accepted, you have to give the company the equivalent of 30 days of pay. Which is exactly the money they should give you aniway if you stayed for the entire notice time. But usually the employer and company find an agreement before coming to that.
telltruth 6y ago
If employee is found using company resources inappropriately (in this case, mailing list to rant) then you can't give that employee 2 weeks notice. Google will then have to consider possibility that she will abuse their mailing lists.
- zomglings 6y ago
  Google has internal mailing lists dedicated solely to rants (and related discussions) and others on which rants are certainly well accepted. Google exercises a subjective standard to determine whether or not an employee is using mailing lists inappropriately (e.g. James Damore). Source: ex-google
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

claudeganon 6y ago

So if you don’t do what your boss says at a job, even if you disagree, your boss can fire you, and this is good. But if you tell your boss that they should do something or you’ll quit, this is bad and makes you unemployable. You realize that this is just an argument that whoever is in a position of authority over you is right by virtue of having that authority?

tantalor 6y ago
It's called "insubordination".
- loopz 6y ago
  Is insubordination to have a different opinion, and then offer paths to agreement between professionals? Is insubordination to represent your responsibility area, as Ethical AI Researcher? Is insubordination to send an email in order to establish dialogue around matters of disagreement between professionals?
  - jollofricepeas 6y ago
    Good point. I think its important to leave a link to the paper here for HN. Please read it or at least its intro & conclusion. https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF After reading, it seems very much in line with her role as an ethicist. She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets. Its a bit sad that they attempted to censure such an innocuous paper that without malice states “there are risks to consider.”
    - tertius 6y ago
      > She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets. What's the strongest argument against her "merely" doing this?
      - loopz 6y ago

Jabbles 6y ago

Do we have the email with the "ultimatum" in it? I think there's a world of difference between "Do these things or I'm gone and taking my team with me" and "These things are so fundamental to my role as an ethical AI researcher that it's difficult to see myself doing this job without them" IANAL, but I suspect a court would also interpret them differently. And even so, Google likes to position itself as a nice employer, which listens to their employees' concerns. De-escalating the situation would have been nice - immediately terminating the concerned employee makes Google seem like another giant faceless emotionless multinational corporation (which it may well be).

telltruth 6y ago

Initially I took Google's side given Gebru has history of bullying so aggressively and has no qualms to play race/gender cards at every opportunity she gets. But now that more details (including the paper in question) has been revealed, it's hard to stay on Google's side. It is clear that the peer review process that Jeff Dean had described has been optional for all intent and purpose. It says along similar lines that right there on their internal website. Too many Googlers have attested that they have bypassed the process with no consequences. Gebru's paper itself has no real technical novelty. There was no reason to fire her. It doesn't seem out of line that Gebru was befuddled, frustrated and made a threat on the basis that she had right for the information. Jeff Dean could have easily offered her feedback and transparency in decision process. He could have agreed to let her make corrections later in the submission process. He did none of that and doesn't want to come out clean. Having said that I still feel Gebru is extra-ordinarily self-entitled person. Few months ago she insisted that Jeff Dean take her side in Twitter feud she initiated. She has the mindset of either you are with me all the time or you are racist+misogynist. She complains about "micro agressions" towards her from everyone but she herself is super aggressive. When disagreement arise, she marks you down as enemy and launches attacks to destroy you completely with sole purpose of making you homeless, jobless and making sure your kids die of hunger. I wouldn't wish upon her as colleague to anyone. You might have right to disagree with me but this is what I have felt. I still take her side in this current episode nonetheless because I think she is on the right side. Ultimately we are all playing opinion game here and only few people knows what really happened.

PunchTornado 6y ago
What I do know is that you don't hire a PR team to make you look bad. You hire them to make you look good. You don't hire an ethicist to make you look bad. You hire them to make you look good at what you do: diversity in AI. Gebru failed at her job.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  I think you aren't necessarily wrong that internal committees like this are about PR. It is simple industry self-regulation. Expectations should be adjusted accordingly. But that would also mean Google exploited her for that.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

> "would rather not work with people like this." Her clout/skills/PR and her attitude are a package deal. Google wants to use her for PR, but expects her to be a lapdog. I conflicted about many things, but respect her for having backbone.

sam0x17 6y ago

She said "at a later date" leaving it up to her discretion. Google accepted a resignation that didn't exist, and will probably be liable for it in some way.