5 ms·

As someone who just learned about this kerfuffle a few minutes ago, that doesn't make sense to claim that she was fired. If you offer to resign if new conditio

by crusso 6y ago

As someone who just learned about this kerfuffle a few minutes ago, that doesn't make sense to claim that she was fired. If you offer to resign if new conditions of employment aren't met and the company accepts your resignation without honoring your exact terms of schedule, it sounds like you largely were responsible for terminating your own employment. Claiming that you were "immediately fired" as she tweeted just sounds dishonest to me.

andrewprock 6y ago
The GP illustration of jumping it being pushed is quite apt. Your comment suggests that if someone threatened to jump under certain circumstances but was instead pushed you would be ok with that. This isn't just a framing. She was fired. Now you may say "she was asking for it" but that doesn't change the fact that she was fired.
- crusso 6y ago
  No, the jump/push analogy is too contorted to be meaningful. Employers and employees have a relationship that has processes that have common meanings and names like "resigned" or "fired". There's no accepted relationship if you push someone threatening to jump. You're just an a-hole committing assault and possibly murder. Is there a link to the letter that she sent? That could help to clarify.
  - ergocoder 6y ago
    There is. You probably can Google for it. The demand is something around exposing the identities of the peers who reviewed and rejected her paper. If Google doesn't give her the identities of those peers, she say she will leave the company. Comparing to suicide is a bit much though. When considering death, everything else becomes secondary, so we can't use that analogy for comparison.
    - andrewprock 6y ago
      The push/jump illustration holds just as well if you are at the edge of a pool. You don't need death on the line to understand the difference between who is making the decision.
      - ergocoder 6y ago
        "If you eat dinner today, I'll commit suicide." - I'll probably skip dinner to save life. "If you eat dinner today, I'll quit my job" - then, I'll probably tell person that they can quit their job. I'm not gonna skip my dinner for that. I hope this illustrates that, when death is involved, everything else becomes secondary, and we prioritize not death over everything. So, it's a bad analogy to use in Timnit's situation where she will quit if she doesn't get to see the identities of peer reviewers. This situation is not life and death.
        andrewprock 6y ago
        Sure, but you left out the actual situation: "If you eat dinner today, I'll quit my job" - then, you fire them and get on with dinner.
        ergocoder 6y ago
        If I eat dinner, you will want to quit and I want you to quit. Both want to part way. We can agree to disagree on being fired or not being fired. But why would 'being fired' (or not) matter since both sides want to part way?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        The debate about her being fired or resigning is a debate about who to believe about what led up to it. People who insist she resigned see her saying she was fired as evidence of a victim complex and publicity seeking. People who insist she was fired see Google saying she resigned as evidence of unfair treatment and dishonesty.
GVIrish 6y ago
If someone states I will do X if you don't do Y, it still comes down to the person choosing to take some action X. If you don't take action Y, it is still on the first person to choose to take action X. She may have intended to hand in her resignation, but she did not get the chance. She said if these conditions are not met, I will work with you on an end date. That's not what happened, she was terminated immediately with the rationalization being that they didn't like the tone of the email she sent to the Google Brain Women and Allies listserv. That alone points to it being a termination. Is she largely responsible for her employment ending at Google. You could say yes, but fact is that Google is the one who cut things off.
- ergocoder 6y ago
  Once both parties decide to part way, I don't think it's reasonable to think that you will get to choose the exit date at your own liking. Either party can choose an earlier date, but not a later date. I don't really care if she left or Google fired her. But framing it as Google is evil for firing her seems dishonest when she was the one who gave the ultimatum. Google is evil, but not for this activity.

by crusso 6y ago

andrewprock 6y ago

The GP illustration of jumping it being pushed is quite apt. Your comment suggests that if someone threatened to jump under certain circumstances but was instead pushed you would be ok with that. This isn't just a framing. She was fired. Now you may say "she was asking for it" but that doesn't change the fact that she was fired.

crusso 6y ago
No, the jump/push analogy is too contorted to be meaningful. Employers and employees have a relationship that has processes that have common meanings and names like "resigned" or "fired". There's no accepted relationship if you push someone threatening to jump. You're just an a-hole committing assault and possibly murder. Is there a link to the letter that she sent? That could help to clarify.
- ergocoder 6y ago
  There is. You probably can Google for it. The demand is something around exposing the identities of the peers who reviewed and rejected her paper. If Google doesn't give her the identities of those peers, she say she will leave the company. Comparing to suicide is a bit much though. When considering death, everything else becomes secondary, so we can't use that analogy for comparison.
  - andrewprock 6y ago
    The push/jump illustration holds just as well if you are at the edge of a pool. You don't need death on the line to understand the difference between who is making the decision.
    - ergocoder 6y ago
      "If you eat dinner today, I'll commit suicide." - I'll probably skip dinner to save life. "If you eat dinner today, I'll quit my job" - then, I'll probably tell person that they can quit their job. I'm not gonna skip my dinner for that. I hope this illustrates that, when death is involved, everything else becomes secondary, and we prioritize not death over everything. So, it's a bad analogy to use in Timnit's situation where she will quit if she doesn't get to see the identities of peer reviewers. This situation is not life and death.
      - andrewprock 6y ago
        Sure, but you left out the actual situation: "If you eat dinner today, I'll quit my job" - then, you fire them and get on with dinner.
        ergocoder 6y ago
        If I eat dinner, you will want to quit and I want you to quit. Both want to part way. We can agree to disagree on being fired or not being fired. But why would 'being fired' (or not) matter since both sides want to part way?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        The debate about her being fired or resigning is a debate about who to believe about what led up to it. People who insist she resigned see her saying she was fired as evidence of a victim complex and publicity seeking. People who insist she was fired see Google saying she resigned as evidence of unfair treatment and dishonesty.

GVIrish 6y ago

If someone states I will do X if you don't do Y, it still comes down to the person choosing to take some action X. If you don't take action Y, it is still on the first person to choose to take action X. She may have intended to hand in her resignation, but she did not get the chance. She said if these conditions are not met, I will work with you on an end date. That's not what happened, she was terminated immediately with the rationalization being that they didn't like the tone of the email she sent to the Google Brain Women and Allies listserv. That alone points to it being a termination. Is she largely responsible for her employment ending at Google. You could say yes, but fact is that Google is the one who cut things off.

ergocoder 6y ago
Once both parties decide to part way, I don't think it's reasonable to think that you will get to choose the exit date at your own liking. Either party can choose an earlier date, but not a later date. I don't really care if she left or Google fired her. But framing it as Google is evil for firing her seems dishonest when she was the one who gave the ultimatum. Google is evil, but not for this activity.