4 ms·

I'm surprised news outlets still report that Timnit Gebru was fired. It's at best disputed. This case looks much clearer; he was terminated with cause.

brimble 5y ago
That's... still a firing, no? What it's not, is a lay-off.
- robonerd 5y ago
  The 'he' in "he was terminated with cause" is not referring to Gebru, but rather to Chatterjee. That Chatterjee was fired is seemingly not in dispute, but there was a lot of disagreement on HN over whether Gebru was fired or quit (she offered an ultimatum, which Google accepted.)
  - brimble 5y ago
    Ah, OK, sorry, I misunderstood the context.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dekhn 5y ago
  People argued about this a bunch. here's a simple summary that is consistent with the reality: Google (Jeff's docs) says that Timnit offered her resignation (over the paper withdrawl demand and a refusal to let Timnit confront her internal reviewers) and Megan accepted it. In reality, Megan terminated Timnit for cause, but used Timnit's offer to resign against her. At google, resignations are normally triggered by the employee explicitly resigning in a system, but experienced leaders at Google like Megan know how to get around this. I spoke to a wide range of managers at Google afterwards and the most commonly expressed opinion was "I'm amazed that Megan did that, it normally takes at least a year to fire individuals". What Jeff did led to a significant exodus of Google researchers (including some very preeminent ones) and Zoubin has to do all the cleanup.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    I mean, if you say "do X or I quit" and the company responds "we're not doing X, bye" is it incorrect to say that the employee quit? That's the situation here, Gebru issued demands and said she'd quit if they weren't met. Google said, "we accept your resignation".
    - dekhn 5y ago
      Yes, that's not a resignation. At google, to technically resign involves filling out a form on a website, it's not something you can verbally state to your (manager's) manager. Again, Google can still say this and probably even thinks internally that's what happened, but having resigned twice from Google, that's not how it really works.
      - Manuel_D 5y ago
        I'm pretty sure if you say to your manager "I quit" and stop showing up to work, regardless of what internet forms you fill out, it's a resignation. The fact that Gebru gave her resignation in the form of an ultimatum rather than whatever website form you're talking about is a pedantic point. "I resign if you don't do X." "We're not doing X, we accept your resignation." This is a resignation the way I understand it.
        bluefirebrand 5y ago
        > "I resign if you don't do X." > "We're not doing X, we accept your resignation." This approach from her managers can be criticized because it immediately closes the door on the possibility of her changing her mind and walking things back. However, it sounds like she was causing a lot of internal problems so perhaps they were already working to get rid of her. Accepting the implied resignation may have just been expedient, and saved the company a bunch of severance money.
        abduhl 5y ago
        You can certainly criticize Google for taking someone at their word when that person issues an ultimatum, but then you’re tacitly admitting that the person offering the ultimatum is approaching the negotiation in bad faith. Google should not have to assume its employees are acting in bad faith when they communicate internally, especially when it comes to the future of that employee’s career. The real question for your framing is: Should Google have to say, “ok that’s it for real this time, no take-backsies”? I think that google should never have to say this any time someone says “or else I quit” because the threat of quitting tells us that they’re not willing to continue operating within Google. I honestly don’t see the reasoning behind drawing the line anywhere else.
faeriechangling 5y ago
It’s not disputed by anything other than googles PR. By well established California law legal resignations include an end date, she did not ever specify an end date when threatening resignation, and thus she never legally resigned. She was thus fired. It would be bias in googles favor to act as though she were not fired which is what any court would find. Sort of a “discuss the controversy” sort of thing over a very clear cut legal issue.
- bitshiftfaced 5y ago
  > By well established California law legal resignations include an end date, she did not ever specify an end date when threatening resignation, and thus she never legally resigned. She was thus fired. What law is that? Either way, I'm confused about what the issue is here. California is an at-will state, so she could quit at any time, and they could fire her at any time. When you make an ultimatum, you're saying you're ok with either outcome and are letting the other party decide. This is an outcome she was ok with, so what's the problem exactly?
  - faeriechangling 5y ago
    It's case law, I can't find the link to the case I saw the first time this story ran that made it clear that Gebru was fired and did not resign. I did find this however: https://edd.ca.gov/en/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135 https://edd.ca.gov/en/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135 >In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged and said: >. . . the claimant was not permitted to work to the effective date of her resignation and the employer did not pay the claimant her wages through that date. The claimant did suffer a wage loss by the action of the employer in accelerating the last day of work. Gebru was going to arrange a meeting with Google to discuss when she would resign, and Google opted to claim she had already resigned and simply fired her. This constitutes a firing as Gebru clearly did not intend an immediate resignation. >Either way, I'm confused about what the issue is here. I bring this up merely because the neutrality of the journalists reporting on the case has been brought into question, and I want to defend them describing the situation as a "firing" as being the neutral thing to do. Additionally, I think Google's twisting of labour law for Google's PR/Financial benefit speaks to Google's character in the entire affair, and we must fairly consider Google's actions when judging Gebru's, whose actions were controversial.
21723 5y ago
- khazhoux 5y ago
  21723, your last comment ("Unrelated...") borders on doxxing.
  - 21723 5y ago
    That wasn't my intent, and his username appears to be a real name (although I don't know). Apologies if it seemed that was what I was trying to do. I wasn't. I assumed that he was a real-name account who wanted to be known by his real identity (an identity that was maliciously attacked by an ex-CEO). I wouldn't guess at the identity of an account obviously intended to be anonymous.
    - khazhoux 5y ago
      I think doxxing is not just uncovering an anonymous user's real name, but any form of tying someone's real-world presence into online discussion, when it's not directly related to the discussion. Here, you were referring to an unpleasant event in the other user's real life, which they did not bring up themselves. That crosses the boundary. That user may not want that connection established here. But I'm not the HN police, just trying to help...
      - 21723 5y ago
        Fair point. I thought I was being helpful but I won't do it again.
        User23 5y ago
        For what it's worth there are a lot of public figures on HN. I'm not going to name anyone in particular, because it seems tacky, but I wouldn't consider it an invasion of their privacy to note who they are in context. For example when you see a world renowned expert getting pushback on their subject of expertise from someone, it's not inappropriate to raise the matter of their expertise which of course involves their identity, because it helps readers grow intellectually. Therefore, I will acknowledge a poster's identity if it's relevant to discussion, or if I just want to thank them for building something that improved my life.

brimble 5y ago

That's... still a firing, no? What it's not, is a lay-off.

robonerd 5y ago
The 'he' in "he was terminated with cause" is not referring to Gebru, but rather to Chatterjee. That Chatterjee was fired is seemingly not in dispute, but there was a lot of disagreement on HN over whether Gebru was fired or quit (she offered an ultimatum, which Google accepted.)
- brimble 5y ago
  Ah, OK, sorry, I misunderstood the context.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dekhn 5y ago
People argued about this a bunch. here's a simple summary that is consistent with the reality: Google (Jeff's docs) says that Timnit offered her resignation (over the paper withdrawl demand and a refusal to let Timnit confront her internal reviewers) and Megan accepted it. In reality, Megan terminated Timnit for cause, but used Timnit's offer to resign against her. At google, resignations are normally triggered by the employee explicitly resigning in a system, but experienced leaders at Google like Megan know how to get around this. I spoke to a wide range of managers at Google afterwards and the most commonly expressed opinion was "I'm amazed that Megan did that, it normally takes at least a year to fire individuals". What Jeff did led to a significant exodus of Google researchers (including some very preeminent ones) and Zoubin has to do all the cleanup.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  I mean, if you say "do X or I quit" and the company responds "we're not doing X, bye" is it incorrect to say that the employee quit? That's the situation here, Gebru issued demands and said she'd quit if they weren't met. Google said, "we accept your resignation".
  - dekhn 5y ago
    Yes, that's not a resignation. At google, to technically resign involves filling out a form on a website, it's not something you can verbally state to your (manager's) manager. Again, Google can still say this and probably even thinks internally that's what happened, but having resigned twice from Google, that's not how it really works.
    - Manuel_D 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure if you say to your manager "I quit" and stop showing up to work, regardless of what internet forms you fill out, it's a resignation. The fact that Gebru gave her resignation in the form of an ultimatum rather than whatever website form you're talking about is a pedantic point. "I resign if you don't do X." "We're not doing X, we accept your resignation." This is a resignation the way I understand it.
      - bluefirebrand 5y ago
        > "I resign if you don't do X." > "We're not doing X, we accept your resignation." This approach from her managers can be criticized because it immediately closes the door on the possibility of her changing her mind and walking things back. However, it sounds like she was causing a lot of internal problems so perhaps they were already working to get rid of her. Accepting the implied resignation may have just been expedient, and saved the company a bunch of severance money.
        abduhl 5y ago
        You can certainly criticize Google for taking someone at their word when that person issues an ultimatum, but then you’re tacitly admitting that the person offering the ultimatum is approaching the negotiation in bad faith. Google should not have to assume its employees are acting in bad faith when they communicate internally, especially when it comes to the future of that employee’s career. The real question for your framing is: Should Google have to say, “ok that’s it for real this time, no take-backsies”? I think that google should never have to say this any time someone says “or else I quit” because the threat of quitting tells us that they’re not willing to continue operating within Google. I honestly don’t see the reasoning behind drawing the line anywhere else.

faeriechangling 5y ago

It’s not disputed by anything other than googles PR. By well established California law legal resignations include an end date, she did not ever specify an end date when threatening resignation, and thus she never legally resigned. She was thus fired. It would be bias in googles favor to act as though she were not fired which is what any court would find. Sort of a “discuss the controversy” sort of thing over a very clear cut legal issue.

bitshiftfaced 5y ago
> By well established California law legal resignations include an end date, she did not ever specify an end date when threatening resignation, and thus she never legally resigned. She was thus fired. What law is that? Either way, I'm confused about what the issue is here. California is an at-will state, so she could quit at any time, and they could fire her at any time. When you make an ultimatum, you're saying you're ok with either outcome and are letting the other party decide. This is an outcome she was ok with, so what's the problem exactly?
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  It's case law, I can't find the link to the case I saw the first time this story ran that made it clear that Gebru was fired and did not resign. I did find this however: https://edd.ca.gov/en/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135 https://edd.ca.gov/en/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135 >In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged and said: >. . . the claimant was not permitted to work to the effective date of her resignation and the employer did not pay the claimant her wages through that date. The claimant did suffer a wage loss by the action of the employer in accelerating the last day of work. Gebru was going to arrange a meeting with Google to discuss when she would resign, and Google opted to claim she had already resigned and simply fired her. This constitutes a firing as Gebru clearly did not intend an immediate resignation. >Either way, I'm confused about what the issue is here. I bring this up merely because the neutrality of the journalists reporting on the case has been brought into question, and I want to defend them describing the situation as a "firing" as being the neutral thing to do. Additionally, I think Google's twisting of labour law for Google's PR/Financial benefit speaks to Google's character in the entire affair, and we must fairly consider Google's actions when judging Gebru's, whose actions were controversial.

21723 5y ago

khazhoux 5y ago
21723, your last comment ("Unrelated...") borders on doxxing.
- 21723 5y ago
  That wasn't my intent, and his username appears to be a real name (although I don't know). Apologies if it seemed that was what I was trying to do. I wasn't. I assumed that he was a real-name account who wanted to be known by his real identity (an identity that was maliciously attacked by an ex-CEO). I wouldn't guess at the identity of an account obviously intended to be anonymous.
  - khazhoux 5y ago
    I think doxxing is not just uncovering an anonymous user's real name, but any form of tying someone's real-world presence into online discussion, when it's not directly related to the discussion. Here, you were referring to an unpleasant event in the other user's real life, which they did not bring up themselves. That crosses the boundary. That user may not want that connection established here. But I'm not the HN police, just trying to help...
    - 21723 5y ago
      Fair point. I thought I was being helpful but I won't do it again.
      - User23 5y ago
        For what it's worth there are a lot of public figures on HN. I'm not going to name anyone in particular, because it seems tacky, but I wouldn't consider it an invasion of their privacy to note who they are in context. For example when you see a world renowned expert getting pushback on their subject of expertise from someone, it's not inappropriate to raise the matter of their expertise which of course involves their identity, because it helps readers grow intellectually. Therefore, I will acknowledge a poster's identity if it's relevant to discussion, or if I just want to thank them for building something that improved my life.