5 ms·

This article is so sensationalist. They could have just reported the facts without the histrionics and it would have been so much better. This, especially: "Th

This article is so sensationalist. They could have just reported the facts without the histrionics and it would have been so much better. This, especially: "The language is brutal, and as you’ll see, there’s an almost sadistic, military glee on all sides with the way in which the Google recruiter is 'terminated'" The email following that description was exactly what I would have expected. "Yes, this person screwed up. We have a clear policy that they failed to follow. We're checking to see if they did this more than once. We've fired that person. Please apologize on our behalf, it won't happen again." Making the story about "brutal" this and "sadistic" that is senseless, naive, and detracts from the real story, which is that they had these (illegal!) policies in the first place. Stop buzzfeedifying the news.

joshvm 13y ago
If a contract is breached, you terminate it, as in "We terminated your employment contract". It's not sadistic, it's professional language. Firing and sacking are very much colloquial; fairly rare for anyone to actually say "You're fired" notwithstanding how difficult it is to simply get rid of someone.
- danieldk 13y ago
  If a contract is breached, you terminate it, Programmers accidentally introduce bugs, a recruiter can be mistaken about someone's current employer. Even if the no-poaching agreements were legal, this is completely unwarranted for. What about starting with a warning first? Maybe it's not sadistic, but their behaviour was certainly emotionless and inhumane.
Tomis02 13y ago
Well it is brutal and sadistic because such a policy is neither moral nor legal, as you pointed out, even though the email masks it with "professional" language. Here comes another example of Godwin's law.. the quick termination of Jews in WW2 was done very professionally by the day's standards. Sometime readers (especially the young ones) need to be spoon-fed for a while before they start understanding and interpreting facts on their own, qualifiers that you mention are most likely meant for them. And, had we had a completely objective article we wouldn't have had little gems like this - "apologizing and grovelling to Steve Jobs is a recurring theme" - which I find very accurate. Also - "Please make a public example of this termination within the group". I guess when you go work for Google you need to leave your moral compass at the entrance.
- bernardom 13y ago
  Don't be shrill. They "lost their moral compass" because they fired someone who violated a clear policy and wanted to make it clear to all employees that such behavior is unexpected? Give me a break. You are right that professional execution of unconscionable policies is itself unconscionable. But this isn't that. It's just illegal. There are degrees. Whether current Google recruiters should be blacklisted from further jobs for enforcing a policy that they should-have-known-better about is an interesting question that I don't see anyone asking... because the tone of this article engenders polarized arguments, not reasoned debate. Lastly, I couldn't disagree more with your assertion that "sometimes readers... need to be spoon-fed." That's not your job, nor the press' job. I do not not not want anyone's interpretation of the facts mixed with reporting of the facts. Save the paternalism for your kids.
  - FireBeyond 13y ago
    Firing someone who didn't follow your edict to break the law (by action, or by inaction) is immoral, absolutely.
    - bernardom 13y ago
      Let me be clear: I agree. What they (the mid-level HR people) did was immoral. Obviously. My point is that there's no need to compare them to war criminals, or for the dramatics in an ostensibly "news" site- "sadistic," "brutal," et al. When we do so, we displace a conversation about the real story: a tech cartel that colludes to depress salaries, and the secondary but still very interesting question of how their mid- and lower-level employees who enforced the policies should be treated.
      - FireBeyond 13y ago
        Of that, I do agree. The issue at hand can stand on its own feet without unnecessary comparisons.
      - a3n 13y ago
        > What they (the mid-level HR people) did was immoral. Obviously. "Geshuri’s decision to “terminate within the hour” the recruiter was enthusiastically seconded by Google’s VP for Human Resources, Shona Brown ..." There's nothing mid-level about the VP of HR. She should have known this was illegal, certainly was responsible to know that it was illegal, and was responsible for either advising the company that it's illegal or leave the company.
jamessb 13y ago
The article's title ("Newly unsealed documents show Steve Jobs’ brutal response after getting a Google employee fired" - not the current HN title) is also misleading, as these emails have been available for years - they were widely discussed in 2012: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-apple-lawsuit-idUSTRE80Q27420120127 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-apple-lawsuit-i...

joshvm 13y ago

If a contract is breached, you terminate it, as in "We terminated your employment contract". It's not sadistic, it's professional language. Firing and sacking are very much colloquial; fairly rare for anyone to actually say "You're fired" notwithstanding how difficult it is to simply get rid of someone.

danieldk 13y ago
If a contract is breached, you terminate it, Programmers accidentally introduce bugs, a recruiter can be mistaken about someone's current employer. Even if the no-poaching agreements were legal, this is completely unwarranted for. What about starting with a warning first? Maybe it's not sadistic, but their behaviour was certainly emotionless and inhumane.

Tomis02 13y ago

Well it is brutal and sadistic because such a policy is neither moral nor legal, as you pointed out, even though the email masks it with "professional" language. Here comes another example of Godwin's law.. the quick termination of Jews in WW2 was done very professionally by the day's standards. Sometime readers (especially the young ones) need to be spoon-fed for a while before they start understanding and interpreting facts on their own, qualifiers that you mention are most likely meant for them. And, had we had a completely objective article we wouldn't have had little gems like this - "apologizing and grovelling to Steve Jobs is a recurring theme" - which I find very accurate. Also - "Please make a public example of this termination within the group". I guess when you go work for Google you need to leave your moral compass at the entrance.

bernardom 13y ago
Don't be shrill. They "lost their moral compass" because they fired someone who violated a clear policy and wanted to make it clear to all employees that such behavior is unexpected? Give me a break. You are right that professional execution of unconscionable policies is itself unconscionable. But this isn't that. It's just illegal. There are degrees. Whether current Google recruiters should be blacklisted from further jobs for enforcing a policy that they should-have-known-better about is an interesting question that I don't see anyone asking... because the tone of this article engenders polarized arguments, not reasoned debate. Lastly, I couldn't disagree more with your assertion that "sometimes readers... need to be spoon-fed." That's not your job, nor the press' job. I do not not not want anyone's interpretation of the facts mixed with reporting of the facts. Save the paternalism for your kids.
- FireBeyond 13y ago
  Firing someone who didn't follow your edict to break the law (by action, or by inaction) is immoral, absolutely.
  - bernardom 13y ago
    Let me be clear: I agree. What they (the mid-level HR people) did was immoral. Obviously. My point is that there's no need to compare them to war criminals, or for the dramatics in an ostensibly "news" site- "sadistic," "brutal," et al. When we do so, we displace a conversation about the real story: a tech cartel that colludes to depress salaries, and the secondary but still very interesting question of how their mid- and lower-level employees who enforced the policies should be treated.
    - FireBeyond 13y ago
      Of that, I do agree. The issue at hand can stand on its own feet without unnecessary comparisons.
    - a3n 13y ago
      > What they (the mid-level HR people) did was immoral. Obviously. "Geshuri’s decision to “terminate within the hour” the recruiter was enthusiastically seconded by Google’s VP for Human Resources, Shona Brown ..." There's nothing mid-level about the VP of HR. She should have known this was illegal, certainly was responsible to know that it was illegal, and was responsible for either advising the company that it's illegal or leave the company.

jamessb 13y ago

The article's title ("Newly unsealed documents show Steve Jobs’ brutal response after getting a Google employee fired" - not the current HN title) is also misleading, as these emails have been available for years - they were widely discussed in 2012: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-apple-lawsuit-idUSTRE80Q27420120127 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-apple-lawsuit-i...