6 ms·

Release the spreadsheet.

by brobdingnagian 11y ago

discardorama 11y ago
Why? It's an internal company matter. Why is it our business to see who makes what?
- nostrademons 11y ago
  It's also a personal matter. While it's illegal to prevent an employee from sharing his or her own salary, I believe it's also illegal to share someone else's salary without their consent.
  - cldellow 11y ago
    Could you point out which laws you think might make it a crime? I'm genuinely curious. If I tell a peer some sensitive information, and they share it...isn't that on me for choosing the wrong person to trust with that information?
    - nostrademons 11y ago
      That was the reason Google gave for firing Randy Wigginton for leaking the 2010 company-wide raise in the wake of the collapse of the wage cartel [1]. "You can share your own salary, but you can't share other peoples'." It's possible that this was mistaken and this was just Google covering its ass when getting rid of a troublesome employee, but that's where the information came from. [1] http://gawker.com/5696695/google-fired-an-apple-legend-for-leaking-internal-memo http://gawker.com/5696695/google-fired-an-apple-legend-for-l...
  - rosser 11y ago
    Are you suggesting that someone posting their own salary on a spreadsheet, one which they know is being broadly distributed within the company, might somehow not have consented to having it shared further?
    - nostrademons 11y ago
      Absolutely. There's a huge difference between sharing your salary within an organization that you're part of and sharing it with the whole world.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  I upvoted parent, not because I agree with him, but I deeply disagree with your attitude. I think even internal criticism of companies should be considered free speech and protected as such. That doesn't mean that it should be released to the public, but employees should have the freedom to release the information if they decide so, just like whistleblowers. > Why is it our business to see who makes what? Of course it is your business (if you are an employee). Employee wages are determined by supply and demand, therefore, they depend on other's people wages. That aside though, any exposition of the way other employers treat other employees in similar position (such as discrimination) also should be your business, because it may affect behavior of your employer as well. These are the reasons why we have free speech, to prevent people doing wrong things in secrecy, as to avoid collective moral correction to take place.
  - incepted 11y ago
    > I think even internal criticism of companies should be considered free speech and protected as such. I think you misunderstand what free speech is: it simply means the government can't arbitrarily prevent you from saying whatever you think (well, most of it anyway, you can still go to jail for saying certain things). We're talking about corporations and individuals here, no free speech laws apply. It's perfectly legal for a company to restrict what its employees can talk about publicly (within certain boundaries, e.g. whistle blowers, ...).
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Yes, certainly. But not American companies; not companies that purport to have American values. The principle of free speech was incorporated into our constitution, not because the idea started and ended there, but to push an American ideal into Government unequivocally. The ideal exists outside the constitution. A private company can suppress free speech; it can perform searches and seizures on its grounds; it can profile and discriminate and have pay inequality. But it cannot claim any moral high ground. To say "at least we don't violate the letter of the constitution" is a shamefully low bar.
      - 11y ago
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  Why is it not our business? How did you come to the mindset that we shouldn't know how labor is valued?
  - discardorama 11y ago
    Google is a private company. What right do I, an outsider, have to peek into its books? Here you are, on this site, hiding behind a pseudonym and not even revealing where you work, let alone how much you make. And you expect Google to give you everyone's salary?
aiiane 11y ago
No. That would be disrespecting fellow Googlers who provided their salary under a specific set of expectations, which did not include public release.
pekk 11y ago
I love how HN mostly thinks it is a moral imperative to release literally every piece of data in the hands of the government, but when it comes to leaking corporate data it's disrespectful, irresponsible, etc.
- Baghard 11y ago
  There may both be some cognitive dissonance and a difference between open government data (funded with tax money) and closed company data (funded with revenues).

Release the spreadsheet.

discardorama 11y ago

Why? It's an internal company matter. Why is it our business to see who makes what?

nostrademons 11y ago
It's also a personal matter. While it's illegal to prevent an employee from sharing his or her own salary, I believe it's also illegal to share someone else's salary without their consent.
- cldellow 11y ago
  Could you point out which laws you think might make it a crime? I'm genuinely curious. If I tell a peer some sensitive information, and they share it...isn't that on me for choosing the wrong person to trust with that information?
  - nostrademons 11y ago
    That was the reason Google gave for firing Randy Wigginton for leaking the 2010 company-wide raise in the wake of the collapse of the wage cartel [1]. "You can share your own salary, but you can't share other peoples'." It's possible that this was mistaken and this was just Google covering its ass when getting rid of a troublesome employee, but that's where the information came from. [1] http://gawker.com/5696695/google-fired-an-apple-legend-for-leaking-internal-memo http://gawker.com/5696695/google-fired-an-apple-legend-for-l...
- rosser 11y ago
  Are you suggesting that someone posting their own salary on a spreadsheet, one which they know is being broadly distributed within the company, might somehow not have consented to having it shared further?
  - nostrademons 11y ago
    Absolutely. There's a huge difference between sharing your salary within an organization that you're part of and sharing it with the whole world.
asgard1024 11y ago
I upvoted parent, not because I agree with him, but I deeply disagree with your attitude. I think even internal criticism of companies should be considered free speech and protected as such. That doesn't mean that it should be released to the public, but employees should have the freedom to release the information if they decide so, just like whistleblowers. > Why is it our business to see who makes what? Of course it is your business (if you are an employee). Employee wages are determined by supply and demand, therefore, they depend on other's people wages. That aside though, any exposition of the way other employers treat other employees in similar position (such as discrimination) also should be your business, because it may affect behavior of your employer as well. These are the reasons why we have free speech, to prevent people doing wrong things in secrecy, as to avoid collective moral correction to take place.
- incepted 11y ago
  > I think even internal criticism of companies should be considered free speech and protected as such. I think you misunderstand what free speech is: it simply means the government can't arbitrarily prevent you from saying whatever you think (well, most of it anyway, you can still go to jail for saying certain things). We're talking about corporations and individuals here, no free speech laws apply. It's perfectly legal for a company to restrict what its employees can talk about publicly (within certain boundaries, e.g. whistle blowers, ...).
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Yes, certainly. But not American companies; not companies that purport to have American values. The principle of free speech was incorporated into our constitution, not because the idea started and ended there, but to push an American ideal into Government unequivocally. The ideal exists outside the constitution. A private company can suppress free speech; it can perform searches and seizures on its grounds; it can profile and discriminate and have pay inequality. But it cannot claim any moral high ground. To say "at least we don't violate the letter of the constitution" is a shamefully low bar.
    - 11y ago
waterlesscloud 11y ago
Why is it not our business? How did you come to the mindset that we shouldn't know how labor is valued?
- discardorama 11y ago
  Google is a private company. What right do I, an outsider, have to peek into its books? Here you are, on this site, hiding behind a pseudonym and not even revealing where you work, let alone how much you make. And you expect Google to give you everyone's salary?

aiiane 11y ago

No. That would be disrespecting fellow Googlers who provided their salary under a specific set of expectations, which did not include public release.

pekk 11y ago

I love how HN mostly thinks it is a moral imperative to release literally every piece of data in the hands of the government, but when it comes to leaking corporate data it's disrespectful, irresponsible, etc.

Baghard 11y ago
There may both be some cognitive dissonance and a difference between open government data (funded with tax money) and closed company data (funded with revenues).