"Oh you want to take a moral stand? Ok, the door is that way. We've just successfully lobbied for a few hundred more H1B's that will do anything we tell them"
Let's not pretend that developers are powerless.
Not to be blunt, but your perspective on Google employees is irrelevant in the context of how they're perceived by the broader market. I think that's why your other comment is being downvoted; it seems like what you're saying isn't wrong per se, it's just inconsequential to the job prospects Google employees actually have. Even though you're a hiring manager and don't personally consider Google employment to be a plus, most other hiring managers really do.
He never claimed it was. More importantly, he is providing a data point, whereas the original claim did not provide anything to back it up.
Mentioning the word luck draws it in a different light, as if next time the odds might be on their end. Luck is meaningless if there's enough skill. Its an overused (if not downright abused) word.
In my experience, most of the H1-B workers we have are very much Yes Men when it comes to doing what's asked of them. There are also cultural factors that come into play (e.g. never admitting ignorance on a topic, pleasing authority ) and .
Eh, there's a power imbalance, but let's not go overboard.
They are offered a good job with good pay in another country. That means they have less power in negotiations, and may be deported, but they don't lose the money they earned, and it's not like they are being exiled to some foreign place, they are literally sent home.
Nobody's freedom is being taken away, and nobody's rights are being infringed (that I know of). It may not be morally acceptable depending on your point of view, but it's not slavery. Using that word here lessens how strong it is when used in other contexts, modern day (human trafficking) and historically (in America and eslewhere). We don't need that.
Than slavery? Yes it does make it better. Much better.
"I have to do something immoral or I won't be able to feed my family" is not a position they're likely to be in.
To bring things back to the ancestor comment this was all responding to: people who can't leave a job because they're relying on a paycheck are definitely less powerful when it comes to being able to take a stand and make change at that job. People who are able to rely less on a paycheck have a bit more of a cushion in this area (especially when they have some savings for e.g. doctors, car problems, etc, and have enough set aside to find another job before those savings run out).
Anyone can put a % of their paycheck aside each month to become more financially independent. Whether they're at Google or not doesn't really matter here -- but, it is probably a bit more likely that an engineer at Google might be able to put aside a little bit more than a grocer at Target (and, is probably more capable of finding another job faster).
Many people credit a small group of Microsoft employees for getting the company to embrace open source. This group grew from within as I'm told.
I've been wondering how this transition came about. Do you have more information on that (e.g. an article or a blog post that you could refer me to)?
Quick Google Search:
Credits Hanselman & Guthrie - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8596268
AMA w/ Hanselman mentions it being 10 yrs ago - https://hashnode.com/ama/with-scott-hanselman-cjbx98jh506b34...
This article might be exactly what you're looking for - https://thenewstack.io/microsoft-finally-came-around-open-so...
But, IMO, Google has gone to black
It's all good and well placing generalised ethics on individuals to do the right thing but in those kind of ideal world scenarios you also wouldn't have accountants finding tax loopholes, lawyers perpetuating patent abuse, nor company directors asking their staff to do morally objectionable things to begin with.
So what? Standing up for what you believe in is never easy, and almost always involves challenges like those. Imagine if Dr. King gave up because he was anxious and depressed with death threats coming in on a regular basis.
Failing to take a moral/ethical stand because you're worried you might lose money or have to withstand some social anxiety blatantly shows that you don't really believe in those morals/ethics.
Do you just say "fuck it", and quit, ignoring all your responsibilities? Over cookies?
Of course, when its not about cookies, but about something more drastic, say something ludicrous like giving google nuclear launch codes, then the whole thing looks different. Some things are worth the fight, some are not.
That argument goes both ways. If the Chrome team were unionized/organized in some form, and said "hell no" to the cookie change, then I doubt Google's management would shrug and replace the whole team with fresh H1B workers just to get this small change in.
I also find it fascinating that so many people bring up children as a reason to give up your ideals. My dad gave up a well-paying job for a more fulfilling one, and it would never occur to me to blame him for it; if anything it's inspiring. This was in Europe, with a reasonable safety net, but I don't think that Xooglers would hit rock bottom anyway.
If you follow the news about Google at all, you'd know its obviously not just about cookies.
>Of course, when its not about cookies, but about something more drastic
It's about the the greatest surveillance apparatus in history encroaching towards total informational awareness.
No, cookies would be the straw that broke the camel's back. The context you're ignoring the the countless other straws beneath it.
>The decision is "Do I implement this, or do I tell my kids I dont know how to feed them"
False dichotomy
I don't think anyone would blame him. I couldn't handle the pressure, how could I demand it of someone else?
"Be the change you want to see in the world."
That being said, is it really a concern for the average Google engineer? I mean sure, if we're talking about Google's cleaning staff I can imagine that leaving their jobs can be risky but software devs? Even assuming that they have multiple children and a huge mortgage, surely they can easily find other well paying job without much difficulty?
You won't have me believe that the majority of Google's engineers is financially unable to quit their job.
>Some have social anxiety and find job hunting an impossibly scary prospect.
I'm sure that can be a factor but does it really justify anything? As far as looking for a job is concerned we have it super easy. If you can't stand for your values because of "social anxiety" then maybe you don't value your values that much?
And I realize that I sound like I'm on a high horse right now and I am, but I'm talking out of experience. I've been in that situation in the past, doing a job that I found morally questionable but finding myself excuses. Don't make my mistake, it's not worth it. There's more to life than working full time tricking people into watching ads.
I’m not going to downvote you, but if you don’t suffer from social anxiety, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. As someone who is affected by it, I can tell you it’s soul crushing when it prevents you from making a move out of a bad situation. It’s completely paralyzing.
My overall point is basically: if Google engineers can't justify quitting their jobs on moral grounds, then who can? We're utterly privileged compared to 99% of job sectors. If we are willing to give them a pass then we really can't complain about, say, people working for PRISM or military personnel in the drone programs, because I'm sure many of these people are in a much more precarious situation than your average Google engineer.
If someone's spending say 14+ hours a day on a Google campus, leaving can be a lot harder than just "finding a new job".
Even some of those publicly protesting Google's behavior or pushing for a union will turn around and help promote their friends' products or encourage people publicly to apply to join Google.
So I'd point out they've successfully made it as hard as possible, socially, to quit.
This already played out with the NSA after the Snowden leaks. The money is good, the tech is cool, so who cares if it's technically unethical as long as it's not illegal, nobody's going to hold you personally accountable and you still can easily find a job if things get too shady and you finally decide to leave.
Also, people can rationalise doing all kinds of evil things as long as they're allowed to safely live in a bubble ("Facebook is about connecting people, which is a good thing, so Facebook is a force for good and improves people's lives" is a recent one I heard from an FB employee).
You can argue it is unethical to build tech for the military. But you have a really broad definition of unethical if it includes improving a product so the default is what most users want, and you need to adjust some things to make it the way you want.
I highly recommend talking to many more people on H1B and if even a few doesn't fit your preconceived notion, kindly stop this bashing. It is people you are dealing with.
These are skilled workers, with options, that happen to be foreign.
Not foreign workers that are just skilled enough and grateful enough.
Sure, they'll hire someone else. But that's not the point. The point is sticking to your ethics.