Hacker News Reader

Comment by ocdtrekkie | Hacker News Reader

Looks like Google has tried to dodge directly acquiescing to most of the walkout's demands.

The chief diversity officer will "continue" to report to the leadership team, rather than being promoted. No mention of the employee representative on the board, either. Pichai states they'll add detail to their sexual harassment report, but doesn't commit to release it publicly, as demanded. Google also didn't address pay inequality, likely because doing so would require admitting they've been lying to the Department of Labor by claiming there is none.

But there's an end to forced arbitration, we'll see if that's enough for the walkout crowd. I kinda doubt it.

View on HN

Do you believe they are lying to the Department of Labor? Do you have any evidence for that claim? I'd love to see it.

Google claims they have "no pay gap". And have resisted turning over their HR data as much as possible to avoid allowing the Department of Labor to investigate it, including claiming it was to protect employee privacy, and hilariously, that it was too hard/costly for Google to gather the data.

Meanwhile, the Department of Labor says there is "systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce" and that "received compelling evidence of very significant discrimination against women in the most common positions at Google headquarters".

A fifth of Google's entire workforce (20,000 people!) walked out, in part, because of that systemic mistreatment of women, and demanded Google fix the pay gap.

The Department of Labor and 20,000 employees who say there's a pay gap. I believe them. Google says there isn't one. I do not believe Google is run by people too incompetent to notice a "systemic" pay gap. Therefore, yes, I believe they are lying.

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/8/15229688/department-of-lab...

The nice thing about ending forced arbitration is that it opens the lever to fix the other problems you mentioned. If they're smart they really will get ahead of the other core issues, instead of working them out in (real) courts!

> No mention of the employee representative on the board, either.

Can someone who knows better than me explain whether this is actually a reasonable request? It sounded ridiculous to me but I admit I am not knowledgeable in these matters.

Elisabeth Warren is working on a bill to make this a requirement.

Personally I think its sensible to have some accountability to your employees, not just your shareholders.

It's a reasonable request, if you consider it from this perspective:

> Why do shareholders get board seats?

Because they don't trust company leadership to do the right thing, without any oversight.

Leadership is currently asking employees to trust that leadership will do the right thing, without any oversight.

This is, obviously, an unreasonable expectation. Even if employees trust current leadership, what assurances do they have that Sundar's successor will do the right thing?

An employee representative on the board is the only way to ensure that leadership will do the right thing. Corporate America has figured out this accountability thing over a century ago.

That's pretty backwards entitled thinking. Shareholders elect a board because they own the company and have rights to manage their assets. Employees are a resource. They have no such rights.

Not necessary. It is narrow minded to only see employees as a resource to exploit.

Actually giving people a voice and representation is good and won't hurt

A voice is fine. But a board seat is not a voice, it’s extraordinary power. You are not entitled to that.

Without employees, there would be no company, and all conversation about what shareholders want would be moot.

Employees have extraordinary power - especially if they work together to use it.

I believe it would be quite ridiculous as well, any elected employee representative would probably be somehow bought out by the company/board and become useless. That's what Union Reps in my country do at least - they are basically friends with upper management/board and just strike deals that benefit them rather than the workers

This is required in some European countries. For example, in Germany, workers have a right to 50% of the board for companies with more than 2,000 employees. (Ties break for shareholders, due to the way the chair position works.)

https://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Rela...

Obviously, this hasn't destroyed Germany's economy, so it's doubtful it would hurt Google's profits much either.

50% of the board with votes breaking for shareholders sounds a lot like the workers don't actually have any control at all. What prevents the shareholders from just consistently railroading the workers, forcing everything to a tie, and then having the decision break their way?

I was reading about employee-employer relationship in Japan(in the context of Sony) and it seemed like most people used to work at a place for life. It might be similar for Germany in a lot of industries(Automobile, heavy manufacturing). However, wouldn't this pose a new set of problems when applied to companies where the average employee tenure is very short? I think the average tech worker tenure is very very short compared to other industries. While representing employees on the board is a good idea in general, it might need some modifications before being applied to companies with high employee churn rate.

Sounds like half-communism to me. It's messing with the reward/punishment mechanism of profits/losses. They have 50% of control, but no skin in the game. If their policies hurt dividends, it doesn't matter, because they didn't invest their own money in the first place and the salary is stable. If the company goes broke, they can just find another job.

> Obviously, this hasn't destroyed Germany's economy, so it's doubtful it would hurt Google's profits much either.

You can't say the Germany economy wouldn't be better off without this regulation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com