Hacker News Reader

Comment by ben7799 | Hacker News Reader

I'm always amazed Google management tolerates things like internal message boards aimed at letting employees create Memes on company time.

On the "evil point haired boss" level it seems these types of things like their internal message boards cause a lot of trouble for the company.

On the less evil side it seems like employees waste a lot of time on these internal sites and all the internal social justice stuff.

Maybe Google just seems to get it's dirty laundry aired out. I've been working in this field for 20 years not including my internships in college and I've never worked any company that seemed to have as much of this weirdness as Google seems to.

Maybe it's an artifact of them having a money printing machine and then a ton of employees who seem to work on items other than the money printing machine which don't really matter to the company's bottom line.

From the outside it just seems like a never ending series of stories about ultra-toxic management.. all of which greatly exceed anything I've seen in my career.

View on HN

I think the theory behind it is that when you're dissatisfied with an organization, you have two options: Voice (speak up and hope to change things from within) or Exit (leave the organization and find or found a new one).

And at least when I was there, ~5 years ago, Google executives really, really wanted you to choose Voice. Because the history of Silicon Valley is basically built upon talented engineers choosing Exit and creating the company that eventually replaces you. Google itself was mostly built by people who did exactly that - its early (pre-2005) employees were practically a who's-who of alumni from Xerox Parc, Western Digital, Bell Labs, JPL, Netscape, Sun, and academia.

I dunno if it's the same today - I chose Exit 5 years ago (and my grievances were a lot smaller than most of what I hear in the press today - I generally enjoyed my time there, I just didn't feel like it was a place where my professional goals could be accomplished), and a lot of the people I see Exiting recently are folks I thought were very committed to exercising their Voice when I was there. As a Google shareholder this makes me a little uneasy, but perhaps it's the nature of a corporation that internal dissent just doesn't work when you get to 100,000 employees.

Also, "Voice" comes in two variants: Internally, or externally.

Much more preferable for the company if employees complain on an internal board rather than Reddit, HN, or Blind.

Allowing "Voice" internally is a pressure release valve that is also stated inside the company as mentioned, so maybe issues can be fixed.

In a way it is a bit like some democracy in a company rather than the usual authoritarian/dictatorial workplaces we have where usually dissent and opinions against the borg direction is stifled and attacked by the vogons.

Democracy is also a pressure release valve that looks messy but doesn't blow up like authoritarianism does eventually. Better to let the proles, sharecroppers, and feudal peasants have their airing of grievances, fix if you can, if not find ways to route around the issues.

I work for Google, can confirm many of the points you've made. While I haven't experienced any toxicity at Google, your analysis of the internal communication culture raises really good points.

On one side, the internal social justice campaigns are incredibly pervasive due to large usage of internal message boards. On the other side, Google is one of the few companies that allows this level of internal airing of dirty laundry. I've heard stories of similar incidences at Microsoft which were swiftly shut down.

The problem is that when you encourage internal dialogue and communication at a huge company like this, you'll never have people with different opinions pitching in. You'll mostly get people with the most 'acceptable' opinions, the others being silent as they value their jobs. It's a huge risk to be singled out as someone who thinks Damore was right or that Maven should've been continued. As a result, you'll get a constant stream of one-sided social justice campaigns which inevitably leak to the press.

Encouraging internal dialogue and communication but not understanding its limits at scale is one of the biggest mistakes Google has made. Google was built on principles of open company-wide communication and sharing of information, and while it clearly doesn't work as intended anymore, there's too much inertia to change the course.

Isn't that forum huge legal liability for the company if employees start suing each other?

As a result, you'll get a constant stream of one-sided social justice campaigns which inevitably leak to the press.

Encouraging internal dialogue and communication but not understanding its limits at scale is one of the biggest mistakes Google has made.

It's not just scale in numbers of people. It's also scale in terms of the potential value which can be captured by viral campaigns and media attention. When a "scene" is out of the way and non-mainstream, there can be a high degree of trust. However, when the "scene" gets hot, and there's some serious money and power to be gained, the sociopaths and other bad actors start coming out of the woodwork.

https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths

Should have added, I worked one place we got acquired by a giant company that most here would say is really f*cking evil (TM) and even there I never detected any of the toxic stuff these Google stories talk about.

That place was actually Evil enough I quit within a year to go back to another small company but it was nothing like what you read about Google. A different axis of evil.

I should've been more explicit - I haven't experienced any toxicity at Google. However, due to its internal communication culture Google is far more prone to blowups of well-publicized scandals than other companies of similar size. I'll edit my post to make it clearer.

For sure.. it sounds like Google has more of a problem with everything becoming public as opposed to a higher % of people behaving badly.

Stuff like being able to call a Town Hall Meeting to criticize the decisions of upper management seems unique to Google though. Imagine that happening at some place like Oracle!

I’m curious how you reconcile the admission that you work at a place with bigoted witch hunts with the claim that you’ve never experienced any toxicity. What is your position on the war with Eastasia?

Google is a huge company, so why's that so hard to believe? In fact I'm curious how you'd so easily write off the whole company and everyone who works there from few pieces of bad press.

I think it's possible to work inside a giant war machine that causes all sorts of suffering, while on the inside, it's all brightly lit, comfy, people are polite and even compassionate to each other, both at and outside of work. We can be very reflected and open to criticism even, though only within a specific framework of abstractions and euphemisms, which aren't inherent to the people working there, but rather inherent to the the culture, or the profession, etc.

Maybe like the cells in the body of a criminal and those in the body of the saint aren't really different, per se, and it's more about the state between them. I don't know how to put this well, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a word for how something can behave very differently if you rearrange its parts, or excite them in a different order, etc.

> Encouraging [internal] dialogue and communication but not understanding its limits at scale is one of the biggest mistakes [Google] has made. [Google] was built on principles of open company-wide communication and sharing of information, and while it clearly doesn't work as intended anymore, there's too much inertia to change the course.

Couldn’t the same basically be said of Google/Facebook/Twitter’s public communication platforms too? :-)

I don't understand what the f(*& kind of message board this is where a person says, "Hey, I'm having concerning health symptoms & me & my baby might die" and her manager says, "You're not meeting expectations as a manager, all of a sudden!" and this is called "internal social justice stuff".

Complications of pregnancy involving hemorrhage and an early C-section are serious and not really a "management style" issue, and I don't understand why this discussion instead focuses on "dirty laundry", "internal social justice stuff", "wast[ing] a lot of time on these internal sites," "creat[ing] Memes on company time".

> On the less evil side it seems like employees waste a lot of time on these internal sites and all the internal social justice stuff.

I work at Google, opinions are my own.

If anything, having your employees spend their time on a internal site seems like a great idea because even their fun time is spent "within" the company. It's not like the alternative is they just don't do things besides work.. the alternative is they spend that time on HN, Reddit, or Youtube

There are also numerous third-party places one could hang out and discuss exactly the same things.

The infamous Border Patrol facebook group comes to mind.

At least Google leadership can see what people are saying.

The employees creating memes on the company’s time is not the issue here, the issue is active discrimination against pregnant women at said company.

Scrolled down pretty far to catch this point being elevated.

12-20 years ago, one of my largest life goals was to work for Google. (It's not anymore. I found other fun and rewarding jobs.)

I don't get why the Google management team allowed their team to get so... well, violently politicized.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but.. keeping politics out of the workplace worked very well for a very long time.

The whole country is rather politicized (some of it actually violent). Google doesn't force employees to pretend that's not the case. Maybe a good idea, maybe bad.

In hindsight.. it seems like it could become their downfall.

It also seems so counter-productive for a company that basically controls large parts of the web traffic to become so politicized. What was Larry, Sergey and Eric thinking?

Edit: Seems like I can't create new posts - I'm being rate limited. Editing this comment instead as a workaround.

I think Google's stated mission ("to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful") relies on the staff being politically neutral.

Perhaps they couldn't stop it, or felt that tamping down on employee discussion would cost more than it would benefit? Or maybe they've realized that Google cannot be neutral?

That's the thing about values -- if you won't stand up for them when there's a cost, what good are they?

> Perhaps they couldn't stop it

Pretty sure they could, at least early on. Come on, they had absolute power over company strategy. The most important people (their smartest developers, like Jeff Dean etc, by all accounts, didn't care much about stuff like this.)

> or felt that tamping down on employee discussion would cost more than it would benefit?

No-one apart from you is calling this tampering.

> Or maybe they've realized that Google cannot be neutral

Or maybe all of this bias is accidental because all they cared about was freedom, and while the two founders were away jetskiing, the company grew in a very particular political direction?

> Pretty sure they could, at least early on

Maybe early on in Google. But to influence thousands of highly opinionated people, all with their own opinions, without negative side effects, is really difficult. Did you mean early on in the employees' efforts, or early in Google?

> No-one apart from you is calling this tampering.

Sorry for the confusion -- I mean "tamping" -- that any topdown attempt to force neutrality on employees when they are agitating for not-neutrality would have negative costs. (tampering is a different word, but it's an understandable mis-communication... darn English!)

> Or maybe all of this bias is accidental...

You could be 100% correct. I have no idea, it's a viable option. My point was to answer your original question of "what could they be thinking".

My objective was just to propose a few ideas about what they could be thinking. I 100% don't know, but I think what I said could fit the limited information we have.

Having politics free zones like work is a good idea.

If there are people, there are politics.

"Politics-free" inherently means "maintain the status quo". This does well to serve the majority, but tends to go poorly for people who are harmed by that status quo, such as historically underrepresented groups. If I'm a gay person asking to change the company policy to allow parental leave, is that political? Is an Asian person asking coworkers to not use harmful stereotypes political? Is a trans person asking to have their pronouns respected political? It will usually be the majority to decide it's whether it's political, even if they're not affected. And that's where the problem inherently lies. The majority of people want no-politics zones until there's something "political" that affects them.

"Politics-free" also means "the ethical choice is what the higher-ups define", which would be difficult for me to stomach for its own set of reasons.

No. A politics free zone is a politics free zone. Talking about C++ is not political. Talking about cookie recipes is not political. Talking about skiing is not political. Anyone can see that. Don't try to tell me that what happens every day is in fact impossible.

I regularly see elaborate arguments that non-political speech is impossible therefore employees must be allowed to talk politics at work. They're very tiresome, because ordinary people can see they're just not true. Non political workplaces are possible and desirable. Employees should ban political discussion, starting with this tedious everything-is-politics stuff.

But only Google is this outwardly politically aligned. You don't see these problems emerge at Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, or Netflix.

Google's culture is uniquely subservient to politics. The organization's mission is very clearly secondary to the employee's personal activism.

The workplace was always politicized. It's just being politicized in different ways now.

I.. disagree. At least here in Sweden, the workplace was and is a neutral place when it comes to politics (basically, it's considered extremely impolite to push your private political view at work.). Is it different in the US?

No, it’s been like that for decades. Only recently, with the rise of social media and public identities, have we seen such blatant representation and direct exposure in the workplace. I don’t think it’s healthy or productive.

There's no such thing as a "neutral" place. What's happening is you tend to align with the predominate views at your company, and anyone who doesn't keeps their head down. From you point of view it looks neutral, but actually other views are being repressed.

I don't understand.

Why do you feel it's required to take some stand (including whatever the majority default is) on free speech, gun rights, immigration quotas, abortion restrictions, tax laws, states' rights, welfare benefits, etc. in the workplace?

Should women be allowed to work? What if they're married and working in close contact with single men? What if they're pregnant? Should the company be allowed to give someone else their job while they are on maternity leave? Should the company even pay them while on maternity leave? All these questions are "politics"

Are you talking about city/state/national laws?

Or company policies?

"Employees here should have benefit X" or "I should get paid Y" or "Z should be promoted" aren't really political in the usual sense (it's office politics, sure).

"The government should on pain of imprisonment require everyone to X" or "political candidate Y should be elected" is politics. And creates unnecessary division in the workplace.

I think we disagree on the meaning of "political". "We should give every woman here a raise because we have historically paid women less". "We should send recruiters to historically black colleges because we don't hire enough black people". Both suggestions have nothing to do with laws or elections but would be identified as "political".

...no?

I think you maybe don't get the whole "don't be political at work" thing.

I suspect the parent poster is pointing out that you might not be aware of political issues in your workplace because they don't impact you.

How is your access to a gender neutral restroom or shower facility? Do you have a quiet place to pray multiple times per day? If you need a place to breastfeed (not a restroom), is that something available? What about dilating post gender reassignment surgery? Does your workplace offer the same benefits to same sex partners? Do you have to take a badge photo, if so, what name gets used? Can you wear head coverings in your badge photo? Have you ever heard expressions like, "Let's see what's under the kimono" in a business meeting? How is wheelchair access to your site? Can I operate all the machines you use if I am blind?

All of these are 'political' issues that most people are blind to.

I agree.

Religion and politics.

Both super important. Both better discussed outside the workplace.

This is a glib answer from a position of security.

“Politics” is absolutely a core part of the workplace where it starts to affect your rights, those of your colleagues, and the actions your employer takes in support or opposition of these.

> This is a glib answer from a position of security.

I'd love to know how you figured that one out.

> “Politics” is absolutely a core part of the workplace where it starts to affect your rights

I am only slightly exaggerating when I say that all politics affects your rights.

Again, like religion, super important. But for a variety of reasons, the workplace makes a poor forum.

What do you suggest people do when workplace must intersect with politics. For example, you need access to a gender neutral restroom or shower facility?

Should you not advocate for that internally?

Let's say you are an ally for someone who needs an affordance like a gender neutral facility, should you not speak up on their behalf?

Company washrooms are not really politics.

Put that in the idea box all you want.

https://ballotpedia.org/Transgender_bathroom_access_laws_in_...

QED.

This is an extreme case, and even so HR drafts a policy and the company follows it. What part of this requires intensive debating? There's nothing employees need to do here other than follow the law and policies.

And if the policy is created by people who have no idea what the needs actually are and get it wrong? It's all well and good to say "just follow HR and the law", but it's frankly pretty naive. What happens when your very existence is determined to be political? This is often the case for trans people.

Nobody's existence is political. That's just extreme language used to distract from the discussion.

Policies follow the law first. If there are specific requirements then, like I said, that's up to the individual to discuss. These issues are not the concern of everyone else.

No company is forced to do anything beyond the law just as the individual is not forced to work for the company. If the issue is with the law then it should be changed through the appropriate avenues, not hashed out in the workplace.

Are you talking about every washroom in a legal jurisdiction (city/state/nation)? That's politics.

Or are you talking about the washroom down the hall? That's just your typical company policy.

Quod non erat demonstandum

It seems this is the only example ever presented. Is gender really that big of an issue? The individual is free to discuss with their company about their needs and wants.

HR can handle this easily by following the law and drafting appropriate policies. It does not need a big battle with an "ally" at all. That's what leaving politics out of the workplace means. An individual's issues should be left to the individual.

I posted this downthread:

> you need access to a gender neutral restroom

If you don't want to use the mens or womens, then just use the restroom with the wheelchair picture on the door. There's your gender neutral facility right there. Solved.

If it affects your rights then it's a legal matter. There's no reason to be constantly representing and discussing politics at work.

No, this is just not correct. If my employer, for example, is providing contributions to a politician who is fighting same-sex marriage, for example. Not a legal issue, clearly politics, clearly related to the workplace. There are many obvious and valid reasons to be constantly discussing politics at work.

What is not correct? How is that related to the workplace at all? You're hired to do work. You don't have to agree with anyone else's politics to do that work. It's unlikely that all of your colleagues agree with your views anyway, and if you really have such a problem with the employer then you can easily choose not to work for them.

I see no reason why you must discuss your political opinions with everyone else when they have no bearing on the work or job responsibility. It's neither obvious nor valid to me, and seems completely unprofessional.

Does your workplace ever expect people to work after sundown on Friday? How do your orthodox Jewish employees feel about that?

A. My workplace does not require people to work after sundown on Friday. Orthodox Jews work there.

B. My workplace does require people to work after sundown on Friday. Orthodox Jews don't work there.

This isn't necessarily a religious thing though.

I also don't expect a vegan to work as a BBQ taste tester. AFAIK veganism per se isn't a religion.

> I'm always amazed Google management tolerates things like internal message boards aimed at letting employees create Memes on company time.

They're not the only large company that does this; I think companies allow this because they know that employees will end up making memes anyways and it's a lot better that they end up on an internal board than an ad-hoc external one. (Aside: I'm not sure some of the people making those "memes" understood how they're supposed to work. The puffin one is a misuse of the template…)

Is it possible that having a way to internally air grievances has, up until recently, made it less likely for people to air their grievances outside the company?

What do you mean by "internal social justice" stuff?

This current story does not sound like anything weird is going on but some of the stories it sounds like some employees spend a majority of their time setting up protests internally.

It is hard to understand how someone can spend significant time in the office fomenting internal protests (even if they are for a good cause) and actually be getting their job done.

Perhaps they aren't and perhaps that's not relevant because they're not important enough.

Tends to happen in large organisations.

I'm guessing it's from people spending too much time at the company and having poor work/private life separation.

Free food, laundry, gym, haircuts, recreation, a swim-in place swimming pool with a lifeguard...it's almost like Google sets it up to blur those work/private life lines.

https://www.google.com/search?&q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com...

> I'm always amazed Google management tolerates things like internal message boards aimed at letting employees create Memes on company time.

They have to by law. If they don't take active measures to prevent their employees from talking about non-work things during work, which they don't, then by law they aren't allowed to prevent them from organizing for better working conditions during work.

People will talk regardless. I have to chuckle at this mindset of time wasted. What do you think people at Google do, work at an assembly line and are given an extra break to discuss things on a message board?

Non-trivial work requires that you goof off at least half of the time.

Regarding 'it's never happened to me' arguments. Please realize that the world is varied and complex. Basic statistics will tell you that in a group of 100k people, chances are, somebody is getting harassed legitimately, let alone thinking they are being harassed or treated unfairly. Why is that at all hard to believe? Give me any 100k population and I can write articles ranging from 'great success' to 'great discrimination' indefinitely. It's just basic odds.

Used to work at Salesforce, which has it's own social network thing called Chatter. The most popular group internally was Airing of Greavances (Seinfeld joke), which was entirely to gripe.

The management has been asked about the group a few times, and they've noted it all ends up on glassdoor anyways. Old article from 2012 where it is brought up: https://www.businessinsider.com/salesforce-chatter-airing-of...

They did seem to get a lot of value out of that group over time. They had some people monitoring it and legitimately tried to fix some of the complaints (not always successfully, of course).

> I'm always amazed Google management tolerates things like internal message boards aimed at letting employees create Memes on company time.

See The Circle, the Emma Watson film.

> it seems like employees waste a lot of time on ... all the internal social justice stuff

The nerve.

It seems to me that Google also attracts more far-left employees than any other big company.

I find it extremely ironic that those employees accept to be employed by the biggest censorship machine ever made, being paid close to the highest salaries in tech and then complain and plan walkouts in order to virtue signal and feel good about themselves.

It's not really that ironic. Censorship can come from both the far-left and far-right. Both ends of the political spectrum tend towards authoritarianism.

Censorship's not really partisan. Whoever's in power has a motive to censor. Right now, the gatekeepers of the internet tilt left-wing; so it's left-wing censoring you see more of on the internet/in colleges. Back when the institutions were right wing, it was reversed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com