Hacker News Reader

Apparently Google feels that this situation does not fit the public image they want to project so the want to keep it under wraps.

My opinion is that their behaviour isn't exactly evil and probably not unusual but it's uninspiring, uncreative and not up to standard with their approach to other matters. It's a missed opportunity. They have all these people together on the campus so why would they reinforce the existing social segregation instead of weakening it?

It's not simply a matter of cost or security. What does it cost to let everyone ride the same bus and have them eat in the same place? Maybe the kids of those workers would be more inspired if their parents could tell them about a chat they had with some of the Google engineers on the book search project.

Of course it costs more - more busses, drivers, meals.

Of course its a 2nd class of worker - if they were Engineers working on a super-secret project, they'd have catered meals, separate busses, social arrangements of their own. Because Engineers are special and desirable and highly paid.

> What does it cost to let everyone ride the same bus and have them eat in the same place?

It's not clear why this contract agency runs on a different schedule than the rest of the company - 4am to 2:30 or whatever - maybe it's just traffic flow, or maybe they work a lot with a group in a different timezone. But the fact that they do run on a different schedule implies it could cost quite a lot to "let everyone ride the same bus and have them eat in the same place". People arriving at work at 4am would need to arrive on different buses than those arriving at 8 - you'd have to hire extra buses just for them, find drivers willing to start driving well before 3am, and hope there's enough concentration that this one building of people rates its own bus stop locations - if they're spread out all over they'd be better served by carpooling. (Not to mention that the reason for Google buses is so employees can get work done during what might otherwise be a long, aggravating rush-hour commute, whereas the commute at 3am/2:15pm is easy and fast)

Similarly, people who arrive at 4am are on a different lunch schedule than the rest of the company so you'd have to operate the cafeteria longer, pay overtime, hire more workers, etc.

That's a lot to do for people who don't even work for Google directly.

UPDATE: Another poster wrote that this group is working in multiple shifts, presumably to get through more books faster with the available facilities. That makes perfect sense - this is the morning shift, then the evening shift arrives, maybe a swing shift after that. Which would make running the kitchens and the buses long enough for everybody really expensive.

It's the combination of all these strange rules and Google's reaction in this case that makes me think the issue is slightly larger than bus schedules.

They pride themselves of creative thinking, they hire lots of academics, even economists and sociologists. Some of these people should be able to figure out a reasonably cost effective way of organizing these things without making the place resemble a 19th century cotton plantation.

> They pride themselves of creative thinking, they hire lots of academics, even economists and sociologists. Some of these people should be able to figure out a reasonably cost effective way of organizing these things without making the place resemble a 19th century cotton plantation.

Wait, so being offered a job that pays reasonably well with decent work conditions but for which you must solve for yourself the problem of how to get to work and what to eat for lunch is now considered oppressive? On the scale of, say, being whipped for not working hard enough?

Are you suggesting that if Google provides any perk at all they need to provide it to every employee or contractor at every company they contract with, including the guys who cut the lawns and the guys who sell them stationery supplies?

No, I'm suggesting that the way they stucture these perks and their security arrangements is not as good as it could be. It creates more segregation than necessary. I think that money works pretty well as a general equivalent and perks that require social segregation are not the best way to pay according to different levels of performance or competence.

I basically agree with this thought, although the perks at Google are great PR and appear to be genuinely adored by the employees. At a certain scale of income (enough) perks probably can make a positive enhancement above what they actually cost (and above what the increased salary if the perks were eliminated would "feel" like).

So, if we assume the perks are working for Google at the high end -- at the low end it seems logical that if those said perks are extravagant enough the feasibility of adjusting the money on the low end down enough to compensate for the low end also receiving those perks becomes very negative to those employees. At the low end pay scales where things like being able to pay rent and afford children, receiving cash money is likely preferable than receiving less money and a limo ride to work.

It is possible more perks in lieu of cash at the high end, and more cash in lieu of perks at the low end is actually the optimal solution to compensation package.

Not any but basic things like eating equally and transportation shouldn't be hard to arrange.

When you have a person being prevented from enjoying the same benefits of others.. and this person can witness this daily, how do you think they feel?

Large companies have forgotten the human side of work. That doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

The surprising thing here isn't that the yellow badges can't use the cafeteria, it's that OP's group could. The rule "the cafeteria is only for Apple employees" would be pretty natural and easy to enforce. If you want to make it so everybody has the same benefits, the easy way to do that would be to remove cafeteria privileges from OP's company. As for "and this person can witness this daily", if OP weren't muckracking, the yellow badges wouldn't know that his group was getting extra benefits they weren't. Anyway, how do they "witness this daily"? It's a big campus and you'd have to go out of your way to go to the cafeteria if you had no access or business there.

Consider that I don't have a company car. I'm sure I could "witness it daily" that other people are being driven to work in their company cars if I knew where to look for it. But since I don't know about it, I feel fine.

And once you know it, you know it.

Personally I would work the other way around, trying to detach myself for all the mundane pleasures (and failing constantly) and seeing how unimportant some perks are. But that's just me. What I see around is lots of hatred speech when people have been forbidden access to these things. It would be wise of Google or any other company to avoid these situations altogether.

There's also some deal in California with commuter tax benefits (I am nowhere near versant in this). That's why employees get free buses but contractors don't (as their company doesn't opt for the benefit, 'cause it costs money).

A Google employee is contributing to short-term disability fund with every paycheck, and in case he slips on cafeteria or bus floor, state of California will cover their portion of worker's comp.

A contractor is not eligible for worker's comp, hence any possibility of injury at workplace would make Google liable for contractor's entire medical bill.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm

This is like saying - 'I gave you a job so now I can treat you the way I want'. This sort of attitude is what fueled passions for communism. It keeps labor unions alive and general strikes perfectly acceptable. Because the employers some how have a attitude that they own employees and they are doing some great favor without which employees would have to starve to death.Giving job to someone is two way business, The guy needs you and you need the guy.

I would take serious offense if my employer tries to behave like god and then treat me like a dog. It hurts more if the treatment is subjective, meaning a few people are treated well and a few aren't. And even more if I'm meted out such treatment solely on the basis of my color, religion or any other thing like for example sexual preference.

To me the most interesting part is that these are not the only unskilled labor being employed by Google. As the video points out, the janitors at google are given access to the many perks. It seem strange that this one group is singled out.

At the same time, this guy was fired, so lets take his testimony with a grain of salt.

I missed the point about janitors getting perks and they not.

But then how do you explain the overreaction from Google which led to the firing of this guy. There has to be something which Google was trying desperately to keep secret.

If I hire you to film some promotional company material for me and find that you're using the access we granted you and the time and resources we're paying you for to play documentary-film-maker/sociologist, I'll probably fire you, too.

We can all speculate and make up theories on a late friday night but the fact is Google has a lot going on. Some of which is probably currently unknown by their competitors. They want to keep it that way. Who knows what these guys are working on. Naturally, this isn't the best PR story ever. They could have handled it better.

Clearly, from this guy's perspective, it was wrong for him to get fired but I'm sure the vendor that was providing him as contracted labor had to make a statement that they wouldn't tolerate this kind of thing. Would you hire a firm to video your office if they didn't fire a guy recording stuff you wanted confidential?

They guy was clearly insinuating that Google was being racist. He kept reiterating that the ScanOps workers were people of color and mentioned it in his letter. Google did the absolutely correct thing in getting him fired. You don't want that insanity walking around your campus and Transvideo didn't want to lose their contract with Google.

Yeah, the weird thing is not the situation of the workers itself, but the total freakout by Google and firing of this guy.

I also wonder if he is going to get in legal trouble with Google for posting this.

Why was it an overreaction? This guy was a contract worker who decided to pursue his own investigation during work hours, taking advantage of the privileges granted to him by Google. They're well within their rights to request his termination or removal from their contract.

They're hiring unskilled labor and giving them a role at an extraordinary company.

Really? They're hiring labor, but treating them as if they have no association with Google. They might as well simply be contractors that work for Jim's Labor Pool.

But why would they take fast food or something of the sort over this?

I don't know what they're paid, but at least from this article I get the feeling that fast food has more upward mobility. I know at least a couple of fast food workers as kids who moved up the ladder and eventually have owned their own profitable franchise. I have a feeling there really isn't much upward growth in this job.

I imagine the cleaning crew that vacuum at Goldman Sachs at night get treated way worse.

Quite possibly, although they're also likely not GS employees. Probably contractors, often contracted by the building.

What I find mind-blowing in this story is not how "4th class" workers are treated like at Google, but rather how the author was fired with no serious reason whatsoever, and the whole secretive atmosphere around the issue.