Hacker News Reader

Comment by ipsum2 | Hacker News Reader

Of course, the title is so clickbait-y to be completely false, as refuted in the article:

> A Google spokesperson told Insider that Hölzle never opposed remote work for employees who didn't have a certain seniority level or wouldn't be assigned to an office.

View on HN

A few lines before that:

He [Hölzle] strongly opposed remote work for Google employees who didn't have a certain seniority level or wouldn't be assigned to an office, a resigning employee told CNET.

So, who do we want to believe?

both say that it's for senior employees and those without an office

> So, who do we want to believe?

They are both saying the same thing: Hölzle opposes the peasants working from home. The spokesperson is being deliberately opaque/circumspect by saying Hölzle never opposed senior folk (like him) working from home, but the level of seniority is left undefined.

The article said the spokesperson said Hölzle never opposed what the resigning employee said Hölzle strongly opposed. And it quoted the spokesperson saying all employees are eligible to apply for remote.

"Apply" is a neat word. Anyone can apply for anything.

Now, whether it's approved or not...

Not that you can blame anyone for missing it; there are so many negatives in that text I'm having a hard time decoding what it's even saying...

In other words, Hölzle had a neutral stance?

It reads like the spokesperson specifically and precisely refuted the claim put to them exactly as it was stated. We can infer nothing - it might be that he thinks nobody should work remotely, or everyone should.

An employee who quit claims the opposite. Do you always believe spokespersons? Yikes.

Do you always believe disgruntled ex-employees?

I still work at Google and can confirm that. From everything I've heard, Urs has strongly opposed remote work for years, causing multiple talented and senior people to quit.

Bullshit! When i worked there he was very vocal about supposed benefits of open space and onsite-only working arrangements.

“or wouldn't be assigned to an office” seems to be doing a lot here to obscure the true meaning

yes, I don't know what that's supposed to mean. If you're not assigned to an office, and you're not allowed to work from home, where do you work?

The very sentence you quote clearly says that the overall claim is at least partially true -- indeed, most likely true for the majority of reports in his organization.

So it is completely false to say that it is "completely false".

Hmmmm who to believe, someone who was affected by the policy or the PR arm of the company involved.

Yeah, there are regular emails at Google from low-level employees telling all about how they are relocating to Cambodia for remote work, seeing how they like it, but will occasionally drop in via plane. I'm getting so many relocation experiment updates I've had to mute the keyword!

Clearly, these are privileges available to all. It's wrong to even call them a privilege. Life is one big adventure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com