Hacker News Reader

Comment by noogler2022 | Hacker News Reader

noogler2022

I was at this meeting.

Seriously, Googlers are the softest, whiniest people I’ve ever had the displeasure of working with. We are coddled and spoiled and at the first hint of not being spoiled, people are falling apart and crumbling.

One person had the nerve to say Google was “hurting” employees by taking away the travel and entertainment expenses. Hurting? I couldn’t believe it when I heard it.

Another characterized Google as “aggressively cost cutting.” Holy fuck. All they did was freeze hiring and stop unnecessary T&E. If they think this is aggressive cost cutting, their mind will be blown if a recession hits is hard.

I wish Google would go through the Meta route and lay off 15%. I’ve never worked with a lazier, more spoiled group of people in my life.

View on HN

On the one hand, you're not wrong that getting amazing perks taken away shouldn't produce complaints like this.

On the other hand, what the hell is the justification for it? Google's making money hand over fist over knee over ankle. Their quarterly net income (not annual, not gross) is in the double-digit billions.

This is telling every Google employee who actually works on stuff (as opposed to managing people) "you, your comfort, and your professional development are less important to us than a tiny, tiny fraction of our quarterly profit. We at the top need to focus on making our dollar-denominated high scores go up even higher, so you all just have to tighten your belts and accept that you don't matter."

> This is telling every Google employee who actually works on stuff (as opposed to managing people) "you, your comfort, and your professional development are less important to us than a tiny, tiny fraction of our quarterly profit. We at the top need to focus on making our dollar-denominated high scores go up even higher, so you all just have to tighten your belts and accept that you don't matter."

Basically, yes. I would use much more polite phrasing but you basically got it right. I think anyone who is offended by the underlying message here is misunderstanding how valuable an employee is. An employee is only as valuable as their replacement cost. And, that’s often completely detached from a company’s earnings. It’s not a pleasant message, but it’s reality and people would be better off if they realized this. To be clear, this applies to managers and execs as well.

You may see it applying to managers and execs as well, but it's (almost) never applied to them. It's always "growth didn't meet expectations, gotta lay off an entire division", never "profits are down, gotta cut the CEO's salary from $300 million down to $125 million—hope he didn't want to buy three yachts this quarter!"

We've spent far too long worshiping at the altar of Number Go Up. That is not the purpose of companies. They exist, fundamentally, to improve life for real people, and too many people have lost sight of that.

> That is not the purpose of companies. They exist, fundamentally, to improve life for real people,

From where do you get that idea? From a legal standpoint, the purpose of corporations is ambiguous (take a look at the Articles of Incorporation for any of these corporations for details). Corporations are simply a legal structure to protect officers from liability, define decision making power, and distribute profits to shareholders.

Ultimately, the board has the power to control company direction. So, to the extent that there's a "fundamental purpose of a company", it is whatever the board wants it to be. And, in almost all cases, that purpose is to maximize profits.

I can understand if what you're saying is that you WISH all corporations' fundamental purpose was to improve life for real people, but that simply isn't reality, legally or practically.

So I was also at this meeting. I agree that its a really spoiled discussion. But there is also a lot more un-published cost cutting. They have been aggressively slashing budget for servers (!) and hiring. Also I don't think the very ad-hominem attacks on employees are warranted, they're spoiled but they've been given the leeway and been told its ok and to expect that.

Freezing hiring is typically considered pretty aggressive.

> I wish Google would go through the Meta route and lay off 15%. I’ve never worked with a lazier, more spoiled group of people in my life.

I think making people just be more productive is probably better. I'm sure existing attrition is enough. I do think the fun budget cuts and that sort of thing are pretty silly to cut. If the median salary is 300k, then a few hundred per person is a drop in the bucket.

> One person had the nerve to say Google was “hurting” employees by taking away the travel and entertainment expenses.

Sounds just the culture of the US, or at least the Google management encourages such culture. Anything is hurting. Words are weapons. Everyone is victim. Military is evil. Gebrus are oppressed. How many times did people apologize for using the word "guys" or get yelled for using the word because it was not "gender neutral"(for the fuck's sake it is, BTW)? Yeah, I saw a few times. Compared with such "hurting", yeah, cutting travel and entertainment definitely hurts.

> Military is evil

You are suggesting that the US military is not evil.

I was suggesting that military is not entirely evil and the US needs military, just like Ukraine needs one.

> Googlers are the softest, whiniest people

It is hard to tell what percentage of Googlers feel the same way as you do. Maybe those voicing issues over cuts in travel represent the small minority?

Anecdote but my close friend joined Google about a year ago. His sentiments are pretty similar to yours - he says he’s never experienced such entitlement before. Not sure if Pichai is taking the right approach but I can see where he’s coming from.

> Googlers are the softest, whiniest people I’ve ever had the displeasure of working with

Because they complained about a TRILLION dollar company trying to cut a few hundred dollars per person to maximize absentee shareholders' quarterly profits. At the cost of reducing employee satisfaction? Even as it makes $72 freaking BILLION dollars net profit every year?

They don't seem whiny or soft. You seem naive, and very exploitable. With that kind of 'tough, enduring guy' mentality that prevents you from reading in between the lines and protecting you and your groups' interests, you will be the perfect cog in the machine wherever you work.

I know Google employees who pretty much took arbitrary time off during Covid. There was seemingly no accountability as the cash cow kept on producing and stock prices kept on going up.

Google employees who feel hurt by these actions can feel free to find a better deal elsewhere. After all, they're clearly the cream of the crop by virtue of being paid huge sums of money...

I believe the classic is "Be careful what you wish for." Petty bullshit and disregard for feelings of underlings is what got us the Traitorous Eight in the first place. Telling them basically "Grow up and get up early and wear a suit and tie." proved to be a failure of epic proportions.

Wouldn't you argue this is a good thing as all of these people can go on to take risks by starting new companies?

Failure for the company, but great for the industry!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com