Unless you're an H1-B worker in which case it's gets much more complicated.

In my experience, most of the H1-B workers we have are very much Yes Men when it comes to doing what's asked of them. There are also cultural factors that come into play (e.g. never admitting ignorance on a topic, pleasing authority ) and .

Maybe it's because when they get fired they get deported. Other permanent residents just have to find another job.

H1-B is modern day slavery.

> H1-B is modern day slavery.

Eh, there's a power imbalance, but let's not go overboard.

They are offered a good job with good pay in another country. That means they have less power in negotiations, and may be deported, but they don't lose the money they earned, and it's not like they are being exiled to some foreign place, they are literally sent home.

Nobody's freedom is being taken away, and nobody's rights are being infringed (that I know of). It may not be morally acceptable depending on your point of view, but it's not slavery. Using that word here lessens how strong it is when used in other contexts, modern day (human trafficking) and historically (in America and eslewhere). We don't need that.

Being sent "home" when you've been living and working in another country for possibly years at a time doesn't really make it any better. You don't necessarily have a "home" wherever you came from.

> Being sent "home" when you've been living and working in another country for possibly years at a time doesn't really make it any better.

Than slavery? Yes it does make it better. Much better.

It's more like indentured servitude.

Is this not a problem?

I think it contributes to the loss of morality in software. There might also be an element of cultural unfamiliarity and assuming behavior is normal and acceptable.

It's not the big deal it was, and is likely to involve a massive cut in pay, fwiw.

If you're already prepared to lose your current job, why not organize a union vote before you go? If they were already going to fire you over one thing, you might as well make it two things.

Not everyone is in a position to walk away from a job in hopes to land a new one in a week. People have families, bills, obligations.

No, but most everyone at Google is in a position to be financially responsible and put aside a bit of money each paycheck for emergencies and/or decisions like this.

Not really. People could be in debt, people could be taking care of their parents or other family members. You are making a lot of assumptions because you think everyone who works at Google is rich.

I was mostly just assuming that people at Google have a relatively stable job, which is really all you need to start being financially responsible and do things like set any amount of money aside each month, not live paycheck to paycheck, slowly cut out unnecessary expenditures, etc.

To bring things back to the ancestor comment this was all responding to: people who can't leave a job because they're relying on a paycheck are definitely less powerful when it comes to being able to take a stand and make change at that job. People who are able to rely less on a paycheck have a bit more of a cushion in this area (especially when they have some savings for e.g. doctors, car problems, etc, and have enough set aside to find another job before those savings run out).

Anyone can put a % of their paycheck aside each month to become more financially independent. Whether they're at Google or not doesn't really matter here -- but, it is probably a bit more likely that an engineer at Google might be able to put aside a little bit more than a grocer at Target (and, is probably more capable of finding another job faster).

True. I was a bit flippant. But a software developer at Google is likely to be making six figures, and is likely to be able to find another job within a few months.

"I have to do something immoral or I won't be able to feed my family" is not a position they're likely to be in.

Having Google on your resume is in no way impressive in my opinion. I have reviewed plenty of resumes and been part of the interview process. Being a Google employee just doesn't matter.

Your opinion is not representative and thus not relevant to the argument (that ex-Google engineers have very good job prospects).

>Your opinion is not representative and thus not relevant to the argument (that ex-Google engineers have very good job prospects).

He never claimed it was. More importantly, he is providing a data point, whereas the original claim did not provide anything to back it up.

That is fine that it is not representative, I don't think I said that it was. I said it doesn't matter to me. As someone that reviews resumes it is actually relevant.

What type is that? Genuine question, as I’m in healthcare in a country far away.

Indeed. I even had one door closed by having Google on my resume! ("We've had bad luck with ex-Google types in the past")

"Luck" is a BS excuse, including in said argument

...they don't literally mean "luck", except to express that there is variance. They're using the word to mean bad results, happening more often in ex-google employees. And that's not BS at all.

They don't have to use the word or mention it at all because bad results are already implied by the context. The reader already gathers as much.

Mentioning the word luck draws it in a different light, as if next time the odds might be on their end. Luck is meaningless if there's enough skill. Its an overused (if not downright abused) word.

Why not?

It just simply doesn't set a candidate apart from anyone else. Just like what school someone went to. I simply don't care if it was an ivy league school or local school. It doesn't matter. what really matters is their accomplishments. Trading on a name is not going to work for me.

But since you mentioned this is your opinion, you do acknowledge that these forms of signalling are effective for most other hiring managers, right? Your view is pretty atypical.

Not to be blunt, but your perspective on Google employees is irrelevant in the context of how they're perceived by the broader market. I think that's why your other comment is being downvoted; it seems like what you're saying isn't wrong per se, it's just inconsequential to the job prospects Google employees actually have. Even though you're a hiring manager and don't personally consider Google employment to be a plus, most other hiring managers really do.