By definition the default position was "leave the company"

I agree with you that it was a "firing", we can debate over whether it was justified, but it wasn't a resignation.

Isn't that technically resigning if those things aren't given to her?

Conjecturing what could be the real reason, person A conjecturing why a person B does what he does (hates our freedom, for example) and why one should not take B's own explanation of his own actions -- these to me are an avoidable form of discourse. Nothing good comes of it other than an obligate outrage.

Welcome to engineers playing organizational politics.

As someone I saw post on Twitter relate to this... the best way to discriminate is to have rules, but apply them discriminately. So you can always point to the rule, but it really only applies to certain people.

And HN falls for it every single time.

Oh yeah, we totally didn't fire this Googler for the unionization push, it was because he looked at one of his bosses' publicly available calendar.

This was the email she sent, as a manager at the company.

Here's the full paragraph that that is from:

> Imagine this: You’ve sent a paper for feedback to 30+ researchers, you’re awaiting feedback from PR & Policy who you gave a heads up before you even wrote the work saying “we’re thinking of doing this”, working on a revision plan figuring out how to address different feedback from people, haven’t heard from PR & Policy besides them asking you for updates (in 2 months). A week before you go out on vacation, you see a meeting pop up at 4:30pm PST on your calendar (this popped up at around 2pm). No one would tell you what the meeting was about in advance. Then in that meeting your manager’s manager tells you “it has been decided” that you need to retract this paper by next week, Nov. 27, the week when almost everyone would be out (and a date which has nothing to do with the conference process). You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity (let alone expertise recognized by journalists, governments, scientists, civic organizations such as the electronic frontiers foundation etc) is acknowledged or valued in this company.

If a manager within the company wants to publicly express her frustration with leadership, then this is an alright message to send — leaving aside the very implicative final sentence.

It still seems reasonable to fire anyone who sends such a message to their colleagues rather than working through the office's politics more quietly, but it also seems reasonable for staff to protest and rally behind that person in support of them.

Can you unpack this a bit? Several employers, past and present have encouraged employees to communicate and attempt to resolve conflicts (presumably, maybe ostensibly, giving them opportunities to work it out as adults and professionals) amongst employees first as the first actionable steps. In fact, current employer has this as a point of policy for interpersonal conflicts barring severe enough circumstances where a reasonable person would say "yes this requires intervention from on high".

That said, why should it be any different in a situation such as this? I feel there may be context to your suggestion that isn't fully stated here-as to why it's reasonable to fire someone over this. Maybe there are implied parameters of just how egregious a situation has to be in your opinion that I didn't intimately tune into?

To me the final sentence reads as a continuation of the hypothetical the author is asking the reader to consider, as a metaphor for the treatment she experienced, not a direct j'accuse to the reader/recipient.

I completely agree with you, but what happened here was that this manager sent this email to a large group of employees, not the specific employees she had the issue with (which would be fine!).

This email wasn't an attempt at conflict resolution, it was sharing how upset she was, at her manager, with a bunch of coworkers.

For the last sentence: in the event where one wants to complain to a large group of coworkers, I think it's pertinent to stick to the basic, unarguable facts of what occurred. Suggesting that you've been dehumanized by the company is adding fuel to a fire that you should instead be aiming to resolve privately, if you want to continue to work at the company.

or

Is it perhaps in fact more reasonable to fire them using this and other behavioral or disciplinary incidents? Of which-I must say, in terms this Googler, none of us are privy to

It'd be acceptable if it's a relevant party, like your skip or your manager's skip, even if it would anger your direct manager. This, however, is entirely different. It's venting your frustration to a large group of coworkers. It takes away from productivity as a whole, and is socially inappropriate.

I don't know about Google's management policies, but at most companies I've worked at, senior employees and managers are held to an even higher standard, and this would make firing a more likely choice than some type of correction.

Regardless of the hypotheticals, from what I've read, she offered an ultimatum, and they declined her ultimatum, which resulted in her being fired:

> Dr Gebru had emailed her management laying out some key conditions for removing her name from the paper, and if they were not met, she would "work on a last date" for her employment. According to Dr Gebru, Google replied: "We respect your decision to leave Google... and we are accepting your resignation.

I absolutely do not believe it is, barring mitigating circumstances or policies that neither you nor I are privileged to access.

In most cases, this is called "venting". I have NO doubts my subordinates probably talk about me in DM or have gripes about some of my issues as their leader. But I know and have seen my direct reports be very opinionated with me in 1:1, they are very outspoken with me. One person had a moment of raw emotion, not because of something I had done but the organization at large.

And I encourage all of it because it means I can trust them to be honest with me when I need that candor, and in return, because I meet people where they are, give them room for expression and authenticity, they know they can trust me not to bring retribution upon them for being opinionated, even amongst themselves. I might not always be able to move the needle in the direction they wish, but they know I will always make sure their opinions have a voice at the leadership table-even if it means I am the one who has to take the hit for it while we continue trying to meet our mission as Ops Engineers. That's Leadership. Capital L.

Among larger groups? So what? No really, so what? Can I tell you that I am a founding and sitting member of an org wide DEI initiative and we actively encourage affinitized groups of employees to form resource groups, kvetch among themselves and present areas of contention to us to enact positive change at large? That we have two diverse members of the executive team on this initiative? That it has the full support of our board of directors and even our group of investors?

Would you believe me if I told you we had five people accept offers at the company who specifically said the reason, not one reason, the reason they accepted the offer was learning that this was something our organization has in place?

Now:

This is not most cases-granted, but I am regressing my interpretation to the mean intentionally because reacting to outliers in any direction as a default response gives room for extraneous and unnecessary harm. I default to maximizing good and giving people a voice, not looking for a reason to exclude them from making the business better for customers and employees with equal vigor.

Microsoft last year had a similar thing, but related to sexual harassment [0]. I've never heard anyone fired as a result of airing their grievances. And to the contrary it sounds like, at least to the public media, they really tried to embrace and discuss what was at the heart of these encounters.

There's a problem at Google, and I don't think they solved it by firing this researcher.

[0] https://hub.packtpub.com/microsofts-metoo-reckoning-female-e...

Managers act as agents of the company and the amount of legal assfucking that statement opens the company up to is enormous.

Well thank god I don't work for you. Most tech companies don't fire everyone engaging in employee activism or they would have much larger labor issues to deal with.

While it sounds difficult for her, I can't imagine how Google's behavior here amounts to not acknowledging someone's humanity.