Slashdot Mirror
Google Fires Blogger?
Thomas Hawk writes "CNET is reporting that Mark Jen, a blogger whose candid comments about life on the job at Google sparked controversy last month, has left the company. CNET reports that it is not clear if he resigned or was fired but references a post at Google Blogoscoped where it was suggested that he may have been fired over his blog Ninetyninezeros. Given Google's push into the blogging space with their recent acquisition of Blogger it might be interesting to see how this shakes out."
It's my experience that many of the people that bitch the most about their job are the ones that deserve to get fired the most, anyway. C'mon, there's is always that one whiney co-worker that you always ask, "Why is s/he even WORKING here?"
...and all the comments that I've seen so far.
What did he actually write that made google unhappy?
Everything I've seen on his blog so far is pretty innocuous.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
My quality social news site.com.
Google may have had no chance but to fire this guy. The SEC is very strict about any kind of financial information employees share. Even a vague summary of an internal financial presentation posted to a blog could mean trouble. Any appearance of Google trying to talk up its stock through underhanded means would be investigated.
Google India launches Google India Code Jam 2005 with a payoff of Rs. 3lakh (roughly enquivalent to $20k (my estimate after adjusting for cost of living and annual salaries)). This contest is also being organized by TopCoder.
The Google India News page also links to this news article about Anurag Acharya, a graduate of the Indian Institute of Technlogy and the engineer behind Google Scholar. Incidentally, Krishan Bharat the Principle Scientist at Google who created Google News is also an IIT graduate.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Ah - "Do no evil". Sounds so simple, doesn't it? But Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And in this case, the beholden.
When Google was small "do no evil" probably meant the same to the company as it did to you and me. But now it is grown the nature of evil (as perceived by the company) has changed. It was "do nothing that will alienate the user". Now it is "Do nothing that will upset the bottom line". Evil is making less money than you could. Evil is anything that could disrupt your plans (whatever they are, because the plans are secret. disclosure would, of course, be evil.)
Can anyone tell me what it is that's supposed to've brought down the wrath of the gods ?
I've read his blog, compared it what's in Google's own cache and also Yahoo's cache, I can't find *anything* that would lead to him getting fired.
He doesn't like the boring HR presentations, so what who the hell does ? He tells us they have his spiffy new laptop ready and his c00bical all kitted out for him when he arrives, which he applauds, big deal.
He seems a hell of a lot more positive about the company than negative, and yeah okay he was prolly dazzled a little by all the freebies, perks and other little baubles they threw at him when he arrived. But again, so what ??
Seriously, can someone tell me what this posted that was *such* a big deal ?
It is just interesting how Google top dogs seem to be locking down on employee blogs that are at critical in any way. I don't think his blog was all that extremely negative.
One other note: seriously, don't you think that "onsite" everything screams "stay here longer and work" which is true for Google, and Morgan Stanley (where I've interviewed), and Microsoft, etc. etc. and you'd have to be rather clueless not to expect that? I even heard a Morgan Stanley employee mention publicly that they have a nap room (as well as a gym, free drinks, etc.). And in answer to number of hours a week usually, they said, "We're not a punch-in, punch-out type of place...".
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
On the one hand every company has those silly rules, that almost all of us are violating right now, to not use company assets for private use while at work or at any other time. Clear enough.
Now companies, and Delta and Northwest are famous for this, are telling their employees that using their own machines in their own homes to discuss, even in passing anything having to do with said company, even to other employees of the same company is not only a fire-able offense but is criminal.
It seems though that companies at most need to apply legal standards of libel and slander in whatever country they are operating. If it doesn't break those laws then it shouldn't be actionable. Of course many of us live in a RIGHT TO WORK state which says a person can be fired for any reason at any time so maybe the whole point is moot.
In either case I recommend that all employees refuse the company softball game, comunity service gathering, Christmas party, blood drive or solicitation from the United Way. You can never be to sure that through some accident not even of your own doing the sacred holy company's image won't be tarnished in some way. Better to leave all that stuff to someone else.
And if someone asks you for a job or personal reference refuse that too. In fact, run all those queries through your corporate HR and/or legal department just to be sure.
You company is not your friend.
My employment contract states quite clearly
Stand up for yourself. How long before your employment contract states quite clearly that you will provide free and open access for your supervisor at all times?
Just about every other company has similar clauses in employment contracts
When are the courts going to start getting a clue?
If the guy has been sacked then its his fault
This may be true. What does that say about Google? It sounds like they're trying to hide dirty laundry if they need to sack a guy.
I can't see what Google has done wrong here
If they've done nothing wrong then they have nothing to hide. Why be so sensitive about this guy's blog?
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
There are very strict SEC rules about that stuff.
:)
I doubt the 189 Enron execs who walked away scott free think they're very strict.
And the Xerox execs, and the Tyco execs, and the WorldCom execs. Sure, there are a few sacrificial lambs with Martha Stewart, Sam Waksell, and a handful of others. I hope no one is fooled by these. Wall Street brokers, investors, executives, and even janitors were raking in billions using this strictly regulated insider trading.
Guess who gets to pay for it?
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
PS : I know Tech people tend to have a reaction against union membership, but one has to wonder whether he'd still have a job if Google workers were unionised.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I think I figured out exactly why he got fired.
On January 28th (the day he got fired) Mark Jen apparently ran an Adwords Campaign pointing to his blog.
Besides the obvious problem of him promoting a story about life at Google, regular people cannot run an ad with the word GOOGLE in it.
Keep in mind that he worked in the adsense divison. He may have overrode this requirement. Instant termination. What was he thinking?
No, some things are evil, regardless of perspective. Now, one's perspective might not let them see that an action is evil, but that doesn't mean that the action is not evil. Stalin thought what he was doing was good. From his perspective, it was good, but that doesn't mean that it was. There are some absolutes in this world.
A company that really is only interested in the bottom line and advancing their plans, regardless of what else is happening and who they might hurt, is evil.
with that said, firing this guy doesn't make google evil. From what I can gather, he was a dumbass who was possibly violating an NDA (and whether you like them or not, if you sign one, you need to respect the terms), was a source of conflict internally, and may have said things that the SEC wouldn't have liked.
my pet machine
Can I sack a CEO for fraud if I own shares? Nope. Can I sack my prime minister for lying? Nope.
So why can an employeer sack you because of what you say?
Normally in any company when you first join you have to develop credibility and trust. It is foolish to do something rash during that period if you want to keep your job. After you have proven yourself most companies are more lax with what you can do or cannot do, again within limits. Your capability to work on the fringes increases.
In his case unfortunately he chose to somewhat critisize his employer in a public forum!
Not to mention he was surely under some form of NDA.
And about the complaints within the company about him?
Not many many people likes to shake dirty linen in public, specially about a company which has made millions for them.
I think what google has done is well within its purview and frankly the rest of the world shouldn't be bothered with it.
What was he thinking?!
Looks like its time someone wrote few tips for bloggers. I can start with:
1. If you are working or planning to work for someone be careful what you blog
2. Blogging is like writing to the whole world, a feature which we often tend to forget. It isn't kansas anymore you know.
3. It is common for employers to google someone before hiring and keep a tab afterwords. I remember getting an email from JPM for mentioning just about my work there!
Source, please, on the hundreds of complaints?
You're very right. After reading through his blog, I think what got him fired was revealing too much of the inside handling of HR, compensation packages and the like.
This is info *any* company asks you not to divulge (check your contract), and it's particularly sensitive in a highly scrutinized company like Google, where evey employee is a de-facto internet rockstar.
So yes, he should have been more careful. Don't know about the complaints, but the content on the weblog is sensitive.
Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
There was another case a few months back of someone being fired from Friendster for... ahem. "Being a blogger." I am familiar with the details of the case, and let me assure you, blogging was the last thing on the employer's mind when they fired this person. I suspect that Google fired this guy for much the same reasons and this guy, like that other person, blamed the blogging.
It's just silly to believe that. Fired for blogging. Fired for using the internet. Fired for blinking wrong. Whatever. When people are fired, there's actually usually a good reason.
400 complaints to the HR department from fellow workers. He had to go. Google did a good thing here, not a bad thing. Those who think it was bad are clearly selfish, if they assume the fired guy's right to speech without reprisal was more important than those 400 peoples' right to not be pissed off.
The company had a policy that said 'you will not discuss these things publicly'. He did. There is nothing terribly unfair about that. No one ridiculed, taunted him, or intimidated him. He talked about private company business, of a publicly traded company, which has trade secrets, internal forecasts, etc, that they don't want reveled, and the SEC doesn't want them to randomly reveal.
If you had a hard live and all the bullies picked on you, I'm sorry. It appears it's skewed your vision on every other aspect of life. That's too bad, try to get over it, but it doesn't mean this was a bad contract.
Because the masses expect freedom of speech and opinion, but the people in power don't like to grant it.
To a lot of people, this is like an alarm going off. But to a lot of cynics, this is just run-of-the-mill stuff that's expected to happen regularly.
More like "Because the masses expect freedom of speech and expect not to suffer any consquences for this speech". Google didn't censor him. They fired him. An anology: It's be yoru right to protest for animal right for PETA, but it's my right to file charges if you threw paint on my leather jacket.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
This happened to me too, but only for a job interview at Google. That's as far as I made it: I never worked for them or signed any NDA.
:) The free food at Google is tempting, though....
My resume was submitted, and I made it as far as the first phone screen. It was one of the best interviews I have ever had in my life! Everything went 100% great, better than I had ever hoped for. I felt we had really clicked. Then, it turns out that I lost the interview, because the interviewer read my blog.
He didn't like me talking about my job search or my experiences with Google's hiring process. He especially didn't like the way I described the interview, perhaps because it would have given future interviewees tips on what to expect. He valued his ability to "surprise" people with trick logic questions, and my description of the involved thought processes might have tipped his hand. (I've since edited my blog to remove the spoilers, as per his implied request.)
Google and Microsoft share similar cultures, evidently. Both select for candidates who are good at discovering the "a-ha" moment that enables them to see through a tricky logic puzzle and solve it. I'm not good at logic puzzles or riddles in general, but in this case, I was able to relate the puzzle to a real-life problem I faced (when writing a simulator for a particular mechanism of a pinball machine).
Lesson learned. The culture at Google is one of paranoid security, as others have confirmed with me. When interviewing (or working) there, don't reveal anything about the process. Merely mentioning the fact that you are interviewing/working might raise eyebrows. When in doubt, don't.
The good news is that the interviewer liked me, and encouraged me to re-apply. Since I seemed to learn my lesson well, he told me he wouldn't put me on the blacklist, so I've another chance. I believe the cut-off period for previous failed applicants is a year and a day.
During the time, I found a job I'm happy with now, and I'll definitely stick with it. I won't be jumping ship, in case you're reading this posting there and wondering
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
Last few times I've witnessed someone getting fired that quickly, they did something very very very wrong or extremely stupid.
A few examples:
1. Getting caught rifling through a coworkers desk without their permission.
2. Showing up late 5 times in 5 days and were given 2 verbal warnings and 1 written (while being on probation to boot).
3. Failing a drug test.
4. Lying on your resume, claiming a degree you did not have or employement record you did not have.
5. Sexually harassing the unit secretary.
6. Getting arrested and not showing up for work for several days because no one would bail your worthless ass out of jail nor call on your behalf.
#7 should be blogging about your new companies internal policies and procedures, especially mentioning a 'signing bonus' and 'relocation compensation' benefits. Now every nimrod applying to Google will expect these 'optional' and 'discretionary' benefits.
#8 doing something else completely against company policy which you would have known if you weren't napping in the 'boring 3 hour orientation'.
What I want to know is why only 18 months at Microsoft? Hmmm... Get fired from there too? What about that IBM internship? How come he didn't get a job at big blue?
I would guess at #4, they probably turned up something in a background check. These things take time to research. Google wants the best of the best employee's they probably spare no expense in researching the backgrounds of all new hires. Research of this sort takes time, the fact that it may have happened in only a few weeks, is a credit to the company.