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."

Comments

Next week on Bloggerly Hills 90.2.1.0

[JPelorat]

Oh, the drama!

Blog link

[Jadsky]

How about a link to the actual blog? It's still up...

Re:Blog link

[DrWho520]

An interesting fact:

Said user only started at Google on 17 Jan 05. Under a month and out the door. Just thought I would point it out. Jump to your own conclusions.

Re:Blog link

[WormholeFiend]

Jump to your own conclusions

I have the mat spread out on the floor and all ready to go

Re:Blog link

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy got 400 complaints from other Google staff in 2 weeks?

Not surprising he left/was fired. A company has to consider the best thing for the company as a whole. I guess he'd already had a warning regarding the blog (and he had put sensitive stuff up, as it mentions that he had!) but his position was untenable. Failed to last even the initial probationary period. I guess he won't be putting Google on his resumé.

Re:Blog link

[jones77]

I'm not reading that, it's all in lower case.

Re:Blog link

[irokitt]

Ah, I read the blog, and now I know why he was fired.

Someone noticed he didn't have a degree from Stanford or MIT.

*rimshot*

Re:Blog link

[MikeDX]

I love this

"hi, my name is mark jen. i used to work for microsoft, and now i work for google."

I guess that will soon be changed to

"hi, my name is mark jen. i used to work for microsoft, i've been dismissed by google, and now i'm fucked."

and

"everything here is my personal opinion and is not read or approved by google"

to

"everything here is my personal opinion and was read by google" (but obviously not approved).

Re:Blog link

[Per Wigren]

And here is the offending post at Google cache! :)

Re:Blog link

[MustardMan]

Aw damn, I landed on "loose a turn"

Re:Mark my words...

[leonmergen]

I agree. I read all the links and transcripts. I couldn't point to any thing the should have resulted in a firing.

Thank god it isn't even certain that Google fired him for this reason... fud fud fud

dumb editor comments, again

[wobblie]

Given Google's push into the blogging space with their recent acquisition of Blogger it might be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

Re:dumb editor comments, again

[rodionpunk]

As Blogger is one of the main blogging services used online today, it would be hypocritical of Google to both say that they are a place where people are free to blog whatever they want, and also say this is only true so long as you don't work for them. It would seem to have a direct bearing on what they deem is acceptable speech for their highly used service. One could argue that this is only in the case of their employees, but after their precedent, can other employer complaint actions be far behind?

Re:dumb editor comments, again

[stinky wizzleteats]

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

They're setting a very public precedent about the dangers to blogging on the one hand and trying to break into the business on the other.

If a blogger gets sacked...

[nagora]

...in the blogosphere, does anyone care? The answer to this ancient riddle is: Who cares?

Not employing bloggers at all seems a fair enough policy to me. Why pay someone to sit all day and think of "witty" things to write to other wasters?

TWW

Re:If a blogger gets sacked...

[FirienFirien]

...like the people who post comments on slashdot from work, with an intent to be Funny ;)

Re:If a blogger gets sacked...

[pmc]

Wow - your HR department is pretty quick.

Re:If a blogger gets sacked...

[stinky wizzleteats]

Not employing bloggers at all seems a fair enough policy to me.

Why, exactly? (given that we aren't talking about sharing confidential company information - you did use the unqualified term, "bloggers") If we (ostensibly) have enough respect for free speech to write it into the Constitution of the country, why does it make sense not to allow free speech in a commercial setting as a matter of course?

Re:If a blogger gets sacked...

[mccrew]

if we (ostensibly) have enough respect for free speech to write it into the Constitution of the country, why does it make sense not to allow free speech in a commercial setting as a matter of course?

Free speech in the Constitution is primarily about protecting political speech. Commercial free speech has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be bound by more restriction.

We routinely and voluntarily surrender certain free speech rights all the time. For example, in order to recieve the benefit of running Microsoft SQL server, its users agree not to publish any benchmarks. If SQL Server users publish any benchmark information without written approval from Microsoft, then they can expect to be sued, and they can expect to lose. Oracle and other competitors have similar licensing agreements too.

Example 2: non-disclosure agreement. In a high-tech environment employees enjoy the benefit of a paycheck and hopefully interesting and fulfilling work in exchange for giving up the right to speak about company plans, products, release dates, and anything else that may be of value to a partner or customer or competitor.

Conclusion: We have free speech, which is good. We are free to relinguish certain free speech rights in exchange for certain benefits, which is good. (The converse is also true - we are also free to choose not to relinquish certain free speech rights by opting out of the percieved benefit, which is good.)

Do we need additional legistlation to allow free speech in a commercial setting as a matter of course? I respectfully submit the answer is no.

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Man criticises employer in public.
Employer fires man.

This is fascinating ... why, exactly?

Re:Hmmm

[Sophrosyne]

because everyone wants to work for Google-- it's like someone won the geek lottery then ripped up the ticket.

Re:Hmmm

[WormholeFiend]

Man criticises employer in public.
Employer fires man.

This is fascinating ... why, exactly?

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.

Re:Hmmm

[Paul8069]

This is not about the employer not granting an employee's right to free speech, it is about the employer using their right to free speech.
In this instance, they're free to say, "You're fired."
(Assuming that this guy was fired, but this example applies in more situations than this).

Re:Hmmm

[gowen]

But you have to admit, there is something disturbing about the fact that they can fire you for, say, mowing your lawn in an inappropriate fashion

Well, I can't speak about the US, but in the UK, anyone fired for something completely unrelated to job performance and/or the company, can bring a case for wrongful dismissal, which usually results in cash damages and/or reinstatement.

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.

Re:Hmmm

[dave420]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[king-manic]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[elemental23]

Legally, that's true, the first amendment, etc, does not apply to anyone but the government (ie, the "congress" part in "Congress shall make no law...")

However, the principle is the same. He was punished for his speech. In our society, "freedom of speech" has a broader meaning, not strictly limited to government. We expect to be able to speak our minds and voice our opinions without having to constantly look over our shoulder to see who might be listening. The practice of employers firing their employees for speaking publically about work will have a chilling effect just the same as if the government were doing it.

Was Google's action legal? Absolutely. Was it right? Was it consistent with their motto of "Do no evil"? That's debatable. In my opinion, it was not.

He had a chance, he apparently blew it.

[garcia]

Don't piss off your employer or when it's time for people to go you're the first one. I worked with a woman who was quite vocal at work about how she hated her job and she was looking for another and blah blah blah.

I was only there 6 months when the layoffs came up and she got the slip and I didn't. She flew off the handle that I should have went before she did. She didn't appreciate it when I mentioned she probably shouldn't have been so vocal about how she didn't like her job.

hi everyone, sorry my site has been down for the past day or so. i goofed and put some stuff up on my blog that's not supposed to be there. nothing serious and they didn't ask me to take anything down (even the stuff where i'm critical about the company). i'm learning that google is understandably careful about disclosing sensitive information, even vague financial-related things. the quickest way for me to fix the situation at the time was to take it all down. now i'm back up. just so you know, google was pretty cool about all this. thanks for and sorry for the frenzy of speculation.

It's obvious that Google had been aware of this guy's blog and while they didn't ask him to take anything down and they didn't ask him to stop he should have seen the writing on the wall and kept it down. He had a choice and he decided to bring it back up, but I am not about to speculate what would have happened if he hadn't.

Keep your opinions about work to yourself. If you don't like your job don't work there anymore. If you can't find a new job keep your mouth shut (to the Internet as well especially when you work for a firm full of Internet connected people that run THE search engine) until you do.

Just do your job and go home. Personally, I don't want to hear about anyone's work life outside of work and I certainly wouldn't want to describe mine to anyone else in my free time. Free time is exactly that. Time away from work!

Re:He had a chance, he apparently blew it.

[Scorpius-nl]

Ok, think i'll take this this flamebait.

You know what happens if people shut up and just do their work and never tell to the outside what is going on? Especially in large companies it eventually creates an atmosphere of repression, and the feeling in the back of your head that you need to be carefull with what you say.

It also creates a sense of false truths, as the cnet article says, a microsoft employee taking pictures of apple computers being unloaded is fired, creating the impression that at microsoft only windows is used.

Eventually the company will have lost touch with reality, because the employees don't speak their mouth, creating for example a company like microsoft. I know speaking to the outside world is something different, but it's the beginning.

And like a fellow slashdotter once said, google is just a company, primarily aimed at making profit, that it's primary objective. All the "cool" google things are invented because they make a very nice profit.

One of the inconveniences....

[halivar]

...of the professional world (damn these short comment titles!) is that you become a representative (somewhat) even on your own time. That means you respect the company's privacy and keep internal matters internal.

It's kind of like a family member airing all you dirty laundry. Do they have a right to be upset about your idiosynchrosies? Maybe, probably. Should they be telling the whole world about it? No... I think loyalty should be a driving factor here.

That said, I would have hoped that Google would be more lenient than this (assuming he was fired). But now they have public investors to think of, and they have to act more like a corporation than perhaps they have in the past. Sometimes that means tough love for employees who forget their first task is to make money for the company.

Hahahaha

[Concern]

Not for long...

Boo friggin hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Would people be upset if he broke other rules and got fired?

"Well, he didn't like wearing pants. Doesn't Google know that some people just like to let it all hang out? What's wrong with some balls?"

Re:Mark my words...

[badasscat]

... this will be the last day Google is considered a Good company on Slashdot.

I tend to agree, though apparently this guy a) had more than 400 complaints from within the company to Google's HR department asking that he be removed, and b) was obviously a complete idiot in the things he posted about in his blog.

Just because we all have the ability to post anything we want anywhere we want doesn't mean we should. You're free to say whatever you want in the United States but a company is not obligated to keep you under hire if you become a disruptive influence or publicly reveal trade secrets. It has nothing to do with whether he signed an NDA or not; it comes down to common sense.

I don't know exactly why he was fired but it should not be a surprise to anybody, including him. And I don't think this is a free speech issue; this is more of a lesson in learning when and where it is and isn't appropriate to say certain things, which is something that has been lost on the internet generation. Nobody can put you in jail for complaining about your company, but your company is not obliged to keep paying you for the privilege.

One major thing missing from this story...

[Concern]

...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.

Re:One major thing missing from this story...

[Scorillo47]

The new blogs is missing the critical pieces. Fortunately, the contents of the previous blog are cached here.

Here are some relevant paragraphs:

January 24, 2005

uh oh, what happened to my bank account?

By markjen

so i happened to look over my finances this past weekend and i realized something: i'm broke. which is odd, because i had a bunch of liquid capital in my checking account last time i checked, and now all of a sudden i have nothing.

i realized the root problem was that google's relocation process requires the employee to pay all the expenses up front and then get reimbursed for them later. that means you have to cover an apartment hunting trip, your final relocation, lease termination fees and temporary housing expenses all in advance. not to mention that they don't pay out your signing bonus and relocation money until your first paycheck (which i haven't received yet). finally, add in the fact that i had to put down two months rent as a deposit for my new lease, and i'm flat broke.

on the plus side, this first paycheck is going to be huge... (which unfortunately means i'll probably end up getting taxed huge on it. doh!)

which led me to thinking about the "benefits" package at google. as i thought about it, i realized that most of the "benefits" actually seem to be thinly veiled timesavers to keep you at work. take for example: free lunch and dinner. now this one is an awesome value proposition for google; i'm not exactly sure why other companies don't also recognize the value and join in. consider this: it probably costs google a maximum of $3 per employee for lunch and $5 per employee for dinner. so that's only $8 per day, but if you think about the fact that the employee now probably only takes a half hour lunch break and also stays late working, the company actually realizes far more than an $8 gain in employee output. not to mention that most people think this is a great "benefit" and google gets a ton of positive press on it. in short, this "benefit" is designed benefit the company, not the employee.

then look at all these other fringe "benefits": on-site doctor, on-site dentist, on-site car washes... the list goes on and on with one similarity: every "benefit" is on-site so you never leave work. i'm not going to say this isn't convenient for us employees, but between all these devices designed to make us stay at work, they might as well just have dorms on campus that all employees are required to live in.

next, let's look at the health care benefit provided. arguably, this is the biggest benefit companies pay out for their employees. google definitely has a program that is on par with other companies in the industry; but since when does a company like google settle for being on par? microsoft's health care benefits shame google's relatively meager offering. for those of you who don't know, microsoft pays 100% of employees' premiums for a world-class PPO. everything you can possibly imagine is covered. the program has no co-pays on anything (including prescription drugs); you can self-refer to any doctor in the blue cross blue shield network, which pretty much means any licensed professional; and you can even get up to 24 hour-long massage sessions per year.

lastly, google demands employees that are 90th percentile material, so what's with the 50th percentile compensation? the packages would've been decent when the company was pre-IPO, but let's be honest here... a stock option with a strike price of $188 just doesn't have the same value as the ones of yesteryear. even microsoft adjusted their base salaries to 66th percentile years ago when it was clear that their stock options weren't as much a part of the total compensation package as it used to be. for a post-IPO company like google, it only seems fair that they adjust things acc

Re:One major thing missing from this story...

[BaldGhoti]

Does anyone have a Google cache? ;)

Re:One major thing missing from this story...

[drsquare]

i realized the root problem was that google's relocation process requires the employee to pay all the expenses up front and then get reimbursed for them later. that means you have to cover an apartment hunting trip, your final relocation, lease termination fees and temporary housing expenses all in advance. not to mention that they don't pay out your signing bonus and relocation money until your first paycheck

Oh boo hoo hoo, so you had the pay to move out of your own pocket? How outrageous. Seriously though, since when do employers pay you to move? For people in the real world rather than an dotcom-bubble, you have to pay it all up front and you DON'T get reimbursed afterwards. What a spoilt fucking baby.

which led me to thinking about the "benefits" package at google. as i thought about it, i realized that most of the "benefits" actually seem to be thinly veiled timesavers to keep you at work. take for example: free lunch and dinner. now this one is an awesome value proposition for google; i'm not exactly sure why other companies don't also recognize the value and join in. consider this: it probably costs google a maximum of $3 per employee for lunch and $5 per employee for dinner. so that's only $8 per day, but if you think about the fact that the employee now probably only takes a half hour lunch break and also stays late working, the company actually realizes far more than an $8 gain in employee output.

It gets even worse. You get FREE dinners and you're moaning? Where I work, I have to pay for everything, even a cup of tea, and the food's absolutely atrocious. Of course giving free meals keeps them at work. But what's the alternative? If they charged for them, people would still stay at work but they'd be paying instead. When you only have a half-hour lunch break it's not like you have time to go anywhere else either. And when you're working nights or weekends you bring in your own sandwiches anyway, so your point is completely invalid.

then look at all these other fringe "benefits": on-site doctor, on-site dentist, on-site car washes... the list goes on and on with one similarity: every "benefit" is on-site so you never leave work.

You put benefits in inverted commas? You're getting things for free (dentists, health care, on-side doctors, car-washing) that most people have to pay huge chunks of their wages towards, and you're STILL moaning?????? If you don't like it, then don't use it, pay for your own healthy care and dentists etc out of your own pocket.

lastly, google demands employees that are 90th percentile material, so what's with the 50th percentile compensation?

90th percentile? I'm not familiar with that terminology. It can't be anything to do with the quality of employees, as google's employees seem to be completely useless. I mean let's look at the facts: all those expensive highly-educated PHDs, massive benefits, big fancy 'campus' (god I hate that word) and what have they actually released (i.e. actually out of beta)? A search engine, and a couple of average web services. Woo-fucking-hoo. A few amateur nerds could probably do that in their basement in a few days.

Christ almighty, how can one company attract such spoilt and vain employees? Next you'll be complaining that your gold chair isn't polished regularly enough.

Quote

[Apreche]

From the actual blog:

hi everyone, sorry my site has been down for the past day or so. i goofed and put some stuff up on my blog that's not supposed to be there. nothing serious and they didn't ask me to take anything down (even the stuff where i'm critical about the company). i'm learning that google is understandably careful about disclosing sensitive information, even vague financial-related things. the quickest way for me to fix the situation at the time was to take it all down. now i'm back up. just so you know, google was pretty cool about all this. thanks for and sorry for the frenzy of speculation.

Apparently this wasn't an issue of someone talking about their life at google, or their day-to-day tirals and tribulations on the job. This was someone releasing sensitive NDA information onto the net. While I don't like NDAs as much as the next guy its a pretty obvious breach of contract and an OK reason for firing. For everyone getting ready to start hating the last giant non-evil corp left, you're going to have to wait a few more weeks.

Re:Quote

[fbform]

What? Is Google trying to circumvent DRM on audio CDs now?

Re:Quote

[drsquare]

For everyone getting ready to start hating the last giant non-evil corp left, you're going to have to wait a few more weeks.

Non-evil? A company who censors its employees and fires people, destroying their livelihoods, for daring to criticise them? A company that buys out decent services and ruins them (i.e. deja news)? I don't see why people still think google is not 'evil', they're as bad as any other large corporation. Take off the blinkers.

"Good" "Bad" "Moron"

[MosesJones]

I've got some Karma to burn so I'm going to say this anyway.

For all the muppets who will respond about Google being a "bad" company, and how they were "good". FIRING PEOPLE HAPPENS, and sometimes ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. If one person is dragging down the morale of everyone else, should that be allowed to continue ? If one person is damaging the companies reputation, should that be allowed to continue ?

Firing people is something that happens. And it doesn't make companies "bad" or "good". In fact companies ARE NEVER bad or good its the PEOPLE in them that make bad or good decisions. Reference Microsoft, it was the will of a group of people to act as a monopoly and abuse that position.

For anyone who thinks about "Good" and "Bad" in a George Bush style way when looking at any part of the world, whether business or politics. GET OUTSIDE and see the shades, subscribe to the economist, read the Wall Street Journal, become a member of Green Peace and Amnesty International, but don't wear Rose Tinted specs and moan because ONE person got fired.

Google has ALWAYS been protective, and ALWAYS done some "odd" things. There is no tipping point of bad to good, the world is not as simple as "Whitehouse Politics 101".

Re:"Good" "Bad" "Moron"

[mks113]

Sometimes the worst thing a company can do is keep someone employed who is casuing problems for the company.

The ability to get rid of troublemakers and deadbeats is an indication that management is in control and willing to make things happen.

Problem with time perspective...

[PornMaster]

Given Google's push into the blogging space with their recent acquisition of Blogger it might be interesting to see how this shakes out.

They bought Pyra in 2003. It's now 2005. This guy worked there for one month. I think your sense of perspective is a little out of whack.

More about the subject

[mikkom]

Quote from A Chat with Mark Jen:

First off, nothing Mark said surprised me. Yes, he was fired from Google. It was directly related to his blog. He was employed there for just a couple of weeks.

So the rumor is true.

Re:More about the subject

[iJames]

Wrong. A guy who works at one of Google's competitors says that Mark Jens thinks the rumor is true. That's a far cry from "the rumor is true."

Re:Mark my words...

[m50d]

Nonsense. That should have happened when they DCMA'd someone for offering RSS feeds of google news. Google is like Apple, whatever they do slashdot will love them.

This is why anything related to work

[hsmith]

unless you own the company, keep your comments to yourself. Don't name your company directly or share secrets about the company. especially on an open forum where people can see. stupid, just stupid to do, i don't feel sorry about him at all. use your head people.

Re:This is why anything related to work

[webhead04]

>> Do they really think that it's okay to discuss work issues on a personal blog?

It's all life. People talk about life. That's life. Why can't companies cope with reality?

It's not exactly the same as talking about work with a couple of pals. It's out there on the net for everyone to see for a long time. And if you share something that you are not supposed to, then you deserve to be smacked. I know that my company routinely monitors what's being said about itself and our competitors, and they are doing the same.

>> I think bloggers will learn, and some are learning the hard way, to keep work stuff out of personal forums

In Stalinist Russia?

Nope, in corporate america. It's about image. When I'm at work I represent my company. When I'm off the clock and talking about work I still consider myself a representative of my company. Can you see how it's not the brightest idea to have one post on my blog about what's going on at work and the next post about my wild night last friday?

>> I would never mention my worklpace in my blog unless I felt comfortable seeing my entire personal blog hanging in the break room

If companies aren't doing anything wrong then they have nothing to be worried about.

I'm not talking about airing a company's dirty laundry. I'm talking about drawing a line between sharing work stuff and personal stuff at the same place as well as inadvertantly talking about work things that are internal, not for public consumption.

Re:Mark my words...

[Anonymous Coward]

DCMA? They didn't use the DCMA. They said "You're violating the terms of service for Google News. Stop."

vague financial-related things

[brlewis]

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.

it's the last word syndrome...

[jxyama]

i thought about this a lot, since i started using online forums, including slashdot, and reading various blogs... traditionally, much "power" is given to those that can lash out the "last word" in any debate/argument/conversation. i'd like to call it the "last word syndrome."

journalists commanded much power (and editors, even more so) because printed articles are a one-way message. writers always got the last word. then came the online forums and even there, arguments turn into flamewars where every post is a repeat, but people keep on posting because they want to be the last one to put their point of view in.

blog is a hybrid. you post and others can comment, but those comments are not as visible. if you have a blog with decent audience, you do get to put out the "last words" for the most part, while allowing some feedback.

i can understand why management wouldn't like this. it's uncensored and they feel powerless because they don't have the control and they don't get to reply in the same way.

however, i don't understand the mentality of a new hire doing the best he can to appear "pompous, inconsiderate, disloyal" employee (to the management) by complaining openly to the world (but not directly to those at the company) via his blog. it's almost as if he wanted to challenge his perceived "right" to post about google on his blog...

How ironic...

[kzinti]

A googol is ten to the one hundredth power, written as a one followed by one hundred zeros.

Ninety nine zeros, the name of the blog, is a googol minus one.

And now we have Google, minus one. One named "Mark".

Maybe it's just because I'm a former math geek, but I just love the way this worked out...

Re:How ironic...

[rdc_uk]

You obviously were never much of a "math geek" then, since you can apparently neither subtract, or divide by 10, without cocking up.

Googol = 1 followed by 100 zeros.

1 followed by 99 zeros would be 1 googol DIVIDED by 10 (basic maths, really)

NOT 1 googol MINUS 1 (which would be 100 NINES in a row...)

ninety nine zeros on its own, is not even a number (unless a really badly written 0), but a bitfield, and a null one at that :)

Re:How ironic...

[joranbelar]

Well, maybe he meant "A Googol, but getting rid a zero."

Which is, come to think of it, pretty much what they did. ;)

Re:Probable Cause

[PornMaster]

If you can break the NHL, I'm sure you can break the NBA... which by virtue of being only one letter off is practically the same thing as an MBA and two letters off an NDA, so can't you see how it's all connected?

If not, can you grab me a venti caramel macchiato from Starbucks when you go for a walk to clear your head?

In related Google News...

[GillBates0]

...and since we must talk about Google everyday:

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.

Fired for bad grammer

[Neil Watson]

Perhaps they fired him because of poor writing skills. I didn't see a sinlge capital letter on the whole page.

Re:Fired for bad grammer

[charlesbakerharris]

Perhaps they fired him because of poor writing skills. I didn't see a sinlge capital letter on the whole page.

Yeah, I hate it when people don't capitalize... or can't spell. Grammer? Sinlge?

Never...

[Sophrosyne]

Never use the services of the largest text searching company you work for, to bad mouth it.

Re:Blog Damage Control

[danheskett]

You assume that Google did not have a clearly state blog policy.

I start by assuming that since he got fired so quickly, without much messing around, that Google had a clear policy, he violated it, and he was terminated.

a googol minus one

[way2trivial]

wouldn't that be 99 nines?

Re:a googol minus one

[Cecil]

No. It would be 100 nines.

A goolgol is 1 followed by 100 zeroes, in other words 101 digits. Subtract one, and you still have 100 digits, all nines.

Re:Whatever?

[mOoZik]

Firing a harmful employee is evil now? Are some people on Slashdot ALWAYS going to side with individuals?

Be More Careful

[nnnneedles]

If I had gotten a job at google, I would have been a lot more careful.

This guy first ditches microsoft, because they don't want to code with extreme programming methods (laughs), and then gets himself fired from Google. I'm sorry, but what a dumbass. He doesn't know how lucky he is..

Re:Be More Careful

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Which one? The Google job or the Microsoft job? Pretty much, in my experience, the answers to the two questions are the same: if you can get hired by Google, you can get hired by MS, and vice versa. Microsoft pays more money, has much, much better benefits (yes, even after the cuts), and is in a place where it's cheaper to live. Google is cool, has growth potential, and is in with the Silicon Valley tech mafia. Microsoft is evil. Google is chaotic.

Take your pick...

Blog-martyrdom

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it about being labeled a "blogger" that suddenly turns every "persecuted" mewling diarist into a martyr? This makes about as much sense as branding someone as a great novelist because his or her handwriting is neat and well-organized in a big fancy notebook. Yeah, I "blog." But I don't have any delusions about the waste of electrons I spew with each post. People once thought what they said on CB radio was pretty damned important, too. Come to think of it, blogging has a lot in common with CB radio. I bet it'll be just as fashionable in a few years. Like vacation slideshows.

Re:Maybe he deserved it...

[n1ywb]

And other times they're hard workers that are justifiably frustrated by how fucked up their company is.

more info on what really happened

[jacquesm]

here

Re:Don't pass go...

[alistair]

One comment from his blog (which may not come true)

"on the plus side, this first paycheck is going to be huge... (which unfortunately means i'll probably end up getting taxed huge on it. doh!)"

Re:Whatever?

[HeghmoH]

Since we are all individuals, it is very understandable that we would generally side with individuals.

I, however, think that they are totally justified and that all the complainers in this thread should be fired.

Fired for being unhappy? why not quit?

[JLavezzo]

So, if you're unhappy at a job, vocal about it, then are not longer at that job why would anyone assume you didn't quit BECAUSE you were unhappy?

If this guy's boss even noticed the negative stuff on the blog and talked with him about it, it may have only served to bring into focus how unhappy he was working there, helping him decide to quit.

Re:Mark my words...

[fizban]

No way! The guy posted *FINANCIAL* information about a *PUBLICLY TRADED* company using inside information. There are very strict SEC rules about that stuff. Google had no choice but to fire the guy. This episode will not affect Slashdot's respect for Google at all.

Big^brother

[Doc Ruby]

Google has a lot of power, in that they've got the search history of the planet at their querytips. Want to know which stock symbol is hot? Which celebrity is popular? Which kink that guy at searches for every night from 7-8:30PM? Which nanotech is getting all the attention from the Chinese universities?

Google got everyone all happy with their "don't be evil" pre-IPO hype. Now they've got all the info, all the metadata, all the money, and no accountability. Ignorance is strength!

Re:In an ideal world

[wza]

And why's that? Alot of people love to write, and alot of people like to read. Blogs bring these people together. What's the big deal?

What did he actually WRITE ???

[JackJudge]

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 ?

Re:Mark my words...

[den_erpel]

Following the links, I came accross this other blog which shares (according to the article) that he was fired about the blog.
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/004157.htm l/

First off, nothing Mark said surprised me. Yes, he was fired from Google. It was directly related to his blog. He was employed there for just a couple of weeks.

It would by highly unlikely that he was not, considering the timing.

No big deal really

[grundie]

My employment contract states quite clearly that I do not discuss company policy outside of the company. If I do then I'll be picking up my P45!

Just about every other company has similar clauses in employment contracts, I would presume Google does too.

If the guy has been sacked then its his fault. This ain't a good-or-evil company issue, its simply a case of someone breaching his terms of employment, simple as that. I can't see what Google has done wrong here.

Re:No big deal really

[SilverspurG]

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?

Re:No big deal really

[StalinsNotDead]

If I do then I'll be picking up my P45!

Hopefully you don't mean the new .45 by Kahr Arms. (scroll down to see the pistol) Comments like that can definitely lead to termination of employment.

Fired...

[dantheman82]

for saying things to this effect (apparently):

"Look at all these other fringe "benefits": on-site doctor, on-site dentist, on-site car washes... the list goes on and on with one similarity: every "benefit" is on-site so you never leave work. (...)

Google definitely has a program that is on par with other companies in the industry; but since when does a company like Google settle for being on par? Microsoft's health care benefits shame Google's relatively meager offering. (...)

Lastly, Google demands employees that are 90th percentile material, so what's with the 50th percentile compensation? The packages would've been decent when the company was pre-IPO, but let's be honest here... a stock option with a strike price of $188 just doesn't have the same value as the ones of yesteryear."

Well, as I see it, he was definitely pretty knowledgeable as far as benefits go (comparing to Microsoft, his previous employer), but I'm not exactly sure how helpful it is to compare Google vs. Microsoft vs. Goldman Sachs in terms of pay and some of the benefits because there are standard of living differences depending on location, how interesting the work is, etc. etc. $40,000 is an awesome starting salary in some places in the Midwest for IT, but in NY/NJ area, if it's below $50,000 you move on...

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...".

Re:Fired...

[SilverspurG]

It appears that he was fired for violating an NDA

That seems to be the prevailing rumor but I've yet to see any posted information to back it up.

I'd say the NDA excuse is an easy-out PR run.

Re:Fired...

[MushMouth]

All of this, even the fact that google doesn't pay very high salaries, is pretty common knowledge in the bay area internet companies, you can't sneeze in a restaurant without hitting a table google employees.

This is really blurry

[gelfling]

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.

DAMNIT PEOPLE

[dAzED1]

"freedom of speech" means the guy won't go to JAIL for it. It doesn't mean his employer can't do anything to him. He could claim flinging poo on cars in the Google parking lot was an act of "speech" according to today's warped interpretation of the first ammendment, but that wouldn't mean that Google couldn't *fire* him for it. His saying something in a blog just won't get him put in *jail*, per the first ammendment.

Re:DAMNIT PEOPLE

[PsiPsiStar]

If you flung poo on cars they'd arrest you for flinging poo on cars. But not for whatever 'message' you were trying to communicate. (what would that be? that you were an alpha chimp?)

Re:This is not a troll

[JPelorat]

*** Can't find 90.2.1.0: Non-existent domain

Well duh, it was cancelled ages ago!

Re:Mark my words...

[SilverspurG]

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? :)

They are free to

[Anonymous Coward]

*say* "you're fired", but when they actually fire someone, that aint speech.

I'm free to say "you're fucked", but if I act on it, that's naughty.

EXACTLY WHY he got fired

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Mark my words...

[emilymildew]

Does it ever occur to you that maybe he was blogging on his own time?

The times of the posts are all after work except for two and they could conceivably be in his lunch hour. (One was noon, one was two, and they were both short.)

Re:Whatever?

[no reason to be here]

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.

Re:Free drinks and he left ? - whaaat ?

[SilverspurG]

anyone who leaves a party with FREE drinks and booze because it's a "little bit like a frat party" deserves to have thier ass fired

Right. We'd much rather that they stick around so that we can send gossip down the corporate grapevine about how he drove home after having 3 drinks in 2 hours.

Damn party p00pers

Damn yuppies.

Google fires blogger: On credibility issue

[angsuman]

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!

Re:No...

[Otter]

100% Overrated

Heh, you and I both got modded down for being able to subtract correctly...

liability

[willCode4Beer.com]

also don't forget that now Google is a public company they could be liable to their shareholders if it appeared the guy's comments could affect the stock price and they did not fire him (hows that for a run on sentence?).

Re:Mark my words...

[emilymildew]

Source, please, on the hundreds of complaints?

Re:Mark my words...

[aWalrus]

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.

Pretty standard corporate behavior

[jay2003]

The only thing interesting about this to me about it is that when the Google recruiters call me, they babble on about how different Google is. As I suspected, big public companies are all pretty much the same. An employee says something publicly they don't like about them, they get fired. So much for being different. The only difference I see is that that Google suits found out about the blog and fired him quicker than much other big companies.

Re:Mark my words...

[LurkerXXX]

RTFA. He removed them.

And depending on what he actually posted, Google would have had the right to have certain things removed and it wouldn't be considered censorship. Ex. The SEC doesn't like folks giving out insider information, companies are allowed to keep trade secret information private, etc.

Re:Dumb ass = fired

[SilverspurG]

Rule number one: Your compensation, benefits, terms of employment, etc. are confidential information

That's just the sort of stuff that the State Supreme Courts and the Federal Supreme Court should strike down. My employer has no moral right (laws are a different story) to keep me from perusing the open market by discussing the terms of my current employment.

If we extrapolate, soon Target will have a shopper non-disclosure agreement on the front door so that you can't go price-shopping at Wal-Mart.

Re:Mark my words...

[SilverspurG]

So why sign the contract? ... No one twisted his arm.

This is the clique/frat mentality that says (pph),"We can ridicule and intimidate anyone as long and as brutally as we want--no one forced them to be here."

I can't believe there are human beings still plying this argument. What's even more surprising is that the courts happily follow along with it wherever employment is concerned.

If you agree to abid by a contract, don't, and get fired. Don't be shocked or upset

The contract sucked. All contracts suck.

My first experience with a contract was at age 6. My mother had my allowance fixed at $0.35 for 5 years until I finally got a paper route, at which point my allowance went to zero because now I was making my own money.

I reiterate. Contracts suck.

Re:Mark my words...

[LurkerXXX]

Sorry, no. I've never been in a frat and wouldn't want to be. Thanks.

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.

Re:Whatever?

[SirBruce]

>Since we are all individuals

I'm not!

Bruce

This happened to me too, but only for interview

[Krellan]

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.

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 :) The free food at Google is tempting, though....

Re:Here's the sensitive info

[mrisaacs]

You obviously know nothing about disclosure and the SEC. It's not a question of whether the SEC knows this informaion, of course they do. It's the release of information not usually available to investors, inside information that can affect stock values that can get a company in hot water with the SEC. HR practices can fall into this category.

If this guy thought the package was no good, he should have skipped on hiring on. You can see the employment contract before you sign on, you just have to ask for it. For those of us who write software for a living, IP ownership/invention clauses are of great interest and generally need to be known, before we sign on or leave our current positions.

Publishing information, about your current employer, that can tarnish their image is not particularly smart either, especially if you're still in the probationary period most jobs carry.

Also, as stated by the parent, companies usually require employees to refrain from discussing salary/bonus related information. Many people ignore this requirement, and employers sort of wink at it.

Publishing the details on the internet is certainly well beyond the bounds that most empoyers will wink at. The rant could have prompted other employees to complain. If enough complaints were made about the disclosure, it wouldn't be desirable, regardless of how otherwise talented the guy was, for an employer to keep him around.

New Blog Guidelines

[jbx]

Google just posted some new guidelines internally. I've received permission to post them:

OK: My team played volleyball at lunch today, we beat some people from another group.
BAD: My team is way ahead of the weather-machine and germ-warfare divisions.

OK: Pets are welcome on the Google Campus.
BAD: People at Google like to sit in their chairs and pet their cats while plotting.

OK: Google has several offices in Europe.
BAD: We look forward to renaming Europe 'Euro-Google-Land'

OK: We are constantly looking for the best engineers to work on exciting projects.
BAD: We're building a robot army at our secret desert office and need more engineers.

OK: There are some great recreation facilities on campus.
BAD: Employees who underperform are sent to the dungeon.
WORSE: Underperforming employees are sometimes sent
back to Microsoft.

OK: Google is always looking to make its services available outside of North America.
BAD: Within 4 turns, we will control all of Asia.

OK: Over 3,000 highly qualified employees work at Google.
BAD: Google hires only the best evil geniuses.

OK: The company motto is 'Don't be Evil'
BAD: The secret company motto is 'One Webservice to Rule Them All'

OK: Googlers are exercising their mechanical-engineering skills.
BAD: Googlers are creating an evil robot.
WORSE: An evil robot is creating Googlers.

OK: We don't comment on how many computers Google operates.
BAD: Google only has a single super-computer, we call it SkyNet; it calls the shots here.

Last few times I've witnessed this..

[Whatchamacallit]

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.

Re:Whatever?

[Dizzle]

I hate to be a grammar nazi, but did you by chance mean to say "teh cool"?