Has Google Lost Its Mojo?

CWmike writes "Google looks as if it's on top of the world right now, holding an ever-increasing lion's share of the search market. So why do I think it's lost its mojo? Let's start with the way it treats its employees, writes Preston Gralla. Another example: Google employees, such as Sergey Solyanik, have started deserting the company. And its share price is down double that of the Dow or Nasdaq since November 2007. Even if Google has lost its mojo, why should you care? It won't make your searches any less effective, will it? Nope. But Google has its eyes on bigger things than search, notably your IT department. It's looking to displace Microsoft with hosted services like Google Apps, Gmail and Google Docs. Solyanik warns that Google's engineers care more about the 'coolness' of a service than about the service's effectiveness." Of course Google employees version of being mistreated is often laughable, and quite a shock when they look for their massage therapist at wherever they end up next.

Comments

Yes.

[Zarf]

Google has lost some of it's Mojo. But the good news is that they still have plenty of Mo-Nay. They are also high on the "X does not suck as bad as Y" matrix.

Re:Yes.

[Ethanol-fueled]

The link on TFS which refers to this page describing "the way [Google] treats its employees" only details how Google raised the charge for in-house daycare by 75%.

Parents lose big when a company downsizes or restructures their benefits. This is an indirect form of age discrimination because older folks are more likely to have families.

A company I worked for in the past restructured their benefits by changing employees more for their health and dental insurance and "offset" the losses by giving every employee a flat pay raise but after some calculation I found that employees with no dependents benefited from a good raise and only slightly higher insurance payments while those with families(who insured their families, at least) suffered net losses.

Re:Yes.

[Otter]

This is an indirect form of age discrimination because older folks are more likely to have families.

Subsidized child care and similar benefits reward parents at the expense of other employees. It's hardly "age discrimination" to do less of it.

Re:Yes.

[larry bagina]

it seems like it's becoming a benefit that only older employees (ipo-millionaires) and executives (high salary, stock options) can enjoy. Sure, it's offered to everyone, but they're intentionally choosing a very expensive day-care program when a less expensive one was more than adequate. So people who would otherwise use it now go elsewhere (paying full price) while still subsidizing wealthier people who can afford it.

Re:Yes.

[Farmer Pete]

I can't believe you wouldn't ever, ever, ever, ever claim that a person with no dependents gets off better with a company's medical plan...People with zero dependents get screwed royally. In most companies, you have two or three payment tiers. 1 person, 2 people, 3 or more people. The cost increase from 1 to 2 doesn't even come close to covering the extra costs. The costs from 2 to 3 are the same. Don't forget to add in for if someone (gasp) has a large family. Do you have 5 kids? Guess what, you pay the same exact premium as someone with 1 kid. The no-dependents person will end up bearing a portion of the cost of other people's dependents.

I don't like the system, I understand why it has to be, but I will NOT stand and let someone try to make it look like people with no dependents are getting away with something. Even in your situation, the only difference is that the single people have been grossly overpaying for years and years, and now they are getting a slight reprieve from being over charged.

Re:Yes.

[NetSettler]

Subsidized child care and similar benefits reward parents at the expense of other employees.

Only if there is not a compensating benefit that rewards non-parents but is of no use to parents. It really depends a lot on how the benefit package is constructed.

The interesting metric is whether a business has policies that allow its employees to "grow up". If they do not, then eventually as people get older, they will be forced at some point to say that in order to merely accommodate the ordinary and anticipatable life events, they must go to a different company or face a pay cut because the benefits they used to like are now no longer benefits.

For example, why should an employee who has a family at home shopping and fixing food be penalized because of the availability of free food at work that surely must be paid for somehow. Google has an open cafeteria, and tons of free junk food in the hallways, which people who have a life do not need. But it has been said of Google (and I am trying to be neutral about expressing an opinion myself, only observing that it's a topic worthy of discussion) that it prefers employees who are willing to work long hours and sleep under their desks to employees who want to have families and lives outside of work. Now if this were true, you might not see it as age discrimination. And it might really not be. But it's a reasonable observation to make or question to ask, given that the set of people who don't mind this kind of lifestyle is probably unevenly distributed agewise.

So if Google is offering both the daycare and the cafeteria, then maybe it's balanced. But if it's giving up the daycare expenses to focus on cafeteria expenses, then maybe there are questions to ask. Just as one example for conversation--if I knew their benefit policy, maybe something else better would present itself.

In fact, I bet whether you think this is an age issue varies by age, suggesting at least the possibility that some people who thought it wasn't an age issue changed their mind with experience, as well as the possibility that some who are quite sure it's not will eventually come to decide they were wrong.

Google offers itself as an ethical company. Here's my definition of ethical: Ethical means you continue to ask yourself hard questions and to not quite be sure you're ethical. So people will evaluate the answer to these questions differently, but the day Google thinks the questions are inappropriate to ask is the day it's lost its ethics. Ethics are an exercise in continuous choice, and everything about intent. Once choice is sacrificed, you're at best coincidentally aligned with those whose outcomes are the same, but as the result of an actual thoughtful choice. If outcome without choice can be deemed ethical, then there are rocks that may be more ethical than some people...

Re:Yes.

[jellomizer]

Well as Google matures so do its employees. As they get older they find the Google culture no longer fits their needs. The projects get boring, working long hours on projects that may or may not give any fruit gets redundant and unappealing. Having to prove to the new Whippersnappers that that crazy way of doing things will not work just as they didn't work when you started working a decade ago. Things like code purity, open source, trying a new windows manager every week... start to see more trivial and has lost its spark or interest, you are happy to use a Mac, even if you are running windows your cool with that to. You focus on your job and doing a good job, but at the end of the day you want to go home with your family.
Over the years you got a lot better at your job you are 3 times more productive then those whippersnappers and when you were a whippersnapper, but the company culture reprimands you for leaving work on time. Younger managers come in straight out of business school trying to prove themselves by trying to change everything even what currently works, just because it worked for FedEx, or SAS.

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has lost some of it's Mojo

Speaking as a Googler, "some" is an understatement. The best and brightest have been exiting Google at the earliest for months, leaving behind the political climbers, backbiters and the just plain incompetent. Now Google mainly runs on interns, everybody else is too "smart" to do the grunt work like coding, debugging, or much at all beyond getting face time. The reason for this is simple: narcissistic managers whose main talent is claiming credit for the work of their subordinates while punishing anyone who shows initiative, and thus possibly could get promoted. These days at Google, showing skill and dedication is a great way to get a bad review from your manager. Eric and friends seem blissfully unaware of the developing train wreck.

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a fellow Googler, I feel compelled to give an alternate perspective.

Every day at work I'm given the opportunity to work with some of the most brilliant, passionate people in my industry solving problems no one has solved, at scales most can only dream of.

All of the managers that I've worked closely with (on up the chain*) are experts in their field, and are very protective of Google's egalitarian culture. If I wasn't prepared for promotion in one cycle, my manager was dedicated to giving me the resources I needed to be ready when the next one came around. Furthermore, a negative review from a manager is hardly damning since promotion is driven primarily by reviews from peers your own choosing. We're very fortunate to have nearly complete control over the promotion case we present. If your peers and manager don't support you for promotion, you're probably doing something wrong.

If you think executive management is overlooking some systemic rot within the company, your stock options (and mine) would thank you for bringing up such problems at the multitude of confidential forums provided to you in lieu public ones. I've found senior VPs within engineering (such as Alan) to be extremely responsive and down to earth. If that doesn't work, it's hard to be ignored when you take a mic at TGIF. If you really work at Google, you should know that the greatest fulcrum for change is the effort you're willing to expend. If you see a problem, fix it. After all, you have a vested interest in the success of the company.

I don't know that the few people leaving for "greener pastures" are a significant cause for alarm. The people that define Google's culture and are responsible for its success aren't here for the fringe benefits; they're here because they love doing what they do alongside smart people they can learn from, who fancy a cold beer and engaging conversation on the balcony (and maybe flying finger darts, or a game of pool) to break up a particularly challenging day of work.

[1] Did you know Eric co-wrote Lex?

~G

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a Googler, "some" is an understatement. The best and brightest have been exiting Google at the earliest for months, leaving behind the political climbers, backbiters and the just plain incompetent.

If Jeff or Sanjay left, you might have a point. Otherwise it really comes across like you're either not in engineering or you don't know what you're talking about. It's true that the people who only wanted money or publicity have now left, along with some genuinely good engineers, but I can't say I really worry that much. Mostly, the "famous" ones next projects have demonstated just how awesome they were (Cuil anyone?). It's true that we have also lost some good people hired in recent years (~the last two), since stock compensation and the "startup feel" isn't what it used to be. There's only so much you can do about that though. That said, I have never worked with a better group of people, and I even have several coworkers who could retire tomorrow if they wanted to -- yet they choose to keep working. That says a lot to me.

That isn't to say things might not change. However the only exodus I've seen is the "startup people" who would leave any company after it is no longer a startup. Anyone who has ever worked in the SF Bay Area knows the type of person I'm talking about. A company does have to grow up, so you can't keep everyone.

Now Google mainly runs on interns, everybody else is too "smart" to do the grunt work like coding, debugging, or much at all beyond getting face time.

I don't think you work at Google, unless you are on some sort of crazy-ass side project that is going to die. We've never had more than 10% interns in our group, and it's the ye-olde-developers who debug most problems. The idea of interns debugging other's code is almost laughable given the company's devotion to TDD.

The reason for this is simple: narcissistic managers whose main talent is claiming credit for the work of their subordinates while punishing anyone who shows initiative, and thus possibly could get promoted. These days at Google, showing skill and dedication is a great way to get a bad review from your manager.

How does your manager cause you to get bad peer reviews (which is the #1 thing promotion committees will look at)? Maybe if you're getting a bad review from your manager *and* your co-workers, you might want to take a look in the mirror and read some of that feedback.

But you knew how promotions work, right?

Eric and friends seem blissfully unaware of the developing train wreck.

I feel sorry for your group/project/office or whatever, but your experience doesn't reflect any of the groups I've worked with any time recently. Maybe you should request a transfer or a change in managers.

But you know you could do that, right? Or maybe you didn't since you're making shit up.

Re:Yes.

[TheRaven64]

JWZ identified the turning point for Netscape, where the decline started, as the point at which they started hiring people who wanted to work there because it was a great place to work, rather than people who wanted to work there to make it a great place. I interviewed at Google about a year ago[1] and I made a point of asking my interviewers why they wanted to work at Google. All five told me that they were there because it was such a great place to work. Looking around, it was hard to disagree with this (it really did seem like a great place to work), but it was sad to see that this was the main reason people went there. I only got to talk to half a dozen people, so maybe I got a skewed perspective (although, I believe, the interview process is meant to select a good cross section of the workplace for each interviewee).

[1] I'd really recommend this to anyone, by the way. I didn't get in, but the mental work-out from the interview was incredible, and I spent much of the next two months implementing ideas I came up with during the interview (and got a journal paper out of one of them).

Mistreated? You want mistreated?

[BigBadBus]

Look at http://www.paullee.com/computers/index.php and follow the link in the second bullet point. The f*ckers are trying legal tricks to shut me up.

Re:Mistreated? You want mistreated?

[QuantumG]

That was a great write up man. BTW, you will find that this is the norm. You, as a software engineer, have to learn to manage your manager. You need to correct their expectations by giving them constant feedback. You need to say to them that you're having trouble and won't be achieving the timeline they have proscribed.. and if they casually don't proscribe a timeline, you have to make one up yourself.

Good luck in the future.

Re:Mistreated? You want mistreated?

[glittalogik]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Media Darling

[bendodge]

Google has been a media darling for a long time. Now that they are finally out of the whiz-bang stage, you're ready to say they're going downhill? No, they've just gotten just about all of the internet that they can, and they are now waiting (and actively pushing) for mobile internet so they can do it all over again.

I'm personally all for trying to expand the economy itself instead of making a complete monopoly (and Google can't get much stronger without becoming a monopoly).

Now we all just get to sit and wait until wireless matures and Google takes over it. I'm speculating they'll start pushing platform-neutral stuff big-time after that (which may mean overt Linux pushing). They can't compete well with MS's enterprise dominance until they've dislodged Windows, but the wireless apple is much riper at the moment.

Re:Media Darling

[Anonymous Coward]

One wonders how Google helping China to field underage gymnasts by making sure their caches were all purged of copies of the real documents is going to play in the media.

Of course, the way the media fawned over the Chinese during the Olympics (Tibet?!?! Huh?), I doubt Google's going to take any heat about that.

Re:Media Darling

[brian1078]

One wonders how Google helping China to field underage gymnasts by making sure their caches were all purged of copies of the real documents is going to play in the media.

Anyone can request to have information removed from the google cache: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=61062

I'm not saying this is how it was removed, but it is possible that there was no explicit action taken by google.

evil?

[philspear]

One of the "benefits" for working at google is they'll give you up to $5000 to adopt a kid.

Clearly google is paving their own way to cheap underage chinese laborers in a few years.

That's a bullshit story, Sergey!

[Fyz]

Sergey Solyanik just left because the colleagues never referred to him as the cool Sergey.

Migrating flock

[DeadDecoy]

This actually reminds me of a story of the wandering engineer. They'd work for google, then move to MS because they lack quality control. The engineer would then transfer to Yahoo because MS isn't doing anything interesting. They'd then move to Google and start the cycle anew because Yahoo wasn't on the cutting edge. Maybe the novelty of working at Google, or any other place for that matter, wears off once you've been there for quite a few months and you have the qualifications to change things up. Engineers can be a fickle lot where the interesting aspects of a project outweigh how much it pays.

Re:Migrating flock

[poot_rootbeer]

This actually reminds me of a story of the wandering engineer. They'd work for google, then move to MS because they lack quality control.

And because MS offered a 10% higher salary than they were making at Google.

The engineer would then transfer to Yahoo because MS isn't doing anything interesting.

And because Yahoo offered a 10% higher salary than they were making at MS.

They'd then move to Google and start the cycle anew because Yahoo wasn't on the cutting edge.

And because Google offered a 10% higher salary than they were making at Yahoo.

Re:Migrating flock

[Kethinov]

I've lived this cycle, having worked for Yahoo!, then Google, then back to Yahoo!, and now PayPal. Personally, I don't think my migrations and wanting to change things up every now and then particularly makes me fickle. I'd rather be engaged in my work than eternally loyal to my employer. Too much loyalty isn't a good thing anyway.

So all this article has to go on...

[Overly Critical Guy]

...is one guy who returned to Microsoft, the price of an employee service was raised, and the stock price is lower than it was at a point in the past.

I don't think that's enough to declare that Google has lost its mojo. Think of how many times Apple was "dying" according to the press. I think this author is just bored with Google and wants to cause a stir.

This guy is impressed....

[budword]

He's impressed with the rock solid stability of the.......office suit software ? Enterprise level word processor and spread sheets ? Setting the bar pretty low.....

Not to worry

[garett_spencley]

All they have to do is find Dr. Evil's secret volcano layer and get it back. They're frickin' Google. If they can't do it no one can.

Vacation...

[serviscope_minor]

Interesting. Looks like it starts at 15 days, and moves up to 25 days after 6 years. Their 6 year level has reached the mandatory minimum number of paid vacation days in many EU countries.

Is that mistreatment? If you've come from Eurpoe, then it may feel that way.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them

Because, as we all know it is impossible to raise children if one of the parents doesn't stay at home.

Other than that, I'd say your argument is pretty solid. Employers aren't responsible for an employee's children.

infant care

[Lord Lode]

Quoting: "Parents who had been paying $1,425 a month for infant care would see their costs rise to nearly $2,500"... WTF? How much do people in the US earn? This amount of money per month, is what is almost the total monthly salary in Europe is for many people! How could you give that for just infant care?? Renting an apartment is like 400 euros per month, much cheaper than this infant care (even the so called cheap $1425 one)! How do you pay for rent, survival costs, and saving, if you have a baby and use that infant care?

Re:infant care

[Un pobre guey]

In Europe, you work to live. In America, we live to work.

There are good and bad aspects to both. Choose your poison.

Food

[quarrel]

It's always all downhill once startups start cutting back on the food perks.

From the linked Valleywag article:

"
Google's food perks on the chopping block

There's no such thing as a free dinner. A worker at Google tells us the company is taking evening meals off the menu: "Google has drastically cut back their budget on the culinary program. How is it affecting campus? No more dinner. No more tea trolley. No more snack attack in the afternoon." The changes will be announced to Googlers on Monday. Workers at the Googleplex will remain amply fed, with free breakfast and lunch -- dinner will be reserved for geeks only -- but it's still a shocking cutback.

Last year, when we aired the mildest speculation about Google cutting back on free food, commenters were outraged. Google has long milked its cafeterias for their publicity value; company executives have crowed about the company's resistance to recessions and its commitment to coddling its employees. Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin even promised shareholders they'd add perks, rather than cut them.

In 2004, they wrote:

        We provide many unusual benefits for our employees, including meals free of charge ... We are careful to consider the long term advantages to the company of these benefits. Expect us to add benefits rather than pare them down over time. We believe it is easy to be penny wise and pound foolish with respect to benefits that can save employees considerable time and improve their health and productivity.

What went wrong? ...
"

--Q

Re:Food

[nate nice]

"What went wrong? ..."

Share holders are penny wise and pound foolish. It isn't about the longterm investment but the quarterly or annual review. Eventually, when the stock starts to lose value, you simply have to make changes (drop operating costs) to make revenues reflect a larger profit.

The good news is most companies just fire a bunch of people. Google just happens to be taking away free dinner.

Re:Food

[BlueBoxSW.com]

Dinner for Geeks only? For once it pays to be in that population.

The real problem is Click Fraud. One of these days their advertising program is going to have to cut out click fraud, and their profits will drop by 75%.

What I'd like Google to do

[bogaboga]

While I understand that Google must increase shareholder value at all cost, I would like to see Google do the following:

Respond to Yahoo Mail's new web mail's interface. I find Yahoo Mail's scrolling calender events found at the bottom while composing email really sweet. The whole [new] interface is quite impressive.

Google should put more efforts into getting KDE 4.1 up to "standards". Right now, KDE 4.1 really needs lots of work. The Summer of Code efforts leave the situation still wanting.

Get GMail out of beta. Heck, it's been over 2 years!

Google should walk the walk...that is make ODF documents, .ogg streams searcheable from www.google.com.

What do you think?

Re:Wait a minute

[BitterOldGUy]

such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them

Because, as we all know it is impossible to raise children if one of the parents doesn't stay at home.

Other than that, I'd say your argument is pretty solid. Employers aren't responsible for an employee's children.

Yeah, technically all of you are right. What has been found is that having childcare greatly reduces the stress of workers: they don't have to worry about working late, they can visit their kid on lunch breaks if the daycare is on site, company care is just one trip, it's usually cheaper, etc...

Having company sponsored childcare doesn't mean other employees are getting paid less, is just means the stockholders are not seeing as big of a profit as they could have. If Google really had to pay less because of childcare then they wouldn't be able to get anyone good, especially the childless - they'd all go to higher paying companies, wouldn't they?

As for me, I like in house childcare because you don't get the BS (most of the time) of folks with kids having to run home every time their kid is sick; which makes my life less stressful because then I don't have to make up for them.

Why pick on one benefit?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

All these benefits are just there to attract and retain staff. It is ridiculous to pick on just one or two because they don't apply to you.

What about their laundry service? Why should they provide that? What about the people who have their own washers at home?

What about the car servicing thing? What about the people that don't have cars?

What about the bus service with Wifi? What about people who live close and don't need the bus?

By your logic all these are discrimination against people who don't need these services.

Normal Evolution of a Publicly-Traded Company

[darrylo]

I don't understand the fuss. Like it or not, this seems to be the normal evolution of any "startup company" that becomes a publicly-traded company. Often, when any type of economic difficulties hit, benefits can be lost or reduced, and -- surprise, surprise -- they don't often come back. One big issue is that the investors have, of course, a lot of control, and investors want profit (think Carl Icahn, people). Management doesn't look good if they can't deliver sufficient profit, and so there's incentive to not increase benefits.

I'm not even going to touch the google services issue. Let's just say that some google services appear to be stagnating (minor tweaks don't cut it), and google is opening itself up to a competitor leapfrogging them. (Yeah, with Yahoo in not-so-good shape, Microsoft is probably the only company that could do that .... Bleah.)

Re:Wait a minute

[QuantumG]

If they're quiet and polite, then yes, I have no problem with them being in the office. If they're running around and yelling and, ya know, being children then that is not appropriate to an office setting.. people are trying to work.

As for spending time in the office.. no.. I'm not a big fan. I don't expect people to stay late just because everyone else is. But, in modern software engineering, its a team effort. If someone goes home because they need to pick up their kids or whatever, then either someone else is going to have to do their work - and that means it won't get done to the same level of quality - or it means that everyone will be stalled until that person is available again to work. I believe it is a failure of management to require people to work late but, frankly, it does happen and if people are not available to work when it does, then it happens more and more.

Re:Wait a minute

[rtechie]

Why in blazes should people who don't have kids, or who responsibly make arrangements for them to be cared for (such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them), have to pay in the form of a lower salary for yours?

Because life isn't fair.

Because our society has determined that providing child care to working mothers benefits society as a whole and Google is simply conforming to social pressure.

Because Google wishes to attract working mothers as employees and are offering child care as an incentive. Young single workers are attracted by Google's "coolness" and don't need additional incentives.

BTW, Using child care provided by your employer is "make[ing] arrangements for [children] to be cared for".

Re:Wait a minute

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Why in blazes should people who don't have kids, or who responsibly make arrangements for them to be cared for ... have to pay in the form of a lower salary for yours?

Yeah! And while we're at it, why should I have to pay taxes that go to old, sick and young people I don't even know! It's unjust!

When you're on the top of the hill...

[QuietLagoon]

... the only direction is down.

Re:I can pinpoint the exact day

[Oswald]

For what it's worth, Microsoft makes more in a good quarter than Google makes in a year. I can't tell if that affects your point because I couldn't actually figure out what that was.

What's wrong with charging for day care?

[Jane Q. Public]

Parents who expect to get day care for their kids as a free ride really piss me off. Why should the childless pay for somebody else's kids, so that the parents can have a cushy job?

I realize this is an unpopular view with some, but if you can't afford to have kids (and raise them, and school them) then you shouldn't be having kids. And if I worked at Google, I would be damned if I would want to pay for YOUR kids, so you can have a job at Google. That is not the way life works.

What ever happened to those particular values of the 50s, when one parent would say to the other, "Well, Johnny is 3 now, and you just got a raise... maybe we can afford to have another kid!"

I am with Sergey... I am not very sympathetic. They want the very best day care -- to the tune of $37,000 a year! -- then they can pay for it.

Day care is NOT like public education, in which everybody has a stake. It is the duty of the parents to care for their kids until they get to school age. If they cannot, they should put the kids up for adoption. It is not ethical to expect the public (or their co-workers) to subsidize their children.

Re:Wait a minute

[the_B0fh]

Because you live in an evil socialistic communist state of course!

Re:Wait a minute

[Internalist]

[...] or who responsibly make arrangements for them to be cared for (such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them)

Because having Mom stay at home is the "responsible" thing to do? So the choice for women is motherhood XOR employment? I won't deny that having someone at home fulltime is the optimal situation (definitely not always possible), but maybe *Dad* could stay home...?

Re:Wait a minute

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Seriously? "Women should abandon their careers to beome housewives" gets modded +5? WTF is wrong with this website?

If you really need an answer to your stupid rhetorical question:

1. The vast majority of women in the US have little interest in permanently abandoning their careers.

2. Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet.

3. On-site daycare is a good way to attract employees, because it provides a benefit (having your kids in the same building) that is worth a lot more to the employees than it costs to the company.

4. If you lure those employees in with this benefit, thus potentially drawing them away from another job with a better salary, and then ditch the benefit, you're screwing them. I dunno if it's "age discrimination," but it's at least somewhat a dick move.

Re:Wait a minute

[coleopterana]

Pardon me, but I would be very surprised if Google, unlike the vast majority of all daycare centers (daycare, mind, not pre-k or kindergarten) allowed sick and potentially contagious children. The better daycares I've had experience with will insist that you come and get your child if they have made it in with such an illness. Any illness, no matter how minor it might seem, spreads so quickly amongst kids of that age, especially in close proximity. Plus, though I really don't know if it's a stated or valid reason, I imagine that allowing visibly ill children to remain at the daycare presents some degree of liability that would rather be avoided. But I do think you are right about in-house daycare being a great deal more efficient, especially for a company of sufficient size, especially in terms of worker-parent efficiency.

Higher salary? Not bloody likely

[Wee]

You think Google would offer a higher salary? Not if your just a normal engineer guy. They'll give you what they want to give you, and you better be grateful you're getting the offer in the first place, buddy.

I made probably about 20-25% less than my similarly-employed friends. Google likes to say that it compensates in other ways. I calculated that the free food alone was worth about $8000 per year to me. The yearly bonuses were beyond generous. I negotiated a good stock grant when I was hired. But the actual pay pretty much sucks, and they're cutting back in all sorts of ways. I saw it happening starting in late 2006, and it kept on rolling. They'll cut back on perks and then try to convince everyone they have the best thing going regardless, especially with regards to recruiting (keep pushing that 20% project myth, guys...). A certain TGIF is a good example (TGIF is a big gathering in Charlie's Cafe every Friday at 4:30, where Larry and/or Sergey and/or Eric talk about company issues and take questions).

During the QA portion, a guy got up and asked about our health care plan. Apparently, it wasn't as good as Microsoft's, yet in a then-recent magazine article, Eric said that we had the best benefits in the world and was really talking up the perks - even as they were routinely being scaled back. So this guy was comparing notes with his MS buddy and our health plan wasn't all that great (the dental in particular was worse than some government jobs I've had). Eric said he'd look at it and get back to us. (One of the things I really liked about working there was that sort of transparency and openness.)

Couple weeks later, same guy gets up to ask about what they found out. Eric says they did the numbers, and it was going to cost a few 10s of millions more per year to implement a comparable health plan. So, no dice. The crowd generally grumbled, and Eric was quick to pipe up with "But just think, by working here, you get to change the world!"

Was shortly after that I gave serious thought about examining my options. I'm not sure if/how that influenced my decision to leave, but some kool-aid you should never drink.

No, the only way to get more money at Google is to work 80 hours a week or sleep with someone important. Leaving and coming back won't do it, unless you're a high-flier and they're trying to headhunt you back for some particular reason.

-B

Re:Wait a minute

[QuantumG]

Umm.. no dude. The company is a-ok with people running off to pick up their kids and so am I. The problem is people who saying "I have to pick up my kids" even though they have been given weeks notice that they are going to have work late on night X. They use their kids as an excuse to break their agreement that they will work whatever hours are necessary to get the job done.

And, frankly, I'm speaking in the past tense because I hardly ever go to the office these days.

Re:Wait a minute

[Naughty Bob]

All correct blahplusplus. The term is corporate responsibility.

It's a cliche, but children are the future. Call them tax-sucking, or whatever you like. They'll be paying for you ass to get wiped in 50 years time.

Re:Wait a minute

[Snaller]

"Employers aren't responsible for an employee's children."

They can be selfish assholes, but then people chose another place to work and they close. Assuming you are skilled labor - if you are without education you are fucked.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

What has been found is that having childcare greatly reduces the stress of workers: they don't have to worry about working late, they can visit their kid on lunch breaks if the daycare is on site, company care is just one trip, it's usually cheaper, etc...

Having an in-house hooker would greatly reduce my stress level. I wouldn't have to worry about getting laid, I could get a quickie on lunch breaks if it's onsite, it would be cheaper, etc. So does that mean my company should pay for on-site hookers, and either lower the salaries of non-hooker-partaking employees, or lower their profits?

Re:Wait a minute

[Geno Z Heinlein]

Why in blazes should people who don't have kids, or who responsibly make arrangements for them to be cared for... have to pay in the form of a lower salary for yours?

You think you don't benefit from civilization? From law, order, a structured society? From the strong caring for the weak? Compassion, sympathy, friendship, co-operation? An educational system? Hospitals, doctors, nurses? The elimination of smallpox? The defeat of people who were gassing Jews? Protection from discrimination against your idiosyncrasies? The remission of the Law of the Jungle? The spare time to do something other than digging dirt for mere subsistence? The technology and luxury for you to post to Slashdot instead of being out hunting and gathering tonight's meal?

Society is a complex web of interdependent relationships and compromises from which you too benefit.

That's why.

On company-supplied child care

[DesScorp]

Why in blazes should people who don't have kids, or who responsibly make arrangements for them to be cared for (such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them), have to pay in the form of a lower salary for yours?

And a reduction in this silly benefit that you shouldn't have in the first place is age discrimination against you?

My wife is a stay at home mom. We made the decision to forgo a second income for the benefits of actually raising our kids at home, at least at very young ages. We never wanted to be one of those couples that had a child, and then had it in some form of third-party care two months later for career's sake. I very much sympathize with what you're arguing.

However, this is the Bay Area we're talking about, a place that's become notorious for being both child-unfriendly, and a mecca for young, single, childless workers with high skill. In that kind of atmosphere, a top company wanting top talent should consider on-site childcare as a perk if they want to keep these studs past age 30 or so. Sooner or later, nature calls, and most of them marry and start families. Google, for all its fame in supplying wild perks, is actually wise in supplying this one. They don't have to, but they have been smart in doing so. Top companies supply top perks if they want to stay top companies. You'll never see Goldman Sachs, Mercedes Benz, or Harvard cheaping out on their benefits.

That said, if there's any truth to the quote the NY Times attributes to Sergey Brin ("no sympathy for the parents, and that he was tired of Googlers who felt entitled to perks like bottled water and M&Ms), then it sounds like something is indeed turning sour at Google. It seems like every hot company that skyrockets eventually has to come back to Earth hard. If this is indeed happening at Google, perks will soon be the least of their problems.

Re:Wait a minute

[CheeseTroll]

I pay way more into the system than I get back.

...for now.

Housewives

[DesScorp]

"Seriously? "Women should abandon their careers to beome housewives" gets modded +5? WTF is wrong with this website?"

Well, obviously we'll have to do something about that "differing opinions" stuff here. Can't have any of that. Thanks for pointing it out; the management will take care of it.

And now a question for you; what do you think about the legions of women that have decided that, well, yes they'd prefer to give up their careers because they consider raising their children job Numero Uno? Since we've been 3 decades into the sexual revolution now, many women have decided that they can't have it all, at least not in any meaningful sense. Is there something wrong with them?

Re:Wait a minute

[hedwards]

That is indeed correct. The birth rate for a geographic area tends to move inversely to the rate of development, wealth accumulation and life expectancy increases.

Meaning that nations like India which pretty much requires parents to have many offspring to support them in old age will grow rapidly. Nations like Japan and Germany, which are much more affluent and are not needing children specifically to support them tend to not reproduce enough.

Re:Wait a minute

[kd5zex]

5. Some women just aren't cut out to be stay at home moms

I consider this an excuse and a cop-out, sure being a STHM is hard work but requiring special skills and personality? Please. Working is the easy way out. The families I know where the mom works because she is not "cut out" to be a stay at home mom results in very little profit or even a net loss and is generally in a menial job.
FWIW disclaimer: I am not sexist and have offer to stay at home with the children regularly.

Re:Wait a minute

[John Jamieson]

2. Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet.

Ahh, we are in "America", land of needless consumption.
The VAST majority of my coworkers who think/thought they NEEDED a second income, really did not. They CHOOSE the lifestyle.

I am not criticizing the choice, it is not my business, BUT, We really need to learn the difference between the words NEED and WANT.

Full disclosure, my wife has "halted" her career to raise our kids.

Re:Wait a minute

[syousef]

Why in blazes should people who don't have kids, or who responsibly make arrangements for them to be cared for (such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them), have to pay in the form of a lower salary for yours?

Because the kids that aren't raised properly are the kids that grow up to teenagers who would knife you in the chest for $5.

Why should you pay for roads? Or health care? Or emergency services? Or education? Because without these things society turns to shite. Because you indirectly use them even if you think you don't (Try living in a place without roads)

It's called living as part of a community. Any community that isn't friendly to parenthood by definition will die out.

Little boys in a mans world

[twostix]

Sorry, to all you childless bachelors out there, but my loyalty lies 110% to my son and family not to you or anybody else outside my family, I already have precious little time with him as is, I don't care if you or management or *anyone else* thinks I'm a team player or not, truly. I do my contracted work, take my pay then I'm outta there.

It does go both ways as well. People without kids bitch that people with kids leave when their child is sick (you know, to be *parents*) or whatever, but then people without kids want to work their lives away, then expect us to as well? Sorry if your to spineless to stand up to your boss that's YOUR problem, no one elses. Otherwise you enjoy doing it, and well if you expect me to work late and have my boy miss out on seeing his old man before bed because you have nothing better to do than work for an extra few hours you can fuck right off.

The worst thing here, is that the 90% of people complaining about "people with kids" statistically, in a a few years when they grow up will BE "people with kids". Then will understand, not through a selfish hypocritical flip-flop, but because when that little tacker comes along you have *no choice* as your brain changes and with it your priorities, whether you like it or not.

And we *people with kids* were all just like you once, I even used to bitch about *people with kids*, just like you.

Ironically all the people without kids bitching here will then bitch about how people don't, you know, "be a parent" to their kids in the multitude of other stories regarding kids. Well I'll tell ya it's a little hard when you all expect us to forget about them for 8-12 hours a day and see them awake for twenty minutes, because we know how much your going to cry because you choose to marry your job/company and we treat it like a means to an end and leave on time.

So much juvenile idiocy in this thread.

Re:Little boys in a mans world

[methuselah]

"So much juvenile idiocy in this thread."
So you jump right in with some other kind of your own. Look your family is no one else responsibility. No employer really cares about your priorities. Wearing them on your sleeve like some kind of badge of honor does not make you a hero. It make you a manipulable target. Life is full of choices and they come with consequences. It is not incumbent on anyone to deal with or be sympathetic with the consequences of your actions. To insist that anyone care is "idiotic". I agree that work is rendering service for pay. Pay is associated with the value of service rendered. Nothing more than that. As for forgetting about your kids for 8-12 hours a day who in their right mind would pay you to sit around and think about them.

Re:Wait a minute

[the_womble]

"Women should abandon their careers to beome housewives" gets modded +5? WTF is wrong with this website?

Actually he says, "such as". it is one of a range of alternative solutions. I would certainly advocate both parents spending more time with children, and it is just as good for fathers to stay at home to look after children as for mothers to do so.

1. The vast majority of women in the US have little interest in permanently abandoning their careers.

It would be better for the children if parents worked less and spent more time with them

2. Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet.

Even though, in the vast majority of cases, each parent by themselves earns a lot more in real terms than households with a single earner typically did, say, fifty years ago? It would be more accurate to say they need to incomes to keep up with the lifestyle of other people with two incomes.

3. On-site daycare is a good way to attract employees, because it provides a benefit (having your kids in the same building) that is worth a lot more to the employees than it costs to the company.

True, it is attractive to employees, cut it can be very expensive to provide- as it was in this case. You might be better off just paying people more.

4. If you lure those employees in with this benefit, thus potentially drawing them away from another job with a better salary, and then ditch the benefit, you're screwing them. I dunno if it's "age discrimination," but it's at least somewhat a dick move.

Of course it is not age discrimination. Google's mistake was subsidising it too much, or providing too high a level of childcare, and landing themselves with an unsustainable cost.

Re:Wait a minute

[rossifer]

I pay way more into the system than I get back.

The intelligent and wealthy argue for welfare, medicare and social security because they know that a tolerable sinecure for the poor makes it very unlikely that they will have to deal with significant social unrest and the possibility of a revolution.

You're getting a return on your money, it's in the increased stability of the society around you that makes continued economic development possible. A part of India's current development problems are rooted in the growing disparities between the new wealthy and those in grinding poverty.

Re:Wait a minute

[ultranova]

Why should I have to involuntarily pay for things other people take advantage of and I don't?

Because you live in a society, not a deserted island, so you can't always have your way.

I pay way more into the system than I get back.

On the other hand, by providing a basic living to the poor, you keep them from getting desperate enough to decide that they have nothing to lose since they're going to die of hunger anyway and can thus as well kill you and loot your corpse for spare change.

Social welfare keeps financial inequality from destroying the society. Humans are beasts, and starving beasts are dangerous. It's much more practical and cheaper too to simply feed them rather than trying to control them by force of arms.

Besides, all the rights you have are ultimately based on your perceived value as a human being. A society which doesn't value humans is unlikely to respect their rights either, and a society which lets its members starve to death obviously doesn't value them much. So, to answer your question: you have to pay taxes that support the weak because you live in a nice, touchy-feely bleeding-heart near-utopia rather than the hellpits of ancient Rome or modern-day third-world nations. You poor bastard.

Oh, sorry: even the Roman emperors provided bread to the poor, so they wouldn't riot and kill them. I guess modern-day libertarians can't quite live up to Caligula's or Nero's standards of morality and statesmanship skills.

And yes, that last bit was pure flamebait, triggered after reading one too many "My taxes support the poor ! Waaah !" post.

Re:Wait a minute

[phillous]

Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet. Even though, in the vast majority of cases, each parent by themselves earns a lot more in real terms than households with a single earner typically did, say, fifty years ago? It would be more accurate to say they need to incomes to keep up with the lifestyle of other people with two incomes.

Ok, I live in england, and I'm pretty sure our house prices are way higher than the states, but here's my two cents...
I'm 22, and I work full time in banking in london. Its a long commute, a long day and often means working late and at weekends. I have a girlfriend and an 18mo boy. She stays at home because a) she hated her job and didn't want to go back after maternity, and b) we decided that having a parent around all day was better than daycare.

These are our lifestyle choices, and I accept that. HOWEVER, because of the number of two income families, if you want to buy a house you need two incomes. I have a pretty well paid job and live in a pretty cheap area, and I'm still forced to rent the scummy flat I live in now. If we were to say... double my salary, we could afford to BUY a small nice house. The Problem is that because the MAJORITY of families are dual income, people can afford to buy nicer houses, until it gets to a point where you NEED two incomes to buy ANY house.

The "sexual revolution" has been the best thing for the economy and "growth" since the industrial revolution. I'm happy with the choices our family have made, but we are very poor, financially because of it. The trade off is a happy healthy son and home life. I'd rather my son had a parent all day than we had a nicer house that none of us ever saw because of work/daycare.

Re:Wait a minute

[JoeZeppy]

Having company sponsored childcare doesn't mean other employees are getting paid less, is just means the stockholders are not seeing as big of a profit as they could have. If Google really had to pay less because of childcare then they wouldn't be able to get anyone good, especially the childless - they'd all go to higher paying companies, wouldn't they?

For employees without children it certainly does mean they get paid less unless the company puts that added compensation/benefit it costs them for providing that care for people with children directly onto their salary in cold hard cash.

so, if I don't wear glasses, no one should have eye care?

If I don't have any health problems, no one should get a medical plan?

If my parents are rich, no one should get social security?

Christ, do you people have any concept of what "society" actually is? Maybe we should all go back to living in caves, and the person with the best spear aim gets all the meat, and everyone else starves. And yes, in most companies I've worked in, you get a certain amount of benefit dollars, to use as you see fit, and if you don't use them all, you get a credit on your pay. But it still doesn't subsidize the entire cost.

The whole point of shared benefits, or car insurance for that matter, is that you average out the cost for some peoples care amongst the whole pool, resulting in lower average costs for everyone. The "value added" is that these people don't go bankrupt, default on their mortgages, clog up emergency rooms for minor illnesses, become criminals and rob others to support themselves, or otherwise become a burden on society. (and by "burden" I mean "cost". You're either going to pay up front to help them, or pay at the end to deal with them.)

That's a concept you either believe in, or you don't. If you don't, then go ahead and opt out. If you ever find yourself or your children with cancer or a serious illness, well you can just take a couple aspirin and go to bed until you feel better.

What's that? You don't have any paid sick days? Aww, that's too bad. Maybe we should have forced euthanasia for people who can't take care of themselves? Fuck 'em if they can't make it on their own.

Re:Wait a minute

[derrickh]

No you dont.

You pay almost nothing to the system in regards to what you recieve. I'm guessing you're in the US or some other developed country. So your taxes not only pay for mundane stuff like law enforcement and roads that allow you to travel to almost anywhere in the country. They also pay for the military that , no matter what you think of the government, has on at least 4 occasions stopped this country from being destroyed in one way or another. Your taxes paid to educate the majority of the citizens so that eventhough we all cant compile a Linux kernal, we can read, write, and do fairly high level math. Your taxes paid for a system, while flawed, tries to keep harmful drugs and fake medicine out of a young mother's child's mouth (that would be you). Your taxes make sure that people can't put up 'Whites Only' signs anymore.

All of this may not seem like a lot to you, but trust me, it adds up to a hell of a lot more than the check you dole out every year.

D

Re:Wait a minute

[ultranova]

However, the danger there is that when you subsidize laziness, you encourage people not to do anything with their lives.

I might be cynical here, but... is that a bad thing ? "Not everyone grows up to be an astronaut", as one demotivator put it. If everyone bases their lives around trying to accomplish things, in the financial sense, then most people will lose constantly - after all, there can only be so many winners, and someone has to flip the burgers too. The temptation to cheat - arrange your competitors to have "accidents" in extreme cases - is quite high in such an environment. I see the constant unethical or outright illegal behavior of various companies and can't help but wonder if the (impossible to fulfil) requirement that they increase their profits constantly is mostly to blame.

This of course doesn't mean that all people couldn't accomplish something, only that only a few of them can be financial successes. Most people are mediocre, by definition; and some fall beneath that. If they all have burning ambition and refuse to settle for their position, "cutthroat competition" gets a whole new meaning.

Remember, "bread and circuses" was meant to keep the masses complicit - to make them lazy, to put it bluntly.

a Libertarian with common sense, what a shock!

It is, here on Slashdot at least. I think that the libertarians in general would enjoy a far greater success if they'd keep the people who refer to people as "crotchfruit" and go on about the evil of taxes and the government on leash, and concentrated on talking about liberty. This is especially true when said rant is posted on a discussion forum in a government-built tax-funded Internet :).

In a way, it's a pity. Libertarians actually have a lot of good ideas (or at least ideas I agree with ;), they simply tend to take them to the point where the reduction positive freedom starts negating the increase of negative freedom. Not to mention the return to feudalism, which will happen if the central government is weakened too much, since there's no longer anything to stop the local land/factory/whatever owners from throwing their weight around.

I just don't want to see people get trapped in multi-generational dependency on the government.

One way to avoid this is to ensure that you can improve yourself regardless of your parent's financial situation. For example, here in Finland, not only is education up to and including university level (up to Doctorate, I think) free (paid by the government), but it actually subsidizes the students - just barely enough to live by, but still enough that anyone who honestly wants to better his position in life can go study. Of course keeping on getting this subsidy is dependent on showing continued progress in one's studies.

It's one reason why I think private charities are better suited to handle that sort of thing, since they can place requirements on their charity.

Government can and does place requirements on receiving the benefits. As I see it, the problems with relying on private charities are:

1. You can't mandate that they actually care for everyone, so what happens if there isn't enough ? With state-provided welfare, you can simply make it a legal obligation of the state.
2. Private charities can naturally place any requirements of their charity, such as "you must support the teaching of creationism in the science class to get this benefit".
3. Since the private charity is not anyone's legal obligation, it could dry up at any moment, for any arbitrary reason or no reason at all. Consequently, you can't plan ahead if you're getting it, and thus it becomes even harder to escape poverty. After all, if you save some money (which is often the first step of improving your position in life), the charity-givers could well decide that y