Slashdot Mirror
Google's Security Guards Are Now Officially Google Employees
jfruh writes People concerned about the growing gap between the rich and poor point to a common practice in Silicon Valley: going through staffing agencies for non-core jobs like janitorial and security work, leaving those workers disconnected from the company and lacking in the job security and benefits their co-workers take for granted. Google has now decided to buck the trend, bringing their security guards in-house.
Imagine that. Hiring your own employees. And paying them. With benefits. It's almost like it's 1955 all over again.
If you don't employ your security guards, they are a great way to do IP theft.
you know....that glass-hole thing....they didn't want it.
How long before the government starts contracting Google to provide armed security for VIPs like Blackwater?
The security guards at twitter have been proper employees since they moved to Market street. I believe they even hired a couple of the old guards of the last office from the security company they used to contract for. But twitter is a bit of an egalitarian exception, still just wanted to say.
Good for them. One less party getting a cut of a probably already small paycheck. It also gives Google more control over employee quality.
Is the social capital gained by this move that valuable? Are the costs that minimal? When there are companies specializing in providing custodial staff at costs lower than google could feasible hire them, why does it matter how they are employed?
contract guards tend to cost twice as much as your own. lets say your making 8.50 as a guard will your company is getting probably getting payed 17$ maybe more per hr for that guard.
PR
There are good things and bad things about hiring workers directly for things like security. At the tech company I work for, we hire outside services for security, landscaping, stocking the coffee stations, and running the cafeteria. Obviously these workers aren't getting the same benefits package that direct employees get. On the other hand, it lets the company focus on doing what the company does and letting other companies specialize in other services.
It's rather like using an outside cloud vendor for IT services instead of implementing them in-house. The only difference is that the people doing the work are doing it on-site.
It also means that the outside contractors are treated differently when there are layoffs. The company decides to reduce headcount, but the service contracts are managed under different budgets, so those workers aren't cut.
I'm glad to see Google making this decision because contract security companies beat up their employees for crap pay, no sick time, and benefits that are laughable. I should know because I was an Allied Barton Employee when between IT contracts. Their medical benefits were so expensive as to leave very little left over and for coverage that was simply a sick joke. I wish more companies would make this move!
Google Army.
-- sigs cause cancer.
Data security is important to Google's business. Internal employees are more likely to be loyal and trusted. Trusted employees provide better security for Google and their customer data.
> Can someone please tell me how this move increases shareholder value, which should be Google's top priorities?
Bad reputation is not good for a company. The more people think Google is OK with being evil, the worse it is for shareholders in the long run.
So does that mean they've stopped hiring the current guards and will hire new ones. What will happen to the old ones?
Bring services in means more control, the actor will a have a higher degree of agency, lead to less disenfranchisement, and they will develop a better repoire with the coworkers.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Though this move is surely good news to those workers, I hope Google hasn't forgotten its obligation to [its] shareholders.
Can someone please tell me how this move increases shareholder value, which should be Google's top priorities?
Don't be evil.
Ok, I gather, janitors and landscapers will be next.
How about the construction workers, who build Google's fancy offices — and those paving the roads leading to them? Shouldn't they share Google's wealth and fancy (free) lunches too?
How about the makers of furniture used by Google? Is it not unfair, than anybody, who ever came into contact with this wealthy company — where even the rank-and-file professionals are part of the "1%" — is not automatically getting their fair share of the company's success?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And that $17/hr is probably still less than it costs in full-time Google benefits -- even just the on-campus ones.
Employees cost a lot more than their hourly wage.
Common fallacy.
Not every move needs to be about shareholder value. That is only the case if their mission statement is:
"Every move is to optimize shareholder earning regardless of the damage it does to people."
Example from https://www.google.com/about/c...:
"You can make money without doing evil.
Google is a business. The revenue we generate is derived from offering search technology to companies and from the sale of advertising displayed on our site and on other sites across the web. Hundreds of thousands of advertisers worldwide use AdWords to promote their products; hundreds of thousands of publishers take advantage of our AdSense program to deliver ads relevant to their site content. To ensure that we’re ultimately serving all our users (whether they are advertisers or not), we have a set of guiding principles for our advertising programs and practices:
We don’t allow ads to be displayed on our results pages unless they are relevant where they are shown. And we firmly believe that ads can provide useful information if, and only if, they are relevant to what you wish to find–so it’s possible that certain searches won’t lead to any ads at all.
We believe that advertising can be effective without being flashy. We don’t accept pop–up advertising, which interferes with your ability to see the content you’ve requested. We’ve found that text ads that are relevant to the person reading them draw much higher clickthrough rates than ads appearing randomly. Any advertiser, whether small or large, can take advantage of this highly targeted medium.
Advertising on Google is always clearly identified as a “Sponsored Link,” so it does not compromise the integrity of our search results. We never manipulate rankings to put our partners higher in our search results and no one can buy better PageRank. Our users trust our objectivity and no short-term gain could ever justify breaching that trust."
You could say that means they aren't optimized strictly for shareholder value;which is correct.
Of course, the better google is in the public eye, the more there value increases as well.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This move means that the Security staff is now Google employees. It would not be in a Google employee's interests to sell company secrets, inside information or other things that might make the company not be able to keep Google employees on the payroll. This increases shareholder value because employees have a vested interest in seeing the company succeed whereas contractors do not have that impetus. In addition, it actually makes it less likely that the Security staff will unionize, which in turn also benefits the company. Finally, the increased community goodwill is an intangible factor but it does make the bottom line in that Google will now be able to say the company demographics more closely match the community (see the stats in the article regarding ethnic makeup of Security staff).
If someone complains you don't hire enough people in group X because you can't find many techies in group X, you now add another pool of talent.
All the same, internal or not, why would a guard have access to sensitive and classified internal Google data? If they do, someone needs to rapidly fire whoever is handling information security and replace them with someone competent.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
OK, but now google also has to hire a manager to make sure *somebody* is showing up and doing their job each day, screen candidates - etc. all the overhead stuff is still there. There is no generic answer to whether or not some function could be performed more cheaply in-house.
At a small scale, the fixed costs of running your own security are substantial relative to the total cost, meaning that it's cheaper to pay a contractor instead, despite the overhead that comes with having a middleman between you and the guards. At a large scale, such as Google's, the fixed costs are a relatively minor component, whereas the overhead associated with the contractor is rather substantial, so it ends up being cheaper to bring the guards in-house. You can even provide them with better pay/benefits thanks to the money you'll be saving by cutting out the contractor.
That's the most obvious answer, at least. Other possibilities are that the employees will feel more loyalty towards Google on account of the shared bond with the other employees (not to mention the better pay/benefits), which would make them more inclined to do their job well; they'll get to be a part of more of the corporate culture, which will help them to recognize things that are out of place better; Google won't be subject to the hiring whims of their contractor, meaning that they can work on hiring the cream of the crop; and that having them in the company is conducive to a healthier Google in the long-term, which is in line with preserving Google's value.
That's not how they do the bean counting.
Total on campus benefit cost/Total campus salary == On campus benes cost as %.
So it looks cheap for low paid people, expensive for high paid.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I've been in the private security industry for 5 years. Most of that was working for a contract company. The security company I worked for specialized in security for the industry I was in which made it more tolerable but the flaws of contract security were still clearly visible. As a contract employee there was always the feeling of working in a building full time for years but never actually being treated as an employee with management, yet also having two sets of bosses - the Security company and the management administrators of the site (who often times were at odds with each other). That being said I've met a lot of people in the industry, and seen the guards hired by other companies within our site from large yet generic security companies who couldn't even speak English - I have no idea how they passed the state security class (although that itself is a joke...). There's not much room to innovate solutions to new problems when you're a contract employee because your employer has to stick to a contract that may have last been negotiated years ago and isn't set to be renegotiated for another year or two. And your employer isn't going to push for change because they don't want to lose that contract.
I now work in-house Security for a hospital (I am a direct employee of the health care system) and it is a breath of fresh air. I get the same benefits as the clinical staff and administrators, and actually feel like I am part of the team. It's always scary to know that there are contract security companies begging the board and administrators to contract us out to them. To a company, contract security can seam like a good deal as all of your costs are known ahead of time - any overtime due to employee illness or covering an employee that has quit are the responsibility of the contract company. This leads to the contract company cutting corners and cutting hours, or running short staffed which can put the site at risk as you've now got gaps in coverage. I don't know that I'd go back to working for a contract provider after working directly for a company with an in-house department. If we were to go contract I'd probably have to find the motivation to get myself back into the IT industry. Companies need to take into consideration employee retention and control when considering a contract provider vs. in-house employee, and the long term benefits of having employees that are actually part of the organization and who will be more motivated to protect your property and employees. Also, in my state at least, in-house security employees are not required to get state licensing unless they have access to firearms so this will save your employees money every year (which again the unarmed state training is a joke, but that's for another discussion).
It would be pretty trivial for security personnel to give people access who shouldn't have access. They themselves may not know enough to release proprietary information, but they could open the door for somebody else to do so. So yes, it is important that the security be decently-paid and have good job satisfaction. Otherwise they become an easy avenue for access for anybody that wants it.
The obligation to the share holders isn't anything other than what the shareholders want out of the company. With Google's growth leveling off, at this point, keeping the ship afloat and profitable, not growth is what's important.
The whole "obligation to it's shareholders" notion is only true when you're selling the company. Google's probably not going to be sold to anyone anytime soon. so...
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
They just learned about guards from outside staffing agencies "looking the other way" before certain incidents after taking bribes from competitors?
I'm not sure what that has to do with my post.
The grandparent said now they cost less: minimum wage rather than the above-minimum contract rate.
I simply said that a minimum wage employee costs a lot more than his wage - perhaps more than the contract rate.
I'm personally on contract for 33% above my actual wage. To employ me at my actual wage would likely cost just as much, if not more.
I wonder what their pay will be. Any educated guesses?
Why should that be Google's top priority?
I'd contend that their top priority should be living up to their "don't be evil" mantra.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
It's only obligation is to it's voting shareholders. Tkae a look at this plan:
"The Class A shares have one vote each, but collectively those votes are dwarfed by the 10-votes-per-share Class B shares. Those shares, which do not trade in the public market, are owned by Google insiders, who will also get Class C shares in the distribution." "http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/the-many-classes-of-google-stock/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0"
A lawsuit made it a little less evil, but anyone who doesn't realize the modern stock market is a ponzi scheme is the sucker in the room. Public company my foot. The only people they have to answer to is themselves.
No company is legally obligated to maximize (or even increase) shareholder value. They are required to attempt to make money (due to IRS requirements). Otherwise, Google may run its business as it sees fit, pursuant to its corporate charter. Furthermore, Google voting stock is controlled by just 3 people, so the Google founders don't really have to listen to stockholders at all.
You're likely pretty well paid. But 33% is not 100%. Benes are expensive, but not that much.
Google employees benes are likely valued as a % of salary. Not by # of free meals. So cheap employees benes are reported to the IRS as (e.g.) 33% of salary, not actual cost.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Could this be the start to the rise of the Global Google police??
If you are a shareholder, ask the company yourself. If you aren't, why do you care?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Though this move is surely good news to those workers, I hope Google hasn't forgotten its obligation to [its] shareholders.
Google's action reflect the wishes of it's majority voting shareholders, class B holders Sergey and Larry. If the other hangers on want to complain, they are free to enact that oldest and noblest traditions of free market traditions, namely vote with their wallets and sell their stock. Sorry, but non-founders do not get a vote, which quite frankly I agree with.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
They must be protected against the rabble, and few official food tasters will be cheaper then paying a decent wage to all the people who could possibly poison them. And if a food taster does get poisoned, there will be plenty of people standing in line for the job, because working at Google means you're not one of the peasants. You might even be able to afford to retire and not eat dog food!
Why is Snark Required?
Where I work they spun off their own security company before I even joined (more than 4 years ago), now they do security work for other companies as well.
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
Googlewater
Google police
Arrest this man
He search with Bing
He Buzzfeed on a fridge
He's listening on Mixradio
Google police
Arrest this girl
Her iPhone six
Is making me feel envy
And we've crashed her macBook
This is what you'll get
This is what you'll get
This is what you'll get
When you mess with us
Google police
I've given all I can
It's not enough
I've given all I can
But we're still on the payroll
This is what you'll get
This is what you'll get
This is what you'll get
When you mess with us
For a minute there
I lost myself, I lost myself
Phew, for a minute there
I lost myself, I lost myself
For a minute there
I lost myself, I lost myself
Phew, for a minute there
I lost myself, I lost myself
Thank goodness that "obligation to shareholders" does not include a 100% fixation on the bottom line. Governance is about achieving value, which is not the same as maximizing share return. Feel free to vote with your feet, if you don't like the way the company you bought into is being run.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
Wait a few months. These guys will sue Google for stock options, win the case & google will settle for millions. And then back to agencies again.
Can someone please tell me how this move increases shareholder value, which should be Google's top priorities?
I expect the shareholders are glad that the company takes steps to safeguard that value, e.g. by paying for an alarm system or a safe for the petty cash at night?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Sorry, but non-founders do not get a vote, which quite frankly I agree with.
I don't think you should be called a public company unless the majority of voting shares are able to be purchased by the public..
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
A minimum wage employee probably has the highest percentage overhead, as a number of costs are built in. [Every employee costs so many cents to process checks for, etc.]
So, on balance, we can find an economic reason for not treating people like crap.
However, if someone could save a buck; die!
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Oh, I'm with you. I was merely responding to the OP by pointing out that even if he doesn't subscribe to the idea that we should treat people well, there are economic reasons for doing so.