Slashdot Mirror
Google's Other Ugly Secret: Some Managers Keep Blacklists (inc.com)
Last week a controversial internal memo written by a concerned Google employee was going viral within the company. The memo, titled "PC Considered Harmful" and since dubbed "the Google manifesto" on social media, argued two points: First, that Google has become an ideological echo chamber where anyone with centrist or right-of-center views fears to speak their mind. Second, that part of the tech industry's gender gap can be attributed to biological differences between men and women. The person who wrote the memo has since been fired, but the internal tussle has revealed one more thing. The Inc reports: The contentious internal discussion revived a concern dating back to 2015: An unknown number of Google managers maintain blacklists of fellow employees, evidently refusing to work with those people. The blacklists are based on personal experiences of others' behavior, including views expressed on politics, social justice issues, and Google's diversity efforts. Inc. reviewed screenshots documenting several managers attesting to this practice, both in the past and currently, explicitly using the term "blacklist." The screenshots were shared by a Google employee who requested anonymity due to having signed an NDA. In additional screenshots, one Google employee declared his intent to quit if Damore were not fired, and another said that he would refuse to work with Damore in any capacity. A Google spokesperson told Inc. that the practice of keeping blacklists is not condoned by upper management, and that Google employees who discriminate against members of protected classes will be terminated. It's not clear whether that principle applies in Damore's case. Although political affiliation is a protected class according to California labor law, the views expressed in the manifesto and echoed by others who oppose political correctness do not seem to merit legal protection.
You may want to research the early days of McCarthyism and the blacklist.
Is this the first firing that was perhaps an overly sensitive reaction concerned with appeasing a very touchy ideological base? Because I can think of a number of other people railroaded out of a job because of online "outrage."
We aren't all that far from an Inquisition (not prongs and tongs type Inquisition, but a "your job depends on agreement" type Inquisition). The most significant thing missing from the equation is that the most vocal social justice voices lack political influence and power. If you see this movement organize politically and get candidates in office, any student of history should recognize that things will get worse for open expression of ideas before things get better.
also girls suck at pooters lol
...running amok
... Google employees who discriminate against members of protected classes will be terminated.
I am curious: does that include discrimination against those protected classes in the job interview process? Like, say, for example, ageism? I am just saying.
You see, it is easy to visually identify some protected classes and subtly discriminate against them (he is overqualified, or she is not a good fit for the team) in ways that are not obviously discriminatory. But nobody in their right mind talks politics or social justice as part of the interview process. So you hire some people who end being a diversity problem. Don't kid yourself, to Google and similar companies the views expressed which challenge the accepted thinking are not welcomed as part of a healthy and vigorous debate. They are seen as a disease that must be cut out.
We are very tolerant and accepting here. You had better be tolerant and accepting in the same way or we will sack you.
Is there anything wrong with this? I also have a personal list of people I don't want to work with.
it's not as if anyone at Google tries to enforce the list on other companies.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that your employer is obligated to give you a podium. In general, so that everyone can get along I'd rather not know that my co-worker is a bigot or a Trump supporter, etc.
Had this fellow made his posting outside of his employment, things would have been different. But he chose to do it at work, and because of the way Google's merit system works (your co-workers grade you), he marked himself as someone who would not fairly grade women co-workers. This so demoralized a lot of his women co-workers that many stayed home from work on Monday. And the CEO called off a family vacation in order to come back and deal with the fallout.
Bruce Perens.
I'm so old I remember when tech companies used to hire individuals based on their ability to do the work. How old fashioned!
Victimhood Identity Politics is in direct opposition to the American principle of individualism. Evidently treating people as individuals doesn't offer SJW types enough opportunities for graft or lording over others to make them conform to their far-left culture war politics.
So we get "Protected Classes," because some animals are more equal than others...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Google has become an ideological echo chamber where anyone with centrist or right-of-center views fears to speak their mind.
How ironic, because the right has itself become an ideological echo chamber. I used to be a Republican, back before moderates were "RINO's". The GOP of that era knew that climate change was real, and debated carbon tax vs cap-and-trade as a solution. The modern GOP either thinks that climate change isn't real, or that it's caused by gay marriage.
Gender equality is a complex issue, and is full of people talking past each other, so I expect little progress to be made anytime soon. Women should feel completely free to join male-dominated fields like programming and science, just as men should feel free to join female-dominated fields like nursing and teaching.
Yes, there is often enough male misogynists, weirdos, and "those guys" in IT that it would make women uncomfortable, and that needs to be nipped in the bud, both for the sake of women and for the sake of business. There are women like that too. People who are jerks in one way are often jerks in other ways too, and those malignant personalities often have deleterious effects on their co-workers irrespective of gender.
But I don't see people fretting about why women aren't working construction jobs, or hauling garbage. That's because even the men working those jobs largely don't *want* to do them. IT isn't hauling the garbage, but it involves long hours, an often stressful work environment, and a relentless grind. Maybe those characteristics aren't as attractive to women as to men. Having worked in IT for 15+ years, it's not attractive to me as a man either. Or maybe women simply have better options.
Maybe 20% women in programming *is* the natural equilibrium. I don't *think* so, but it's possible. Men and women are different, and desire different things. Men desire income (to attract a wife and support a family), while women often prefer jobs that allow them more free time (again to support their family). If you're a woman who desires income, or a man who wants more free time, that's completely fine (I'd definitely prefer more free time over a pay raise), but it's not the average response.
TL;DR: People are all different. Be kind to one another. Don't be a dick.
"Although political affiliation is a protected class according to California labor law"
Yeah.
In the current political climate this doesn't matter AT ALL. NOT ONE BIT.
California universities have been tolerating violent, physically violent attacks against speakers, visitors, guests to their campuses, violence in reaction to their professed political affiliations, violence justified by student, faculty, and others NOT AFFILIATED WITH THESE UNIVERSITIES by THEIR political affiliations.
This is not limited to California, but to recite that California law declares political affiliation a 'protected class', that is, political association is by law in California protected and claimed to be a right of the people to participate in, express, and speak freely without threat of suppression, is not merely disingenuous, it is an affront and insult to those who have suffered actual physical injury because those with opposing views would not tolerate their speaking.
What? Google fires an employee for speaking their mind. Students and others at Berkeley physically assault people gathering to protest these suppressions of free political speech. In California. Some were arrested. And the attitude that contrary speech should be fought against, literally fought against, seems to be spreading.
The truth is, in California, there is a coalition of political groups agreeing that contrary speech can and SHOULD be suppressed and prevented, by physical violence if they choose to. And this is happening nationwide. Worldwide.
And it is justified by the 'greater good'.
The political philosophy that claims to be tolerant, inclusive, caring, and above all better, is the one that espouses violent response to their opposition. This philosophy is led to this by leaders worldwide, unapologetic in their goals and tactics.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
and that Google employees who discriminate against members of protected classes will be terminated.
So firing that guy may or may not have gone overboard a bit. But what do you expect? After all, they just got under fire for not protecting protected classes from discrimination.
Are they supposed to create a work environment more friendly to women or not?
bickerdyke
Over my 20+ year career as an IT Support contractor, I've kept a blacklist of recruiters that I refused to deal with. Tek Systems, Robert Half and Microsoft tops my blacklist.
Tek Systems always call you in for an interview, are more interested in who you interviewed with previously than your qualifications, and never offer a job after repeated interviews.
The San Jose office for Robert Half have recruiters who always get a better job for themselves than trying to help you get a job. I went through six recruiters in three month because of the turnover.
Microsoft requires that the hiring manager considers five applicants even though he plans to hire his drinking buddy. During a six week period in 2005, I had five Microsoft recruiters leading me by the nose for jobs that went to drinking buddies.
I'm starting to think this place is nothing like that warm and friendly work environment they showed us in "The Internship". Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson appear to have just plain lied to us all.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
That right-of-centre manifesto was basically (almost) everything that is offensive in a decent society. The jerk whined about how right-wingers were being treated "unfairly" and in almost the same breath, he was very anti-diversity. In particular, the guy is breathtakingly sexist. He's practically a posterchild for all the things that are wrong with brogrammer culture. And this is despite the other anti-diveristy biases that *already* exist at Google, such as ageism.
While there are a couple valid points buried in that joke of an manifesto, they are completely buried in the mouth-frothing idiocy. The guy was, quite bluntly, an asshole, and I'm glad he was fired. Also, like a cliche right-winger, the concept of irony is completely lost on him.
Complaining that your own narrow-minded, blatantly sexist viewpoint isn't accepted, is NOT an example of the "liberals" being hypocritical. That's the equivalent of complaining that a criminal should not be punished for conforming to "alternative laws".
So protected speech doesn't merit legal protection in California?
REALLY?
Again, illiberal, authoritarian shit like this, coming out of what's supposed to be the most liberal place on the planet should surprise nobody.
"Think differently, just like me, OR ELSE!"
So, instead of a tolerant, level-headed push to better and broaden society, we have a bunch of bitchy, socially maladjusted children pushing darwinian progressivism, group-think, intolerance and and the kind of antisocial interaction you see in nasty little grade school students.
And California isn't just "okay" with this, it wants the entire fucking state to be this goddamn crazy.
Then they wonder why people are praying for an earthquake or secession to take these fucknuts off our hands...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"In additional screenshots, one Google employee declared his intent to quit if Damore were not fired, and another said that he would refuse to work with Damore in any capacity".
Those are the people who should be fired.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Man, the more we learn about people who work at Google, the more we learn it sucks like everywhere else. I can't imagine the pro-PC going on at Apple, with a gay CEO at the top - not that there's anything wrong with that - unless there is.
Me? I'm just glad I have a boss that's okay with me wasting a few minutes every hour posting on Sla{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
#DeleteFacebook
Excuse Me? The Libertarian "Meritocracy" that is Silicon Valley is already significantly right-of-center. If you find your views are to the right of the laissez-faire CEOs, vulture capitalists and wannabe entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley, then you are not a centrist or even right-of-center, you a full-on right-wing extremist. I'm not saying you can't express your views (no matter how distasteful), but don't pretend to be a centrist.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Most places that I've worked has had pretty strict prohibitions on discussing politics or religion in the workplace, no matter what flavor of those things is involved. For good and obvious reasons, I think -- such discussions can only lead to grief and strife among people who would otherwise be able to work productively together. I'm a bit surprised that Google allows it.
Also, I'm not clear on what is meant by "blacklist". Typically, that means a list of people who are ineligible for (whatever) that is distributed within an organization and everyone is expected to adhere to.
But the article makes it sound like something rather different: individuals deciding that they can't work with other individuals. This is pretty normal. I know that in most places that I've worked, there have been people that I would go to great lengths to avoid interacting with, and in a managerial role, there have been people who I would not accept on my team because of personality issues.
Is that a "blacklist"? I don't think so. I think it's more about wanting to have teams that can function well together. Being able to get along well in a team is as important as technical skill.
White males are not a protected class, ever.
Not as a class based on those attributes. But as TFS states, political affiliation is a protected class in California (and other states). Religious expression is also protected. Just join a church that wears those pointy white hats and the Venn diagram of members and white males is a near perfect match.
Have gnu, will travel.
Google is an almost 20-year-old company with about sixty thousand* employees. It is not the little startup we all fell in love with in the late 90s. All kinds of people work there now, many of them are *gasp* ordinary, average, humans, the same as you'll find in any large old company. It is not a pixie-dust-fueled fairyland where everyone always gets along.
* 57,100, according to Wikipedia, as of Q2, 2015.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Yes there is, if you are a Manager.
Managers working at a Company have legal obligations that individual contributors don't have. Just keeping a list like this (never mind acting on it) exposes your Employer to some bad legal consequences.
I've often had to deal with people that my coworkers didn't want to deal with.
When I did help desk, I got the users who wanted to rant and rave for 15 minutes. While they're ranting and raving, I'm quietly fixing their problem in the background. They're often shocked that I did fix their problem — and raved to management that I was a miracle worker.
As a lead video game tester, I had the older testers who were married with kids and/or grandkids. Older testers want to be listened to and their ideas for testing taken seriously. People skills that younger lead testers haven't acquired yet.
The interview process is protected against blacklisting:
1050. Any person, or agent or officer thereof, who, after having discharged an employee from the service of such person or after an employee has voluntarily left such service, by any misrepresentation prevents or attempts to prevent the former employee from obtaining employment, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
1051. Except as provided in Section 1057, any person or agent or officer thereof, who requires, as a condition precedent to securing or retaining employment, that an employee or applicant for employment be photographed or fingerprinted by any person who desires his or her photograph or fingerprints for the purpose of furnishing the same or information concerning the same or concerning the employee or applicant for employment to any other employer or third person, and these photographs and fingerprints could be used to the detriment of the employee or applicant for employment is guilty of a misdemeanor.
1052. Any person who knowingly causes, suffers, or permits an agent, superintendent, manager, or employee in his employ to commit a violation of sections 1050 and 1051, or who fails to take all reasonable steps within his power to prevent such violation is guilty of a misdemeanor.
1053. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent an employer or an agent, employee, superintendent or manager thereof from furnishing, upon special request therefor, a truthful statement concerning the reason for the discharge of an employee or why an employee voluntarily left the service of the employer. If such statement furnishes any mark, sign, or other means conveying information different from that expressed by words therein, such fact, or the fact that such statement or other means of furnishing information was given without a special request therefor is prima facie evidence of a violation of sections 1050 to 1053.
What happened, I thought we were all end-of-life curmudgeons, not 15 year olds just entering the workforce.
Every single person ever keeps a "blacklist" of people they will not work with. There are many reasons one could find themselves on said list, many real, many petty. Maybe a person...
- were a client that didn't pay up for work done
- were a subcontractor that didn't do the work
- were constantly going on about their child/dog/cat
- drank too much during office hours
- smelled
- their food smelled
- kept going on about something political, no matter the spectrum
- you just don't like their face
- they stole your lunch money
- have an annoyING valley-girl/boy vocAL afflectiON
If you're freelancing, you just don't deal with them. If you're in a team/corporate environment, you avoid them. Welcome to life. Can't wait till you discover that you get free television channels by using an antenna (in most parts of the US). Get off my lawn and all that.
"I refuse to work with so and so because of ___" or "I'll go through the motions of working with so and so but I won't put in my best effort because of ___" are a fact of life.
It's just most people keep these things in their head and off the record until they become an issue.
"Mental blacklists" are okay as long as you are open with your boss about the reasons once they become an issue and you are willing to resign on the spot if your manager tells you that you have to work with someone anyway because your reason isn't acceptable to the company. A co-worker who constantly sabotages projects is usually a good reason to honor an "I don't want to work with him" ultimatum. On the flip side, a co-worker who happens to be of a certain gender, race, or religion you have an issue with is a good reason for your boss to accept your resignation.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
We are making regular additions to Sundar's List for all collective CrimeThinkers: Classical Liberals, Meritocratic Libertarians, Republicans, Christians, Moderates, associated FreeThinkers, Heteronormatives, Cis gender caucasian-males, Leftists refusing to toe the line, as well as scientists discussing inconvenient biological facts. We read your contacts, your email, your queries, your financial transactions, and shortly, your thoughts.
Dissent will not be tolerated
DoublePlus Love,
Danielle Brown
Commissar of GoodThink
ThinkPol, Google Corp
P.S. Support our Hillary2020 Campaign
TBH my Penis is too large to accurately hit the keys I want so it really doesn't count as an extra digit to speed up my typing. If anything, I would spend more time hitting the backspace.
Don't see how else having a dick would help when programming.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Regardless of the reason, California is an "At Will" employment state. This means anyone can be fired, for any reason, at any time. When someone is dumb enough to violate the corporate code of conduct, the firing is insanely easy, and entirely justified. He can sue all he wants. I expect Google will not roll over on this, and make him the poster child for why you should pay attention to the employee handbook.
For anyone unclear on why what he wrote wasn't the best idea, substitute the word "black", for the word "woman".
"Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."
A formal "blacklist" of employees on record is just foolish. Performance reports are one thing (and confidential) but a personal preferences blacklist isn't wise. Anyone who kept this sort of list on any team of mine would be of serious concern to me for two reasons:
1. their clear lack of judgement because if such a list were discovered it would be damming to management and to co-workers.
2. It would show an inability to be flexible professionally. Personal politics are exactly that: Personal. If that can't be kept outside the office then that person by definition is not being a professional.
We all have to work with peers we don't like at some point. Working with people we like is nice, but we are in a office to do a job. Either to earn a paycheck or perhaps something more noble or altruistic. (More are the former)
Very few offices I know will tolerate "not working with" any co-worker unless that co-worker had committed acts that violated basic comfort standards for the office, like abusive verbal behaviour, hazing or stuff like that. To me it's a wonder that a group of presumably intelligent people like those employed at Google would be doing anything like this in a matter that was easily verified.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
This would not be an issue if the American people would demand the anti-trust laws be enforced and companies like Alphabet broken up into pieces. The fools that continue to buy into bogus marketing like "do no evil" are part of the problem for not seeking alternatives.
As an addition to the filtering available, I propose Slashdot allow users to filter out based on specific screen names. A blacklist if you will. I've already got several names of crackpots in mind, and no doubt people will have me on their lists. Win-win.
I've been a programmer for 25 years, my ex-wife is one of the best programmers I know, and I would also say I have worked with very few weak female programmers. The reason the number of women in CS in North America is low and the reason the numbers never recovered after the dot com bust is job stability. Women are just as good as men at CS, they are just as good or better at staying with jobs they don't enjoy. However, they do not enjoy job instability. This is why small startups are skewed even more male than large companies, this is why only women who are truly good stay in CS (because they don't fear ever being unemployed), and it is also why women who are good at STEM will gravitate to doctors, lawyers and other engineering fields that have more stable employment.
All the people who studied CS 20 or more years ago. Think about all the women in your classes and in your first jobs. How many are still writing code? Did they leave because of sexism? My ex experienced mind numbing stupidity towards women's needs but very little sexism from engineers - secretaries and HR is another story.
White males are not a protected class, ever.
Not as a class based on those attributes. But as TFS states, political affiliation is a protected class in California (and other states). Religious expression is also protected. Just join a church that wears those pointy white hats and the Venn diagram of members and white males is a near perfect match.
No, that's not a near perfect match; virtually all pointy-hat-wearers are white males, but only a minority of white males wear pointy-hats.
The easiest explanation is that he didn't read the paper and instead is parroting what he read in his internet bubble. Occam.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Get these managers to reveal their blacklists. If the percentage of genders or races or ages of people in their blacklists deviates substantially from the percentage of genders, races, and ages of people working at Google, then "obviously" they must be discriminating on the basis of gender or race or age, and they need to be fired to "protect diversity in the workplace." Managers whose blacklist percentages deviate only slightly from that of the Google worker population need to be sent to diversity training and re-education courses.
Working as a tech manager for 20 years, I've seen the misogyny and sexual harassment first hand. There were times I had to keep lists of who would work together and who needed to be separated. That is not a "blacklist" unless you're a little snowflake looking for a reason to be offended. That just means you have a large organization and there's always that talented but socially inept developer who has the social skills of a Neanderthal. You try to keep them on, try to work with them on the social aspects. Sometimes it works, most times not.
I did notice there tended to be cultural influences at work in some cases. I'd also argue that the current political climate has increased sensitivity to people who come across as "pussy grabbers."
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
It makes me wonder how Google manages to maintain itself technology-wise if it has no traditional hackers among its low-level workers? Traditional hackers tend to be libertarian, which Google may mistake for conservative. And Google tends to scare or insult such people away — it once offered programmer Zed Shaw a junior sysadmin position. Maybe Google is propelled by sheer inertia or is being propped by Wall Street to make Silicon Valley look like the place is still attractive. Who knows? It certainly can't be its technology when it is starting to look like a brightly-painted sunshine-and-fresh-air leftist version of IBM.
--- Andy West http://andywest.org
6. Use Newslookup.com for news instead of Google News.
Just not against, "Protected Classes".
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Go tell the Spartans, oh stranger passing by.
That here, obedient to their laws, we died.
Bruce Perens.
I fear that in the real world, the protections around age and any other special category tend to make it more difficult for the "protected" people to get a job in the first place.
If 20 people apply and only one gets hired, it's hard for a person to make a lawsuit claiming he/she was rejected just for being in a category, so there's little down-side for not hiring the protected category person. But if the person is hired and doesn't work out for any reason, the company has to worry about a lawsuit for laying the person off. So there's no down-side for not-hiring and a possible bad down-side for hiring.
Thus my fear that these protections will tend to hurt the very people they were intended to help.
I don't think perfection is attainable. But IMHO the best possible situation would be if everyone had a level playing field (no protections for me because of my age, no protections for you because you are a minority or whatever, etc.) and just hire based on fit.
The history of Silicon Valley includes people with no obvious qualifications getting hired (back in the wilder early days) and going on to do fantastic work. The qualifications are not what makes a good worker, the person is. But the more red tape and danger surrounds firing someone, the more qualifications-oriented the hiring process becomes, as the companies strive to never hire someone who won't work out.
Companies like Google reject lots of excellent people, quite late in the hiring process. It's far better for them to reject lots of good people than to let even one bad person in. Again, I don't think perfection is possible, but I think giving more people a chance to prove themselves in the actual work would do a better job of finding the best people.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
I also got a blacklist of idiots in the company that I defer to my colleagues.
gweihir -- many DID read his paper. What lots of us dudes here miss is that when one of us leads with "women are more anxiety prone" it is interpreted as "women are disabled" and then we lose ability to engage a dialectic with other side. It's like trying to pickup a girl at a bar and saying "wow, you're the absolutely the most captivating woman here, but that outfit really doesn't work on your body." Both may be true, effort still FAILS. I *really* wanna change these people's minds to see our logic. Us dudes gotta walk in their shoes (heels?) for a moment to better understand what is setting them off, rational or not. Look at my other posts for some approaches that I posit. Rock on.
Yo ArmoredDragon -- I too agree entirely with the paper. However when the counterparty reads "women are more anxiety prone" they translate "women are disabled" or "women are inferior." There is a higher quality approach to arguing for our rational, logical, fact-based side on population talent and preference distribution. I respectfully ask that you look at my other posts here and at the first 1000+ commented article on a tactic that could better get our point across and our ideas into the heads of the backlashers. I really want to upgrade the rationality here and think many of us dudes are largely deaf to what is causing the chicks to go all "RHEEEEEEEE!" Pls forgive me not writing it here. I already wrote it a bunch of times and am taking up too many pixels already. Rock on my fellow honkey mofo. :]
Ah yes. That is certainly happening. Also, people read "neurotic" when what was actually there is "Neuroticism", something everybody has a score on. Also, these are all statistical scores, with large areas of overlap and that was stressed in the original text.
I do not think people that read a text like that can actually partake in this discussion in any meaningful way, as they are unable to see facts and degrees, to them everything is either black or white and often completely misunderstood as a consequence. As such, anything they contribute will make the situation worse. At Google, the situation seems to be pretty bad already, and apparently for this reason.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It is about time the hypocrisy of corporate America was exposed.
I'm a longtime Google manager. Here's what I wrote on an internal Google mailing list:
Start your own business and take the clients. The writing's on the wall. The boss made his choice.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Ok, unpopular opinion time:
I for one would love if we could all stop arguing about the details of he said/she said, and have an interesting discussion about the hard questions.
You put the spacebar on the bottom of the keyboard tray.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Adaptec - Indian CEO Subramanian Sundaresh fired.
AIG (signed outsourcing deal in 2007 in Europe with Accenture Indian frauds, collapsed in 2009)
AirBus (Qantas plane plunged 650 feet injuring passengers when its computer system written by India disengaged the auto-pilot).
Apple - R&D CLOSED in India in 2006.
Apple - Foreign guest worker "Helen" Hung Ma caused the disastrous MobileMe product rollout.
Australia's National Australia Bank (Outsourced jobs to India in 2007, nationwide ATM and account failure in late 2010).
Bell Labs (Arun Netravalli took over, closed, turned into a shopping mall)
Boeing Dreamliner ES software (written by HCL, banned by FAA)
Bristol-Myers-Squibb (Trade Secrets and documents stolen in U.S. by Indian national guest worker)
Caymas - Startup run by Indian CEO, French director of dev, Chinese tech lead. Closed after 5 years of sucking VC out of America.
ComAir crew system run by 100% Indian IT workers caused the 12/25/05 U.S. airport shutdown when they used a short int instead of a long int
Dell - call center (closed in India because Premji's conmen don't even know how to use telephones, let alone computers)
Delta call centers (closed in India because Premji's conmen don't even know how to use telephones, let alone computers)
Fannie Mae- Hired large numbers of Indians, had to be bailed out. Indian logic bomb creator found guilty.
GM - Was booming in 2006, signed $300 million outsourcing deal with Wipro that same year, went bankrupt 3 years later
HSBC ATMs (software taken over by Indians, failed in 2006)
Intel Whitefield processor project (cancelled, Indian staff canned)
Lehman (Spectramind software bought by Wipro, ruined, trashed by Indian programmers)
Microsoft - Employs over 35,000 H-1Bs. Stock used to be $100. Today it's lucky to be over $25. Not to mention that Vista thing.
Microsoft - Lian Yang, Microsoft-Contracted Engineer, Arrested in Smuggling Plot After Another FBI Sting in Portland in 2010
MIT Media Lab Asia (canceled)
PeopleSoft (Taken over by Indians in 2000, collapsed).
Qantas - See AirBus above
Quark (Alukah Kamar CEO, fired, lost 60% of its customers to Adobe because Indian-written QuarkExpress 6 was a failure)
Rolls Royce (Sent aircraft engine work to India in 2006, engines delayed for Boeing 787, and failed on at least 2 Quantas planes in 2010, cost Rolls $500m).
Skype ( Yarlagadda fired)
State of Indiana $867 billion FAILED IBM project, IBM being sued
State of Texas failed IBM project.
Sun Micro (Taken over by Indian and Chinese workers in 2001, collapsed, has to be sold off to Oracle).
United - call center (closed in India because Premji's conmen don't even know how to use telephones, let alone computers)
Virgin Atlantic (software written in India caused cloud IT failure)
Visium Asset Management - Sanjay Valvani Insider trading
World Bank (Indian fraudsters BANNED for 3 years because they stole data).
Casteism