Google Employee Leaks The News That Google Fired Employee Who Leaked Salary Info
from the so-does-this-person-get-fired-too? dept
Google made some news this week for giving all employees a 10% raise and an additional $1,000 bonus. An email was sent to all 25,000 employees announcing this. This is the kind of thing that is bound to leak. It's silly to pretend it won't. But... apparently Google quickly fired the leaker (though, you have to imagine more than one person leaked this). How do we know that the leaker was fired? You guessed it! Another employee leaked it. So now will that person get fired as well, and will we have another leak about the firing of the leaker over the firing of the leaker? Frankly, firing the original leaker seems like overkill. I understand why Google thought it should do that, but really, whoever leaked the email was probably doing it to spread the news about something cool that Google was doing for employees. It seems kinda short-sighted to then fire that person.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's silly because...
I mean, Google is always coming off badly in the media. Finally, we hear a good story about Google, that makes you think good things about them as a company, then then they go and ruin it with the news that they fired the guy for making them look good.
Real smart, 'Googlers'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Google being EVIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(That's the joke.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
With the "Double Irish" dodge, Google puts a larger tax burden on others. Don't you wish that you could pay 2.4% rates? Well, you could, IF The Rich were properly taxed.
Also, it's not surprising that one hand gives and the other fires the leaker. It's consistent with what I believe: employees are engaged in questionable activities (even the open activities are simply spying), and bribed to keep mouths shut (even on supposed good news); a strict discipline was here enforced as example to others for when the more questionable activities need to be covered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
How about taxing EVERYONE at 12 % and be done with it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
cause ppl with less money spend for of there income than the one with more money.
the idea behind income tax is, ppl with higher income have more to spare so tax them, since ppl with lower income often barely have enough money to last them to the next pay check.
no go tell the guy making the decisions to increase his own taxes instead on increasing tax on others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
Simply tax everyone on what they consume. Not only does it make taxation more equittable, but the savings on Tax compliance (Filing Taxes, audits, Tax preparers) is nothing to sneeze at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
Makes no difference, the purchasing power per dollar is the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
Where's the incentive to improve oneself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
She can do menial jobs (dishwashing, etc), but she will never be able to move up...ever. She's the kind that will never make even 12k....but still needs to be able to take care of herself to live....esp if I get hit by a bus (I need to stop using that analogy, since I met someone that was hit by a bus and lived...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
You're suggesting that for someone who is satisfied with a career as a dishwasher, a higher income tax rate would motivate them to go to college and start a new career?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incentive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
The people that own 90% of eveything need to pay 90% of the taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
A flat income tax (say, flat 10% or 12%) has the people making 90% of the nation's income pay 90% of the income tax.. see, fair scaling like this is what a flat percentage tax does inherently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
Correct, however calling that "fair" ignores its regressive nature. As has been mentioned, 10% off the top is a lot harder to deal with when you're just scraping by than it is when you're deciding where to buy your third home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
every time it comes up, a certain group of LARGE slow lumbering politicians that never forget just sort of dismiss it without much fanfaire and on the other side the group of politicians that are a bunch of jackasses shriek scream and turn into a collective group of doomsayers saying that it would destroy the US economy (which of course they never offer any sort of proof of that, because it wont).
flat tax all the way across for everyone with no loopholes is the way to go... too bad it will never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
corporate tax
A lower tax bill for a company means:
A) more money to reinvest in their business (buildings, more employees, better employee compensation, etc)
B) more profits to pass along to shareholders (dividends, rising share price, etc)
C) lower prices of their goods and/or services
It seems like people view corporations as these big pits that money goes into but doesn't come out. It also doesn't seem like we think critically about who actually pays for the taxes imposed on businesses. They simply build it into their cost structure and it is the consumer that ultimately pays that tax, not some entity called 'a corporation' ... essentially they're turned into a shadow tax collector.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monty Python'esque
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what public companies do. You take this shit very seriously. I doubt the old private Google would do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
CONFIDENTIAL: INTERNAL ONLY
GOOGLERS ONLY (FULL TIME AND PART TIME EMPLOYEES)
...that concludes with the signature of the company head, and who then proceeds to send the message outside the company despite the notice, has brought misfortune on himself by exhibiting much more than just poor judgment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not defending google
Then those companies know exactly how much higher to make their offers on job listing boards almost defeating the purpose of raises to have retention.
Not saying it is right, but I kind of get why they did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evil?
Google's management was just enforcing company policy. How is that evil? Please explain it to me without resorting to name calling or ridicule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay increase/bonus Spun as cool? Huh?!
Why does everyone assume that Google was doing something nice and good? Weren't we reading a year ago how Google pays its employees a below average salary and so this is simply moving them closer to being average? And was probably done to increase retention? Nothing more? Why has it been spun as Google doing good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason to fire the leaker
On Google's part, there's a difference between not launching an apple-style SS investigation into a leak and using police to enter and search private residences (evil) and a firing flagrant leaker who either doesn't care enough to hide what he's doing or is too stupid to hide it. Especially at Google where you basically have to qualify for MENSA membership to get a job I'd imagine the 'Googler' that did this clearly knew what he was doing and just didn't care.
_POSSIBLY_ you could be dealing with a case of hubris, but if you're telling everyone you leaked you're just asking for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]