Google fires employee who leaked memo on raises

[throwaway1675]

I work at Google, and I am really happy that someone got punished for leaking this memo. A firing like this increases accountability and shows that loyalty and keeping confidentiality mean something. When it is done fairly and with cause, firing an employee can make a huge positive difference in an organization. The best situation is where a problem employee who was lowering the morale of others is fired.

[loewenskind]

You sound really naive and honestly it might do you good to get fired so you learn a simple life lesson: Google is a company that only exists to make money. That's its sole purpose. It's not your friend, it's not your family. You don't work their because they enjoy your company. You work there because the right people assume that you provide more value than your salary costs (i.e. they make a profit on their exchange with you). You need to grow past this "loyalty" nonsense.

It's true that I wouldn't personally go releasing information like this, but that's because I can make more money if I'm known as someone who doesn't air company laundry, not because of some misplaced and immature sense of "loyalty".

Ironically, the leak probably helped Google as some good talent out there never gave them a second look because they have a reputation of not being competitive with their salaries. They make billions so there is no valid excuse for paying less than places who only make hundreds of millions.

[seldo]

Wow, that just seems kind of mean. Obviously the notice at the top says otherwise, but there's really nothing very sensitive in this memo and it was so broadly distributed there's no way it wouldn't have found its way out eventually.

Why, personally, is your morale lowered by knowing people leak stuff? I just don't see get it.

[ajaimk]

Honestly, I'd fire an employee who leaks a memo out. Not for doing it. But for being stupid enough to get caught.

[variety]

Also, the fact that they didn't hide their tracks indicates that they most likely aware completely unaware that they might be causing any harm to the company.

A lapse in judgement, maybe -- but if so, the appropriate response would be a private reprimand, not a bullet to the head.

Especially considering that no conceivable harm has come to Google as a result of this leaking, and that it's impossible to keep news like this secret in the Valley, anyway.

[variety]

So your point is that it's ok to leak internal memos or commit other acts of sabotage, as long as you don't get caught?

[kragen]

Silicon Valley owes much of its existence to people sharing information between companies: at the Homebrew Computer Club, at Hackers, at First Tuesdays, at user groups, on tours, at parties, in lectures. Some of that sharing was officially sanctioned, and some of it was not. It's a special part of its culture, and I think accounts for much of its innovation. Apple has always been an exception.

Google grew up in the shadow of much bigger, better-funded competitors: Microsoft, then later Yahoo. I speculate, without having asked anybody, that this accounts for the culture of fanatical secrecy, outstripping even that of Apple, that has enveloped the company since its early days, and which I think now is a permanent part of Google's culture, even though the bigger, better-funded competitors are now the underdogs, unable to execute.

This firing is a symptom of that tradition of secrecy.

I fear that the next half-century of the Valley will be poisoned by this, because Google is today's Fairchild, Mountain View's Microsoft. Every new startup will be backed by Googlers or Xooglers, founded by Xooglers, or at least advised by [GX]ooglers. So this poisonous culture of secrecy, which kills innovation, will fill the Valley like a vile miasma, along with the many wonderful things that come from Google experience.

[gregable]

This may all be true, but the particular example we are discussing does not support your point. I don't see how whether or not another company knows who received raises has an rats ass to do with innovation.

[jonhendry]

Silicon Valley also owes much of its existence to the defense industry.

[tszming]

Google is going to fire the employee who leaked the firing.

[rdtsc]

... all in a determined effort to increase employee morale.

[sliverstorm]

We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

...

Møøse trained by YUTTE HERMSGERVØRDENBRØTBØRDA

Special Møøse Effects OLAF PROT

Møøse Costumes SIGGI CHURCHILL

[aubonpanzer]

Google is going to fire Google for hiring the employee that leaked the firing of the employee who leaked the raises.

[variety]

I'd love to hire that person.

[mmastrac]

Is Google using some subtle permutation on every version of the email sent out?

All it would take would be swapping "--" for "...", "ie"/"i.e."/"eg"/"e.g." You should probably compare your local copy of an email with someone else before leaking it!

[rflrob]

"Hey Bob, I'm thinking about leaking my email... can I diff it with yours?"

The other problem I can see is that there's only 5 or 6 of those points, which would be enough to narrow down the leaker, but not ID them outright. Probably easier (if more evil) to check all the outgoing mail in gmail.

[vaksel]

i doubt it's that complicated, they have full control of the mailservers, I bet the person just didn't think leaking the information was that big of a deal.

[tlrobinson]

Or, you know, run a giant grep on every mail sent to or from Gmail and internal mail over the last 12 hours...

[olalonde]

I doubt there are 23,300 possible permutations. Moreover, I doubt a Googler wouldn't think of this classic before leaking his e-mail. Any other theory? Perhaps no one was fired and it's just link bait?

[chollida1]

With 23,000 employee's that's alot of permutations for a 3 paragraph email.

[variety]

Talk about carrots on a stick.

What underscores the utter ruthlessness of Google's actions is that it's impossible to imagine that the leaker meant any harm at all coming to Google from their what they did. If anything, they were probably nothing if not deeply proud of Google in that moment; and giddily euphoric -- and thought it could only help Google for the world at large to know of its generosity to its employees.

Had they only known.

[tedunangst]

It's hard to imagine what harm would be caused by waiting a day to leak the memo, except for the missed opportunity for the leaker to be the hero. The timing would indicate the leaker's motive was not "hey, our PR department keeps sitting on this awesome news."

[kragen]

Look at the constant media beating Google takes over the leaked, internal "don't be evil" slogan.

[nspiegelberg]

Good thing Google took a hard stance on data protectionism! Wait, where have I heard about data protectionism again?

http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/09/facebook-slaps-google-openn...

[jpwagner]

So was there really an ad smack in the middle of the email?

[staktrace]

Didn't they just redo the AdSense interface? Maybe you can bid for ads on internal memos now.

[joshu]

Or maybe they announced that they dis it just to keep people from doing it in the future.

Not like someone is going to stand up and say that they weren't caught (or at least not till they leave their jobs.)

[patrickgzill]

He probably used his Gmail account ...

[mfukar]

So, to summarize: Google managed to appear more intimidating to any and all its competitors (by giving everyone a 10% raise) and fuck up its public image, all in two days.

Zuckerberg must be laughing his ass off right now.

[adambyrtek]

I don't see how it could possibly affect the public image in a negative way. Google, like any other company who shares a lot of information internally, is very serious about confidentiality. A guy who deliberately leaked a memo clearly marked as "internal only" deserves to be fired, period.

[blueben]

You think Facebook wouldn't fire an employee who leaked confidential internal company information?

[krishna2]

Hmm..If only Yahoo had followed (or would follow) such a procedure!

[there used to be confidential VP-only meetings and information and that would also somehow end up on blogs..imagine that].

[seldo]

I just don't understand why they would care that this information leaked. It's not like they could possibly keep it a secret that every single Googler got a 10% raise at the same time.

[robryan]

Sets a bad precedent, that it's okay just to forward any confidential memos on.

[JoachimSchipper]

Does anyone know if the leaker got paid for revealing this memo? If so, I have little sympathy...

[johnyzee]

Way to destroy the goodwill you just spent millions of dollars on.

[bretthellman]

wait a sec... Is it really a 10% raise? "we're moving a portion of your bonus into your base salary"

[gvb]

The bonus to base salary is an additional change. The 10% raise is discussed in the previous paragraph, and then the bonus change is in the next paragraph, starting with "There's more."

[known]

Do no evil.

[InclinedPlane]

Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked.

[aneth]

If they didn't take action, then "CONFIDENTIAL: INTERNAL ONLY GOOGLERS ONLY (FULL TIME AND PART TIME EMPLOYEES)" would turn into a joke. Now people might listen - or at least leak more carefully.

[michaelhart]

Which leads me to think that this just may be a setting stone to future, more important memos. No sense in scaring them unless they wanted to secure the channel for something else.

[mkarmac]

A somewhat classier, less-heavy-handed approach would have been to simply not give that employee a raise.

[scott_s]

Telling the world that Googlers are all going to be walking around with $1000 cash in their pockets is a threat to their safety.

I think that's a weak argument. First, I doubt Google is literally going to give everyone cash. Second, a 10% pay increase is not a life-changing amount of money.

[atleta]

C'mon... you state that google pays (or intended to pay) the extra bonus in cash (but not the regular salary).