[pydry]

If your job is an ethicist, your company hires you to demonstrate that they are ethical.

If they truly aren't then you either have to sacrifice your integrity or kick up a fuss. Additionally once her integrity is lost she loses market value.

Her market (whitewashing/signaling of ethical behavior of a large company) is an odd one but she behaved it the most rational manner given the circumstances.

Moreover by kicking up a fuss she probably has sacrificed an non disparagement termination bonus. Real $$$. So she's probably not talking shit.

[pen2l]

I agree with all of this, except you miss that she started playing those ultimatum games with her boss, this particular act, let’s be real, is something that gets you fired from most places. There would be a lot of merit to what you’re saying and a lot more sympathy for this woman if she hadn’t made these missteps.

[zepto]

It’s true that ultimatums usually get you fired.

However it’s also true that they can simply be a reflection of an otherwise unworkable situation.

In a regular employment situation, I think that if you get to the point of wanting to issue an ultimatums, it is just an indication that the company is not a good fit for you any longer. On an individual level it’s better to recognize the signal and leave without burning bridges.

However if you role is ‘ethicist’, it is fundamentally your responsibility not to turn a blind eye to or be complicit in unethical processes, so giving an ultimatum may have been the only option available to retain integrity.

I don’t think we can declare these to be ‘missteps’ given her role. Perhaps Google is simply not capable of being ethical, and is going to fire people who challenge that. What would not be a ‘misstep’ under these circumstances?

[pmoriarty]

"she started playing those ultimatum games with her boss"

Is it a game or is it just a negotiation?

[zartar]

My comment was about the 1200 workers who condemned the firing.

There have been similar recent public statements such as MS workers about use of AI for the pentagon, FB employees on content, etc..

Simply I mean the best way to support a wrongfully ousted ethicist would be to leave yourself, rather than keep getting paid by the execs who wronged her.

The work of AI ethics - especially in the vein of Timnit Gebru - is essential. My statement, was one of support for her.

[pydry]

>Simply I mean the best way to support a wrongfully ousted ethicist would be to leave yourself

What are you basing this on? I can think of at least one example where this pressure actually worked (caused google management to reverse course). ICE contracts, I think?

Your strategy would seem to be more in Google management's favor - clearing out all the people who might kick up a fuss when they try to engage in unethical behavior.

[zartar]

A typical recruiting fee is 30 percent of an employees annual salary.

A typical onboarding process takes weeks or months of paid employee time.

Employees value to a company increases substantially over time due to knowledge of culture, process, etc.

Executives care a lot when company actions cause employees to leave. Human capital is one of the essential ingredients to a successful company.

These things are real money and execs care about the impact on bottom line.

This is typically the most important aspect of an exit interview. In my experience, the employee's reason for leaving is thoroughly examined.

Does "condemning an action" have the same impact?