[MattLaroche]

One thing this article doesn't point out: it wasn't Google who argued that the supposedly lower salary was offset by food - it was a person (sure, an employee or contractor of Google). Perhaps this person was reading from a recruiting script sanctioned by management. But it wasn't the big overarching company that made this argument to the author - it was a person.

Recruiters often have the wrong incentive structure. They have numbers to hit - and so they use classic high pressure tactics (exploding offers, "accept the offer now" durring the offer, misinformation, tricks) to convince people to accept. It's unfortunate that the recruiter's goals don't line up with the applicant's, but it's true. How one fixes that isn't obvious to me tonight.

I also hate the victim mentality when an employee no longer feels like they're getting what they want from their employer. If you don't like what you're getting, if the economic transaction is no longer acceptable, leave. (I respect employment laws, I think everyone should treat each other, I don't condone abusive behavior or manipulation) Employees aren't victims trapped by evil employers, they're participants in an economic transaction. If the transaction is no longer as profitable as one at another company, then that doesn't make the employer bad or wrong, it's simply time to move on.

(I worked at Google for 5 years, I left in April 2011. And when I went back for lunch one day in November with former coworkers, I had the best meal I'd had since I left.)

[bigiain]

"One thing this article doesn't point out: it wasn't Google who argued that the supposedly lower salary was offset by food - it was a person (sure, an employee or contractor of Google)."

I'm really intrigued at how often this "excuse" is trotted out, almost word-for-word, whenever "a person who works at Google" gets caught doing something sleazy. It's almost as predictable as the first-line call center staff asking you if you've re-booted Windows. In my more suspicious moments, I wonder what the "Google aren't evil, it's just some people who _work_ for Google that do evil shit" apologists are going to say when "the script" they're all reading out of gets posted to PasteBin - complete with Page or Brin or Schimdt's signature at the bottom?

Surely if "do no evil" were and overriding company policy from the top down, "people who work for Google" would knw not do try and pull shit like this?

[nostrademons]

Well, in some way, the corollary of "Google isn't evil, it's just some people who work for Google that do evil shit" is "Google isn't good either, it's just some people who work at Google who do awesome shit."

Which actually, I think, is true. My boss once told me "everybody knows who the subset of people who get shit done is", and in some ways, my loyalty is to them rather than the company as an entity (it just so happens that most of them still work at Google). I mourn whenever we lose another coworker who does awesome stuff. If I were to join Parse, it'd be so I could work with Kevin again, and if I were to join Asana, it'd be so I could work with Jackie again, and if I were to join YCombinator, it'd be so I could learn from PB & company.

I'm guessing that this isn't how most outsiders see Google, since in general people don't claim credit for the work they've done at Google unless they're associated with really big-name projects. But I think there's definitely some truth to the view of a corporation as composed of individuals, some of whom are good and some of whom are bad.

[andrewcooke]

the same people, curiously, never want to attribute the good things to single people. no-one here is saying "it's not google that provides the perks, but the contractors that work in the kitchens". yet the same logic seems to suit them just fine when it's negative.

[MattLaroche]

How is it evil for a recruiter to say "Y'know, we offer a lower salary than you're looking for, but we make up for it in perks!"

And then how is it evil for the food team or corporate finance team to say "We're wasting money in food - literally having every cafe open for breakfast and dinner but only running at 1/3 capacity - so let's cut down on the waste and suggest people walk to the adjacent building for the non-lunch meals!"

What I'm saying is that it wasn't Google upper management making the arguments about food and salary to hire. It was a person. A different person in a different department from the one deciding to cut down on food service.

[bigiain]

Sorry - I was going more for the meta-discussion about the seemingly identical responses seen whenever Google is accused of "do evil" rather than passing any judgement on this specific case.

I do note with interest though that you seem to have now changed the discussion framing from "It wasn't Google - it was a person (who did thing under discussion)" to "How is (thing under discussion) evil?"

And, FWIW, I'd consider a recruiter using "perks" as a salary lever, when said perks are out of both the recruiter's and the job applicant's control, and at the whim of "the food team" or "corporate finance", I'd call that at least "sleazy", though probably falling short of "evil".

Having said that, I'm sure the intended public understanding of the "Do no evil" catchphrase _isn't_ "Do anything and everything that's profitable - up to, but falling just short of a legal definition of 'evil' that we might be held accountable for."

[defen]

The point is that the slow removal of the food perks, according to the Google logic (or the Google employee/contractor, doesn't matter) is literally decreasing employees' pay by 15-20 thousand dollars per year. But it's done in a way that is not really noticeable; or if it is, Google has selected for the type of person who won't complain too much. It's very much a boiling frog situation. Ultimately it's not "wrong" or "against the law" - as you said, if a person finds her present economic situation unviable, she can go elsewhere. But that's a really big step down from their supposed "Do No Evil" policy. Google built up a huge amount of brand equity amongst tech employees; now they appear to be spending it, so it's important that we properly debit their account.

[brown9-2]

This is such an odd argument. The individual in that salary negotiation represents Google The Company and for all intents and purposes, is Google The Company in that negotiation.

Similarly, it is the senior management of Google The Company that sets up and approves the "wrong incentive structure" for their recruiters.