backtop


Print 80 comment(s) - last by Baked.. on May 21 at 11:50 AM


Google offices in Zurich  (Source: adrozdov.com)

  (Source: adrozdov.com)

  (Source: adrozdov.com)

  (Source: adrozdov.com)
Google has one of the most employee pampering policies, but its losing star employees; what's happening?

Google's top 3 executives have pledged to stay with the company for two more decades.  It's not hard to imagine why with the company's rampant success and amazing perks.

Like a tropical paradise, the Google workplace environment sounds like some fantasy or flight of one's imagination.  Employees get haute cuisine lunches cooked by renowned chefs.  Childcare and swimming spas all come free as well.  The workplace features art and brings in guest speakers like Barack Obama, which whether you love them or hate them, promise to yield above average water cooler chat.  And tech training sessions are in no short supply.

Perhaps most famously, employees are able to devote one day a week, or 20 percent of their total work time, to anything they want.  This famous perk supposedly has yielded many of the current Google products since its inception.

Despite the plush accoutrements, all is not well in paradise.  Google is finding to its astonishment, that for the first time in its history, employees are leaving in droves.  At Microsoft, or especially at Apple (notorious for its high turnover in upper management), this would seem business as usual.  But for Google this is strange and frightening unfamiliar territory.

President of global communications and public affairs Elliot Schrage jumped ship to work at Facebook this last week.  Just two months prior Sheryl Sandberg had left to become the number two executive at Facebook.  And in April off to EMI went Google CIO Doug Merrill.

And it’s not just executives -- its regular employees as well.  Google is trying to downplay losses, saying that it’s replacing anything that it lost in IQ and is not suffering from some sort of brain power sapping.  Maybe so, Google is still one of the most desired workplaces.  However, the departures beg the question -- what gives?

Some analysts say that employees may feel that Google is trying too hard.  While company dodge ball games, foosball tables, and bright color schemes may be what some dream of at work, analysts say that when the company actively promotes such features, it can risk seeming obnoxious. 

Valleywag, a tech gossip blog states, "What makes [some tech workspaces] so bad? Some offend with exposed fluorescent lights, gray cubicles and a dystopian-corporate environment. But others, with their pseudo-hip graffiti, kindergarten toys and plastic decorations—all in a desperate attempt to seem 'Internet-y'—come off even worse."

Other analysts say that coddling its employees has helped Google retain its employees for years, but now is helping to lose them.  The truth is, these parties say, the kids someday want to grow up.  Perks such as free-laundry service, free food, and bouncy ball chairs (yes, Google employees get those) may be fun for a time, but eventually employees feel the desire to advance to a position of higher leadership at a more "adult" company, which is easy due to Google's track record of success.

Says Aaron Schwartz on his blog Raw Thought, "Google hires programmers straight out of college and tempts them with all the benefits of college life. Indeed, as the hiring brochures stress, the place was explicitly modeled upon college… But as the gleam wears off the Google, I can see why it's no place anyone would want to hang around for that long."

Other analysis from critics center around stock options which are less bountiful these days, though still strong.  However, perhaps the most logical explanation to why employees are leaving is one centered on the nature of the actual work. As some analysts aptly point out, most Google employees are changing the world, or creating a brand new product rather merely making iterative minor refinements on an existing one.  Under all the layers of "fun", the fact is Google is a lot like other tech companies, just a bit brawnier in the brains department.

Chuck Pappalardo, principal and managing director at Trilogy Search, an executive recruiting firm states, "A lot changes as a company becomes really successful and goes from being entrepreneurial to institutional. Sometimes the most fun part of a company like that is not working there when it is already a success, but growing it from the beginning. When a company reaches that point, some people will naturally transition out."

Sarcasm slinging pundit Fake Steve Jobs similarly states that the fun just leads up to a big disappointing realization about the true nature of the work.  Says Fake Jobs, "[Google] makes a big deal of only hiring these super-high-IQ kiddies and the fact is that most of them truly are smart, but then you put them into this horribly dull and easy drone work on AdWords and AdSense and they're all bored to tears and totally disappointed because they really really really thought they were going to do something meaningful with their lives and now they're just worker bees--pampered worker bees, sure, but still..."

Others point out that many of departing employees are going to companies similar to Google, but merely younger and more new and exciting.  Three early employees left to found the microblog site Twitter; three more to launch the video sharing site Ooyala.  Forty employees have left for Facebook, accounting for 10 percent of Facebook's staff at the last count.

Others take their winnings and quit working tech altogether and turn to investment.  Says Pappalardo, "A lot of people made a lot of money working there, and took some level of stock and there's a lot of cool, interesting stuff to do with this. Silicon Valley is probably the best place in the world for inventors with ideas, so it's not about leaving Google because you're unhappy, but because you're ready for the next big thing,"

With all the ruminations on the departures, an interesting aside to consider is provided by Phillip Lessen at Google Blogoscoped.  Lessen points out that Google may eventually acquire some its former employees startups in a move much like the circle of life.  What are the potential problems with such a move?  Lessen warns, "Any such acquisition may be enough of a demoralizing factor to those who work at Google that it could be risky for Google's management to consider; it may almost equal telling their employees that the best way to achieve something at Google is to quit Google."

It’s a humorous observation, perhaps; but quite astute and certainly a sign of the changing times for Google.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Google
By Reflex on 5/15/2008 4:47:22 PM , Rating: 5
Being in an area where Google does a lot of hiring, and having experience myself in several large technology companies in the area, although not Google for reasons I'll explain below, I do understand that their retention is going to be bad over the long term.

There are several problems I see with Google's hiring policies, for instance they hire exclusively among college grads, prefferably new grads, and prefferably from Stanford. Pretty much if your a comp-sci grad from Stanford you have a automatic job at Google. The problems with this strategy are:

a) The tech industry is still relatively young. The best talant often was self-taught or certified via independent training, very little of the real talant at this point came from the colleges(although this is slowly changing)

b) By focusing on new grads they lose experience, their sales pitch is 'Its just like college, but with a paycheck!' which sounds great to a 22 year old, but as the article alludes, isn't so nice when your 30, have a wife and two kids, and really don't want to collaborate with your co-workers at 2AM because that is when they are at their 'most productive'. Suddenly 9-5 'normal' jobs get a whole hell of a lot more attractive.

c) While Stanford is no slouch, they really are not the best college for tech grads. MIT and CalTech both beat them hands down. While thier Stanford focus is advantageous to Stanford grads, it serves as a disincentive to highly qualified grads at other schools, not simply because they won't be noticed as easily, but also because it confers the idea that once you are hired you will always be a second class employee due to your alma-mater. Why would someone choose that when IBM, Microsoft, Intel, etc etc would value them without such bias?

Another aspect of the 'fun' environment is to encourage employees to make work thier life. And discourage privacy among them consequently. Pretty much everyone at Google knows thier Boss' hobbies, schedule, etc, as well as those of their immediate co-workers. No one ever really 'gets away from it all' there, its very difficult to accomplish in any meaningful fashion, work is always present. Other aspects, like their 'glass walls' policy, where management and any other offices have glass walls are sold as a way to make everyone accessable, but they also function to make everyone accountable. Browsing the web while you wait on something? Everyone can see you, including your boss. For a student used to a professor watching, this is no big deal, but for a professional with experience, this is quite simply demeaning and unprofessional.

As mentioned, their salaries are a bit under industry norms, however so are Microsoft's and Intel's. People work at these companies to gain the resume checkbox, not to get rich. Honestly after the IPO, most of the instant millionaires are already made, the rest will have to work a few decades.




RE: Google
By Oregonian2 on 5/15/2008 6:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By focusing on new grads they lose experience, their sales pitch is 'Its just like college, but with a paycheck!' which sounds great to a 22 year old, but as the article alludes, isn't so nice when your 30, have a wife and two kids, and really don't want to collaborate with your co-workers at 2AM because that is when they are at their 'most productive'. Suddenly 9-5 'normal' jobs get a whole hell of a lot more attractive.


Yes, that is my personal experience. Things become a problem when one wants to have a life outside of work. For my first 15 years out of school (thereabouts) I lived at work. Everything short of sleeping there (but worked through the night sometimes not going home at all). Did very well and I actually enjoyed it quite a lot. But gets hard when one is married. Very hard (as in not possible).


RE: Google
By Arribajuan on 5/16/2008 11:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
These kind of jobs are like expensive sports cars.

The are great but have a low Wife Acceptance Factor.

So it becomes difficult to remain in this places in the long run.


RE: Google
By Rabscuttle on 5/15/2008 7:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a) The tech industry is still relatively young. The best talant often was self-taught or certified via independent training, very little of the real talant at this point came from the colleges


One has to wonder how long before some disgruntled applicant and some slick lawyer will sue a company like Googler for "Education Discrimination" - showing that they can do the job and the only reason that they weren't hired was for lack of a "scrap of paper." Boy, wouldn't that open up a can of worms!!

America - Land of the Free and Home of the Tort!


RE: Google
By Reflex on 5/15/2008 8:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
I cannot imagine such a lawsuit succeeding because education is a valid qualification for a job, and can be listed among the job requirements. Gender or race are not and to list them would be opening the door to a lawsuit.


RE: Google
By masher2 (blog) on 5/16/2008 1:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "I cannot imagine such a lawsuit succeeding because education is a valid qualification for a job"

Actually, such a lawsuit has already been not only filed, but actually succeeded, as in the case of an employer who required a high-school education for employees, including janitorial staff. The requirement was construed as having a disproportionate impact on blacks.


RE: Google
By ThePooBurner on 5/16/2008 9:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. That is a racist judgment. Apparently courts feel that blacks don't get HSD and can only work as janitors.

That should have never won.


RE: Google
By Reflex on 5/17/2008 2:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think I can agree with that. The courts are not necessarily about theory, but also about practicality. If blacks do not graduate high school at a disproportionate rate compared to other races, and a job puts a HS diploma as a pre-requisite for a position, well you end up with defacto discrimination even if it wasn't intentional. I can see how the case could be won with that argument, and its not an insult to blacks.

I agree with the premise though: No condition should be on a job that is not required to actually do the job. I cannot think of a reason a janitor would have need to have a HS diploma.


RE: Google
By Muerr on 5/15/2008 9:07:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Another aspect of the 'fun' environment is to encourage employees to make work thier life.


I would like to highlight this excellent point!

Work != life. If Work == Life, then you are a workaholic, and that isn't a healthy lifestyle long term.

When you truly enjoy your work, and it is a vocation - its what God put you on the planet to do, then its not work :-). But most programmers I know wouldn't consider it to be their calling.


RE: Google
By semo on 5/18/2008 5:52:03 AM , Rating: 3
yeah, some people just can't get enough of that workahol.


RE: Google
By grebe925 on 5/16/2008 12:15:48 AM , Rating: 2
I know my age is showing but I am looking at those pictures and, frankly, a lot of the "cool" stuff in them looks silly to me now. And I used to work at companies that had similar setups to "excite" employees and considered them cool.


RE: Google
By Runiteshark on 5/16/2008 9:47:29 AM , Rating: 2
You kidding? I'm not even past my 30s yet and I think it looks pretty stupid. Give me racks of equipment to play with, or a shop to work on a car in, or a decent lanparty, something like that.

I can't imagine the mindset of the people that actually enjoy having a silly slide at their work, and use it often. I can see it in my head as the thing that nobody actually does (for fear of looking like an idiot).


RE: Google
By dever on 5/16/2008 1:27:30 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know. I like efficiency. If a slide gets me downstairs quicker, I just might use it. Pride goes out the window after a while. Of course with this attitude, I might end up being the guy at the nursing home who sleeps naked in the lobby.


RE: Google
By afkrotch on 5/16/2008 10:55:38 AM , Rating: 2
Those pictures remind me of the stupid Wii ads on TV. I wouldn't be caught dead working at Google if all their offices look like that.

I've seen kindergarten classes that looked less kiddy.


RE: Google
By PandaBear on 5/16/2008 1:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
Very true. The fact that they hire based on which school you go to and what is your GPA really doesn't do you any good after you establish yourself with work experience. Sure, 75k a year sounds good when you first got out of Stanford, but after 3 years or so, you want more because of your experience and they refuse to pay you more. People stay back when stock options and bonus were good, but now everyone is cutting options (I got none from SanDisk this year, cheap skate) and so everyone is looking for a new job with bigger bonus or a higher salary.

This isn't just Google, it is every big company with prestige.


Google
By thebrown13 on 5/15/2008 3:20:03 PM , Rating: 3
Smart developers want to create high quality products, and Google is not doing it. Simple as that.




RE: Google
By Ammohunt on 5/15/2008 3:29:04 PM , Rating: 3
That’s a problem with a lot of companies along with valuing a College Degree over years of practical work experience.


RE: Google
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/15/2008 3:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
True. Most college grads have no clue what they are doing until several years after they are in the work force. Hence why hiring people fresh out of college is a bad idea for critical or key roles. Doesn't stop companies like Google from doing it though.


RE: Google
By leidegre on 5/15/2008 3:58:52 PM , Rating: 3
Anyone who's been at Google willing to express thier thoughts? Many people who go to Google seem to have great careers, maybe not within Google, but does that matter?

Who stays at one company for their entire life!? Isn't it just the case that time has run it's course and people are starting to feel that they've stayed long enough.

It does say that in the article...

...and how old is Google anyway?


RE: Google
By AlphaVirus on 5/15/2008 5:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
Google was founded in 1998, so it is 10 years old.

And it's not uncommon at all for people to work at a single job their entire life. The average retirement age is 60-65 and some people work at the same location for 30+ years which can be considered "all their life".

I personally knew 2 people that worked at the same job location for their entire life, or at least since they were in their early 20's.


RE: Google
By Muerr on 5/15/2008 8:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
Working one's entire life/career at one company is becoming rare. Sure, there's people who have been lifers, spending 20-30+ years for companies, but those people are also of the generation where that was normal!

For example, I thought I was going to stay with IBM longer than I did. After almost 8 years, I left, because I wasn't enjoying my work.


RE: Google
By callmeroy on 5/16/2008 9:18:33 AM , Rating: 3
True. It's increasingly rare for folks to stick with a company for I'd say longer than 10 years. I think the single greatest reason for this is we have moved away from an industrial based economy to a service economy - it really is a different animal. I'm sure many of our parents, like my father, worked over 30 years at the same place. Started out as just a job out of high school sweeping floors fast forward 30 years he was a VP in charge of about 200 employees directly. You just don't hear much about that kind of loyalty (either both ways company to employee or vice versa) anymore. It was a different time, I think the work ethic was generally stronger back then too.

Now don't get offensive with that I'm not saying everyone here is horrible work ethic persay, I'm making a broad statement and saying in GENERAL terms the work ethic today is weaker than it was in our parents day.

That all said I think another reason is the service industry in some ways is much more competitive a job market than an indutrial economy is.

With all respect to any who still work in an industrial kind of job - there is generally more education and training requirements for service oriented jobs like in the tech and finance sectors for instance, conversely the industrial jobs are more labor oriented and often much more dangerous to boot. But this doesn't mean you are a moron if you do such a job, there is definitely some skill sets unique to each profession.


RE: Google
By BruceLeet on 5/16/2008 11:50:09 AM , Rating: 3
I dont know about you guys but if you go to Google then "About Google" then "Jobs at Google" theres openings for Software Engineers (Several years experience req.) Engineering Site Director(8+ years req.) Technical Lead/Manager etc. (5-10 years experience)

They do require MS/BS and PhD being a + and years of industry experience. I dont know where all this "fresh out of College no experience required" crap is coming from.


At the bottom ......and a few points
By phxfreddy on 5/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: At the bottom ......and a few points
By 67STANG on 5/15/2008 3:48:16 PM , Rating: 1
My experience is that RF design is much easier than coding.


RE: At the bottom ......and a few points
By Adonlude on 5/15/2008 4:54:20 PM , Rating: 4
Well what experience do you have?

I am mostly an analog and power design engineer and dont go much higher than 1GHz. I did some C++ in school and hated it, probably becuase of how it was presented to me. I have done some digital coding (VHDL) on the job a few times for CPLD's but most of my work is analog, amplifier, magnetic, or power related.

I find that high frequency stuff is pretty hairy and delves deep into the nuances of physics and requires greater technical and mathmatical knowlege. Coding is more linguistic, like mastering French or something, an easier task by comparison.


RE: At the bottom ......and a few points
By 67STANG on 5/15/08, Rating: 0
By diegoaac on 5/15/2008 8:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
My experience is that RF/Embedded systems design (And I mean design, not just use off the shelf hardware) is harder that web programming


By InternetGeek on 5/15/2008 8:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ajax is not a language BTW. It's a technique that integrates several languages, thought mostly the DOM, Javascript and CSS. You might call it DHTML but I will surely get flamed to death for using that term and all the implications it has.


RE: At the bottom ......and a few points
By TETRONG on 5/15/2008 9:20:40 PM , Rating: 4
Mobile surveillance is not RF design.

You're using technologies that an RF designer had a hand in creating. When you drive a car you don't say you're an engine designer.

RF design is extremely complicated because you have many individual elements interacting in a highly non-linear fashion. Save for a handful of people - RF design as applied to PCB's is still something of a black art. The math is so tough that you're better off designing on paper and then tuning towards functionality, rather than explicitly trying to figure the maths ahead of time.


By Andrys on 5/16/2008 10:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree. There is a huge difference between utilizing existing RF products and designing RF products.

What people don't realize is that as the harmonics of operating frequencies increase more and more, you have ridiculously high frequencies running around in your circuitry totally throwing off your expected EMC emissions. FCC doesn't like that. 900MHz? Assuming that was your clock speed on some components, you easily had 4.5GHz signals running around in the electronics.

The design aspect is a highly complicated process involving designing in such a way that keeps high frequency signals on the board and away from external pins or power supplies (conducted emissions) and that keeps radiated emissions down through various techniques.

Granted, coding isn't the easiest thing in the world to do, but there is so much electromagnetism theory involved in designing high frequency circuitry that it's ridiculous. If you're lucky(sarcasm) and have lands that aren't electrically short (smaller than 1/10th wavelength of the 5th harmonic generally) KVL and KCL don't even truly apply anymore.


By PWNettle on 5/15/2008 7:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
"Coding is more linguistic, like mastering French or something"

Its not quite that simple. There are plenty of people who call themselves programmers that fit that but real programmers require more skills than simply knowing a language. It might not require physics and high math (or it might, just depends on what you're coding) but the total skillset of a good programmer involves a lot more than simply knowing a language.


Yeah thats nice perks but....
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2008 2:38:22 PM , Rating: 3
What about in office sex ? Huh ??

*Google here I come*




RE: Yeah thats nice perks but....
By MooseMuffin on 5/15/2008 2:56:47 PM , Rating: 5
Down the hall, 3rd door to the left.


RE: Yeah thats nice perks but....
By 67STANG on 5/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah thats nice perks but....
By Chadder007 on 5/15/2008 3:53:53 PM , Rating: 5
I'm here for the Gang Google.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2008 4:33:15 PM , Rating: 1
Niceeeeee


RE: Yeah thats nice perks but....
By Teancum on 5/15/08, Rating: 0
By cherrycoke on 5/17/2008 5:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
and glass walls? Hmm interesting..


Cheap...
By iFX on 5/15/2008 3:10:27 PM , Rating: 5
Google is cheap which is why employees are jumping ship. They also don't want to pay new hires what they are worth.

A guy I worked with (corporate trainer making $60k/y and great benefits with a fortune 200 company) was offered a job at Google for $30k/y - 1/2 his current salary. On top of that they wanted him to move his family to Ireland from the states in 1 month. They were relying on the fact that he would jump at the chance just to work for the prestigious Google! Wrong.

Wake up Google!




RE: Cheap...
By miccla on 5/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Cheap...
By Some1ne on 5/15/2008 3:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
A corporate trainer isn't really a valid example to use. Google is not a corporate-training company, they are a software engineering company. So what we really need are their typical engineering salaries. I don't know what they are, and I've heard that they are under the "going rate", but I'm sure they must be better than $30k/y. No self-respecting software engineer would work for that, regardless of perks. Even $60k/y is pushing it. I think at a minimum they must be offering engineers about $75k/y if they realistically expect to be able to attract and retain new hires. Anything less wouldn't really cut it, spectacular perks or no.


RE: Cheap...
By TheOneStorm on 5/16/2008 8:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
I get paid more than that at Disney...

Is Google really that far behind the times?


RE: Cheap...
By TDD2 on 5/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Cheap...
By AlphaVirus on 5/15/2008 5:27:00 PM , Rating: 3
That was possibly the probation terms or 'starting salary' in which after 3 or 6 months it would increase to the requested salary.


Perks not always available.
By Anonymous Freak on 5/15/2008 8:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
I know a few people who work in one of Google's data centers.

Their life is *NOTHING* like what is depicted in these stories. Yes, they get free food, yes, they have parties. But data center workers essentially do not get the 20% time. In theory they do, but in reality, their "real job" takes up 100% of their time.

In addition, a data center is *NOT* an office building. There are no nice open hallways with game rooms, no funky chairs. Yes, they have leisure facilities, but not to the extent that an office building tenant has.

My friends pretty much laugh when they see the stories on how wonderful Google is to work for. Not that Google is bad to them, but it's not ANYTHING like the brochure for them.




RE: Perks not always available.
By hans007 on 5/15/2008 8:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
i knew a guy who worked in hardware ops in the data center too.

he left and got paid like 50% more . he basically said that the whole 20% time and all that is for thesoftware engineers really. i guess its like tiers of workers, since his gf is in their accounting dept.

its like , unless you are a software engineer then google isnt really that great to work for.


By Anonymous Freak on 5/16/2008 6:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, yeah. Google's raw pay is awful. Benefits are decent, and at present rates, the stock grants and options are good. But the raw pay is low. I know a few former Intel employees who are now with Google, and in spite of the MUCH better working conditions, and lack of infighting and politics, most would rather be at Intel just for the increased pay.


RE: Perks not always available.
By saiga6360 on 5/15/2008 11:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like just any data center. Heck, the free food and parties make it better than most. That's just the nature of the beast.


RE: Perks not always available.
By BikeDude on 5/16/2008 6:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
You guys should check out the TV show "The IT Crowd". The first episode of that show covers a lot of ground about the differences between how regular IT people get treated vs people working for other departments... :D


Imagination
By miccla on 5/15/2008 3:44:31 PM , Rating: 5
Anybody else notice in the bottom picture the two people getting realy into their guitar hero are still at the xbox dashboard...




RE: Imagination
By geddarkstorm on 5/15/2008 4:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
I five starred it just the other day on expert :D


RE: Imagination
By arazok on 5/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Imagination
By AlphaVirus on 5/15/2008 5:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
Must have pressed pause while the nuts came in with the cameras. The flash would mess up that perfect score.


myths and what-not
By bigpow on 5/15/2008 5:32:26 PM , Rating: 3
sadly, current google employees won't be able to comment on this article (for fear of retaliation).

Google office aren't that great. Same goes for their cafetarias. Food is free but I thought it was just OK.

Gym, swimming pool, break rooms, espresso machines, are fun. But many other tech companies have similar deals.

It's one of those internet myth - google wow this, google wow that. It was kinda disappointing, seeing the facility - especially after I got all excited from reading the google myths.

Whether one would want to work there or not, would be determined by how much $ they're offering.

If you've been with some startup companies during the tech boom, Google amenities aren't that big of a deal.

For the amount of work they throw at you - they better make sure the pay is at least comparable to the industry standard. All the other amenities, are just there to sweeten the deal.

If you're a young fresh grad, then that's great for you.
But if you've experience, you'll only look at the paychecks (yes, even considering how good google look on your resume)




RE: myths and what-not
By hans007 on 5/15/2008 5:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
the only office i've been in of theirs was the santa monica one , but it was maybe a montha fter it opened so it was still brand new.

i would have to say though that it wasnt part of the normal "googleplex" but they did have a fully stocked bar with hard liquor and it was 3 blocks from santa monica 3rd street promenade so i thought those were cool things.

i do get the whole, older people want to work 9-6 etc though. i dont have kids or anything but i've been working in the industry for 5 years and realized that uh those 9-6 people generally just dont work at all. i mean having generally been the "single guy" at most of the companies i've worked for, im totally biased, but i'd have to say the people with kids just use their kids as a sympathy excuse to not pull their weight.

oh well whatever, maybe ill care if i ever have kids.


RE: myths and what-not
By bldckstark on 5/16/2008 12:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
What you haven't realized is that most of the people working 9-6 are doing the amount of work they are being paid for.

You on the other hand are doing two to three times as much work for similar money. I'm sure some of them are screwing the company, but they have you to make up for it.

The big difference is that for 99% of people, a family pays off every day, while work never pays off in any real and lasting measure.


People Are Never Satisfied...
By jskirwin on 5/15/2008 4:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
Our very nature makes it hard to be satisfied. We always want more and better no matter how much we have. It's one reason why our species has progressed; if the hunting here is great just imagine how good it must be over that distant ridge...

So it's not surprising that the employees get bored with the toys and gimmicks. The more they get the more they want. Ask any parent of a teenager.




RE: People Are Never Satisfied...
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 5/15/2008 5:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our very nature makes it hard to be satisfied. We always want more and better no matter how much we have. It's one reason why our species has progressed; if the hunting here is great just imagine how good it must be over that distant ridge...


Absolutely.

And thats why the first matrix was a disaster.


RE: People Are Never Satisfied...
By bodar on 5/15/2008 6:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
No, the first matrix failed because suffering is so ingrained into the human condition that the subjects would not accept the program. One might even argue that it is implied that the subjects thought they had gone to heaven, so they died.

"To perceive is to suffer" -- Aristotle

OK, back on topic...


F*ck that.....
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: F*ck that.....
By arazok on 5/15/2008 4:10:36 PM , Rating: 1
I'd skin it alive, wear it's head as a hat and do a sombrero dance around it corpse to work at Google.


RE: F*ck that.....
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/15/2008 5:24:53 PM , Rating: 1
daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn


RE: F*ck that.....
By dare2savefreedom on 5/15/2008 6:13:56 PM , Rating: 1
I would do your mom if it would get me a kob at google


RE: F*ck that.....
By bodar on 5/15/2008 6:34:43 PM , Rating: 1
What if you did his mom with the dead baby seal and the club? Would that impress Google's hiring VP?


RE: F*ck that.....
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/16/2008 11:22:55 AM , Rating: 1
bastards


Nothing Surprising to Me
By Cobra Commander on 5/15/2008 3:40:49 PM , Rating: 5
It's called Job Hopping or Climbing the Corporate Ladder. There are bank accounts to fill... egos to stroke... accomplishments to achieve...

what's the big deal?




i trie dto get a job there a few years ago
By hans007 on 5/15/2008 5:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
i applied for a job a couple years ago and did not get it.

i did get to go to an open house with vint cerf and got a tshirt out of it.

they told me to get more development experience.

anyhow, articles like this are somewhat concerning, but i think that people just get tired of wherever they work in this field. once you are past the "creating" stage and you are just maintaining and not making a breakthrough every day anymore its just boring.

i still plan to apply for a job at google again (and i'll admit it about half of the reason i took my current job at a startup was to get experience to apply for google again) just because i think if you had never worked there at least for a while it would be awesome.

i mean i never plan to work anywhere forever. but i do hope to see for myself what its like working for google.

a few of my friends DID get jobs there , and they do pay competitively. we were all working at symantec at the time and well i've heard google pays well but not ridiculously well. so i guess that just means symantec pays awfully. haha.




By dare2savefreedom on 5/15/2008 6:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
what are you talkin about?

everything from google is beta.


Important "not" missing in the 11th paragraph
By bespoke on 5/16/2008 1:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As some analysts aptly point out, most Google employees are changing the world, or creating a brand new product rather merely making iterative minor refinements on an existing one.


I'm quite certain this should be

quote:
As some analysts aptly point out, most Google employees are not changing the world, or creating a brand new product rather merely making iterative minor refinements on an existing one.




By Nobody Else on 5/18/2008 1:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
That sentence confused me as well.


LOL @ Guitar Hero Pic
By five40 on 5/15/2008 3:40:21 PM , Rating: 3
Are they rocking to the xbox dashboard? This dashboard ROCKS!!!




Not all that surprising
By geddarkstorm on 5/15/2008 3:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps those people simply grew tired with the type of programs and work Google specializes in and wanted to do something totally new. Jumping over to Facebook, for instance, definitely gives one something completely different to think about and play with.




Money/perks doesn't matter
By Muerr on 5/15/2008 8:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
At the end of the day, the pay, benefits, perks, and games during work hours aren't what people want out of their daily work. They really do want to do something that holds their interest and matters to them. Not to the world.

Personally, I wouldn't want to work for Google. I don't like their business model - selling advertising space - since I really hate all the constant advertising we're subjected to here in the USA.




EVIL!!!
By diegoaac on 5/15/2008 8:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that they're just tired of not being evil (Or pretend not to be)




Possible Missing Reason?
By jhb116 on 5/16/2008 12:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
I've never worked in such an environment, however, most offices have those people who get by doing practically nothing. I’ve seen people work essentially half days while I was working full days+ trying to get my job done and cover for those bums. Is it possible that people come to expection of playing at work now at Google? Maybe those that are busting their buts creating the content that their departments are thriving on aren’t getting recognized while the those playing games all day long are getting the kudos? And those that that work hard and don't get recongized by management might just get recognized by other companies and get offered more money. Just a thought.




Not "adult" enough?
By piraxha on 5/16/2008 5:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but the people at Google can pretty much run circles around most of us when it comes to intelligence. Anyone who tries to write them off as childish is probably trying to compensate for something, and whether it be brains or balls I don't care. When you can do what Google can do, you can say what counts as awesome, and what counts as childish. I guess all I'm trying to say is....kindergarten toys FTW.




Perhaps it's a soul thing...
By SiliconJon on 5/20/2008 8:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
Are some leaving for ethical reasons? I know I would be looking for another place to work if my company aided in the imprisonment of dissenters, or otherwise impeaded upon my belief in freedoms such as unrestricted speech.




Isn't it obvious why they left?
By Baked on 5/21/2008 11:50:36 AM , Rating: 2
Facebook? These guys are obviously stalkers. As Facebook execs. they have access to all the users' profiles. Damn stalkers!




cash
By GlassHouse69 on 5/19/2008 11:36:30 AM , Rating: 1
The only thing that makes someone stay at a job is if they feel they are getting as much pay for what they do as they would hope to get.

that is the only correlative factor. the only one. 10 year psych study in early 90's tested 1000's of factors possible and in the end, the only one was $$$.

spoiled fuckers.




"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki