Google Laying Off 10,000 People? - Also, Lack of Transparency

[Steve K.]

FYI -- Google plan to layoff 10,000:
http://www.webguild.org/2008/11/google-layoffs-10000-workers-affect...

OK in this economic downturn that we're in right now, layoffs are not unexpected. But to the tune of 10,000 jobs?? That's a lot of lives and families affected.

It gets worse, however. Here's the really damning part of the story, IMO:

By law, Google is required to report layoffs publicly and with the SEC however, Google has managed to get around the legal requirement. In fact, one of the ways Google was able to meet Wall Street’s Q3 earnings expectations was by trimming “operational” expenses. Google reports to the SEC that it has 20,123 employees but in reality it has 30,000. Why the discrepancy? Google classifies 10,000 of the employees as temporary operational expenses or “workers”. ...

Google has hundreds of lawyers figuring out how not to get caught. One of them is by moving workers from job to job every few months so that their status remains temporary.

This lack of transparency and "gaming" of the system is really troubling.

Read the whole thing

Does anyone out there know of any Google employees who are being moved around like this or who are being laid off right now? It would be interesting to hear some "inside" perspective on all this ...

[Eli Renner]

I wonder also if, as temporary workers, they are paid as contractors (meaning no benefits, no taxes taken out, no unemployment insurance paid). That would also be less than non-evil.

[Steve K.]

According to the WebGuild story, that is one of the primary reasons Google is operating this way:

Hire full time employees without full time benefits. The classification enables Google to pay them above minimum wage, provide no health benefits, no insurance coverage, no stock options, and no offer of permanent employment.

[dlw]

Is it Google's fault or the cut-throat market conditions, especially that of the stock market and with Microsoft perhaps gunning for them?

Let's say some of both.

It's your call how you spend your time, but I believe transparency needs to start with enabling local third parties to check the influence of $peech on the two main parties, and keep either one of them from getting a permanent majority. (Of course, chances are the platforms of both parties would become more dynamic and what-not....)

Maybe if the G-boys are wanting to tie themselves to the mast and not become evil, they need to publicize a good deal of their company and become its employees more than its owners. After all, it's not about the money???

dlw