Hacker News Reader

That's one of the worse takes possible about this situation.

Her role is specifically created to hold her employer to account when they are using bad practices. Her opposition to particular policies enacted in the company is literally part of her job description.

View on HN

I understand what you are saying, but I doubt they hired her to be some kind of controller with unlimited enforcing power (as she says: "I understand that the only things that mean anything at Google are levels").

Only highlighting issues without power to enforce anything is not enough to have any tangible results? That's for sure.

But she was not the CEO.

This is a very dangerous stance to take. You are advocating for a purely authoritarian mode of management, applied universally without concern for context.

Not saying that it's desirable or that's not horrible, but isn't that the default mode? Or at least that's the world I've lived in, if you are an employee, in the end your opinions don't actually count, you are just a cog. Your position in the hierarchy is what matter.

And that's why at some point you need labor unions (not saying high paid tech workers needs them) and at some other point you start considering stop being an employee.

Resigning to that power relation is defeatism, and unhelpful for the maintenance of labor rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com