Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway_4253 | Hacker News Reader

Wait, I'm confused reading this. It's really hard to make out which of the abusive behaviors here are Google's, and which are Modis'. I don't really understand the relationship between those two institutions. (I'm assuming there's plenty of fault on both sides here, but it would be nice to understand the specifics)

How much of her direct day to day life is set by Modis? I figure Google pays Modis and Modis pays her? (If so, how much of a cut is Modis keeping?) Did Google directly provide her water bottle, or did it need to go through Modis? It looks like the threatening email she received claiming that she couldn't discuss compensation came from a Modis manager, not a Google one? Which managers were in the room when she was fired for her Facebook post? (I'm assuming Google ones, since they're on-site?)

View on HN

> It's really hard to make out which of the abusive behaviors here are Google's, and which are Modis'.

Which is exactly by design. They can each blame the other and hope the employee doesn't complain.

It's basically "Big Tech Bashing" at this point.

She wasn't working for Google, she was working for a contractor. Go to a different datacenter and it will be staffed by a different (local) contractor. Same thing for most of the building's maintenance staff. What makes it news-worthy is that the owner of that particular server-rack was a high-profile company. Had the same thing happened at a datacenter owned by a bank, nobody would have reported on it.

You understand that most Google DCs are owned and operated by google, and serve only google, right?

So like even at best this is "Google contracted some dc operations to a company that violated labor relations law."

The more newsworthy part is that she was able to get recourse.

If you get a guy to come replace your roof, it's not really your problem that his employer didn't give him a water bottle, now is it?

being a good client I would still offer them water/soft drink regardless.

Sure, but if I own a house construction company and hire a contractor to do the roofs because I want to keep roof costs down at all costs I am responsible for the low salaries and poor conditions of my roof contractors.

Yeah, it kinda is, unless you're a total shitbag with no empathy.

If the contractor doesn't pay the subcontractor, you as the homeowner are liable.

It wasn't long ago that Google directly employed most of their datacenter techs. I know a couple guys who worked their way up from server monkey to SRE. It's sad to hear that that pathway seems closed off.

Google was involved in her employment. The Alphabet Worker's Union filed a complaint against both Google and Modis. There's no reason to assume that only one company was involved, who was responsible can be decided by the NLRB.

I would say Google is completely responsible as they choose to hire contractors for the purpose of mistreating and exploiting them. If Google replaced this contractor or hired their own employees then Google shouldn't be blamed, but as is they hire people to do this for them. It's their fault.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com