This isn't a scenario I have to worry about. Being a plug-ugly weirdo loser DOES have its advantages after all!
David Drummond, chief legal officer at Google-parent Alphabet, plans to leave the web titan at the end of the month. Alphabet disclosed Drummond's planned departure in an SEC filing on Friday. The legal eagle will not receive an exit package, a Google spokesperson confirmed to The Register. In November, Alphabet acknowledged …
I also have an appearance only my mother will love but from experience, I can assure you that there are still risks. A young woman made rather outrageous advances while in her glass walled office. At the time she was engaged with one of the leaders there and I did the only thing I could: evacuated immediately. Soon thereafter she split up with that guy who was handsome, tall, wealthy, extremely fit and looked good in uniform (his previous job), just about everything I was not. So for reasons that may be obvious to women but not me, she needed (??) a scandal to break up, and aimed for me, and a few days later another colleague of mine.
I don't think anyone's suggesting anything non-consentual, at least I didn't read anything non-consentual into his behavior. At the same time abandoning your child while he's ill to go have a threesome in SF with some side-chick(s) is a pretty trashy thing to do though, no matter how you measure it.
Steve Jobs was more indispensible for Apple.
Employers should not facilitate misconduct, and if they do, potential customers may retaliate by going elsewhere. Some people who buy computers or use Internet services are women, who would empathize with a woman abandoned when she is pregnant.
So this kind of personal misconduct is a risk for a company that has to be weighed against other factors. If he had been an assembly-line worker, whose personal life wouldn't be taken as a reflection on his employer's brand, that would also be a different case - therefore allaying fears that we might end up in a state where our employers would be Big Brother, regulating our personal lives.
At some point, the personal matters can intrude in the business. There is at least one high-ranked employee who allegedly left just because she could not stand the guy. People can be toxic even if they don't technically break the code of conduct.
I mean, technically, my personal life is none of my employer's business. But right there in the handbook it states that I should remember that my interactions with the public, outside of work or not, reflect upon the company.
This has been true of every professional workplace I've been part of, and especially for higher-level employees is something that's understood by both sides before you accept the position. So I don't think it's unreasonable for a company to request that a high-level employee -- an exec, especially! -- behave in a socially-acceptable and responsible manner.
I mean, sure, as far as the company is concerned, it's all about manipulating public image. But at the same time, asshats won't learn if they don't suffer for their asshattery, so in this sort of situation, my desires (fewer asshats in the world) and the company's desires (look good to the public) coincide. Much as I might dislike the company in question -- in this specific case or in general.
I might have a different opinion if I turn out to be one of the asshats but perhaps fortunately I have yet to be given keys to the fancy toilets and so haven't had the opportunity to demonstrate my lack of judgment. :)
In 2007, Drummond was fined by the US Security and Exchange Commission more than $500,000 for overstating the revenue at a former company, SmartForce, where he served as chief financial officer in the early 2000s.
Clearly the right hiring decision, then. In light of this, what could a finance person possibly do that would disqualify them from working at Google?
If not for Google existing, would anyone believe that over 100K well-paid employees, some billionaires, dozens of crazy moon-shot R&D budgets, billion dollar Silicon Valley real estate shopping sprees, and bio-dome style mega-offices could be supported mostly by a highly problematic product like online advertising? Maybe the adventure is nearing an end.
I guess it is time to come out of the ad-closet.
I have, on a handful occasions, clicked on online advertisements.
I did not know at the time, that money earned by my actions would end up in the pockets of an asshole lawyer who abandons his kid at the drop of a hat.
I apologize profusely.
Display advertising is only one of the kinds of ad that Google sling.
The ads at the top of the search page and the entirety of Google shopping are the real winners for Google as they don't need to pay the publisher/creator any ad revenue.
And I can tell you that real people definitely do click on ads, unless these bots have very deep pockets for all the stuff they keep buying.
In essence, company stock is a vehicle for rich investors and executives to get rich. Executives lie, cheat and mislead everyone in their get rich scheme. The entire free market/capitalist structure one big corrupt modern day slavery benefitting few.
Politicians are corrupt, government officials are corrupt, businesses are corrupt and the world is litrally burning and people keep on electing the same old idiots!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020