Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet

Google Fires Blogger? 628

Thomas Hawk writes "CNET is reporting that Mark Jen, a blogger whose candid comments about life on the job at Google sparked controversy last month, has left the company. CNET reports that it is not clear if he resigned or was fired but references a post at Google Blogoscoped where it was suggested that he may have been fired over his blog Ninetyninezeros. Given Google's push into the blogging space with their recent acquisition of Blogger it might be interesting to see how this shakes out."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Fires Blogger?

Comments Filter:
  • Blog link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jadsky ( 304239 ) on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @11:01AM (#11617849)
    How about a link to the actual blog [blogspot.com]? It's still up...
  • Quote (Score:5, Informative)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @11:06AM (#11617918) Homepage Journal
    From the actual blog:
    hi everyone, sorry my site has been down for the past day or so. i goofed and put some stuff up on my blog that's not supposed to be there. nothing serious and they didn't ask me to take anything down (even the stuff where i'm critical about the company). i'm learning that google is understandably careful about disclosing sensitive information, even vague financial-related things. the quickest way for me to fix the situation at the time was to take it all down. now i'm back up. just so you know, google was pretty cool about all this. thanks for and sorry for the frenzy of speculation.


    Apparently this wasn't an issue of someone talking about their life at google, or their day-to-day tirals and tribulations on the job. This was someone releasing sensitive NDA information onto the net. While I don't like NDAs as much as the next guy its a pretty obvious breach of contract and an OK reason for firing. For everyone getting ready to start hating the last giant non-evil corp left, you're going to have to wait a few more weeks.
  • Re:Mark my words... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @11:10AM (#11617965)
    DCMA? They didn't use the DCMA. They said "You're violating the terms of service for Google News. Stop."
  • Re:Blog link (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @11:18AM (#11618058)
    This guy got 400 complaints from other Google staff in 2 weeks?

    Not surprising he left/was fired. A company has to consider the best thing for the company as a whole. I guess he'd already had a warning regarding the blog (and he had put sensitive stuff up, as it mentions that he had!) but his position was untenable. Failed to last even the initial probationary period. I guess he won't be putting Google on his resumé.
  • by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <j@NoSpam.ww.com> on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @11:25AM (#11618133) Homepage
    here [zawodny.com]
  • Re:Mark my words... (Score:5, Informative)

    by den_erpel ( 140080 ) on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @11:41AM (#11618294) Homepage Journal
    Following the links, I came accross this other blog which shares (according to the article) that he was fired about the blog.
    http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/004157.htm l/ [zawodny.com]


    First off, nothing Mark said surprised me. Yes, he was fired from Google. It was directly related to his blog. He was employed there for just a couple of weeks.


    It would by highly unlikely that he was not, considering the timing.
  • DAMNIT PEOPLE (Score:4, Informative)

    by dAzED1 ( 33635 ) on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @11:51AM (#11618418) Journal
    "freedom of speech" means the guy won't go to JAIL for it. It doesn't mean his employer can't do anything to him. He could claim flinging poo on cars in the Google parking lot was an act of "speech" according to today's warped interpretation of the first ammendment, but that wouldn't mean that Google couldn't *fire* him for it. His saying something in a blog just won't get him put in *jail*, per the first ammendment.
  • by Cecil ( 37810 ) on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @12:27PM (#11618844) Homepage
    No. It would be 100 nines.

    A goolgol is 1 followed by 100 zeroes, in other words 101 digits. Subtract one, and you still have 100 digits, all nines.
  • by Scorillo47 ( 752445 ) on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @12:57PM (#11619158)
    The new blogs is missing the critical pieces. Fortunately, the contents of the previous blog are cached here. [bloglines.com]

    Here are some relevant paragraphs:

    January 24, 2005

    uh oh, what happened to my bank account? [blogspot.com]

    By markjen

    so i happened to look over my finances this past weekend and i realized something: i'm broke. which is odd, because i had a bunch of liquid capital in my checking account last time i checked, and now all of a sudden i have nothing.

    i realized the root problem was that google's relocation process requires the employee to pay all the expenses up front and then get reimbursed for them later. that means you have to cover an apartment hunting trip, your final relocation, lease termination fees and temporary housing expenses all in advance. not to mention that they don't pay out your signing bonus and relocation money until your first paycheck (which i haven't received yet). finally, add in the fact that i had to put down two months rent as a deposit for my new lease, and i'm flat broke.

    on the plus side, this first paycheck is going to be huge... (which unfortunately means i'll probably end up getting taxed huge on it. doh!)

    which led me to thinking about the "benefits" package at google. as i thought about it, i realized that most of the "benefits" actually seem to be thinly veiled timesavers to keep you at work. take for example: free lunch and dinner. now this one is an awesome value proposition for google; i'm not exactly sure why other companies don't also recognize the value and join in. consider this: it probably costs google a maximum of $3 per employee for lunch and $5 per employee for dinner. so that's only $8 per day, but if you think about the fact that the employee now probably only takes a half hour lunch break and also stays late working, the company actually realizes far more than an $8 gain in employee output. not to mention that most people think this is a great "benefit" and google gets a ton of positive press on it. in short, this "benefit" is designed benefit the company, not the employee.

    then look at all these other fringe "benefits": on-site doctor, on-site dentist, on-site car washes... the list goes on and on with one similarity: every "benefit" is on-site so you never leave work. i'm not going to say this isn't convenient for us employees, but between all these devices designed to make us stay at work, they might as well just have dorms on campus that all employees are required to live in.

    next, let's look at the health care benefit provided. arguably, this is the biggest benefit companies pay out for their employees. google definitely has a program that is on par with other companies in the industry; but since when does a company like google settle for being on par? microsoft's health care benefits shame google's relatively meager offering. for those of you who don't know, microsoft pays 100% of employees' premiums for a world-class PPO. everything you can possibly imagine is covered. the program has no co-pays on anything (including prescription drugs); you can self-refer to any doctor in the blue cross blue shield network, which pretty much means any licensed professional; and you can even get up to 24 hour-long massage sessions per year.

    lastly, google demands employees that are 90th percentile material, so what's with the 50th percentile compensation? the packages would've been decent when the company was pre-IPO, but let's be honest here... a stock option with a strike price of $188 just doesn't have the same value as the ones of yesteryear. even microsoft adjusted their base salaries to 66th percentile years ago when it was clear that their stock options weren't as much a part of the total compensation package as it used to be. for a post-IPO company like google, it only seems fair that they adjust things acc
  • by mrisaacs ( 59875 ) on Wednesday February 09, 2005 @04:47PM (#11622212)
    You obviously know nothing about disclosure and the SEC. It's not a question of whether the SEC knows this informaion, of course they do. It's the release of information not usually available to investors, inside information that can affect stock values that can get a company in hot water with the SEC. HR practices can fall into this category.

    If this guy thought the package was no good, he should have skipped on hiring on. You can see the employment contract before you sign on, you just have to ask for it. For those of us who write software for a living, IP ownership/invention clauses are of great interest and generally need to be known, before we sign on or leave our current positions.

    Publishing information, about your current employer, that can tarnish their image is not particularly smart either, especially if you're still in the probationary period most jobs carry.

    Also, as stated by the parent, companies usually require employees to refrain from discussing salary/bonus related information. Many people ignore this requirement, and employers sort of wink at it.

    Publishing the details on the internet is certainly well beyond the bounds that most empoyers will wink at. The rant could have prompted other employees to complain. If enough complaints were made about the disclosure, it wouldn't be desirable, regardless of how otherwise talented the guy was, for an employer to keep him around.

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Working...