Google Employee Leaks The News That Google Fired Employee Who Leaked Salary Info

from the so-does-this-person-get-fired-too? dept

Google made some news this week for giving all employees a 10% raise and an additional $1,000 bonus. An email was sent to all 25,000 employees announcing this. This is the kind of thing that is bound to leak. It's silly to pretend it won't. But... apparently Google quickly fired the leaker (though, you have to imagine more than one person leaked this). How do we know that the leaker was fired? You guessed it! Another employee leaked it. So now will that person get fired as well, and will we have another leak about the firing of the leaker over the firing of the leaker? Frankly, firing the original leaker seems like overkill. I understand why Google thought it should do that, but really, whoever leaked the email was probably doing it to spread the news about something cool that Google was doing for employees. It seems kinda short-sighted to then fire that person.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Nov 12th, 2010 @ 2:07am

    It's silly because...

    ...they ruined their good PR.

    I mean, Google is always coming off badly in the media. Finally, we hear a good story about Google, that makes you think good things about them as a company, then then they go and ruin it with the news that they fired the guy for making them look good.

    Real smart, 'Googlers'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 2:49am

    It doesn't seem like overkill when you consider that it caused an actual dip in the stock price yesterday. but, this new leaker could've completely made this up too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 3:03am

    Re:

    THE STOCKHOLDERS

    (That's the joke.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 3:51am

    Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-ta x-loopholes.html

    With the "Double Irish" dodge, Google puts a larger tax burden on others. Don't you wish that you could pay 2.4% rates? Well, you could, IF The Rich were properly taxed.

    Also, it's not surprising that one hand gives and the other fires the leaker. It's consistent with what I believe: employees are engaged in questionable activities (even the open activities are simply spying), and bribed to keep mouths shut (even on supposed good news); a strict discipline was here enforced as example to others for when the more questionable activities need to be covered.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    fairness, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 4:53am

    Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    "With the "Double Irish" dodge, Google puts a larger tax burden on others. Don't you wish that you could pay 2.4% rates? Well, you could, IF The Rich were properly taxed."

    How about taxing EVERYONE at 12 % and be done with it

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Kingster (profile), Nov 12th, 2010 @ 5:01am

    Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    Because you're asking the person trying to make a life on 12K to make a life on 10.5K. A vast difference.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 5:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    Not if the 12% tax is on consumption and not income.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    SomeGuy (profile), Nov 12th, 2010 @ 5:42am

    ... what's the point in keeping it quiet that you pay your employees well?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    SomeGuy (profile), Nov 12th, 2010 @ 5:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    The guy making 12k still needs to buy things, so does it really matter if you're (a) asking him to buy the same amount on less money (tax income), or (b) asking him to buy the same amount on a higher price (tax consumption)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    keith (profile), Nov 12th, 2010 @ 5:44am

    corporate tax

    There is no corporate tax, there is only consumer tax.

    A lower tax bill for a company means:
    A) more money to reinvest in their business (buildings, more employees, better employee compensation, etc)
    B) more profits to pass along to shareholders (dividends, rising share price, etc)
    C) lower prices of their goods and/or services

    It seems like people view corporations as these big pits that money goes into but doesn't come out. It also doesn't seem like we think critically about who actually pays for the taxes imposed on businesses. They simply build it into their cost structure and it is the consumer that ultimately pays that tax, not some entity called 'a corporation' ... essentially they're turned into a shadow tax collector.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Tim, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 6:02am

    Monty Python'esque

    From the credits in the Holy Grail...
    We apologise for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked. .... We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked. .... The directors of the firm hired to continue the credits after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 6:07am

    They rightly fired the person because it's labeled as confidential and internal only, and by not firing they set a precedent where others can forward stuff that could seriously damage Google's bottom line/future revenue.

    This is what public companies do. You take this shit very seriously. I doubt the old private Google would do this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Joe Goggle, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 6:20am

    Remember folks, Don't Be Evil!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 6:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    consumption tax, is tax for the poor.

    cause ppl with less money spend for of there income than the one with more money.

    the idea behind income tax is, ppl with higher income have more to spare so tax them, since ppl with lower income often barely have enough money to last them to the next pay check.

    no go tell the guy making the decisions to increase his own taxes instead on increasing tax on others

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 6:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    sry bout typos hope its still understood

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Qritiqal (profile), Nov 12th, 2010 @ 6:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    So, you're saying this bozo making 12k per year who didn't work at school and can't do more than grill a burger or wash dishes should have a free ride for every service in this country?

    Where's the incentive to improve oneself?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 6:46am

    There's no way this can be called overkill on Googles part without having a peek inside the employees file. It's possible a reprimand may have been sufficient, but without knowing the history of the employee they let go how can anyone really make a judgement call on whether it was the right move or not?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 6:53am

    Re:

    It seems to me that any employee who receives a message that starts our with:

    CONFIDENTIAL: INTERNAL ONLY
    GOOGLERS ONLY (FULL TIME AND PART TIME EMPLOYEES)

    ...that concludes with the signature of the company head, and who then proceeds to send the message outside the company despite the notice, has brought misfortune on himself by exhibiting much more than just poor judgment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 6:54am

    So what's the big deal? Is that really news to leak? If you work for me and broadcast your salary I will let you go. You just ruined my bargaining ability with potential employees. You would be a traitor to my organization and wouldn't be trusted in the future. This is such a trivial matter to leak that it makes you doubt the employees reasons for 'leaking it' at all. It sounds like an innocent statement gone awry. Kinda' like 'yea I got a 10% raise and a $1,000.00 bonus from work. I would tell all my friends about my good fortune. What's wrong with that? So once again there are two sides to every story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    It's really Me, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 7:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    The thing to keep in mind is income tax is already a tax on the poor. Those that are really well off, simply don't pay their share of taxes as they have the ability to shelter their true income.

    Simply tax everyone on what they consume. Not only does it make taxation more equittable, but the savings on Tax compliance (Filing Taxes, audits, Tax preparers) is nothing to sneeze at.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Nov 12th, 2010 @ 7:11am

    Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    people have been suggesting this for a very long time now.
    every time it comes up, a certain group of LARGE slow lumbering politicians that never forget just sort of dismiss it without much fanfaire and on the other side the group of politicians that are a bunch of jackasses shriek scream and turn into a collective group of doomsayers saying that it would destroy the US economy (which of course they never offer any sort of proof of that, because it wont).

    flat tax all the way across for everyone with no loopholes is the way to go... too bad it will never happen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 7:43am

    If an employee receive a email marked "confidential" and this employee forwards it outside of the company then they are asking for trouble. I think most companies have policies about forwarding confidential email. It doesn't really matter what the email actually says.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Joe, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 8:03am

    not defending google

    I do not think it was right to fire the leaker, but the header did say INTERNAL ONLY on the email, and if they are leaking that info and the competitive companies learn about it, and those raises were mostly to retain employees.

    Then those companies know exactly how much higher to make their offers on job listing boards almost defeating the purpose of raises to have retention.

    Not saying it is right, but I kind of get why they did it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 8:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    And you are totally bypassing the slice of the country that has mental retardation, autism, blahblahblah.....I'm not talking about the ones that mooch off the country, I'm talking about the legit MR kids... (mine being one of them).

    She can do menial jobs (dishwashing, etc), but she will never be able to move up...ever. She's the kind that will never make even 12k....but still needs to be able to take care of herself to live....esp if I get hit by a bus (I need to stop using that analogy, since I met someone that was hit by a bus and lived...)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 12th, 2010 @ 8:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    Where's the incentive to improve oneself?

    You're suggesting that for someone who is satisfied with a career as a dishwasher, a higher income tax rate would motivate them to go to college and start a new career?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 12th, 2010 @ 9:02am

    Re:

    out_of_the_blue will come along here with a rant about how you're keeping the little guy down any time now...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Joshua, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 9:07am

    Incentive

    "Where's the incentive to improve one's self?" Last I checked, living off of 12k per year, WIC, food stamps, and the public health clinic SUCKED ROYAL ASS. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sure people who live at or near the poverty line still have happy, fulfilling lives, but I fucking guarantee you not one of them is sitting there going, "shit man, I tell you what, if I lost my public services, that'd be just what I need to get off my ass and get a REAL job." Most poor people I meet bust their ass twice as hard as I do in my corporate job (for which I am extremely thankful) and get paid 1/4 as much.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 9:15am

    Just Google being EVIL

    Just Google being EVIL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    KevinG79, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 10:24am

    Evil?

    How is this "being evil?" I agree with some of the others... If you share PRIVATE information that is clearly marked PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAl... And you ignore it and think "oh this is no big deal," then yes, you deserve to get fired. If I went around telling everyone around me how much I made at work; I'd expect to be fired, too. It's common sense, people. What part of PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL is so hard to understand?
    Google's management was just enforcing company policy. How is that evil? Please explain it to me without resorting to name calling or ridicule.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Jack, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 10:46am

    Pay increase/bonus Spun as cool? Huh?!

    "news about something cool that Google was doing for employees"

    Why does everyone assume that Google was doing something nice and good? Weren't we reading a year ago how Google pays its employees a below average salary and so this is simply moving them closer to being average? And was probably done to increase retention? Nothing more? Why has it been spun as Google doing good?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    Yeah because living off 12k a year is a free ride...Go fuck your self.

    The people that own 90% of eveything need to pay 90% of the taxes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    wto605 (profile), Nov 12th, 2010 @ 1:38pm

    The real reason to fire the leaker

    Leaks happen all the time... what's rarer is the leaker doing something to get caught (forwarding the message directly from their corporate email account, sending the text over a company monitored connection, etc.) There are plenty of ways to avoid this... copy paste an a thumb drive for example.

    On Google's part, there's a difference between not launching an apple-style SS investigation into a leak and using police to enter and search private residences (evil) and a firing flagrant leaker who either doesn't care enough to hide what he's doing or is too stupid to hide it. Especially at Google where you basically have to qualify for MENSA membership to get a job I'd imagine the 'Googler' that did this clearly knew what he was doing and just didn't care.

    _POSSIBLY_ you could be dealing with a case of hubris, but if you're telling everyone you leaked you're just asking for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2010 @ 6:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    "cause ppl with less money spend for of there income than the one with more money."

    Makes no difference, the purchasing power per dollar is the same.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 12th, 2010 @ 8:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    It makes a huge difference. If you increase taxes on the very wealthy, they have to figure out where to invest or save a little less. If you increase taxes on the very poor, they have to figure out how to spend less on food, or medicine, or other essentials.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2010 @ 5:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    > "The people that own 90% of eveything need to pay 90% of the taxes."

    A flat income tax (say, flat 10% or 12%) has the people making 90% of the nation's income pay 90% of the income tax.. see, fair scaling like this is what a flat percentage tax does inherently.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 13th, 2010 @ 3:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.

    A flat income tax (say, flat 10% or 12%) has the people making 90% of the nation's income pay 90% of the income tax.

    Correct, however calling that "fair" ignores its regressive nature. As has been mentioned, 10% off the top is a lot harder to deal with when you're just scraping by than it is when you're deciding where to buy your third home.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This