That case could still be appealed and overruled. And then it could go to the Supreme Court, which would likely take years to resolve. Better to be safe than sorry, rather than hope that the case will stand.
It also doesn't fix the problem where a number of contractors sue you even if they might be wrong. It could very easily be a class action lawsuit like the one that cost Microsoft a lot of money. They could use those rules as a start and then throw a few other things together such that Google thinks it might have a problem in court and wants to settle rather than risk getting sued by every single contractor.
I can guarantee you this made more people adverse to the cause than for it. They did everything wrong, and many of the people who might have had a chance at trying to change things are out of Google and will not be able to do anything.
It's also likely that people who saw this might now not want to be involved at all for fear of losing their job.
This action likely did nothing but make it less likely that anything will change, and been the absolute worst way to attempt to persuade people.
People afraid for their job would be very unlikely to make noise anyway. It's a nice idea about changing things from within a system, but... you have to believe that's possible in the first place. There will be people that do it too, but we won't see articles written about them.
But that assumes that Google would settle. Without that happening, you are looking at years before getting a result, thousands of dollars of attorney fees and a high likelihood that if they lost they would appeal.
This might be more of an emotional lawsuit than a logical one.
Which is a not unreasonable assumption. It doesn't take much before Google's cost outstrip the cost of settlement, and even if it were to prevail in court it probably wouldn't recover costs
> Without that happening, you are looking at years before getting a result, thousands of dollars of attorney fees and a high likelihood that if they lost they would appeal.
Yes, it will take time if the other side doesn't settle, that's rather the norm in lawsuits. But its reasonably likely there is a contingency fee arrangement in olace, meaning the lawyers get paid with and out of any settlement or judgement.
> This might be more of an emotional lawsuit than a logical one
That's always possible, but you haven't really done much to argue for it being likely.
>> But that assumes that Google would settle.
>Which is a not unreasonable assumption
Not sure about Google, but companies like Walmart never settle. For them it's better to have the lawyers tell you "Oh, you're going after Wally, well, that's going to be the next 10 years of your life wasted", then it is to worry about the per litigation costs.
> Not sure about Google, but companies like Walmart never settle.
This is simply false. While Walmart is aggressive, they do settle. What Walmart does which masks this is, where they have they have the leverage to do so, as they usually do with individual plaintiffs that actually are concerned about financial compensation, insist in strict confidentiality terms in settlements which makes them unlikely to be reported. But even that doesn't cover everything, and there are noteworthy publicly reported settlements.
I see this all of the time, but without any evidence. Even your edit says they get a "butts in seat" tax break. But how much is that? I can very easily see the savings of remote employees being way higher than this tax break. You might need to spend a bit more on IT and maybe on equipment. Then again you save on cleaning (not needed as often), garbage, electricity and anything else related to maintenance. Maybe it's slightly more expensive, or slightly less expensive. I've never seen anyone break the numbers down before making this claim. It feels like an appeal to emotion, those bad companies only care about money. Even if that's true, this argument doesn't prove it's true in this case.
And this all assumes long term leases or you own the building. It's possible to pay to get out of leases some time, and you can sell the building if you think it's going to cost millions to keep owning it.
Also, we are seeing lots of smaller businesses also requiring people to come back to the office. If they are getting some huge tax break for a 100 person company, how much is that? I'm happy if I'm wrong, and this is some huge tax break that saves companies millions of dollars, but I think it's fair to ask for evidence that this really saves the money people claim it saves.
I think there are other dumb reasons people are being called back, it just doesn't feel like this is one of the reasons.
Also, I didn't say tax breaks was the only reason. I also said commercial real estate prices. Even companies that don't own buildings need commercial real estate to stay up, either because their owners own some elsewhere, or because other business products are priced based on commercial real estate (one common example is corporate insurance treasuries often hold a lot of corporate real estate).
While most of this comment is true, there are lots of youtubers that can make it full-time without getting millions of subscribers. The key is that you can't rely on adsense, you need to get as many different ways of getting income as possible (patreon, sponsors, merch, etc).
From my observation, it seems an active base of around 200,000 subscribers seems to be where you can do it full-time. I've even seen people with about 100,000 subscribers go full-time.
The trick is that you can't just be making videos, you have to take on a lot of the business parts too. If you just want to make videos and nothing else, then you would probably need hundreds of thousands of views per video to make a living.
Yeah this is true. Adsense is a very difficult way to make money on YouTube, and it's stuff like sponsorships, selling merch, selling courses, Patreon, etc that usually keep a lot of creators afloat.
If you can get those working for you, you can definitely get by on a few hundred thousand subs, and I know lots of creators in exactly that situation.
But yeah the challenge there is definitely building enough of a community that people are willing to pay you for that stuff, which is more difficult than just posting videos would be. Especially given that your niche has a huge effect on how easily you can make money from those things, and whether your community is going to be 'loyal' enough to support you that way. Creator focused and topic focused channels have very different routes and possibilities for monetisation...
I mean, if they went after someone civilly, Twitter doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, only that there is a 51% chance it happened.
So proving that someone downloaded all of the source code right before the leak would be pretty strong circumstantial evidence. It's not impossible to prove it just because you don't have a smoking gun.
Reference an employment lawyer’s statements to you, their client, with regard to your specific situation in particular. My opinions are irrelevant, whether or not I work otherwise-billable hours compiling a set of citations for you to judge, because
(I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.)
The problem is with all of these new devices using AI related features. They all seem to decide that it's a good idea to use contractors to "verify" or "categorize" the pictures. There is always a leak because they have to rely on the contractor's security protocols to make sure that these pictures don't get out. And, surprisingly, contractors might not have the best security, and it doesn't seem like the companies have any incentive to verify the security.
It's kind of sad to see so many people just take this story at face value. Is it really 1am? I could certainly believe it, but some random picture doesn't make it true. Also, even it is 1am, it's possible that work ended hours ago, and that some people are staying late to talk to Musk. Who knows, but to assume that everyone is being forced to stay, maybe, maybe not. I guess I'd like a little evidence.
The number of people saying all of these completely unsubstantiated things about Twitter, and everyone believing them without any questions is weird.
In addition, how could this person know if mostly H1-B workers are present. I certainly can't tell who is and isn't on a H1-B. Or is it because the bulk of the people are not white that this person assumed they were? That seems like an immensely racist assumption.
Why should people automatically disbelieve word-of-mouth any more or less than they should believe it, as long as they are not making it into some kind of conviction from which they base significant material action?
Also, is nobody asking questions? I've seen multiple people doing so, including you.
Also, in your accusation of racism, you are making assumptions about assumptions.
Also, is positing that there are H1Bs among non-white tech workers "immensely racist", or is that dramatic?
PIPs require a tremendous amount of effort and work. It also doesn't guarantee that the person would be fired. There are many times where the employee might do just enough to get off the PIP, but still be a really low performer.
It also sucks for the employee, a PIP is really stressful not knowing what will happen next, will you get fired, should you start looking for a new job.
In addition, the PIP can take months to get to the finish. Maybe even six months in some cases.
A layoff takes way less time, but it does suck for the employee. I don't know which is worse. But if you have a good employer, you still might be able to transfer to another part of the company. Being on a PIP usually means your only choice is looking outside the company for a new job.
Layoffs always hit good and low performers, there is no way it can't. But if a company wants to get rid of a number of low performers at the same time, PIPs are not the way to go.
It also doesn't fix the problem where a number of contractors sue you even if they might be wrong. It could very easily be a class action lawsuit like the one that cost Microsoft a lot of money. They could use those rules as a start and then throw a few other things together such that Google thinks it might have a problem in court and wants to settle rather than risk getting sued by every single contractor.