Googler... ex-Googler

Google didn’t used to be quite so bad at this. Back when they closed the Atlanta office, people there got a lot of notice and opportunity to find another role. The complaints were about not being allowed to go full-time remote.

I wonder what changed?

> Google is just really bad at this, but seems to think it's not bad at this.

That is a very charitable way to look at it, when I worked their I started from that point as well. "Hey, this thing you just did, you did it really badly, can we workshop some ways to not do this so badly in the future?"

And yet, again and again they would do something similar again and still do it badly. As the examples piled up, I was able to have more pointed and more direct conversations with the executives tasked with doing these things. After a year or so, the evidence was pretty conclusive, it was neither that they didn't think they were bad at it, they didn't care.

There have been a lot of conversations on HN about how "managing" at Google was warped by the fact that their search advertising business was a freaking printing press for money. So much that billions of cash was generated every quarter that they just put into the bank because they didn't have anything to spend it on. There have been lots of discussions about how that twists evaluations etc.

What has been less discussed is that tens of thousands of people applied every week to work for Google. It is trivial for a manager to 'add staff' just pull them out of the candidate pipeline of people who have accepted offers. Tell HR^h^h People Operations to keep "n" candidates in the pipeline to support 'attritional effects' of management decisions. And blam! you get new employees with a lower salary than the ones you lose to attrition. It was always better to fill an open slot with a newer, cheaper, employee than to transfer one whose job/project/group had just been deleted. Always. Management explicitly pushed hard on the messaging of putting everything in the wiki because it was helpful that firing someone didn't lose any institutional knowledge because that knowledge was already online in the wiki.

As a result, it was ingrained in the management culture that "you can always replace people so don't feel bad about firing them" and "incremental revenue improvement or incremental cost reductions are not promotable events."

Google leadership spends money to create illusions for their employees to maximize their work effort, much like a dairy spends money to keep their cows milk production up. And like the dairy, they don't get too attached to any one cow, after all there are always more cows.

Argyle, the author, had their belief system completely invalidated. That is traumatic, always will be. Google's leadership doesn't care, Google's belief system is that there is already someone in the 'hired' pipeline who costs less than can do any of the things Argyle might do, or has done, and they are cheaper. So yeah, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Google is bad at a lot of things but has a “we’re number one why try harder?” attitude.

Or rather you can’t benchmark the performance of anyone there against industry peers because they are protected by a two-sided market. Bazel, Kubernetes and other startup killing tools are developed there because with monopoly services they can hire 3x the number of developers at 3x the rate of other firms and shackle them with tools and processes that make them 1/3x as productive and survive. It’s even worse when it comes to evaluating top management, somebody like Marissa Meyer might be average at best but has such a powerful flywheel behind them that they might seem to succeed brilliantly even if they were trying to fail with all their might.

> Google is just really bad at this, but seems to think it's not bad at this

The BigTech firms have been doing this intentionally for a very long time. I started hearing about Microsoft doing the security-escorts-you-straight-out-the-door all the way back in 2012.

It's not that they are bad at this, it's that they think the trade-off works out in their favour. And it probably does - what's a few but-hurt former employees, versus one disgruntled former employee who had enough warning to snag critical data on their way out the door?

Though it's probably our fault, since we're all so trusting of our mega corp employers, and/or so optimistic about our chances of surviving layoffs, that no one is stashing the incriminating data ahead of time.

Having experienced layoffs in both US and EU companies, the difference is massive. In my experience there is very little respect for "the human" being laid off in US companies

People literally would just disappear day to day. I've had several instances where I only found out a colleague had been fired because I tried to write them on Slack only to find that their account had been deactivated

Personally I felt constantly worried working in such an environment and I don't want to work for another US company again if I can help it

There are of course bad cases in the EU, but in my experience it's way less common than in the US

> Layoffs here are always done in conjunction with the unions.

Europe is vastly diverse and your experience is not representative of all Europe.

I worked a at large European company. They announced there would be layoffs. But not who, just the date. On that date, they came round during the day, tapping people on the shoulder, who walked out of the room and were never seen in the office again. Grown men were crying, who weren't even let go.

I never felt good about that company ever again.

> Weird, as someone from Europe I've never experience anything else.

As someone from Europe, I’ve never experienced US salaries. Go figure.

The idea of being able to keep a laptop sounds absurd to me. Of course many European countries have labor laws which make it near impossible to fire someone on the spot.

>Only in very critical jobs they'd walk you out immediately but then you still get the pay.

Presumably you are also still employed, just not given any tasks. I do not think that here in Germany there is any way to immediately fire someone, just because he was working on something critical.

Many companies refuse to do layoffs entirely. Which often means that they have difficulties responding to changes in the environment or need to heavily rely on contractors.

* Experience in Central- and Eastern Europe (CEE) may differ.

Well, getting escorted out definitely doesn't happen here either at least.

It really depends on the people you work for, it's not like Europe is some kind of paradise in this matter. I was working as a contractor for a company in Germany, after a few years working together, they cut me off from one day to the next (the new manager decided to start saving money), even though my contract included a clause about a one-month notice period. They didn’t even bother to pay the invoice for the work I had already done that month (it was the 23rd of the month, so we’re talking about a few thousand euros). And since I wasn't living in Germany, extracting that money from them was almost impossible.

Yes, it may be different for full-time non-contract jobs, but once you're on a contract, nobody cares.

It makes sense in the US where they have terms like "going postal" and easy access to guns

My company does this, but they are a very large company that is known to aggressively sue people that try to poison the well, so no one tries.

> As it should be, but emotional people make emotional choices. The trusted and valued employee yesterday can turn on a dime and become malicious when they feel they have been wronged regardless of whether that is independently true.

That's pretty cold, un-empathetic logic. If you're rigorously practice that kind of thing, you'll get the same reflected back at you.

My company has layoffs (not massive, but some). In my experience, the affected employees keep their access to everything, and typically finish up their work and participate in transition activities (knowledge transfer, etc) over a couple weeks. Yeah, they're typically also slacking a lot and socializing more, but no one around here wants to be an ass to their coworkers. I think the only people who get their access cut off are those fired for cause.

> Companies generally don’t become militant about a subject unless they have experienced the other side of the equation.

There are obvious problems with designing your processes around the literal worst case (e.g. treating everyone like they're a criminal has consequences).

> The trusted and valued employee yesterday can turn on a dime and become malicious when they feel they have been wronged regardless of whether that is independently true.

On the flip side, treating them like a crook seems more likely to inspire that kind of revenge instinct. Most people would understand removing privileged access immediately but giving them a dignified exit seems more likely to prevent problems.

It is a genuinely terrible idea by the CEO though. Yesterday you paid them, today you don't. If you think that doesn't change your relationship, you have to be a fool.

> I trusted them yesterday, I trust them today.

The problem is, before the layoffs, the employee may have felt they had an obligation to do right by the company. Once they're fired, it may no longer be the case. Some may very well become spiteful, act on their vengeance, & seek immediate retribution.

The risk posed by an employee going rouge is what most CEOs are playing for, especially as in GP's case, for a company as large as Google, where they need to plan for all possible failures and scenarios, some of which may or may not have happened before hand.

My immediate reaction is “I probably would too.”

Working is often treated as transactional but it is about so much more. Self-worth, professional reputation, bonds with coworkers, ownership and stewardship of solutions. Even the simple everyday routine that a workplace drives is important.

Another way how India does layoffs is by holding back multiple months' salaries "due to cash flow difficulties", suddenly sending them a mail of "you're fired" overnight and never paying them their dues, ever, leaving them destitute and crippling their employability. A lot of companies have done this, because they know they can, because practical legal recourses for salaried individuals are virtually non-existent in the country and its crippled judicial system.

David Baron was a distinguished engineer at Mozilla - not someone you fire at a whim. What makes you think he didn't leave voluntarily?

> Chrome has not been well funded for years.

Hasn't it? It has still been developing quite rapidly; and used to lead in interop scores (reflecting how well a browser conforms to the specs).

"The DOJ Still Wants Google to Sell Off Chrome" -Wired (March 7, 2025)

The user love/passion on the JAX team is super high. Interacting with them is whatever the opposite of Kafkaesque is.

Hasn't Google given up on tensorflow for JAX now?

It looks like tensorflow is going down the slow legacy/sunset trajectory at this point.

Google dropped their "don't be evil" a very long time ago.

I can't wait for everyone to be shocked, shocked, in five years when the biggest genAI companies get caught engaging in a bunch of sleazy behavior.

I think the OP explained the broader significance very well: If Google is firing one of the most successful and active web developer relations people they have, it suggests a strategic downgrade of the Chrome, the web, and engagement in human developers. That's bad news for anyone who builds for the web or who relies on it as an open platform for the dissemination of information and software.

I think the position your take re. Google and Chrome is an extreme one. It always surprises me that such black and white opinions about big tech companies are commonplace even on HN. Yes, Google have done things around privacy that I strongly disagree with, but the idea that Chrome is simply a trojan horse for advertising/surveillance is absurdly reductive and ignores the history of Google as a company.

Google was, originally, a web-first company. Their business success relied on the web being an open, competitive platform. And, at a time when Microsoft were still trying to maintain monopoly control of personal computing, Google's development of Chrome did a huge amount of good in maintaining and enhancing the web as an open alternative. And they employed a lot of people who were genuinely believed in that mission, such as Adam.

Make no mistake, the death or spin-off of Chrome will not be a win for privacy or openness. Building a web browser is a hugely expensive and difficult endeavor, and it has to be paid for somehow. Yes, Google has leveraged Chrome in some ways to collect data, but far less than they could have done, and far less than any successor will have to do, just to keep the lights on. Look at what has happened to Mozilla and Firefox if you need proof.

Unless the prospective buyer's name rhymes with Melon Tusk, I doubt the DOJ will do anything to challenge Google's web monopoly this strongly.

This round of layoffs wasn't only on the Chrome team but also for Android.

It's because the message isn't for OP, it's for the people who are left.

With the way it was written it wasn't clear to me whether the other role was offered as a replacement for the layoff or more of a good luck I'm sure you'll land on your feet. Agreed it's a mixed message if it was the former.

Ah yes. I got to do that once after a layoff. The manager tried to guilt me or something into working after I was layed off. "Because they were given me severance so I should be ok with doing the work"

I told them. No you are wrong. I was given severance to sign an NDA and non-disparagement agreement. That is what the severance bought the company, but I'll be glad to discuss a consultant role on an hourly basis.

yup. embrace being a cog. enjoy your cog work as much as you can, but recognize it for what it is. don't tie your identity to it.

To me my employer is my customer. We don't require each other's allegiance, just an ongoing mutually beneficial transaction and good will. When either fails for either party it's time to move along. Devotion isn't part of the arrangement.

Good clarification. I know this separation is difficult especially when the career funds the other parts of life and the employer or title you hold is seen as prestigious.

My comment is not meant to encourage removing kindness and humanity from the relationship. It's meant as a reminder that the other party in the relationship (the company) does not necessarily bring those values to the table.

I would also like to live in a world where humane values are reflected in personal and business relationships to the point where the line between personal and business relationships blurs.

I hope you're not suggesting that you approach your marriage the way you approach your relationship with a corporate partner.

> Through the entirety of human history you'd keep working for the same employer for your entire life

Hardly. This type of arrangement was short-lived and anomalous. It was roughly true in rich economies during a few decades of the post-war era. Never before, and not for most people around the world.

Relationships are worth cultivating any time, of course, but one shouldn't mistake a job for a life. The idea that a job is for life and your employer is your family was a mind hack that worked for a short while and is now unraveling.

> Through the entirety of human history you'd keep working for the same employer for your entire life

This is... not true. It's so not true I don't even know where to start rebutting it. But for a start, most of human history you were either hunting and gathering for yourself, keeping a flock for yourself, or farming land for yourself. "Employment" even as a concept is a pretty new concept on the scale of human history.

> Through the entirety of human history you'd keep working for the same employer for your entire life

Just looking at the Western world that breaks down during industrialization and falls apart if you go further back then that, journeymen (i.e. tradesmen who had completed their apprenticeship) would often literally travel from town to town for several years to work under different masters before submitting their work to a guild for evaluation and becoming masters themselves. I guess you could say serfs worked "for the same employer" because their feudal lords owned them as part of the territory but that seems like a stretch.

It's not so much that employees used to "keep working for the same employer for their entire lives", it's more that the people running and operating businesses used to be part of a local community and there used to be an understanding of a shared responsibility beyond private property claims.

This isn't something employees can change, either. Even employers aren't really able to change this because they too have to operate in the same economic system that contributes to this effect. It's probably more extreme in the US (and some places in the US more than others) but the economic system does not care for such sentimentalities and a business that does will put itself at an economic disadvantage, especially where the social fabric has already been sufficiently eroded to avoid bad optics (e.g. WalMart arguably failed in Germany because its attitude to employees felt extremely off-putting both to workers and consumers at the time but that resistance may have been eroded by the behavior of other companies since to the point where it would no longer make them stand out the same way if they tried to re-enter the market now - economic changes making this unfeasible notwithstanding).

For most of human history we were hunter-gatherers. Even assuming you mean post-industrial history this isn't true though.

Do people really have to make up stuff like that? If you said large parts of history, maybe.

"For entirety" definitely not. What you describe was a thing in some periods, typically periods where some group got too much power and they tended to end with huge disfunctions and breakdowns.

> its unfair to say every single direct manager doesn't care about their folks

That's not the claim being made, by my reading. The quote was, "Your managers, or your managers managers, or their managers don't care about you" -- which to me means, it's not clear exactly at what level, but at some point people stop caring about you as an individual. This may be at the direct manager level if you have a shitty manager. Or it may be much higher. But at some point up the chain it will become true if you're at a megacorp.

Former racker here. When RAX laid me off, I was told there was no other place for me to go (which was not true). I loved my time there and the people I learned so much from and loved working with. It hurt. I had fantastic managers who did care, but the company changed and looking back I shouldn’t have been surprised. Cog in the machine. When I was a manager elsewhere I tried to show the same care my previous managers did. I cared even if those at the top didn’t.

> 'smart enough to work at google' and 'smart enough to realize their corpo-we're one big family-speak is total BS

I have noticed that smartness can be highly compartmentalized.

"Smart" and "naive" are not antonyms. Indeed, it is practically a stereotype that the two often go together.

There’s a difference between intellectually understanding it, versus actually seeing yourself tossed aside and cast out, while knowing that all the other cogs are already back in motion and pretty much fully adjusted to your absence.

For many Googlers, this is their one-and-only company so they actually have no frame of reference, including no frame of reference to notice the company culture was shifting over the past decade-ish.

I think his statement could have benefited from and/or implicitly in the list of titles.

I certainly care very deeply about my people, and letting someone go is a last resort after trying to work things out. My boss cares that I care.. their boss.. we're numbers.

I have and this poster is spot on, he needs to go higher up the chain though. Investors hate employees, even founders. Founders are out to get rich. Executives are out to get rich but don't have what it takes to be founders. All of these people detest labor. They are the enemy you must work with to buy food. Treat them as such.

In this particular case the impending layoff was basically obvious to everyone months in advance (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42893463).

> Rumors of impending layoffs obliterate morale

Granted, but it seems like the current way of salary-first, performance-blind cutting obliterates it even harder.

Managers don't have the kind of information necessary to plan layoffs that don't seem random. Anything they know is already being used for the usual hiring/promotion/compensation adjustment process.

It seems rather disappointing if typical management would make such impactful decisions so rapidly that their "on paper" analysis couldn't be made clever enough to consider more than a single variable.

And while I was still employed as a seasoned developer (before recently retiring) I felt it was my role to pass along some of my cynicism to the new hires and younger devs. Some of them seemed a little surprised to see me call bullshit in a group meeting. (Good luck to you boys and girls.)

Not all. You're talking about douchebag companies.

If I try to hire someone in the future, and I'm talking straight with a candidate, about how we do things and what we're looking for, and they just nod their head, like I'm going through BS rituals that your stereotypical MBA thinks is professional to say but not mean... I will be sad.

And if, while they're BSing me, they're congratulating themselves on having "mastered how the game gets played"... I will be angry.

(This is another reason I won't Leetcode interview. It's signalling that the company is all about disingenuous baggery theatre.)

> Usually there is a hidden variable that you don't know.

This is frequently the case. I've worked at big employers (comparable in level of corporate-ness to Google if not absolute size) where the layoff process, roughly was:

1. Aggregate layoff target gets set and apportioned amongst functional leaders, then targets cascaded down to the line manager level.

2. Managers fill out a stack ranking spreadsheet for their team across a few metrics including a boolean "diversity" field[0]. There were many rumors about the "diversity field", most notably that anyone so flagged would not be fired, but so far as I could tell these were false (see point #4)

3. People to be fired are developed based on these lists (I.e., if a manager has to fire two people, then the two lowest-ranked employees per the spreadsheet are selected.)

4. HR does a meta-analysis of all to-be-fired employees, ensuring that a disproportionate number of employees from protected classes are not impacted. If too many are, then some of the next-lowest-ranked employees are selected to be fired in their stead.

As far as I could tell, the only part of the process where any sort of individual, human consideration was occurring was maybe at the line manager level if they decided to tweak the stack rankings based on who they felt deserved to be protected. And then, to the extent that happens, you have all the problems with bias and favoritism that come into play.

0 - I realize this is probably controversial, but I saw it with my own eyes.

ok, and also "big thieves hate little thieves." Very-well paid executives (stock) remove very well paid employees (salary) and benefit from the actions. This is an old situation in industrial business -- the high tech crowd are filled with self-grandeur and do not believe it, on a large scale IMHO.

The part here too is ‘valuable to whom’. If they can saddle the middle manager or director with the same responsibilities/expectations, while cutting 10% (say) of the costs - guess what they are going to do.

Is it ultimately short sighted? Probably. But good luck connecting point A and point B in these situations when everyone is thinking quarter to quarter.

On the contrary, being stuck in a situation where your livelihood can disappear at a moment's notice due to factors beyond your control is no way to live, but it's also not really something most people will ever be able to avoid. I don't at all buy into the idea that somehow pretending the situation isn't shitty is somehow more virtuous or fulfilling; what you call a "shitty attitude" sounds more like "being realistic about how one's work is valued" to me.

Working hard for a place that will not reward me is no way to live.

And with less dedication, I can spend far less than half my time there ;)

Nor is sticking your head in the sand.

Agreed, this is/should always be the deal basically - "here's a bonus so you stay while we transition" is the only reason many folks stay post aquisition. It should not be revokable, especially last minute.

>2. You are terminated with cause within that period.

Are layoffs considered to be with cause?

Yes as a person who had such a retention bonus before (from Google even) to me this seems rather cut and dry. Usually such bonuses are a mix of cash and RSUs, and set over a 3-4 year period. And are often also based on a perception of what the employees existing options were in the startup that they came from.

IMHO they should absolutely be paid out the whole amount of the remaining retention bonus at layoff. On the principle of things alone. Can't speak to the legality of it.

Agreed. If companies could do this, then they'd never pay out a retention rider.

Government jobs are safe because rarely if ever people get fired.

That's pretty wild. Is that a German employment law or something specific to your company?

> Is it wrong for the management to say "We need to be efficiently investing shareholder capital" or for the market to be looking at Google and saying "We want your money spinning monopoly business please, not your eccentric other bets thanks".

On some level yes. With the massive disparity in who owns the markets, your argument is basically “Is google doing a good job of making the rich richer?”. Hiring H1Bs and offshoring while firing American labor is not a good look.

Why keep a company like that around?

This is an important point.

Especially overt the last two (three now?) years, it's become pretty apparent many software jobs are superfluous, even those that are ostensibly "skilled" or "difficult."

I do wonder what the actual "needed" number of technical staff these companies would have in a perfectly "efficient" environment. Let's hope we don't have to find out.

It's a question of what kind of business Google is/wants-to-be.

The one it claimed to be, in the past, with a broader holistic mission, claiming to attract the world's brightest to make information accessible? Using its hoard of cash to do a bunch of neat stuff and hire really smart people do it?

Or is it what we always suspected all along, a cynical money printing machine that turns ad impressions into shareholder value and nothing else?

It's always been a mix of both. Those of us who worked there certainly saw in the inside the gradual transition of the internal discourse from "justifying B to support A" to "who cares about A."

They can do whatever they want, they're a private business. But they still trade on a certain reputation, and have the advantage of a quasi-monopoly status in many things.

I would hope that advancing them any kind of good will as any kind of "special" company (which our profession tended to do, before) and muting criticisms is just over now.

They built their money printing machine in part by swallowing competition and exterminating it.

> What do you want them to do? Hire $100Bn worth of engineers until their net income is 0?

Take responsibility for the people they hired and have an ounce of human decency and empathy?

Don't need extra people? Fair enough. Then stop hiring! No one is pointing a gun to their head telling them to hire. Layoffs (for reasons unrelated to people's job performance) is such an asshole thing to do because with a competent/non-sociopathic management it's completely unnecessary, as you can just do a hiring freeze, and your headcount will reduce by itself through normal attrition.

The management of a lot of corporations acts this way, prioritizing "shareholder value" over people while giving exuberant bonuses to themselves, and then they make a surprised pikachu face when people hate them and individuals like Luigi Mangione come out of the woodwork and take matters into their own hands.

Remember in 2014 when Nintendo was having huge financial troubles? What did the CEO do? Did he fire half of his people? No, he kept his people, halved his own salary and kept going. And this was when they were losing massive amounts of money, and not breaking revenue records making 100 billion in profit. That is how a CEO and a leader should act, and not like the sociopath CEOs we have nowadays.

Google's strategy, traditionally, was basically what you're describing (modulo the "until their net income is 0" part). Because their belief about engineering was if you get all the smart people and give them some creative freedom, they invent Gmail. And Tensorflow. And Kubernetes.

This has changed. But it's worth noting it is a change. Larry and Sergey retained controlling stakes in Google's IPO specifically because they intended to build a company that didn't operate like other companies... In essence, they didn't plan to give two shits about shareholder capital, they expected the money would work itself out if they just kept making brilliant products people wanted.

But, the founders have left and Google is now just another company.

>> the people who made the decisions to hire like crazy are not paying the consequences

They should have been first out the door, but Sundar is part of the problem.

And even in China the layoff policy for pregnant women is way more humane than in the US.

https://bulletin.gwu.edu/courses/istm/

Information Systems and Technology Management

I've also never heard anyone say this though, but I'm guessing that's what they meant.

It seems to me

Internet Search and Tele Marketing

Internet Technology and Social Media, I would guess.

You are right but I think there's a fundamental issue that many people think that 'as long as I keep showing up and doing good work, the powers that be will look out for me'.

By default work relationships work as you advertised. It needs conscious effort on your (and everyone's) part to reframe these relationships as something that's between you and your friends, on your own terms. Consciously hanging out together, talking to each other, doing projects together outside the context of work. Social relationships need to be built up with effort. The company will do this for you, because they enjoy the benefits of a crew that works well together, but if they put in the effort, the relationship will belong to them. You will think that 'I could get slightly more at this other place, but I like my colleagues here', realizing you'd lose the social net if you changed jobs.

I think a huge problem with nerds (like me and probably you), is that we don't understand the fundamental power dynamics that shape society, because we lack the inherent cunning and weren't forced to face down enough hardship to have our illusions shattered until later in life.

Truth is, if there are rules, somebody needs to enforce them. If something nice happens, it does because somebody makes it happen. These things are mental abstractions designed to make your life predictable, but like every abstractions, sometimes things happen that were supposed to be impossible, because the system doesn't work the way you think it does.

> Most relationships do not survive being ripped away from the spatial and temporal context

I think this is very true, and with college buddies it's very different from workmates. Because in college, you are with them at classes, but then you hang out with them between classes, then you meet them in cafeteria, then you meet them at a party or in the student club, then you meet them at dormitory etc. All these contexts are different and that helps to build more diverse relationship, which is not focused on a single place.

At work, in my experience I'll meet them in the office and then maybe wave a hand on the way out of the parking lot, if ever.

>relationships do not survive being ripped away from the spatial and temporal context in which they were cultivated.

Very true, but also very unfortunate. The best people (a teeny almost non-existent minority) are not like that.

>weakly social with everyone except our direct family and significant others.

For a large number of people, (say 50 %) I suspect this is not true. Especially when people move from rural to urban areas.

> Most relationships do not survive being ripped away from the spatial and temporal context in which they were cultivated.

Just being far away makes maintaining relationships really hard. Introverted people rely on being dragged into socialising, which goes poof not being in the same place.

My wife is really good at keeping friends even those she didn't see in years. She has many such friends and she speaks to them over video chat. I have a few long term friends like that but not so close.

>How many of your middle school, high school and even college buddies do you still have a relationship with?

All the ones that were true friends, and none of the ones that were just friendly acquaintances.

> the opportunities to interact outside of work and the lunchtime

Good point. I wonder how much in-office work contributes to this. Because if you are trapped inside an office building for 8+ hours with essentially randoms, most people will start getting to know each other at some point, because there is no other choice, and after work and commute there is no time left for anything else.

I feel sad for the author.

Corporations like Google certainly encourage a focus on in-group relationships between employees to reduce churn (i.e. increase stakes for disgruntled employees who might consider quitting). The entire idea of having scheduled leisure activities, daycare, laundry services, etc all provided either by the company or facilitated through the company encapsulates current employees and gently excludes former employees, which likely helps reduce their ability to spread or air negative sentiments following their departure (which apparently can be fairly rapid, which also means fired employees will be stunned and possibly in shock for the limited duration where they may still have access to other employees directly).

There's a reason the "employee retention" behavior of companies like Google and Facebook during the web 2.0 craze was often compared to actual cults.