Connect with us

Published

on

Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google
Anindito Mukherjee | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Several hundred Google employees have signed and circulated a manifesto opposing the company’s vaccine mandate, posing the latest challenge for leadership as it approaches key deadlines for returning workers to offices in person.

The Biden administration has ordered U.S. companies with 100 or more workers to ensure their employees are fully vaccinated or regularly tested for Covid-19 by Jan. 4. In response, Google has asked its more than 150,000 employees to upload their vaccination status to its internal systems by Dec. 3, whether they plan on coming into the office or not, according to internal documents viewed by CNBC. The company has also said that all employees who work directly or indirectly with government contracts must be vaccinated — even if they are working from home.

“Vaccines are key to our ability to enable a safe return to office for everyone and minimize the spread of Covid-19 in our communities, wrote Chris Rackow, Google VP of security, in an email sent near the end of October.

Rackow stated the company was already implementing requirements, so the changes from Biden’s executive order were “minimal.” His email gave a deadline of Nov. 12 for employees to request exemptions for reasons such as religious beliefs or medical conditions, and said that cases would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The manifesto within Google, which has been signed by at least 600 Google employees, asks company leaders to retract the vaccine mandate and create a new one that is “inclusive of all Googlers,” arguing leadership’s decision will have outsized influence in corporate America. It also calls on employees to “oppose the mandate as a matter of principle” and tells employees to not let the policy alter their decision if they’ve already chosen not to receive the Covid-19 shot.

The manifesto comes as most of the Google workforce approaches a deadline to return to physical offices three days a week starting Jan. 10. The company’s notably outspoken employees have previously debated everything from government contracts to cafeteria food changes. 

A spokesperson for Google said the company stands behind its policy. “As we’ve stated to all our employees and the author of this document, our vaccination requirements are one of the most important ways we can keep our workforce safe and keep our services running. We firmly stand behind our vaccination policy.”

The mandate dilemma

Vaccination is a dilemma not only for Google, but for corporate America in general. The Covid-19 virus has contributed to 772,570 deaths in the U.S., according to Johns Hopkins data. Despite proven effectiveness in providing a high level of protection against hospitalization and death, the country is struggling to persuade millions of people to get their first dose, as more than 60 million Americans remain unvaccinated.

In July, CEO Sundar Pichai announced the company would require vaccinations for those returning to offices. In October, Pichai said that the San Francisco Bay Area offices, near its headquarters, are up to 30% filled while New York is seeing nearly half of its employees back. He added at that time that employees who don’t want to get vaccinated would be able to continue working remotely. 

The company has taken other steps to convince employees to get vaccinated as well. For instance, Joe Kava, vice president of data centers at Google, announced a $5,000 vaccination incentive spot bonus for U.S. data center employees, according to the manifesto.

In an email cited in the manifesto and viewed by CNBC, Google VP of global security Chris Rackow said that because of the company’s work with the federal government, which “today encompasses products and services spanning Ads, Cloud Maps, Workspace and more,” all employees working directly or indirectly with government contracts will require vaccinations — even if they are working from home. Frequent testing is “not a valid alternative,” he added.

The authors of the manifesto strongly disagree.

“I believe that Sundar’s Vaccine Mandate is deeply flawed,” the manifesto states, calling company leadership “coercive,” and “the antithesis of inclusion.” 

In a subhead titled “Respect the User,” the authors write that the mandate of “barring unvaccinated Googlers from the office publicly and possibly embarrassingly exposes a private choice as it would be difficult for the Googler not to reveal why they cannot return.”

The author also argues the mandate violates the company’s principles of inclusiveness.

“Such Googlers may never feel comfortable expressing their true sentiments about a company health policy and other, unrelated sensitive topics. This results in silenced perspective and exacerbates the internal ideological ‘echo chamber’ which folks both inside and outside of Google have observed for years.”

The manifesto also opposes Google having a record of employees’ vaccination status.

“I do not believe Google should be privy to the health and medical history of Googlers and the vaccination status is no exception.” Google has asked employees to upload their vaccination proof to Google’s “environmental health and safety” team even if they already uploaded it to One Medical, one of Google’s benefits providers, according to internal documentation.

The author then tries to argue the vaccine mandate may be the start of a slippery slope, paving the way for other intrusive measures — a common line of argument among people opposed to the mandates.

“It normalizes medical intervention compulsion not only for Covid-19 vaccination but for future vaccines and possibly even non-vaccine interventions by extension. It justifies the principle of division and unequal treatment of Googlers based on their personal beliefs and decisions. The implications are chilling. Due to its presence as an industry leader, Google’s mandate will influence companies around the world to consider these as acceptable tradeoffs.”

The group has sent these concerns in an open letter to Google’s chief health officer Karen DeSalvo, the document states.

In Google’s most recent all-hands meeting, called TGIF, some employees attempted to bring more attention to the vaccine question by getting fellow employees “downvote” other questions in an internal system called Dory, according to an internal email chain viewed by CNBC. The goal was to ensure their questions would gain enough votes to qualify for executives to address them.

Google’s health ambitions

The pushback against vaccine mandates poses a new challenge for Google’s leadership at a time when it is trying to target the healthcare industry among its growing business ambitions — particularly for its cloud unit. 

In August, Google disbanded its health unit as a formalized business unit for the health-care sector and Dr. David Feinberg, who spent the past two years leading the search giant’s health care unit, left the company. Nonetheless, Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian has routinely mentioned healthcare sector as a key focus area and DeSalvo, an ex-Obama administrator whom Google hired as its first health chief in 2019, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last month the tech giant is “still all in on health.”

The company has tried to capitalize on the broader fight against Covid in several ways. In the first half of 2021, the company spent nearly $30 million on at-home Covid tests for employees from Cue Health, which went public in September at a $3 billion valuation. Shortly after, the company announced a separate partnership with Google’s cloud unit to collect and analyze Covid-19 data with hopes of predicting future variants. Google also teamed up with Apple for an opt-in contract tracing software in hopes of tracking Covid-19.

Continue Reading

Technology

Inside one of the first all-female hacker houses in San Francisco

Published

on

By

Inside one of the first all-female hacker houses in San Francisco

For Molly Cantillon, living in a hacker house wasn’t just a dream, but a necessity.

“I had lived in a few hacker houses before and wanted to replicate that energy,” said Cantillon, 20, co-founder of HackHer House and founder of the startup NOX. “A place where really energetic, hardcore people came together to solve problems. But every house I lived in was mostly male. It was obvious to me that I wanted to do the inverse and build an all-female hacker house that created the same dynamic but with women.”

Cantillon, who has lived in several hacker houses over the years, saw a need for a space dedicated exclusively to women. That’s why she co-founded HackHer House, the first all-female hacker house in the San Francisco Bay Area.

“A hacker house is a shared living space where builders and innovators come together to work on their own projects while collaborating with others,” said Jennifer Li, General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz and sponsor of the HackHer House. “It’s a community that thrives on creativity and resource sharing, making it a cost-effective solution for those in high-rent areas like Silicon Valley, where talented founders and engineers can easily connect and support each other.”

Founded by Cantillon, Zoya Garg, Anna Monaco and Anne Brandes, this house was designed to empower women in a tech world traditionally dominated by men. 

“We’re trying to break stereotypes here,” said Garg, 21, a rising senior at Stanford University. “This house isn’t just about living together; it’s about creating a community where women can thrive in tech.”

Located in North Beach, HackHer House was home this summer to seven women, all of whom share the goal of launching successful ventures in tech. 

Venture capital played a key role in making HackHer House possible. With financial backing, the house offered subsidized rent, allowing the women to focus on their projects instead of struggling with the Bay Area’s notoriously high living costs.

“New grad students face daunting living expenses, with campus costs reaching the high hundreds to over a thousand dollars a month,” said Li. “In the Bay Area, finding a comfortable room typically starts at $2,000, and while prices may have eased slightly, they remain significantly higher than the rest of the U.S. This reality forces many, including founders, to share rooms or crash on friends’ couches just to make ends meet.” 

Hacker houses aren’t new to the Bay Area or cities like New York and London. These live-in incubators serve as homes and workspaces, offering a collaborative environment where tech founders and innovators can share ideas and resources. In a city renowned for tech advancements, hacker houses are viewed as critical for driving the next wave of innovation. By providing affordable housing and a vibrant community, these spaces enable entrepreneurs to thrive in an otherwise cutthroat and expensive market.

Watch this video to see how Hacker House is shaping the future of women in tech.

Continue Reading

Technology

Elon Musk’s X will be allowed back online in Brazil after paying one more fine

Published

on

By

Elon Musk's X will be allowed back online in Brazil after paying one more fine

The Federal Supreme Court (STF) in Brazil suspends Elon Musk’s social network after it fails to comply with orders from Minister Alexandre de Moraes to block accounts of those being investigated by the Brazilian justice system. 

Cris Faga | Nurphoto | Getty Images

X has to pay one last fine before the social network owned by Elon Musk is allowed back online in Brazil, according to a decision out Friday from the country’s top justice, Alexandre de Moraes.

The platform was suspended nationwide at the end of August, a decision upheld by a panel of judges on Sept. 2. Earlier this month, X filed paperwork informing Brazil’s supreme court that it is now in compliance with orders, which it previously defied.

As Brazil’s G1 Globo reported, X must now pay a new fine of 10 million reals (about $2 million) for two additional days of non-compliance with the court’s orders. X’s legal representative in Brazil, Rachel de Oliveira, is also required to pay a fine of 300,000 reals.

The case dates back to April, when de Moraes, the minister of Brazil’s supreme court, known as Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), initiated a probe into Musk and X over alleged obstruction of justice.

Musk had vowed to defy the court’s orders to take down certain accounts in Brazil. He called the court’s actions “censorship,” and railed online against de Moraes, describing the judge as a “criminal” and encouraging the U.S. to end foreign aid to Brazil.

In mid-August, Musk closed down X offices in Brazil. That left his company without a legal representative in the country, a federal requirement for all tech platforms to do business there.

By Aug. 28, de Moraes’ court threatened a ban and fines if X didn’t appoint a legal representative within 24 hours, and if it didn’t comply with takedown requests for accounts the court said had engaged in plots to dox or harm federal agents, among other things.

Earlier this month, the STF froze the business assets of Musk companies, including both X and satellite internet business Starlink, operating in Brazil. The STF said in court filings that it viewed Starlink parent SpaceX and X as companies that worked together as related parties.

Musk wrote in a post on X at that time that, “Unless the Brazilian government returns the illegally seized property of and SpaceX, we will seek reciprocal seizure of government assets too.”

On August 29, 2024, in Brazil, the Minister of the Supreme Court, STF Minister Alexandre de Moraes, orders the blocking of the accounts of another company, Starlink, of Elon Musk, to guarantee the payment of fines imposed by the STF due to the lack of representatives of X in Brazil. 

Ton Molina | Nurphoto | Getty Images

As head of the STF, de Moraes has long supported federal regulations to rein in hate speech and misinformation online. His views have garnered pushback from tech companies and far-right officials in the country, along with former President Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters.

Bolsonaro is under investigation, suspected of orchestrating a coup in Brazil after losing the 2022 presidential election to current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

While Musk has called for retribution against de Moraes and Lula, he has worked with and praised Bolsonaro for years. The former president of Brazil authorized SpaceX to deliver satellite internet services commercially in Brazil in 2022.

Musk bills himself as a free speech defender, but his track record suggests otherwise. Under his management, X removed content critical of ruling parties in Turkey and India at the government’s insistence. X agreed to more than 80% of government take-down requests in 2023 over a comparable period the prior year, according to analysis by the tech news site Rest of World.

X faces increased competition in Brazil from social apps like Meta-owned Threads, and Bluesky, which have attracted users during its suspension.

Starlink also faces competition in Brazil from eSpace, a French-American firm that gained permission this year from the National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) to deliver satellite internet services in the country.

Lukas Darien, an attorney and law professor at Brazil’s Facex University Center, told CNBC that the STF’s enforcement actions against X are likely to change the way large technology companies will view the court.

“There is no change to the law here,” Darien wrote in a message. “But specifically, big tech companies are now aware that the laws will be applied regardless of the size of a business and the magnitude of its reach in the country.”

Musk and representatives for X didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

Late Thursday, X Global Government Affairs posted the following statement:

“X is committed to protecting free speech within the boundaries of the law and we recognize and respect the sovereignty of the countries in which we operate. We believe that the people of Brazil having access to X is essential for a thriving democracy, and we will continue to defend freedom of expression and due process of law through legal processes.”

WATCH: X is a financial ‘disaster’

Elon Musk's X is a financial 'disaster,' co-authors of new book 'Character Limit' say

Continue Reading

Technology

OpenAI sees roughly $5 billion loss this year on $3.7 billion in revenue

Published

on

By

OpenAI sees roughly  billion loss this year on .7 billion in revenue

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, at the Hope Global Forums annual meeting in Atlanta on Dec. 11, 2023.

Dustin Chambers | Bloomberg | Getty Images

OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, expects about $5 billion in losses on $3.7 billion in revenue this year, CNBC has confirmed.

The company generated $300 million in revenue last month, up 1,700% since the beginning of last year, and expects to bring in $11.6 billion in sales next year, according to a person close to OpenAI who asked not to be named because the numbers are confidential.

The New York Times was first to report on OpenAI’s financials earlier on Friday after viewing company documents. CNBC hasn’t seen the financials.

OpenAI, which is backed by Microsoft, is currently pursuing a funding round that would value the company at more than $150 billion, people familiar with the matter have told CNBC. Thrive Capital is leading the round and plans to invest $1 billion, with Tiger Global planning to join as well.

OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar told investors in an email Thursday that the funding round is oversubscribed and will close by next week. Her note followed a number of key departures, most notably technology chief Mira Murati, who announced the previous day that she was leaving OpenAI after six and a half years.

Also this week, news surfaced that OpenAI’s board is considering plans to restructure the firm to a for-profit business. The company will retain its nonprofit segment as a separate entity, a person familiar with the matter told CNBC. The structure would be more straightforward for investors and make it easier for OpenAI employees to realize liquidity, the source said.

OpenAI’s services have exploded in popularity since the company launched ChatGPT in late 2022. The company sells subscriptions to various tools and licenses its GPT family of large language models, which are powering much of the generative AI boom. Running those models requires a massive investment in Nvidia’s graphics processing units.

The Times, citing an analysis by a financial professional who reviewed OpenAI’s documents, reported that the roughly $5 billion in loses this year are tied to costs for running its services as well as employee salaries and office rent. The costs don’t include equity-based compensation, “among several large expenses not fully explained in the documents,” the paper said.

WATCH: OpenAI has a lot of challengers, says Madrona’s Matt McIlwain

OpenAI has a lot of challengers, says Madrona's Matt McIlwain

Continue Reading

Trending