Googles Biodiesel Transit

[Dallas]

Google, a household name used by many operates it's own transit system, and all the buses are biodiesel powered. Cool!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/technology/10google.html?hp

[BusCrazyTom]

Great program they've got! More employers in diverse industries and areas should do the same thing.

BC TOM

[tekebird]

Corporate Tight wads.......if they were serious they should have sprung for Hydrogen Fuel Cell buses

[jackhartjr]

Google left a bad taste in our mouths around Lenoir, NC the way they came in and hoodwinked some of our local politicians for property here.
Count me not a fan!
Jack

[Sean]

Google left a bad taste in our mouths around Lenoir, NC the way they came in and hoodwinked some of our local politicians for property here.

Hmm.  From "Business Week":

But that's not the majority view in Lenoir. Most see Google's arrival as a vital morale booster, if not a full replacement for the lost furniture factories. "I would have voted for a 100% tax incentive if that's what it would have taken to land them," says Herbert H. Greene, a commissioner of Caldwell County, of which Lenoir is the seat.

Full article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_30/b4043066.htm

I'm not Google's biggest fan.  But you can't criticize them for doing what any competitive company in their position would do.  They could not face their stockholders if they did otherwise.  This is called capitalism, aka a free market economy.  Frankly, I don't want to live in any of the alternative forms of governance around the world.

You may recall that dear old Walt Disney went around under cover of over a dozen "facade" companies to buy the real estate that is now Walt Disney World.  Few in that county now regret the way that all played out.

Bottom line:  Lenoir could easily have said "no", and Google could easily have gone elsewhere.

I respect your choice to be counted as not a fan, but there are two sides to every story, and I think Google deserves a fair shake in this thread.

-Sean
http://ourodyssey.blogspot.com

[jackhartjr]

Sean...there is a moral way to do business...and an underhanded way to do it.  They chose the later.
Unless you lived here...you won't see but the one side.

I get tired of these folks saying..."It's all about shareholder equity!"

Take Blackbeard...at one time what he was doing was legal.  Now are you going to tell me that just because it was legal...that it was moral?

Jack

[Sean]

Sean...there is a moral way to do business...and an underhanded way to do it.  They chose the later.
Unless you lived here...you won't see but the one side.

Well, Jack, you're right, I'm not as close to it as you.  And I am willing to concede that you may be right.  But you've offered no evidence of any wrongdoing (or even "immoral" decision making) to give us anything to go on.  By contrast, a brief search of articles on the subject (using, if you like, a search engine other than Google) turns up a balance of opinion (some very strong) on both sides of the issues.

So please tell me, what, exactly, did Google do that was immoral? Or what was different than what, say, IBM would have done?

Again, I'm not the biggest fan of Google -- I have a lot of issues with some of their business practices, and I think they have a dismal user privacy track record.  But I'm just not seeing what they did in this situation that any company of their standing (by which I mean the 800-lb gorilla of an industry, such as, e.g., Wal-Mart) would not be compelled to do by modern competitive business practice.

I get tired of these folks saying..."It's all about shareholder equity!"

That's not what I said -- what I said was accountability.  Equity is something different and more tangible.  Google's managers are accountable, ultimately, to the stockholders, just as Lenoir's politicians are accountable to the people of Lenoir.  All corporations act only in self-interest -- any appearance to the contrary (e.g. "we're committed to the environment") can ultimately be traced back to that self-interest (environmental commitment yields tax benefits, customer goodwill, competitive differentiation, etc. etc.).  Politicians are supposed to act only in the interests of their constituents.  When these two sides came to the bargaining table (a scenario that plays out all over the world thousands of times each day), I assume each side attempted to get the best deal it could.

Take Blackbeard...at one time what he was doing was legal.  Now are you going to tell me that just because it was legal...that it was moral?

No (nor will I tell you that slavery, another formerly legal practice, was ever moral), and, again, that's not what I said.  I merely said there were two sides to the story, and a cursory review turns up people in Lenoir who were very much in favor of the deal.  I was neither in the Lenoir council chambers nor in the Google board room when this was discussed, and so I can't pretend to know what went on in either place.  But I am wiling to bet, based on decades in industry and having sat in on many similar meetings, on both sides of the table, that the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle.

I would hope that both sides bargained "ethically."  Playing cards close to the vest by not disclosing your entire position to the other side is, generally speaking, not unethical.  It does (and always has) put government entities at a disadvantage in the bargaining process, because they generally can keep few secrets.  But, again, since I was not there, I am certainly willing to be informed about some underhanded (unethical) move on the part of Google, if such happened.

-Sean
http://ourodyssey.blogspot.com

[jackhartjr]

Sean, I am not trying to get into a you know what contest with you about this.  I am like you trying to level the playing field by giving the infor mation as I know it.
First maybe I should say that the politicians got caught up in the same thing they are famous for...which is giving away our hard earned tax money.  If this would have been put out to a vote by the people up here...I doub't it would have passed.  They, (The politcians) gave away too much for too little.  There was no promise of jobs...and the ones they have are now said to be going to folks outside of Lenoir.  One state senator I know said the whole process was 'sleasy!'
If you read the article you referenced and read between the lines...the lawyer was sneaky.  Certainly not the way to do business.  (He also worked prior for Google for one of the GREAT accouting firms that is now paying $456,000,000.00 million in fines from a fraud scandle...so he learned from one of the worst.  (Don't worry moderators, it is fact and in print!)

Again...most of us up here think it was not the way honorable folks do business.

So folks say I should forget about the idea of men being honorable.  I say when we all feel the way...you think it's bad now.
Jack

[Dallas]

Gee,

I only posted about Google's BIO-diesel buses because I thought it was neat.

I didn't mean to start of conflagration.

No man is honorable 100% of the time, except one. Likewise no company is conscientious 100% of the time, however, anything that helps is to be considered good.

This topic is getting too contentious and has gone far astray of the original topic.

Sorry, it is now locked.