Talking points for Google busers


TechCrunch is reporting that a Google employee leaked an internal memo the Silicon Valley tech firm circulated to its employees, urging them to provide public comment on the controversial proposal to sanction its private shuttles' use of city bus stops.

Here are the talking points Googlers were supposedly told to highlight in comments to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency at tomorrow's (Tue/21) meeting, when the transit board will vote on the proposal.

  • I am so proud to live in San Francisco and be a part of this community
  • I support local and small businesses in my neighborhood on a regular basis
  • My shuttle empowers my colleagues and I to reduce our carbon emissions by removing cars from the road
  • If the shuttle program didn’t exist, I would continue to live in San Francisco and drive to work on the peninsula*
  • I am a shuttle rider, SF resident, and I volunteer at…..
  • Because of the above, I urge the Board to adopt this pilot as a reasonable step in the right direction

The leaked memo, according to TechCrunch, also noted that "While you are not required to state where you work, you may confirm that Google is your employer if you are so inclined. If you do choose to speak in favor of the proposal we thought you might appreciate some guidance on what to say. Feel free to add your own style and opinion."

According to the article, the memo was leaked to the activists who have been organizing tech bus blockades by an employee who found it "a bit high handed." In turn, the activists sent it to TechCrunch.

*Not according to the study that was mentioned by the SFMTA at the SF Environment Commission last week.


it reiterates what those bus riders clearly already think i.e. they live in a city that they love and support, and that they do not want to clutter up the streets with cars.

What's not to like there?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 5:48 pm

We are talking about GOOGLE. Do you actually believe its thousands of employees all think alike?

Posted by rebecca on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 6:08 pm

Seeing what she wants to see and projecting her own POV onto Google employees. Clearly she believes they're all of the same mindset and are controlled by their corporate overlords - perhaps because that's the exact situation in the SFBG newsroom.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 6:25 pm

P.S. Do you do palm reading, too?

Posted by rebecca on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 6:39 pm

One word, not two.

Evidently your spell checking skills are as good as your reporting.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 7:10 pm

... you missed the pun, dear. 

Posted by Joe Fitzgerald on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 10:43 am

Shouldn't you be off engaging in more "advocacy journalism" there ol' Joe vs. defending your colleagues?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 11:29 am

A mature person would have said to Joe:

"Oh it was a pun. My mistake. I didn't catch that. I didn't read it like that. Thanks for the clarification."

That's respectful, versus being the usual asshole like the comment on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 11:29 am.

Posted by guest on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 5:38 am

about the Bay Guardian lunchroom.

Do the shrinking in number general office flunkies wait around for Steve and the dear leadership to make pronouncements before they dare to voice an opinion?

Narrow people think others think as they do, people who think there is a conspiracy out to get them want to conspire, people who complain about the the other side being narrow want conformity on their side.

It's like Orwell never happened.

Posted by maybe a guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 10:00 pm

Hi "maybe a guest." Glad you're on the case. While you're at it, you'd better pay a visit to SFGate, and ask whether the same horrible fate has befallen the Chronicle's lunchroom. Because look, the Chron wrote about the SAME MEMO.

Posted by rebecca on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 11:07 am
Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 11:25 am

You fools just add to the self-defeating hysteria against workers with well paying jobs. And when your jihad makes national news, it just makes you look like jackasses.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 11:43 am
Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 11:57 am
Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 6:30 pm

As a spokesperson for the "progressive" movement?

Posted by maybe a guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 9:53 pm

Yes. Have you been to Google? It's the flippin' Borg.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 12:31 am

You really make it seem so easy with your presentation however I in finding this topic to be
really something that I feel I would by no means understand.
It seems too complicated and very extensive for me.

I'm having a look forward for your next publish, I will try to get the grasp of it!

Posted by télékinésie incroyables on Jul. 12, 2014 @ 2:58 am

to use the infrastructure that belongs to San Francisco's transit agency and all San Franciscans. Why wouldn't they?

*lillipublicans: real or imp? Reader must decide.

Posted by lillipublicans* on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 2:31 am

Better question.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 6:57 am

That's the typical selfish response. Why should they if they can make mountains of money and get away with contributing as little as possible to the public sphere they profit from?

Google and all the other tech giants around here can well afford to kick in a whole lot more than they are now, so why don't they? Why do we even have to ask?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 6:28 pm

those seem like reasonable points.

Posted by guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 6:08 pm

testimony at public hearings!!!!!!! Who the FUCK does this company think it is - SEIU or Coleman Advocates?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 6:09 pm

If you ever watch the sameness of public input from concerned crazy progressive citizens on cable access before the BOS you would know that studied talking points good, mostly.

Posted by maybe a guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 10:04 pm

This is an OUTRAGE. I demand protests be organized immediately to eviscerate the Google-ites respond for the displacement of hundreds of innocent families!!!
If anyone needs a sheet of talking points for media interviews I have a handy .pdf you can print out on my website!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 6:27 pm

Re: "*Not according to the study that was mentioned by the SFMTA at the SF Environment Commission last week."

No, the study that you point to indicates that 70% of the employees WOULD remain in San Francisco even without the buses. Seems like a pretty big majority. Nobody told the other 30% to lie, It is a valid point that 7 out of 10 employees could make.

And, FWIW, having sat through many public comments where the union people all wore the same buttons and made the same points, the coaching of speakers is hardly news.

Posted by Guest2 on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 6:27 pm

Is this the best the SFBG can do?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 6:44 pm

TO: my SF Supervisor

RE: Tuesday, January 21 at 1pm at San Francisco City Hall (room 400)

Please speak up against the private use of public bus stops tomorrow at SFMTA hearing at City Hall. I do not want my tax dollars used to subsidize private corporations (Google, Apple, Facebook, et al). I do not want these buses using MUNI bus stops at any price. They need to make arrangements with private property owners to use non-public areas as their commuter stops, as other privately contracted buses do, or encourage their employees to use existing public transportation for their commute.
thank you.

Guss Dolan

London Breed
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, Ca 94102-4689
(415) 554-7630 - voice
(415) 554-7634 - fax

Vallie Brown
Legislative Aide
(415) 554-7687 - voice
(415) 554-7634 - fax

Conor Johnston
Legislative Aide
(415) 554-6783 - voice
(415) 554-7634 - fax

Lauren Kahn
Legislative Aide
(415) 554-6758 - voice
(415) 554-7674 - fax

Posted by gussdolan on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 7:36 pm

"At any price"? Are you really saying that no amount of money could make a 1-minute stop at those precious pieces of urban beauty worthwhile? Not even $277 per stop, as some have proposed? Even these google bus blockers, as misguided as they are, have enough common sense that for the right price, this could be a big plus for the city, on top of the fact that they're already providing benefits for the city and it's residents in the form of reduced congestion and improved air quality.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 12:22 am

Yes, because heaven knows that SF is the only place cool enough for a Google employee to live. You just can't *get* a good cup of fair trade, shade-grown organic espresso in Mountain View!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 12:33 am

Hey, mindless 'move somewhere else' bot #456:

Turns out, the Bay Area is a big place. Geographically spread out. People sometimes have to take a job far from home. Many people commute TO and FROM San Francisco. Many people do what they can to get a job where they live, but end up taking a good job that involves a commute for a while. NO ONE likes to commute for an hour.

For fuck's sake, just stop with the whining and idiotic assumptions that people live here just for the lifestyle. It's really none of your damn business, why a number of people live here and commute to Mountain View. Let's find all the people who get in their cars and drive to South City or Brisbane, shall we, and burn them at the stake! They're ruining EVERYTHING!!!!

Posted by 94103er on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 12:33 pm

OK, so why does someone who works in Mountain View choose to live in SF? If no one likes to commute for an hour, then what's the reasoning? The low, low cost of housing? Because they like not being able to find a parking spot? I'm guessing that anyone that can pass Google's storied "snatch the pebble from my hand" interview process could pretty much work almost anywhere they liked.... so if they're not living in SF for the lifestyle, what is it?

Defensive much, bro?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 4:07 pm

or elsewhere out on BART or CalTrain?

Why aren't you factoring those in, especially as there are far more of them?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 4:56 pm

I'm not factoring them in because a) housing costs are generally lower elsewhere out on BART and Caltrain (yes, before you leap to correct me, I'm well aware that there are outliers such as Atherton); and b) there aren't herds of private buses stopping on crowded narrow residential streets in Mountain View to ferry workers up to SF.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 12:44 pm

There are many buses, as well as trains and ferries, bringing commuters into SF. But for those SF RE would be more expensive.

The number commuting out into the burbs, although it is growing, is nowhere close to offsetting the inbound commute.

So overall, if we made commuting illegal, SF RE prices would increase.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 12:57 pm

I don't have the option to put it in bold, underlined, italic 36-point font, but please note that I did say *** PRIVATE *** buses.

All of the other transportation options you list (bus, train, ferry) are public services, usable by anyone, that pay their fair share to terminate their services at either end of the line.

Or perhaps I misunderstood. Are you suggesting that Google make their private buses accessible by the general public? At the same "rate" that the current users (Google employees) pay? Great! I'm all for that.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 7:10 pm

Is the vanguard of progressive action? Fighting commuter buses!? Ridiculous.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 9:23 pm

Now it's attempting to force people out of the buses and into their cars!!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 9:59 pm

Uh, if these Google/Apple/Tech workers gave a sh*$ about their carbon output they'd live near their jobs. It's not like they're laborers who can't afford to live in SF and have to commute in to find work. There are plenty of places for them to live near Mountain View and Cupertino.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 9:27 pm

That is the greener option, it's true. Of course, we should probably require all those unionized city employees who live outside SF to move into the City, just to be fair.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 9:58 pm

old time industry people who commute into the city to stay where they came from and work. All the people in banking, and the banks that employ them should move elsewhere and pay taxes there. Giving Sf nothing.

It's comical that our liberals have a city budget of 8,000,000,000 based on taxes gained by employing people who live well away from the city, while they whine about people working in other areas of the Bay Area.

If business actually followed the policies of the progressive man children SF would wind down like Detroit. Thankfully adults have some input.

Posted by maybe a guest on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 10:13 pm

If SF turns into a monoculture of tech employees, then it's far more in danger of becoming the next Detroit. Detroit failed because it became far too dependent on one single industry.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 12:36 am
Posted by maybe a guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 7:36 am

Either you are for them or you are against them.

Ever seen a SF green party meeting. There's a type. White, mostly make, overweight, beard etc.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 7:42 am

Bad straw man. "Progressivism" isn't an industry that supports the economy of a city. Try again.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 10:55 am
Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 11:19 am

Enjoy your fallacy. Here's a coloring book.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 4:17 pm
Posted by Guest on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 4:57 pm

I was referring to the economic reality that a city dependent on a single industry is less robust than one with more diversity. It has nothing to do with your so-called "progressives".

What you're doing is called "derailing". Look it up.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 12:47 pm

clearly SF is not a one-industry town.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 12:59 pm the topic at hand.

No, it's not CURRENTLY a single-industry town, but look at the trend of residences occupied by workers in tech industries over the last decade.

Go ahead. Look it up. We'll wait.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 7:17 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.