That is wrong. No way should the city be withholding that information, and it seems the city is doing exactly what they are NOT allowed to do, by law, “allow a third party to control the disclosure of public records”.

Why do we, the residents of Mountain View, let Google and our city leaders get away with withholding public records from the public.

Public records are public...for a reason.

If the numbers ever do come out people will say one of 2 things:

1) See! They're all commuting in. Google is to blame for all our traffic!
2) See! They all live in town. Google is to blame for the cost of housing!

Wait, what? Google's 2016 headcount is 26,143. Okay. But then, "While city officials won't reveal Google's current workforce numbers, they can at least give assurances that it's under 26,143." UNDER? Google is growing, right? Surely they haven't reduced in size over the past two years. So isn't it that that headcount is OVER 26,143?

Please add your conspiracy theories below this comment.

Wow....REALLY...now that is ludicrous. Of course almost all of the traffic congestion is due to Google. The City of Mountain View will do whatever it takes to keep Google here even if Mountain View is RIPPING AT THE SEAMS!!! All City officials care about is the money in taxes that they generate from Google. If we get so much money from them, then take of the housing at a reasonable rate, take care of the traffic congestion, and DO NOT build those ridiculous high rises that going up everywhere. They are huge but there is not EVEN ENOUGH parking for those monstrosities that private management corporations charge "an arm and a leg? for.

You have plenty of rentals and properties if the landlords and developers and management corporations WEREN'T SO GREEDY !!!!

Wow ....what a joke the City Council is. They will do whatever it takes to keep Google in Mountain View even though we are BUSTING AT THE SEAMS!!! There is housing but we can thank the greedy landlords making their profit...boo hooo....crying that you are not making a profit is a joke!!! The developers making a ton of money and raping our City for the land and building those ugly apartment high rises that so expensive to rent. With all the money the City makes, and the huge tax breaks that Google gets there has to be a way to make it right.

It's total workers+vendors+visitors that matter for traffic. Employees are only a fraction of the people in a Google building at any time. Contractors can be a large percentage. Vendors, salespeople, customers, interviewees, and visitors also add significant numbers. Employees is a legal term with a strict definition that leaves out many people who do work for Google.

This from the same outfit that via its data collection activity and "home devices" can correlate the day, time, and duration of every f*rt heard in your living room with your grocery list, but claims that "Certain systems mentioned in the reports were unique to Google, and the city couldn't identify them without the company's assistance, Arango said." Last I knew, counting noses, badges, or parking stickers was pretty straightforward, no? Money talks, just ask google.gov (formerly NASA Ames)
Note to moderators: I will continue to submit this until you post it...

If Google 'fessed up inre # of employees at their MV headquarters I bet the city and our citizenry would demand higher taxes from this employer to offset the wear and tear of their uses of all public facilities e.g. roads. We all know the Google presence is the main driver for higher rents and home prices. The company treats the City Council like lapdogs who do what is requested on "whatever" issue. Their bike riding employees ride helter/skelter on our roads and are hazards to road safety. Their privileged arrogance in public places such as markets, and gas stations etc is easy to spot and annoying a H#LL. Just a bunch of spoiled brats is my best description.

Where did my previous comment go?

It would be interesting to note, how many of there employees are long time bay area residents and how many have been brought here from long distances away.

What's the big deal that they don't want to give a head count? It shouldn't be treated as a secret.

Number of Googlers working in MV a trade secret? City employees "honoring" Google lawyers' insistence that number be kept secret b/c number of MV Googlers is a trade secret?
Why is the number of Googlers in MV a "trade secret"?
We all know they're everywhere in MV bicycling, sitting in Waymo out-of-control driverless vehicles, driving up rents and home prices with their $150,000-$180,000 starting salaries and contributing absolutely nothing to the local economy.
Somebody needs to release this information - can we have a whistleblower please?
Those MV mangers sucking up to Google lawyers should be fired forthwith!

I'm willing to bet that most of the commenters on here are retired and out of the workforce. Do you just spend your days ranting at people trying to make a living and have a career? Yelling about the impact they're having on traffic because you won't let more housing get built around the Google campus (neighborhood character and all that)?

How does expansion not equate to worsened traffic congestion?
Being secretive about the employee headcount does instill confidence that they will be honest in their heavily redacted disclosures.

Stand up City Council! Tails do not wag dogs!

Google should disclose number of Googlers in Mountain View, so that city and its residents will know the impact from traffic, infrastructure, housing market, rental they bring to us. Shouldn’t Google be a responsible corporate citizen as they claim?

Google should disclose the number of Googlers In Mountain View, so that city and its resident I’ll know the impact to traffic, infrastructure, rental, housing market. Shouldn’t Google be a good corporate citizen as they claim?

What are they hiding for?

Why my comments were kept deleted?

My research found:

GOVERNMENT CODE: Title 1 GENERAL: Division 7 Miscellaneous: Chapter 3.5 Inspection of Public Records: Article 1 General Provisions

§ 6254. Records exempt from disclosure requirements

A case decision states:

“The Public Records Act (Gov C § 6250 et seq.) contains a number of exemptions from disclosure. Because of the strong public policy in favor of disclosure of public records, such records must be disclosed unless they come within one or more of the categories of documents exempt from compelled disclosure (Gov C § 6254). These exemptions are construed narrowly, and the burden is on the public agency to show that the records should not be disclosed. Rogers v. Superior Court (1993, Cal App 2d Dist) 19 Cal App 4th 469, 23 Cal Rptr 2d 412, 1993 Cal App LEXIS 1028.”

This would seem to indicate that the City is prohibited from non-disclosure of the information requested. As long as it is restricted to only the employment headcount and no other personal identifying information. Also:

“Cal Const., Art. I, § 1, guarantees all persons the inalienable right to privacy. Nonetheless, the public and the press have a right to review the government's conduct of its business. The Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, has deemed the public's right of access to information concerning the conduct of public business a fundamental and necessary interest of citizenship. Consequently, in enacting the Public Records Act (Gov C § 6250 et seq.), the Legislature balanced the individual's privacy interest with the right to know about the conduct of public business. The specific exemptions from this general requirement of disclosure, which are listed in Gov C § 6254, are construed narrowly to insure maximum disclosure of the conduct of governmental operations. New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (1990, Cal App 2d Dist) 218 Cal App 3d 1579, 268 Cal Rptr 21, 1990 Cal App LEXIS 282.”

No privacy issues in this matter, so the City is not on good grounds to withhold this information. As long as it is restricted to only the employment headcount and no other personal identifying information. Also read this:

“Under the “deliberative process” exemption to disclosure of public records (Gov C § 6254, subd. (a)) in the Public Records Act, the key question is whether the disclosure of materials would expose an agency's decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions. Even if the content of a document is purely factual, it is nonetheless exempt from public scrutiny if it is actually related to the process by which policies are formulated or inextricably intertwined with policymaking processes. Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal 3d 1325, 283 Cal Rptr 893, 813 P2d 240, 1991 Cal LEXIS 3059.”

But a headcount of employees is not able to be “related to the process by which policies are formulated or inextricably intertwined with policymaking processes”. Thus there is no legal basis to withhold this information.

A FOIA request in court will simply compel the City of Mountain View to disclose the information requested in this new report.

There is good reason for Google to try to prevent disclosure of "employment" statistics.

They cannot count "contractors" as employees.

They probably have shifted their workforce significantly to "contractors"

They will eventually report a significantly lower figure than the older report of 26,143.

I remember working for PayPal and their workforce was approximately 40% employee and 60% contractor. If that is a good example, then there could be as much as a 20% reduction of employees at Google.

But here is where things get interesting.

The California Supreme Court made the following criteria regarding “contractors” it states:( Web Link

“"A huge number of businesses will be calling their lawyers saying 'What should I do?'" said Michael Chasalow, a professor at the USC Gould School of Law.

To classify someone as an independent contractor, the court said, businesses must show that the worker is free from the control and direction of the employer; performs work that is outside the hirer's core business; and customarily engages in "an independently established trade, occupation or business."

"When a worker has not independently decided to engage in an independently established business but instead is simply designated an independent contractor ... there is a substantial risk that the hiring business is attempting to evade the demands of an applicable wage order through misclassification," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote for the court.

A worker may be denied the status of employee "only if the worker is the type of traditional independent contractor — such as an independent plumber or electrician — who would not reasonably have been viewed as working in the hiring business," the court said.

Instead, an independent contractor would be understood to be working "in his or her own independent business," Cantil-Sakauye wrote.

The court offered examples: A plumber temporarily hired by a store to repair a leak or an electrician to install a line would be an independent contractor. But a seamstress who works at home to make dresses for a clothing manufacturer from cloth and patterns supplied by the company, or a cake decorator who works on a regular basis on custom-designed cakes would be employees.”

To list workers as independent contractors, businesses have to show they don’t control and direct the work, that the duties fall outside what the company normally does and the worker is “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business,” the California Supreme Court said.”

However, in my experience in almost every “contract” I have worked as an IT professional, the company I worked at provided my tools, made step by step requirements regarding how work was to be done, and supervised my work activity continuously.

It would appear that the California Supreme Court has opened a legal hornet’s nest because IT contracting can be forced to be reclassified as employees and be required to provide retroactive benefits as such.

Bad bad bad. Worse even than it looks.

In response to Wow:

Please help us understand more about your point of view?

It is very vague, I want to understand you. I think I understand, and I think we understand the real ugly picture.