Mark Zuckerberg donated $75 Million on his own accord! The least the hospital could do is change its name in thanks. Donating money is one of the most selfless things you can do. What kind of feverish sense of entitlement do you have when you try to disrespect a donor.
This is just dumb. As much as I can't stand Facebook, I have much more disdain for nurses that complain about privacy. I used to be a nurse and I would say the only nurses that complain about privacy are one worried about their own privacy. Hospitals need transparency. I saw more corruption while working in the hospitals I worked in than in any other place in the world. Electronic medical records now make it really easy for IT teams to alter or delete medical records. Don't be fooled people, this is far more about hospital privacy. Health-care is broken and this is why they care so much about "privacy". Imagine a cop that raised a major fuss about the camera he had to wear... Wouldn't you be at least a little suspicious???
I am a nurse at San Francisco General Hospital. I support the removal of the Zuckerberg name from the front of our public hospital that I have worked in for 31 years. I have been quoted as saying that the patients are “scared” because of the name of the Facebook CEO on its marquee. What I actually said was “patients have a right to be concerned, even frightened, at the prospect of having their personal medical data mined by a company that has a bad track record when it comes to privacy, a company who has now ‘bought in’ to the hospital they depend on for their health care”. Mark Zuckerberg is not the bogeyman. He just happens to head a company that has inconsistent values with ours, that of patient privacy and confidentiality, crucial in health care.
Interesting to see the New York Times using Mx. and a singular they for the purpose of gender neutrality. Surprising the first time I saw it, but if this isn’t how language changes, I don’t know what is.
1
When “strings are attached”, is it no longer a contribution but a purchase? Looks to me that Zuckerberg bought himself a sign for $75M.
Gross. Zuckerberg puts his name on the whole hospital! What a huge ego he has. Who cares that he gave some spare change to the community. He should give more.
Zuckerberg and his wife should be ashamed of themselves for such self aggrandizing. He only made his money off the backs of all his facebook users who get nothing in return except all their personal info monetized so he can put his name on the hospital!
He has done nothing to warrant such an honor as to have his name on a hospital. SF General was there long before Zuckerberg and will be there long after his name is spray painted over.
3
Here is the thing I don't get...Why on earth do the Zuckers want the old hospital renamed after them? Are they not know to the world already? The more I read, the more I get erked by all this. I thought Mark and his wife were decent people. Did a lot of good with their fortunes for the benefit of others without grandstanding..well I guess I was wrong.
3
As recently as March 2018, Facebook hired a physician to “obtain” patient records. Wonder if their founder’s hospital was targeted? Me too.
Here’s what they did (and can’t blame Cambridge Analytica) according to the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-user...
A lot to consider, but Facebook performed the largest unauthorized experiment to successfully prove that emotions could spread like a disease. (NY TIMES link above)
3
Some day, in the hopefully not too distant future, when we are able to objectively process the collective madness, toxicity, and damage of the social media era, the monuments to Zuckerberg and his ilk will topple like so many bronze Confederate generals...
8
It's about time people protested the smug "philanthropists" whose (tax-deductible) "gifts" depend on naming rights. What ever happened to the "Veterans Memorial Hospital"? Will we ever see another "George Washington Bridge"? When I go to a concert hall or museum I look at the bronze panels for "Anonymous" and give a silent salute.
5
Yes!! It is crass and ungracious for all these people and corporations to tag every new building like gangs tagging their turf. The first time I saw the Honda Center in Orange County I thought it was the worlds largest dealership or maybe a factory. Nope, just more corporate effrontery.
It’s not very mellifluous name to begin with. The last thing someone who’s sick needs to hear is that they’re being taken there.
2
The unruly SEIU 1021 trying to stir up trouble.
1
I’m always leery of people who want buildings and stuff named after them while they’re still alive.
5
Agree with others that the claim that the name is scaring off patients due to privacy concerns should be backed up. As a patient, you're forced to recite your name, address, and date of birth constantly for purposes of institutional compliance with privacy regulations. It happens at every doctor's office and hospital in the country. Would you really think that somehow laws and medical rules melt away just because the hospital has the name "Zuckerberg" on it? I can certainly understand why nurses might be unhappy to find themselves working at "Zuckerberg Hospital." And it might be a turnoff for patients too -- but is it really scaring them off in waves of privacy paranoia?
2
Patient data sharing and privacy issues: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/facebook-building-8-explored-data-sharin...
2
The real issue is the shame of the richest country in the world relying on self-aggrandizing billionaires to provide funding for services the nation itself could easily provide. Assuming it had its priorities straight, which it never has.
3
I don't have any concerns about privacy at the hospital, but always thought it was pure hubris on Zuckerberg's part to insist on the name change as a condition of making the donation. Zuckerberg has spent far more than $75million on his various homes in the area and they're not naming streets after him (yet).
The groveling by San Francisco principals in the face of tech money and other big business money is sickening. Renaming an iconic institution like San Francisco General is just one symptom of how the social character of San Francisco has been taken over by tech.
No, Zuckerberg couldn't just have a new wing, or a building named after him; he has to have the entire complex named after him. Zuckerberg's wife, a physician, probably also has some part in this.
Yes, the money helped the hospital, but when you measure that against the absolute threat to middle class San Franciscans that the infusion of tech money - with its concomitant demand for tax breaks - has created - i.e.homelessness, absurd housing costs, increased stress from commuting, etc. it's really a slap in the face.
Besides, $75M for Zuckerberg is chump change; it's not like there was any amount of sacrifice involved, and he got a tax break out of it!
5
"On Saturday, about a dozen current and former nurses held a small demonstration outside the hospital, led by Sasha Cuttler, a nurse"
It is upsetting that highly skilled nurses cannot comfort their patients by telling them that their medical information is not kept on Facebook. It is perhaps more troubling that 10-15 nurses, some of which do not even work there, have represented themselves and the hospital so poorly on national news.
2
What problem could they have with Mark Zuckerberg Presents Mark Zuckerberg Hospital for Mark Zuckerbergs: A Mark Zuckerberg Production? We all know Mark Zuckerberg is the most humble, Mark Zuckerbergian man in San Francisco.
9
It is a ridiculously cumbersome name. MZ needs to get over himself and they need to revert to plain old San Francisco General.
Local news media at first faithfully trotted out the new moniker but seem to have mostly returned to SF General, thank heavens.
A gracious person donates surplus funds and then shuts up about it. This is so NY, give to charity but spend millions on galas and desingner outfits to show off your generosity. You're not in NJ anymore Mark.
1
might as well add a ZuckerburgerKing too.
As part of their calling to calm and care, the SF nurses could easily remind patients that HIPAA protects their medical privacy.
5
Let's see. How many nurses work at SF General? According to Google there are over 2,000.
A dozen or so we're part of this stupid "protest". Let's give these 12 the benefit of the doubt and allow for nurses on different shifts, off that day, or who didn't get invited. So let's say 50 nurses. That's a little more than 2% of the total number of nurses. And that is using a figure 4x the actual number of nurses protesting.
The actual percentage that was physically present was ½ of 1 percent of all nursing employees at San Francisco General. And how many of the 12 were on the clock and being paid to protest?
Maybe they'd like to go back to work in the old hospital that was there before Zuckerberg kindly donated $75 million?
I am very sympathetic to nurses when it comes to pay, recognition, and how hard they work. It is a true calling and bless them all for answering the call.
But to the editors of the New York Times, this story of 12 people out of 2,200 simply is not real news.
11
A dozen current and former nurses. There are thousands of current and past workers at the hospital. The protestors represent a fringe disgruntled anti-tech viewpoint, but anything involving Zuckerberg or tech gets newspaper website clicks, so I guess that qualifies for journalism these days.
A modicum of reporting effort by the Times would have easily revealed what anyone familiar with the hospital knows: it was an embarrassing, dangerous neglected dump until the renovations paid for with the Zuckerberg donation. Before the renovations, a female patient died in a faulty stairwell that accidentally locked her inside and no one found her for days!
The Zuckerberg donation not only led to improvements, but created momentum that also raised the stakes and the bar. It's a better hospital now. These protesting nurses should go to the family of the woman who died in that stairwell and tell them how much better things were in the good old days.
9
If San Francisco taxed big tech appropriately rather than giving them tax breaks they don't need, the City would have the money to pay for the improvements on its own rather than depending on the generosity of Richie Rich. And there would have been the added benefit of maybe several fewer tech companies locating here - the presence of so many of their overpaid employees is wildly distorting the economy here.
3
Although I think that this protest is silly, it needs to be clarified that the taxpayers of SF paid for the new hospital ($800 million I believe). Zuckerberg donated a fraction at the end, but the building was well underway before he got involved. It is the people of SF who built the hospital. Philanthropy is the very very least these mega bazillionaires can do, but please don't make him out to be a hero.
3
Remove it. He is insidious.
5
I thought one had to wait until after one’s death to have the name recognized.
3
To my fellow nurses I salute and embrace your character!
4
Perhaps the protesting nurses might not remember that SF General was once desperately low on funds, and was a place you wouldn't want to send your very worst enemy. In the 1990s, when the hospital was all gangbangers and gunshot wounds, it wasn't safe, clean or particularly modern. It was understaffed and the people who worked there, while while not entirely cheery, were heroic.
Regardless of the vanity of the sign, shouldn't we be grateful that the Zucks shared their good fortune at all? Because of the Zuckerbergs (and I'm sure a lot of other generous folks), the protesting nurses have a safe, clean, well-equipped place to work.
If you don't like Mr. Zuckerberg and you don't want to be associated with his name, by all means, go drop off your resume at UCSF Hospital down the street.
4
No, the City should have TAXED him and his company appropriately to improve the hospital.
2
If the true concern is over privacy, unless the patients are forced to sign up for Facebook as a prerequisite to receiving care, that seems kind of silly.
On the other hand, I don't really get why wealthy people need buildings, institutions, landmarks, etc. to bear their name for making a donation. Is it a charitable donation or not? For us regular folk, we don't require recognition for charitable donations because, well, it's an act of charity.
6
I can tell everyone why there’s
an emergency of homelessness
in the East Bay—homeowners!!
As soon as any CDC offers a project all the ultra-liberal homeowners suddenly turn into
Reagan reactionaries. I’ve heard it
with my own ears! “They choose to
be homeless”. “We don’t need more people in California”. “They’re
all junkies—have you seen all the
needles!”
My husband happens to work for
LIIF—the Low Income Investment
Fund which finances, or participates in financing, projects
that benefit only low-income or
homeless people all over the country. Many of these projects
are incredibly well thought-out and
may include high-quality non-profit
charter schools, job training facilities, federally qualified health
clinics, YMCAs, grocery stores,
libraries, childcare, and supportive services for people who need them. They’re often located near transportation hubs.
Cities and regions desire these
developments because the quality
of life goes up for everyone.
Berkeley and Oakland city admins dither and talk while the daily misery continues. There’s simply
no political will to address these
problems and build the necessary
structures for people to live in.
The state wants to take charge and force these communities to
give in and build. I say go for it.
Nothing will happen unless they
do, I’m quite sure of that.
Oh but the Berkeley council will
soon vote on putting up “Welcome
to our sanctuary city” signs.
Nice touch, Berkeley. It’s all good!
1
For $75 million, I’d give Zuckerburg the naming rights to my children.
3
San Francisco General. Where to start? Some news reports have stated that the naming was not Zuckerberg’s idea. It was to get more people to make similar contributions.
I do know this: if you go to the emergency room at SF general (it’s the busiest by far) they do not inform patients that the hospital - unlike virtually all others - does not negotiate pricing with insurers. Meaning the hospital will bill you separately for huge amounts above what your insurance will pay. And because it’s run by the City and County, if you dispute these exorbitant bills, they put a lien on your house.
2
Not only that, God help anyone who is in a hurry and trying to locate the building that their specialist or doctor resides in. I have traveled all over the world and visited many institutions, so I can say with confidence that the signage at SF General (I refuse to call it Zuckerberg) is by FAR the worst I have ever encountered, and that includes some third world nations.
Be forewarned, if you are in a hurry to get to your appointment at building such-and-such, you had better make an exploratory visit beforehand so that you can figure out where your building is, and how to get there. the signage at SF General is a hot mess!
Maybe the nurses would like to have the hospital named after them - they can each take a $10,000 per year pay cut for the next 50 years.
1
Zuckerberg seems to have a lot in common with billionaire Denny Sanford, who made his fortune in subprime lending and is systematically renaming institutions in my hometown of Sioux Falls, SD: Sanford Medical Center (with a self-congratulatory statue), Sanford Children's Hospital, Sanford Premier Center....
It's great to have the money, but when it's under the condition that a philanthropist be honored (worshipped) it's incredibly tacky.
1
This is how the Russian hackers are winning the new iteration of the Cold War which our political leaders are refusing to acknowledge, more so, to fight with every ounce of their political power. Russia is winning by dividing us and by separating us from our core values of decency, compassion, fairness and honesty. Yes, Zuckerberg is on the hot seat today. But he is the only one being punished for admitting to a mistake. Where is the indignation towards those who maliciously explored the product of Zuckerberg’s imagination and who are now quietly hiding behind the devastation? How about those politicians who refuse to denounce Russia and who are failing to do something, anything, so that the havoc does not strike again? At this time when leaders are obviously walking away from their moral obligations towards the poor and the sick, concerned healthcare workers should not pick quarrels with their benefactors. The nurses’ time for advocacy may be better spent propping the names of their donors for the good they have done. Cheer the donors when they recognize their mistakes, when they try to make corrections or redirect their efforts towards more lofty goals. Clearing the hospital’s name, now sullied, is in the best interest of all.
Oh, Who cares, this is so typical of San Francisco, they bellyache about not having enough money, then when someone steps up and give them $75 million they have a problem with that too.
Give the money back and take the name off the hospital, very simple
7
Very silly. The protest. It is a NAME, public buildings get named by whoever paid to have them built. Welcome to corporate America. This happens at Universities, concert halls, parks, etc.... Calling it the "Smith Jones San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center" might be easier, but I don't know how many billionaire couples named Smith/Jones there are! Everyone shortens a name anyhow. I work at UCSF - we currently call the building zSFG. Maybe in a bit we will end up calling it Zee or ZuckHosp. I can assure that there are no patients freaking out and walking away...I see people hobbling out, carrying new babies, plenty of homeless and those with mental health issues (it is a public hospital). No one is paying attention to the name, even if too long.
3
"Names" have vernacular value, especially of they have been in place for a long time. The sickening practice of naming and renaming sports stadiums for the most recent, largest "donor" is just downright offensive.
So it goes it America, the land that money bought.
1
Changing the name of an institution with such a long history can be jarring to those who have worked there for a long time. However, the fact that they gave a very large donation should not be ignored. His business practices are not illegal and have little relevance to his donations. Should anything named Rockefeller, Wellcome or Carnegie be renamed? How about Gates (boogeyman emeritus of Silicon Valley liberals), who funded the biggest philanthropic organization in the history of mankind?
3
Years ago I worked for the late Hibbard E. Williams MD when he was Chief of Medicine at San Francisco General Hospital. He was a legendary clinician and probably the finest teacher I ever encountered. He built a great Department of Medicine starting from a very modest county hospital.
He was also a true humanitarian. I remember one day on rounds seeing a disheveled, demented, and abusive alcoholic who was on one of multiple admissions for intractable medical and psychosocial problems: the sort of patient who is a challenge for any house officer. After his typical brilliant clinical assessment Dr. Williams quoted to us the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. "That's us, ladies and gentlemen", he said.
Hibbard Williams contributed incomparably more to SFGH than could any sum of money. I propose that the hospital be renamed in his honor.
9
The Bay Bridge was renamed the Willie L Brown Bridge a few years back. No one calls it by that name. Not even newscasters reporting on the Bay Bridge traffic. SFO terminals are being "named". But they are also numbered (and include the "International Terminal") and referred to as such. SF General will always be SF General to most of us that live in San Francisco. Zuckerberg donated money to build a new hospital but there is an older hospital still in use right behind it and quite a few very old buildings that are part of SF General between 21st St and 23rd St (including a multistory parking garage). I never hear anyone here referring to it as "Zuckerberg SF General".
3
Contrarían view alert: Wealthy people choose to donate large sums for all kinds of reasons (legacy, vanity, pr, altruism, cause conviction) and I am grateful they do. What I find unfortunate is that other people actually think their medical records are at risk simply because of the name on the door. And I find it particularly unfortunate that highly educated nurses and administrators cannot assuage such unfounded fears. How do they manage a real crisis?
21
Quite well. The trauma center is regarded as one of the best in the US.
You left out "get a huge tax deduction" from your list as to why the 1% donates money.
1
He also forgot to mention the many tax breaks that Zuckerberg's company and all the other tech companies around here manage to squeeze out of the politicos.
I have no grudge against wealthy people; I know many of them and some of them are the finest people you'll ever meet. That said, the need to plaster one's name all over the place smacks of "Trumpism".
For those who donate: remember, it wss not only *you* who made your money; it was all who preceded you to build the capital and innovative infrastructure that made it possible, and the countless co-workers who gave tirelessly to make you rich. Show some humility in your giving. We need your money; we don't need your name attached to it.
True...when you donate $1 million you save maybe $200k in taxes. But you lose the other $800k. Nobody gives away money just for a tax deduction.
I don't get the connection the nurses are making between Facebook privacy policies and patient privacy at the renamed hospital. Why would a patient be "wary" or frightened that patient confidentiality will be compromised because Zuckerberg has his name on the institution?
Recent articles have provided a lot of information about the Koch brothers and how they use their large donations to not just name, but exert administrative control over, academic departments at hundreds of universities. Are the nurses claiming that the Zuckerbergs are dictating patient care policies at SF General?
6
Go, nurses, go! This is the best news out of San Francisco in a very long time. My dad was a doctor, I’m a lifelong patient and I would NEVER go to a Zuckerberg’s...
15
Here's one of the differences between me (and I suspect, most normal people) and the filthy rich. If we made a huge donation to a public facility, we wouldn't need to have our name all over it.
30
Hoping your privacy will be protected at this hospital is like going to Saint Mary’s for abortion counseling.
8
Funny. But, there are degrees of privacy violation- Zuckerberg violates at the highest level. We can all agree we do not want a free for all. The patient's have a point.
2
Funds an upgrade to the medical infrastructure of SF and the thankless nutters want it to be a referendum on capitalism.
What is going on in this nation? Thanks. Zuck. I don’t much care for Facebook but I’m glad he’s making generous contributions.
15
I'm glad he's making contributions, but you shouldn't require your name on what is supposed to be a generous gift.
2
What's going on is a long-overdue rebuke and rejection of the over-the-top self-aggrandizement and required worship of a wealthy privacy rapist before funds for the sick being held hostage are released.
4
Zuck? Yuck. He is not your friend. Make the donation and move on. Love him or hate him; everybody knows, he can't be trusted. You want a trusted, lauded name on a hospital- at least in the donor's lifetime. Let the dirt and name recision happen long after they have passed. Here, Zuckerberg/FB is synonymous with privacy violations in the name of corporate greed. Yuck!
7
As a nurse for nearly 45 years (ICU and university educator) I hate seeing history erased by slapping a new name on an old institution. Why can't a garden or a plaque in the lobby suffice?
27
I guess gardens and plaques in the lobby don't quench the narcissists' thirst for glory and adulation.
35
I disagree with this protest entirely. I say that as a 34 year old millennial, who has taken a moral stand against the company for years, never using, or making a Facebook page. Something that is very hard to get away with in today's society. That shouldn't, but does affect social and employment opportunities.
The reason I disagree with their protest is simple. They are willing to protest his name on a building he paid 75 million dollars for, because it doesn't affect them personally. But they still use Facebook.
If they are not willing to quit at a minimum Facebook in protest, let alone their jobs, then they simply are doing it for selfish reasons. I have zero support for protest movements that won't accept the slightest PERSONAL inconvenience.
Every time I hear someone complain about Facebook, who is still actively using the platform I am frustrated. Some say such horrible things about the platform, I can't help but question their moral convictions that they would despite all that continue to use it.
18
With all due respect, where is your evidence that the protesting staff members are Facebook users?
I myself have never been a FB user. Although most Americans do so, it is unfair to make assumptions in this regard:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/
San Franciscans themselves have a long history of demonstrating enlightened, educated decision-making, as citizens.
Please do not underestimate this group of health-care providers.
22
And apparently a long standing history of maintaining smug attitudes, too.
2
Two things...first, do you know they use FB or is that an assumption? Second, does using FB disqualify you completely from criticizing Zuckerberg? I hope not, as the implications of that thinking would stretch far beyond just FB's users and Zuckerberg. If a customer can't criticize a company or individual whose services they use, who can?
1
'As an ER nurse for over 30 years I am mortified that nurses are wasting their breath on such a trivial issue.'
Zuckerberg violated the public trust / testified before Congress that FB contributed to a forgeign adversary's compromising of US elections, and paid cash to have his name (as advertising) displayed on this hospital, a place of healing.
Trivial? I think not. The sense of 'mortification' is rightly manifested by those who observe this name on their workplace daily.
34
Add to that, Zuckerberg's cash grab at the expense of American election integrity created the current administration that has vowed to battle the very state where the hospital is located, while that same administration uses the name "San Francisco" as a right wing punching bag. Furthermore, Zuckerberg's assistance in electing Trump has drastically undermined the Affordable Care Act which hospitals like San Francisco General require to operate. The overwhelming cognitive dissonance of arguing in favor of Zuckerberg support of the hospital is so blatant I can't see how anyone can't see it or the moral imperative to fight it.
3
It says something about our messed up world when just the name of someone like Mr. Zuckerberg can "scare" patients. I'm not a defender or fan of his, but the portrayal of some of the hyper-reactive sentiment in this piece makes it seems like the hospital is honoring a baby killer or something. People need to get a grip!
14
Zuckerberg and privacy is like Trump and honesty, fergit it! Also, voters will vote on a 2 million housing bond for the homeless? Haha, that will build like 3 homes.
7
A true gift would've been done anonymously and without naming preconditions.
A truly generous person such as warren Buffett who is going to give away $31 billion without the need for the Buffet name underscoring every dollar of that gift.
Warren Buffett is a Mench... Mark Zuckerberg not so much
61
I agree completely. Charit, philanthropy, seem out of context when a giver insists on glaring, public showmanship. In Judaism, of the different forms of Tzedakah, (charity,) the highest level is one that is annonymous.
5
You do realize that there is a $323 million Buffett Cancer Center and that Zuckerberg has also agreed to give away 99% of his wealth as well right?
I doubt any patients are more concerned about privacy because the name of the hospital is Zuckerberg. Rather, employees are nostalgic for the old name and are using this as an excuse to voice their unhappiness.
I think a more appropriate complaint is why was the hospital renamed for a gift of only $75 million? It seems like a small amount for a renaming. Then again, our Cook County Hospital was renamed for $0 for a former county board chairman (Stroger) ... by his successor county board chairman (Stroger) who happened to be his son.
20
Oh my that is hilarious.
2
Only $75 million? Only?
Are we going to see some headlines about your $76 million hospital gift?
5
See Prodigal Son’s comment below. If you are the founding donor, fine, you get your name on the building. Otherwise, you get a department/wing/room
There's nothing wrong with Zuckerberg or his money. I would be embarrassed, were I he, to plaster my name all over a hospital whose name goes back so far. Come on, Mark, put it on a building or in a ward or something, you don't have to overpower the whole place. But San Francisco should be grateful for any upgrades to medical service that have been enable by Z and his wife's generosity.
26
The upgrades to medical service should be done through taxation of the citizens of the community, with the wealthiest like Zuckerberg paying a much higher and fairer share.
5
My beef isn’t necessarily with Zuckerberg but with the city naming it as such. The hospital cost over 1 billion to build and furnish with equipment. As a former employee, we were asked to donate, via paycheck deduction, to the cost of new equipment. Maybe it should be named the People’s Hospital, as we the people paid for most and will continue to pay for its operating costs. Just saying...
4
Megan Brizzolara, a nurse at the hospital, said the Zuckerberg name “scares” patients.
Easy enough. Return the Zuckerberg’s generous donation.
18
75 million is a lot of money, but not so much compared to the annual budget of SF General of over 500 million. Amortized over a 20 year period the donation is less than 1% of the overall spending. The SF Supervisors sold cheap.
55
Of course the donor's name has to go. It's both toxic and infectious!
24
As an ER nurse for over 30 years I am mortified that nurses are wasting their breath on such a trivial issue.
41
The issue is hardly trivial if it is making patients uncomfortable and scaring away others.
12
This is not trivial. It is a dangerous trend of granting naming rights to a PUBLIC institution to tax-dodging billionaires. Left out of the article is that the acronym for the hospital changed as well. The costs of that are actually great. Be not fooled. Z. is simply a greedy capitalist. If he wasn't he would have simply given without strings attached.
29
typical San Francisco - spoiled, ungrateful. Zuck has done his share building up the Valley and providing talent - and healthy options for his employees. So please spare the spoiled complaints.
another way unions are being tarnished by these frivolous, petty squabbles. take money from nurses, spend it on things like this. what a joke.
8
What kind of gift is this anyway when you need to have your name to it? He based his business on cheating, the latest scandal is just one of many.
42