3 ms·

So you think an accusation is all that is needed to sack an employee? I think the bar should be higher than that. There should be some minimal verification that

So you think an accusation is all that is needed to sack an employee? I think the bar should be higher than that. There should be some minimal verification that the accusation--which happened in another company--is legitimate.

ASinclair 10y ago
We don't know the details of the incident but the article states Google was going to fire him if he didn't resign. We also don't know how much verification Uber did. I don't believe an accusation is all that is needed. However, in a situation like this optics do matter. Employees need to trust that their superiors won't be part of the problem. He clearly didn't have that trust.
Arizhel 10y ago
Yep, that's what I'm worried about here. If the guy were accused of inappropriate conduct at Uber, his current employer, then it's entirely appropriate for the HR department to investigate and decide to fire him. But firing someone for allegations of something that happened at a previous employer, where there is no possible way the current employer's HR department can investigate it, seems entirely wrong. This means that someone can be wrongfully accused of something by some vengeful former employer/boss, and never get a job again because they'll be blacklisted. It is not unusual for employers to badmouth their former employees.
- msabalau 10y ago
  According to the article he left for failing to disclose the circumstances of his departure from Google. The article further documents that he acknowledges that he left under this cloud. As the article notes "having Singhal at the head of an organization under siege over sexual harassment issues when he was not candid with Uber over his departure from Google was considered untenable." It is hard to see that this is generalizable to the circumstances of typical employees.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  If he was falsely accused by Google then he could have filed a lawsuit against them to clear his reputation. It is fact very unusual for prior employers to badmouth an ex-employee, which is why firms usually limit their communications to confirming the fact of someone's prior employment between certain dates but not making any other public statements.
jimbokun 10y ago
The article says there was an investigation at Google, where they found the accusations against him to be credible.
- navalsaini 10y ago
  How about giving people a second chance? One punishment for one crime or something... Or just give them off time. I think these are personality defects that can be corrected with counseling, does not make them a serial...
x0x0 10y ago
Did you skip the part about Google finding the allegations credible enough to fire him? Also, standards are higher for executives.

ASinclair 10y ago

We don't know the details of the incident but the article states Google was going to fire him if he didn't resign. We also don't know how much verification Uber did. I don't believe an accusation is all that is needed. However, in a situation like this optics do matter. Employees need to trust that their superiors won't be part of the problem. He clearly didn't have that trust.

Arizhel 10y ago

Yep, that's what I'm worried about here. If the guy were accused of inappropriate conduct at Uber, his current employer, then it's entirely appropriate for the HR department to investigate and decide to fire him. But firing someone for allegations of something that happened at a previous employer, where there is no possible way the current employer's HR department can investigate it, seems entirely wrong. This means that someone can be wrongfully accused of something by some vengeful former employer/boss, and never get a job again because they'll be blacklisted. It is not unusual for employers to badmouth their former employees.

msabalau 10y ago
According to the article he left for failing to disclose the circumstances of his departure from Google. The article further documents that he acknowledges that he left under this cloud. As the article notes "having Singhal at the head of an organization under siege over sexual harassment issues when he was not candid with Uber over his departure from Google was considered untenable." It is hard to see that this is generalizable to the circumstances of typical employees.
anigbrowl 10y ago
If he was falsely accused by Google then he could have filed a lawsuit against them to clear his reputation. It is fact very unusual for prior employers to badmouth an ex-employee, which is why firms usually limit their communications to confirming the fact of someone's prior employment between certain dates but not making any other public statements.

jimbokun 10y ago

The article says there was an investigation at Google, where they found the accusations against him to be credible.

navalsaini 10y ago
How about giving people a second chance? One punishment for one crime or something... Or just give them off time. I think these are personality defects that can be corrected with counseling, does not make them a serial...

x0x0 10y ago

Did you skip the part about Google finding the allegations credible enough to fire him? Also, standards are higher for executives.