3 ms·

I think it's insane that "allegations" of harassment are enough to get you fired. That sets the bar far too low, below any standard of evidence. Replace google

I think it's insane that "allegations" of harassment are enough to get you fired. That sets the bar far too low, below any standard of evidence. Replace google with some shit company that didn't want you to leave and you'll see what I mean. I warned my boss at my current job that my last one ain't gonna be too happy about me leaving since I was nearly irreplaceable. I'm still betting they said terrible things about me, but what kind of bullshit evidence is that?

untog 10y ago
According to the article, he was not fired because of the allegations, but fired because he did not disclose the nature of his departure from Google. When you're a high up enough executive you need to be trustworthy - his first action with the company proved that he isn't.
- tbrowbdidnso 10y ago
  He resigned on his own terms. I know executives pull that crap all the time to avoid getting "fired" but the fact is he quit voluntarily
  - lbatx 10y ago
    There is something called "lying by omission" or telling the truth, but not the whole truth. Also, if you are told to resign or you will be fired, that's not resigning on your own terms.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    The last few places I interviewed at specifically asked this. "Have you ever been involuntarily terminated, or voluntarily resigned to avoid termination?"
chetanahuja 10y ago
If Amit didn't reveal that he had forced out (whether he officially resigned or was fired is a distinction without a difference) of Google after an investigation of serious charges against him, then that's a good enough reason to fire a top executive.
exolymph 10y ago
Businesses are very risk-averse.
ebola1717 10y ago
HN should really ban throwaway accounts on sensitive threads. In any case, if you don't at least know that the response to your comment will be that allegations of harassment more often result in retaliation against the accuser than punishment of the accused - between the multiple Uber fiascoes, Casey Affleck, Brock Turner, etc. - then I find it hard to believe you're trying to listen in good faith.

untog 10y ago

According to the article, he was not fired because of the allegations, but fired because he did not disclose the nature of his departure from Google. When you're a high up enough executive you need to be trustworthy - his first action with the company proved that he isn't.

tbrowbdidnso 10y ago
He resigned on his own terms. I know executives pull that crap all the time to avoid getting "fired" but the fact is he quit voluntarily
- lbatx 10y ago
  There is something called "lying by omission" or telling the truth, but not the whole truth. Also, if you are told to resign or you will be fired, that's not resigning on your own terms.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  The last few places I interviewed at specifically asked this. "Have you ever been involuntarily terminated, or voluntarily resigned to avoid termination?"

chetanahuja 10y ago

If Amit didn't reveal that he had forced out (whether he officially resigned or was fired is a distinction without a difference) of Google after an investigation of serious charges against him, then that's a good enough reason to fire a top executive.

exolymph 10y ago

Businesses are very risk-averse.

ebola1717 10y ago

HN should really ban throwaway accounts on sensitive threads. In any case, if you don't at least know that the response to your comment will be that allegations of harassment more often result in retaliation against the accuser than punishment of the accused - between the multiple Uber fiascoes, Casey Affleck, Brock Turner, etc. - then I find it hard to believe you're trying to listen in good faith.