4 ms·

I'd fire someone if they'd been a harasser in the past, even if my image was already impeccable. As much as this move seems to be about improving image, it does

I'd fire someone if they'd been a harasser in the past, even if my image was already impeccable. As much as this move seems to be about improving image, it doesn't need to be (I mean: that's not the only good reason to fire someone who concealed past sexual harassment allegations).

jimmywanger 10y ago
> I'd fire someone if they'd been a harasser in the past This news of harassment comes not from Google, but from several anonymous sources. Google declined to comment, and the man himself said that the story wasn't true. If there was no definitive proof, and the openly stated reason is that he wanted to retire, why would you fire somebody who was merely accused of being a harasser? That makes you a larger coward than somebody who keeps somebody who's under fire. Even if the claims were substantiated, people do change, and I don't think that one sexual harassment claim should be sufficient to torpedo your entire career. What's next, putting them on a registry and making them wear a scarlet letter on their chest? This whole thing is a witch hunt.
- ant6n 10y ago
  It seems like some of these people are repeat offenders, who are trying to destroy several innocent women's careers. That's kind of the actual witch hunt.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > It seems like some of these people are repeat offenders The people mentioned in the allegations have not been named and have not had their identities revealed, and also have not had any evidence presented, except for two unsubstantiated accounts. It's probably not even the same people in Fowler's article and this most recent anonymous one. Instead, somebody got information leaked (information that Google refuses to confirm) about something that happened in the past, at another company, gets fired because any appearance of impropriety must be squashed, and his name and career gets dragged through the mud for real evidence at all. Isn't that a witch hunt?
    - gpawl 10y ago
      a witch hunt in an accusation going looking for someone to accuse, not an accusation doggedly following the accused.
  - Hydraulix989 10y ago
    I don't think calling it a "witch hunt" (a rather loaded term) is an accurate depiction at all of what is going on. Remember, in the true sense of the word, the targets of said witch hunts weren't actually witches, which is VERY disputable and an unpopular opinion to hold in this scenario where the harassers are clearly damningly guilty.
    - ant6n 10y ago
      I meant that in a very very broad sense of having your reputation or spirit or career destroyed despite being innocent.
- obstinate 10y ago
  As far as I can tell, he says that the harassment wasn't harassment, and that there are two sides to every story. He does not dispute that this is the reason he left Google. At least as far as I've read, please (I'm being serious) correct me if my understanding is wrong. Yeah, if someone left a company because of a harassment complaint, I think there's a much better than even chance that they actually did harass someone. I believe that fabricated complaints comprise a very small minority of all such complaints. I would not want my employees being harassed. So there is no way I would hire someone who I knew had departed their previous company due to a harassment complaint, since that's equivalent to accepting a high likelihood that one is hiring a harasser. I might give someone a chance if they had one way back in their past and had otherwise apparently cleaned up their act/showed contrition. > That makes you a larger coward Sorry, not clear on how it makes me cowardly to put the safety and security of my employees before the interests of likely harassers seeking a job at my company. > make them wear a scarlet letter on their chest . . . You seem a lot more concerned for the harassers' well-being than the people being harassed. I don't share this ordering of priorities with you.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > You seem a lot more concerned for the harassers' well-being than the people being harassed. The main, and most important point. Nothing has been proven. An unsubstantiated, unrelated leak has gone out and you're already assuming that something bad has occurred. If you replace "harasser" with "communist", you get the McCarthy trials. If you replace "harasser" with "witch" you go all the way back to Salem. You should share the ordering of priorities that you're innocent until proven guilty. > As far as I can tell, he says that the harassment wasn't harassment You're already making a value judgement here. He completely denies that anything untoward happened. > Yeah, if someone left a company because of a harassment complaint He also said that he left on his own free will, and Google threw him a retirement/departure party. > Sorry, not clear on how it makes me cowardly By dropping somebody who hasn't been proven to do anything wrong at another job because it looks bad for PR means you're a coward. Being swayed by public opinion on unsubstantiated charges makes you a coward, instead of standing up for your own employees.
    - 10y ago
- patmcguire 10y ago
  Didn't Sundar and Laszlo confirm? Or did details of their internal confirmation leak?

jimmywanger 10y ago

> I'd fire someone if they'd been a harasser in the past This news of harassment comes not from Google, but from several anonymous sources. Google declined to comment, and the man himself said that the story wasn't true. If there was no definitive proof, and the openly stated reason is that he wanted to retire, why would you fire somebody who was merely accused of being a harasser? That makes you a larger coward than somebody who keeps somebody who's under fire. Even if the claims were substantiated, people do change, and I don't think that one sexual harassment claim should be sufficient to torpedo your entire career. What's next, putting them on a registry and making them wear a scarlet letter on their chest? This whole thing is a witch hunt.

ant6n 10y ago
It seems like some of these people are repeat offenders, who are trying to destroy several innocent women's careers. That's kind of the actual witch hunt.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > It seems like some of these people are repeat offenders The people mentioned in the allegations have not been named and have not had their identities revealed, and also have not had any evidence presented, except for two unsubstantiated accounts. It's probably not even the same people in Fowler's article and this most recent anonymous one. Instead, somebody got information leaked (information that Google refuses to confirm) about something that happened in the past, at another company, gets fired because any appearance of impropriety must be squashed, and his name and career gets dragged through the mud for real evidence at all. Isn't that a witch hunt?
  - gpawl 10y ago
    a witch hunt in an accusation going looking for someone to accuse, not an accusation doggedly following the accused.
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  I don't think calling it a "witch hunt" (a rather loaded term) is an accurate depiction at all of what is going on. Remember, in the true sense of the word, the targets of said witch hunts weren't actually witches, which is VERY disputable and an unpopular opinion to hold in this scenario where the harassers are clearly damningly guilty.
  - ant6n 10y ago
    I meant that in a very very broad sense of having your reputation or spirit or career destroyed despite being innocent.
obstinate 10y ago
As far as I can tell, he says that the harassment wasn't harassment, and that there are two sides to every story. He does not dispute that this is the reason he left Google. At least as far as I've read, please (I'm being serious) correct me if my understanding is wrong. Yeah, if someone left a company because of a harassment complaint, I think there's a much better than even chance that they actually did harass someone. I believe that fabricated complaints comprise a very small minority of all such complaints. I would not want my employees being harassed. So there is no way I would hire someone who I knew had departed their previous company due to a harassment complaint, since that's equivalent to accepting a high likelihood that one is hiring a harasser. I might give someone a chance if they had one way back in their past and had otherwise apparently cleaned up their act/showed contrition. > That makes you a larger coward Sorry, not clear on how it makes me cowardly to put the safety and security of my employees before the interests of likely harassers seeking a job at my company. > make them wear a scarlet letter on their chest . . . You seem a lot more concerned for the harassers' well-being than the people being harassed. I don't share this ordering of priorities with you.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > You seem a lot more concerned for the harassers' well-being than the people being harassed. The main, and most important point. Nothing has been proven. An unsubstantiated, unrelated leak has gone out and you're already assuming that something bad has occurred. If you replace "harasser" with "communist", you get the McCarthy trials. If you replace "harasser" with "witch" you go all the way back to Salem. You should share the ordering of priorities that you're innocent until proven guilty. > As far as I can tell, he says that the harassment wasn't harassment You're already making a value judgement here. He completely denies that anything untoward happened. > Yeah, if someone left a company because of a harassment complaint He also said that he left on his own free will, and Google threw him a retirement/departure party. > Sorry, not clear on how it makes me cowardly By dropping somebody who hasn't been proven to do anything wrong at another job because it looks bad for PR means you're a coward. Being swayed by public opinion on unsubstantiated charges makes you a coward, instead of standing up for your own employees.
  - 10y ago
patmcguire 10y ago
Didn't Sundar and Laszlo confirm? Or did details of their internal confirmation leak?