19 ms·

At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

96 points by cookscar 9y ago

KKKKkkkk1 9y ago
I feel this might be problematic. The Soviet block countries had something called a culture of criticism and self-criticism. As part of this culture, factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?
- jowiar 9y ago
  Not everything that creates a negative environment is a fireable offense, and the folks who the burden of that behavior falls on don't generally want to get folks fired unnecessarily. Creating a discussion of "Hey, can we not do this" is a better solution to a lot of issues than reporting things to an opaque body that takes the approach of "Is this exposing us to a lawsuit, if so, fired. Otherwise, do nothing"
- ue_ 9y ago
  > factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. I think this is a very wrong-headed way to go about self-criticism. It shouldn't be about loyalty to a party, it should be about recognition of faults and how to improve them. This is how I envisage worker control of production should be like, anyway. We should have a culture of criticism and self-criticism, in my opinion, because it does not necessitate meanness or humiliation.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    It's actually a pretty widely-recognized cult tactic. People are grouped together for shaming sessions where they confess failings and are berated for them. It's nominally about bonding and seeing that everyone has failings, but as you point out that doesn't get problems solved. In practice, it creates social pressure to confess errors (you don't want to act superior to those around you), plus top down pressure ("confess or we'll say it for you"). It also creates investment (if this was all for nothing, why'd I humiliate myself?) and vulnerability (if I leave, they can tell everyone what I said!) And, of course, the degree of shaming can be tailored to cut down people doing too well. It's a terrifyingly effective thing, and the state communist version looked remarkably similar to the cult version. I don't think it's something you'd do if you actually wanted to help people or improve process, though. The best cultures of self-criticism seem to be the ones that criticize in abstract, sorting out what happened and why publicly but not aiming at individuals.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      I don't think such meetings ought to aim at individuals, in fact this is what I wanted to avoid, rather it would be good to talk about processes in general, and to admit faults like that; I think this would be a much clearer way of making progress than to start a blame game or criticise people covertly, which usually ends up festering and turning into hate. I think people should be open about themselves, and constructively criticise. And again, I don't see why that ought to necessitate meanness. Criticising in abstract I think leads to a passive-aggressive culture, which I don't think it's right at all. The point of the meetings would be that everyone is involved, there's no secrecy, and that the meetings are perhaps optional, or at least participation in them is optional. I think a social pressure to confess errors may be a good thing at times, though I admit there's a lot of variation in how it could go. It's strange that I've been downvoted three times on my comment, but only have one reply. Such is the way of HN.
      - pjc50 9y ago
        The main lesson of aircraft safety culture should be that you can have an enquiry to establish what happened, or an enquiry to find out who's to blame - but not both, since once you start assigning blame there's a motive to conceal or destroy evidence. > no secrecy This is a nightmare for the person who's percieved underperforming due to unavoidable health issues that they've discussed with their manager/HR but would prefer to keep secret. > social pressure to confess errors This turns into bullying very quickly.
- tehlike 9y ago
  "What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?" on what evidence/grounds?
  - trevyn 9y ago
    None needed, California is an "at-will" employment state -- you can be fired for any legal reason or none at all.
    - icc97 9y ago
      From what I understand from my sister who's a lawyer at a tech firm in LA, firing people in California is harder than firing people in the UK.
    - tehlike 9y ago
      that's my point. without evidence, firing people for "sexual harrasment" just opens up can of worms.
- scott_s 9y ago
  > What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement? Nothing, but that's not what this is. For a variety of reasons, people are reluctant to report incidents through official channels. This is an unofficial and anonymous channel. It's a way to make people aware that yes, things are happening, even if no official action is taken. I hope it makes people more aware.
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    My experience has been that for a sanity check a discussion with a trusted colleague in a different department is worth a lot. If XY is genuinely concerning then that person will say "yeah, I've found that, too, and it's really concerning". What's with the need for a formal shame list and for establishing an Akashic record?
    - scott_s 9y ago
      My understanding from the article was that it doesn't name the offenders. (The one exception being the Alphabet CEO from a public meeting.) To me, that precludes it from being a "shame list."
- dominotw 9y ago
  > What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment You'd get sued for wrongful termination if you go around firing people based on mere implication.
- dagenleg 9y ago
  I like how submissions are anonymous. Back in USSR an anonymous tip was a good way of getting rid of your annoying neighbours or rivals. Another convenient thing was that with an anonymous complaint the burden of proof lay solely on the accused, who had to protest his innocence without even being able to face the accuser. But we are half-way there anyway, aren't we?
  - icc97 9y ago
    As has been mentioned elsewhere - names aren't mentioned in the list. Also even with anonymity although such a system maybe open for abuse, so that people can implicate innocent people, the potential to allow actual victims to speak up who wouldn't otherwise seems worth the risk
    - dagenleg 9y ago
      This reminds me of the whole metadata collection scandal/argument, because this is what is being shared - metadata. Just because you don't name a person directly, does not yet imply anonymity. Another observation - the article states that people aren't "usually" named. I don't see anything preventing the peoples names appearing later on, as this thing develops.
      - icc97 9y ago
        As far as I can tell, it's run for employees by employees. If it ever starts doing more harm than good, it will just stop. People have to want to submit and want to read it. So I don't see this as management sponsored spying, just employees wanting more transparency. To highlight what actually goes on. I believe the point with the 'usually' was that the only one who had been named was Eric Schmidt from a open meeting.
  - jellicle 9y ago
    Yeah, the anonymous accused get sent straight to the gulag.
- dalore 9y ago
  Isn't there that famous quote "Praise in public criticize in private."? Seems apt here.
- metaphorm 9y ago
  > What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement? because they might be innocent? why is a person's employer a better arbitrator than the legal system? firing someone based on implications is deeply problematic. that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    Just a few questions: - Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal? - Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10? - Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint? - Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct. - A company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?
    - metaphorm 9y ago
      > Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal? They can fire an employee for any reason they want to in an "at will" state, so your question isn't cogent to begin with. Whether or not it should be done is contextual and I can't answer in the abstract. The way you frame your question here is designed to be a rhetorical trap though, and I don't appreciate that. > Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10? Remember, I'm discussing ethics not laws here. Yes, I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is a good ethical stance almost always. Your hypothetical isn't cogent here. Decisions must be contextual and your contrived example lacks context is is constructed so as to advance your (poorly concealed) agenda. Another rhetorical trap. I expect good faith discussion here and you're demonstrating bad faith. > Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint? Liability is a matter of the civic code and is a legal question, and remember, we're discussing ethics not law. Your contrived example here is once again lacking context so it is unanswerable as presented and yet another example of you attempting a rhetorical trap. > Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct. "I hope you don't think". Your constructions here are insulting to me. Nothing but leading questions, contrived examples, begging the question and other rhetorical tricks. If you have a position of your own you should state it directly and not assume I will be tricked or trapped by you. > company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment? yes to both. an implication of harassment should result in a fair process to determine the truth bounded by the context of the situation and the interests of all the involved parties. FAIR PROCESS is the key portion of the last sentence. My objections have always been to UNFAIR PROCESSES and are not a defense of harassment.
snomad 9y ago
> One employee said that during a one-on-one performance review with a manager, he was told that his rating dropped from "Exceeds" to "Meets" because he didn't get as much done while on paternity leave. If true, that is quite obviously legally actionable.
- umanwizard 9y ago
  Why? What law was violated?
- refurb 9y ago
  Is it? As long as the performance review was done based on the employee's performance over the entire year, it's fair game no? I'm not sure I agree with the logic that someone who takes time off during the year is given credit for the good work they would have done had they not taken time off.
  - wcummings 9y ago
    The logic is that you aren't expected to work in your off time so it shouldn't factor in at all. If his work exceeded during the time he was working whether or not he took leave shouldn't effect that. Reviews should be about the quality of the work, not whether you take 0 vacations days or work until 10pm everyday because you're 22 and don't have a family.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    Consider it as a ratio WQ:T where "WQ" is the Work x Quality product and T is the Time of employment. You're saying that T should be a constant and include time an employee isn't expected to be working, but WQ is fair to vary. Essentially you're adding to T even when the employee is expected explicitly to not add to WQ. So in my opinion it's not fair game.
- nxc18 9y ago
  I get why there should be protection for people on paternity leave. At the same time, if you're using an 'expectations' system appropriately and honestly (as opposed to just a renaming of some other scale) it may be dishonest to not change his rating. If there is an expectation about performance and it wasn't exceeded (how could you exceed your typical performance while on paternity leave?) then the employee shouldn't be given an exceeds. The big issues here (at least for me) are that a) there was a non-zero expectation for someone on paternity leave and b) someone was given a performance evaluation either while on or regarding work done during a paternity leave. I'm curious if this signals a larger issue at Google where they have paternity leave 'in name only' - similar to 'unlimited' vacation policies and the like.
tyingq 9y ago
I'm not a big fan of HR departments, but an open company-wide-readable email list seems like it could have it's own perils. Hopefully it's carefully moderated/anonymized/edited by somebody who is good at that sort of thing.
- odiroot 9y ago
  This has really huge potential for abuse. How do we know the acts happened indeed?
  - chipgap98 9y ago
    While there are instances of false accusations, isn't the larger problem in our society that people are harassed or abused at work on a seemingly regular basis?
    - anothercomment 9y ago
      False accusations are also harassment.
      - chipgap98 9y ago
        Agreed. But it seems like the problem we have now is that more people are being harassed and not being taken seriously with their claims than people making false claims. Is that a world we are okay with living in? Regardless of the answer we should be having that conversation
        anothercomment 9y ago
        One problem I have with these list is, as you say, they make it seem as if there is a huge problem with people being harassed. I am not convinced that is true, because the context is missing. Like how many people work for Google, how many incidents are there per month, and how many of these incidents even warrant a complaint? There is already a debate about the "princess" incident. Eventually somebody will make statistics about that list, and the "princess" incident will be counted as a harassment incident along the lines of grabbing somebodies ass or blackmailing them for sex over losing their job. That seems very misleading. Also, I'd argue the existence of such a list is already harassment of a lot of people. If now you have to watch your back for every comment, it doesn't make for a very pleasant work day. I can not judge if "princess" was harassment or not, because we lack context - and so do the readers of the list. It could be friends who habitually edge each other on, like calling a vegetarian "princess" to probe their determination. Or it could be said with disdain, Redneck style (anybody who doesn't eat meat can't amount to much). We don't know. But everybody now has to worry about their words being taken out of context and glued to the wall.
1ba9115454 9y ago
- A female employee was allegedly called a “princess” for favoring salad over burgers. I imagine the guy that delivered that comment would be hard pushed to figure out what he did wrong. I suppose we all have to really careful what we say.
- to3m 9y ago
  Hmm. I'm actually struggling to think of a situation where it would be the done thing to call one of your colleagues "princess", be they male or female.
  - jschwartzi 9y ago
    If you know them well enough that they understand that you're joking, then it's probably okay. If you're not sure, then don't. I do have female friends at the office who might find that funny, but only because we know each other and we give each other as good as we get. The difference is that we are friends not just colleagues, which is on a different level, interpersonally.
    - ant6n 9y ago
      I feel like I would prefer a more professional work environment, even if it's less funny.
      - axlprose 9y ago
        Unfortunately, the problem with "professional" relationships is that they're not very good at fulfilling the social needs of humans. It's practical to keep things professional in order to avoid drama, but when you work all day and work is the main place you get to interact with other people, it can get a bit depressing. And this is partially the reason why things like "company culture" and "culture-fit" come about, but obviously it's a hard and tricky problem to solve.
        jschwartzi 9y ago
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Is this what got Amit Singhal in the first place, perhaps? (EDIT: I guess not, he left fifteen months ago, this list is eight months old.) It's briefly mentioned in this article, but I was shocked less people talked about what the Amit Singhal story meant for Google. That one of their most senior executives, who at one point rewrote the entire Google Search engine, when that was possible for one person to do, and worked there for sixteen years was fired for sexual harassment. It's hard to imagine he suddenly started harassing women sixteen years in, so I have to wonder how long Google may have been trying to protect one of their most valuable employees.
- hetspookjee 9y ago
  I think it's reasonable to think that the public awareness contributed to his departure, almost to the extend of being responsible I'd reckon. I don't think he started suddenly, but rather has done it for a very long time. Being such an immensly valuable asset does buy you slack, I bet.
- xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
  I've worked with my share of jerks and assholes. Rarely have I seen them dealt with. Mean people often know how to manipulate their messaging you avoid punative action. Few places have a zero tolerance policy, they'll just move them somewhere else. None of the jerks or assholes I've known had anything happen to them, that I am aware of. I'd like to think they'll be fired eventually.
- Danihan 9y ago
  >It's hard to imagine he suddenly started harassing women sixteen years in Why?
HarryHirsch 9y ago
Why is confidential material for public consumption? All this is stuff that ought to go to the Ombudsman, HR or the police to be dealt with properly. What good does it do to hear "my supervisor is habitually oversharing and told me she smokes hashish and is worried about an upcoming drug test"?
- jschwartzi 9y ago
  Because you don't necessarily need to involve the police every time you're trying to set an interpersonal boundary. Most people are well adjusted enough to change their behavior when you ask them to, and you don't need the threat of firing or jail to convince these people. You just need to ask them, nicely but assertively, to stop.
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    When you post to the mailing list it's obviously gone past the "assert-boundaries" point, because you tried that already. Nicely but assertively is a problem with unreasonable supervisors in an "at will" state and a weak labour market.
    - jschwartzi 9y ago
      The mailing list isn't just for calling out your supervisors, and the article implies that the managers of the list do give people the chance to respond. It sounds less like a way to anonymously out inappropriate or offensive behavior and more like a way to give examples after the behavior has already been dealt with.
- patja 9y ago
  HR is not really intended to be the employee's friend or advocate. They work for the interests of the shareholders and management. It can be like reporting police corruption to the police -- not always a very effective course of action.
- BeetleB 9y ago
  >Why is confidential material for public consumption? If a person voluntarily and freely posts to the mailing list, (s)he is deciding that this is not confidential. Of course, if it identifies other people who did not consent, then you have a problem.
anon45caurv51 9y ago
Once this list has enough reach, someone may weaponize it. I've seen it happen.
MichaelGG 9y ago
> "Subsequently informed by the engineer that she was expected to 'sleep with everyone' because that's the culture here." I'm rather "unenlightened"/regressive/whatever from a SV perspective. But... If there wasn't a significant power difference here, like an intern vs someone senior, how does this even happen? I mean, I get it if it was one-on-one, even a direct boss might pressure someone into that. But "sleep with everyone"? What's the expected response? Or was this some poor excuse after a failed attempt? "Hey don't get upset. Everyone sleeps around on this team." I'm just having a hard time comprehending this quote, not from an offended view, just a practical/social/etc. view.
- pjc50 9y ago
  It's a common abuse tactic: establish the behaviour you want as "normal" and gaslight people who object. Often it works. It's also the sort of thing that people can very easily explain away as "joke", "hazing", etc.
- auserperson 9y ago
  The engineer is probably lying and gaslighting, as they lied about having other colleagues there. It seems like a very toxic person trying to create a situation of abuse. It's sad but not unheard of. (there's awful people in the world).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zeveb 9y ago
I wonder if the 'curation' might skew folks' view. E.g. if one believes Ted is a rotten guy, one might mention all the times Ted does rotten things, but if one believes Tod is a great guy then one might just not mention the rotten things he does. Likewise, I wonder how often this list mentions when someone casually makes a rude remark about Christianity or Judaism, or when someone puts down men, or whites, or Republicans. Maybe it does — certainly the article didn't mention any anti-right bias incidents though (unless I missed it after reading twice).
pjc50 9y ago
This is what happens when people have lost faith in the formal process and instead institutionalized gossip as a necessary system for their own protection.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway-1209 9y ago
  Hah, that's what happens when you pander to people who are easily offended. In any large company, Google included, there are crybullies who will rat you out to HR if you look at them wrong. That's usually their only function, they aren't top performers, because if they were they'd barely have time to sleep, let alone get offended by a comment about their hair or whatever. So they get together, create "intergrouplets" (cringeworthy Google lingo, not mine), and then put it on their yearly performance review because they have little else to mention there. When particularly loud and aggressive, they may even get promoted. Over a period of a decade genie gets out of the bottle and once that happens, you can't put it back. Good people leave in disgust, things deteriorate.
ar15saveslives 9y ago
So here's the rules of this brave new world: beyond your house you're a sexless, emotionless creature without family, life outside the office, without sense of humour, without personal interests and preferences. Be like this, and you'll get free meals, free shuttle bus and goats at company campus. And it's good for your resumé.
jlebar 9y ago
I'm sad to see so many comments here worrying about such a list becoming "weaponized". TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect. The point of the list, again from TFA, is to raise awareness about bad things that happen at Google, often outside the view of privileged white men like myself. With 20% of the company subscribed, it sounds like it's working. This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual assault go underreported. I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one. Disclaimer: I work at Google, and speak here (as always) for myself.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one. While we're doing thought exercises, let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process. Someone could just value justice and fairness, including channels for recourse when legitimate incidents of slander (or honest misunderstandings!) arise. There's nothing wrong, ignorant, or shameful about that perspective. In fact, we should embrace these perspectives in a diverse work culture.
  - jlebar 9y ago
    > let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process. I agree wholeheartedly that there is nothing wrong with valuing evidence-based judgements and due process. But that is not what I was ranting against. Conflating the trope of immediately jumping to a concern about false accusations while ignoring victims with "valuing evidence-based judgements and due process" is, however, a pretty good example of what I am bothered by. I think the real thought experiment is: Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims? I think the answer might be, most of us here have never had to worry about being harassed at work. Most of us here don't know what it's like to be worried for our safety -- psychological or sexual -- at work. Most of us don't know what it's like to be subjected to a constant stream of microagressions from coworkers. So most of us can't imagine what many minorities in tech go through on a daily basis. That's just because most of us fit in. What all of us can imagine is being falsely accused of doing something bad. And so since that's what we can imagine without effort, that's what we talk about, and worry about. Availability bias. Falling prey to the availability bias doesn't make you a bad person. But you can learn to be better.
zghst 9y ago
I can see this getting out of hand quickly. Humans have a tendency to amplify anxiety of local, improbable events. This is essentially a weapon that can quickly impact morale and elevate disruptive conversations that will become far removed from the situation with too many participants. I'd have optin, in-person support groups where nothing leaves the room and it is limited in size. Sometimes spreading a problem across more people does not fix it, it only makes it worse.
- gertef 9y ago
  being constantly disrespected by coworkers can also impact morale.
anothercomment 9y ago
"is facing growing pressure from diversity advocates and the media" I don't think these entities should have the power to exert pressure.
icc97 9y ago
I think this is excellent, especially seeing as how so often HR's duty is only to the company and not to the employee making the complaint. Tangentially I wonder if a similar system could be used to report bullying in schools. Perhaps the anonymity only works at a certain scale.
hagakure0c 9y ago
It's a Bentham construction inside Big Brother, how quaint.
ika_ 9y ago
"Menustration products in the male restrooms for 'men' who have periods" Thanks for reminding me how insane some people from California are... I almost thought this was a joke.
- RoyTyrell 9y ago
  You do realize there are trans people right?
  - ika_ 9y ago
    I don't realize any need to accommodate a delusion
jrrrr 9y ago
What does "employee-run" mean in this context? (isn't everything at Google employee-run by definition?)
yuhong 9y ago
I am not quite sure about whether sexual harassment laws are a good idea yet.

96 points by cookscar 9y ago

I feel this might be problematic. The Soviet block countries had something called a culture of criticism and self-criticism. As part of this culture, factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?

jowiar 9y ago
Not everything that creates a negative environment is a fireable offense, and the folks who the burden of that behavior falls on don't generally want to get folks fired unnecessarily. Creating a discussion of "Hey, can we not do this" is a better solution to a lot of issues than reporting things to an opaque body that takes the approach of "Is this exposing us to a lawsuit, if so, fired. Otherwise, do nothing"
ue_ 9y ago
> factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. I think this is a very wrong-headed way to go about self-criticism. It shouldn't be about loyalty to a party, it should be about recognition of faults and how to improve them. This is how I envisage worker control of production should be like, anyway. We should have a culture of criticism and self-criticism, in my opinion, because it does not necessitate meanness or humiliation.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  It's actually a pretty widely-recognized cult tactic. People are grouped together for shaming sessions where they confess failings and are berated for them. It's nominally about bonding and seeing that everyone has failings, but as you point out that doesn't get problems solved. In practice, it creates social pressure to confess errors (you don't want to act superior to those around you), plus top down pressure ("confess or we'll say it for you"). It also creates investment (if this was all for nothing, why'd I humiliate myself?) and vulnerability (if I leave, they can tell everyone what I said!) And, of course, the degree of shaming can be tailored to cut down people doing too well. It's a terrifyingly effective thing, and the state communist version looked remarkably similar to the cult version. I don't think it's something you'd do if you actually wanted to help people or improve process, though. The best cultures of self-criticism seem to be the ones that criticize in abstract, sorting out what happened and why publicly but not aiming at individuals.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    I don't think such meetings ought to aim at individuals, in fact this is what I wanted to avoid, rather it would be good to talk about processes in general, and to admit faults like that; I think this would be a much clearer way of making progress than to start a blame game or criticise people covertly, which usually ends up festering and turning into hate. I think people should be open about themselves, and constructively criticise. And again, I don't see why that ought to necessitate meanness. Criticising in abstract I think leads to a passive-aggressive culture, which I don't think it's right at all. The point of the meetings would be that everyone is involved, there's no secrecy, and that the meetings are perhaps optional, or at least participation in them is optional. I think a social pressure to confess errors may be a good thing at times, though I admit there's a lot of variation in how it could go. It's strange that I've been downvoted three times on my comment, but only have one reply. Such is the way of HN.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      The main lesson of aircraft safety culture should be that you can have an enquiry to establish what happened, or an enquiry to find out who's to blame - but not both, since once you start assigning blame there's a motive to conceal or destroy evidence. > no secrecy This is a nightmare for the person who's percieved underperforming due to unavoidable health issues that they've discussed with their manager/HR but would prefer to keep secret. > social pressure to confess errors This turns into bullying very quickly.
tehlike 9y ago
"What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?" on what evidence/grounds?
- trevyn 9y ago
  None needed, California is an "at-will" employment state -- you can be fired for any legal reason or none at all.
  - icc97 9y ago
    From what I understand from my sister who's a lawyer at a tech firm in LA, firing people in California is harder than firing people in the UK.
  - tehlike 9y ago
    that's my point. without evidence, firing people for "sexual harrasment" just opens up can of worms.
scott_s 9y ago
> What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement? Nothing, but that's not what this is. For a variety of reasons, people are reluctant to report incidents through official channels. This is an unofficial and anonymous channel. It's a way to make people aware that yes, things are happening, even if no official action is taken. I hope it makes people more aware.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  My experience has been that for a sanity check a discussion with a trusted colleague in a different department is worth a lot. If XY is genuinely concerning then that person will say "yeah, I've found that, too, and it's really concerning". What's with the need for a formal shame list and for establishing an Akashic record?
  - scott_s 9y ago
    My understanding from the article was that it doesn't name the offenders. (The one exception being the Alphabet CEO from a public meeting.) To me, that precludes it from being a "shame list."
dominotw 9y ago
> What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment You'd get sued for wrongful termination if you go around firing people based on mere implication.
dagenleg 9y ago
I like how submissions are anonymous. Back in USSR an anonymous tip was a good way of getting rid of your annoying neighbours or rivals. Another convenient thing was that with an anonymous complaint the burden of proof lay solely on the accused, who had to protest his innocence without even being able to face the accuser. But we are half-way there anyway, aren't we?
- icc97 9y ago
  As has been mentioned elsewhere - names aren't mentioned in the list. Also even with anonymity although such a system maybe open for abuse, so that people can implicate innocent people, the potential to allow actual victims to speak up who wouldn't otherwise seems worth the risk
  - dagenleg 9y ago
    This reminds me of the whole metadata collection scandal/argument, because this is what is being shared - metadata. Just because you don't name a person directly, does not yet imply anonymity. Another observation - the article states that people aren't "usually" named. I don't see anything preventing the peoples names appearing later on, as this thing develops.
    - icc97 9y ago
      As far as I can tell, it's run for employees by employees. If it ever starts doing more harm than good, it will just stop. People have to want to submit and want to read it. So I don't see this as management sponsored spying, just employees wanting more transparency. To highlight what actually goes on. I believe the point with the 'usually' was that the only one who had been named was Eric Schmidt from a open meeting.
- jellicle 9y ago
  Yeah, the anonymous accused get sent straight to the gulag.
dalore 9y ago
Isn't there that famous quote "Praise in public criticize in private."? Seems apt here.
metaphorm 9y ago
> What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement? because they might be innocent? why is a person's employer a better arbitrator than the legal system? firing someone based on implications is deeply problematic. that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  Just a few questions: - Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal? - Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10? - Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint? - Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct. - A company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?
  - metaphorm 9y ago
    > Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal? They can fire an employee for any reason they want to in an "at will" state, so your question isn't cogent to begin with. Whether or not it should be done is contextual and I can't answer in the abstract. The way you frame your question here is designed to be a rhetorical trap though, and I don't appreciate that. > Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10? Remember, I'm discussing ethics not laws here. Yes, I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is a good ethical stance almost always. Your hypothetical isn't cogent here. Decisions must be contextual and your contrived example lacks context is is constructed so as to advance your (poorly concealed) agenda. Another rhetorical trap. I expect good faith discussion here and you're demonstrating bad faith. > Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint? Liability is a matter of the civic code and is a legal question, and remember, we're discussing ethics not law. Your contrived example here is once again lacking context so it is unanswerable as presented and yet another example of you attempting a rhetorical trap. > Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct. "I hope you don't think". Your constructions here are insulting to me. Nothing but leading questions, contrived examples, begging the question and other rhetorical tricks. If you have a position of your own you should state it directly and not assume I will be tricked or trapped by you. > company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment? yes to both. an implication of harassment should result in a fair process to determine the truth bounded by the context of the situation and the interests of all the involved parties. FAIR PROCESS is the key portion of the last sentence. My objections have always been to UNFAIR PROCESSES and are not a defense of harassment.

snomad 9y ago

> One employee said that during a one-on-one performance review with a manager, he was told that his rating dropped from "Exceeds" to "Meets" because he didn't get as much done while on paternity leave. If true, that is quite obviously legally actionable.

umanwizard 9y ago
Why? What law was violated?
refurb 9y ago
Is it? As long as the performance review was done based on the employee's performance over the entire year, it's fair game no? I'm not sure I agree with the logic that someone who takes time off during the year is given credit for the good work they would have done had they not taken time off.
- wcummings 9y ago
  The logic is that you aren't expected to work in your off time so it shouldn't factor in at all. If his work exceeded during the time he was working whether or not he took leave shouldn't effect that. Reviews should be about the quality of the work, not whether you take 0 vacations days or work until 10pm everyday because you're 22 and don't have a family.
- sidlls 9y ago
  Consider it as a ratio WQ:T where "WQ" is the Work x Quality product and T is the Time of employment. You're saying that T should be a constant and include time an employee isn't expected to be working, but WQ is fair to vary. Essentially you're adding to T even when the employee is expected explicitly to not add to WQ. So in my opinion it's not fair game.
nxc18 9y ago
I get why there should be protection for people on paternity leave. At the same time, if you're using an 'expectations' system appropriately and honestly (as opposed to just a renaming of some other scale) it may be dishonest to not change his rating. If there is an expectation about performance and it wasn't exceeded (how could you exceed your typical performance while on paternity leave?) then the employee shouldn't be given an exceeds. The big issues here (at least for me) are that a) there was a non-zero expectation for someone on paternity leave and b) someone was given a performance evaluation either while on or regarding work done during a paternity leave. I'm curious if this signals a larger issue at Google where they have paternity leave 'in name only' - similar to 'unlimited' vacation policies and the like.

tyingq 9y ago

I'm not a big fan of HR departments, but an open company-wide-readable email list seems like it could have it's own perils. Hopefully it's carefully moderated/anonymized/edited by somebody who is good at that sort of thing.

odiroot 9y ago
This has really huge potential for abuse. How do we know the acts happened indeed?
- chipgap98 9y ago
  While there are instances of false accusations, isn't the larger problem in our society that people are harassed or abused at work on a seemingly regular basis?
  - anothercomment 9y ago
    False accusations are also harassment.
    - chipgap98 9y ago
      Agreed. But it seems like the problem we have now is that more people are being harassed and not being taken seriously with their claims than people making false claims. Is that a world we are okay with living in? Regardless of the answer we should be having that conversation
      - anothercomment 9y ago
        One problem I have with these list is, as you say, they make it seem as if there is a huge problem with people being harassed. I am not convinced that is true, because the context is missing. Like how many people work for Google, how many incidents are there per month, and how many of these incidents even warrant a complaint? There is already a debate about the "princess" incident. Eventually somebody will make statistics about that list, and the "princess" incident will be counted as a harassment incident along the lines of grabbing somebodies ass or blackmailing them for sex over losing their job. That seems very misleading. Also, I'd argue the existence of such a list is already harassment of a lot of people. If now you have to watch your back for every comment, it doesn't make for a very pleasant work day. I can not judge if "princess" was harassment or not, because we lack context - and so do the readers of the list. It could be friends who habitually edge each other on, like calling a vegetarian "princess" to probe their determination. Or it could be said with disdain, Redneck style (anybody who doesn't eat meat can't amount to much). We don't know. But everybody now has to worry about their words being taken out of context and glued to the wall.

1ba9115454 9y ago

- A female employee was allegedly called a “princess” for favoring salad over burgers. I imagine the guy that delivered that comment would be hard pushed to figure out what he did wrong. I suppose we all have to really careful what we say.

to3m 9y ago
Hmm. I'm actually struggling to think of a situation where it would be the done thing to call one of your colleagues "princess", be they male or female.
- jschwartzi 9y ago
  If you know them well enough that they understand that you're joking, then it's probably okay. If you're not sure, then don't. I do have female friends at the office who might find that funny, but only because we know each other and we give each other as good as we get. The difference is that we are friends not just colleagues, which is on a different level, interpersonally.
  - ant6n 9y ago
    I feel like I would prefer a more professional work environment, even if it's less funny.
    - axlprose 9y ago
      Unfortunately, the problem with "professional" relationships is that they're not very good at fulfilling the social needs of humans. It's practical to keep things professional in order to avoid drama, but when you work all day and work is the main place you get to interact with other people, it can get a bit depressing. And this is partially the reason why things like "company culture" and "culture-fit" come about, but obviously it's a hard and tricky problem to solve.
      - jschwartzi 9y ago

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Is this what got Amit Singhal in the first place, perhaps? (EDIT: I guess not, he left fifteen months ago, this list is eight months old.) It's briefly mentioned in this article, but I was shocked less people talked about what the Amit Singhal story meant for Google. That one of their most senior executives, who at one point rewrote the entire Google Search engine, when that was possible for one person to do, and worked there for sixteen years was fired for sexual harassment. It's hard to imagine he suddenly started harassing women sixteen years in, so I have to wonder how long Google may have been trying to protect one of their most valuable employees.

hetspookjee 9y ago
I think it's reasonable to think that the public awareness contributed to his departure, almost to the extend of being responsible I'd reckon. I don't think he started suddenly, but rather has done it for a very long time. Being such an immensly valuable asset does buy you slack, I bet.
xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
I've worked with my share of jerks and assholes. Rarely have I seen them dealt with. Mean people often know how to manipulate their messaging you avoid punative action. Few places have a zero tolerance policy, they'll just move them somewhere else. None of the jerks or assholes I've known had anything happen to them, that I am aware of. I'd like to think they'll be fired eventually.
Danihan 9y ago
>It's hard to imagine he suddenly started harassing women sixteen years in Why?

HarryHirsch 9y ago

Why is confidential material for public consumption? All this is stuff that ought to go to the Ombudsman, HR or the police to be dealt with properly. What good does it do to hear "my supervisor is habitually oversharing and told me she smokes hashish and is worried about an upcoming drug test"?

jschwartzi 9y ago
Because you don't necessarily need to involve the police every time you're trying to set an interpersonal boundary. Most people are well adjusted enough to change their behavior when you ask them to, and you don't need the threat of firing or jail to convince these people. You just need to ask them, nicely but assertively, to stop.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  When you post to the mailing list it's obviously gone past the "assert-boundaries" point, because you tried that already. Nicely but assertively is a problem with unreasonable supervisors in an "at will" state and a weak labour market.
  - jschwartzi 9y ago
    The mailing list isn't just for calling out your supervisors, and the article implies that the managers of the list do give people the chance to respond. It sounds less like a way to anonymously out inappropriate or offensive behavior and more like a way to give examples after the behavior has already been dealt with.
patja 9y ago
HR is not really intended to be the employee's friend or advocate. They work for the interests of the shareholders and management. It can be like reporting police corruption to the police -- not always a very effective course of action.
BeetleB 9y ago
>Why is confidential material for public consumption? If a person voluntarily and freely posts to the mailing list, (s)he is deciding that this is not confidential. Of course, if it identifies other people who did not consent, then you have a problem.

anon45caurv51 9y ago

Once this list has enough reach, someone may weaponize it. I've seen it happen.

MichaelGG 9y ago

> "Subsequently informed by the engineer that she was expected to 'sleep with everyone' because that's the culture here." I'm rather "unenlightened"/regressive/whatever from a SV perspective. But... If there wasn't a significant power difference here, like an intern vs someone senior, how does this even happen? I mean, I get it if it was one-on-one, even a direct boss might pressure someone into that. But "sleep with everyone"? What's the expected response? Or was this some poor excuse after a failed attempt? "Hey don't get upset. Everyone sleeps around on this team." I'm just having a hard time comprehending this quote, not from an offended view, just a practical/social/etc. view.

pjc50 9y ago
It's a common abuse tactic: establish the behaviour you want as "normal" and gaslight people who object. Often it works. It's also the sort of thing that people can very easily explain away as "joke", "hazing", etc.
auserperson 9y ago
The engineer is probably lying and gaslighting, as they lied about having other colleagues there. It seems like a very toxic person trying to create a situation of abuse. It's sad but not unheard of. (there's awful people in the world).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

zeveb 9y ago

I wonder if the 'curation' might skew folks' view. E.g. if one believes Ted is a rotten guy, one might mention all the times Ted does rotten things, but if one believes Tod is a great guy then one might just not mention the rotten things he does. Likewise, I wonder how often this list mentions when someone casually makes a rude remark about Christianity or Judaism, or when someone puts down men, or whites, or Republicans. Maybe it does — certainly the article didn't mention any anti-right bias incidents though (unless I missed it after reading twice).

pjc50 9y ago

This is what happens when people have lost faith in the formal process and instead institutionalized gossip as a necessary system for their own protection.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
throwaway-1209 9y ago
Hah, that's what happens when you pander to people who are easily offended. In any large company, Google included, there are crybullies who will rat you out to HR if you look at them wrong. That's usually their only function, they aren't top performers, because if they were they'd barely have time to sleep, let alone get offended by a comment about their hair or whatever. So they get together, create "intergrouplets" (cringeworthy Google lingo, not mine), and then put it on their yearly performance review because they have little else to mention there. When particularly loud and aggressive, they may even get promoted. Over a period of a decade genie gets out of the bottle and once that happens, you can't put it back. Good people leave in disgust, things deteriorate.

ar15saveslives 9y ago

So here's the rules of this brave new world: beyond your house you're a sexless, emotionless creature without family, life outside the office, without sense of humour, without personal interests and preferences. Be like this, and you'll get free meals, free shuttle bus and goats at company campus. And it's good for your resumé.

jlebar 9y ago

I'm sad to see so many comments here worrying about such a list becoming "weaponized". TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect. The point of the list, again from TFA, is to raise awareness about bad things that happen at Google, often outside the view of privileged white men like myself. With 20% of the company subscribed, it sounds like it's working. This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual assault go underreported. I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one. Disclaimer: I work at Google, and speak here (as always) for myself.

humanrebar 9y ago
> I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one. While we're doing thought exercises, let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process. Someone could just value justice and fairness, including channels for recourse when legitimate incidents of slander (or honest misunderstandings!) arise. There's nothing wrong, ignorant, or shameful about that perspective. In fact, we should embrace these perspectives in a diverse work culture.
- jlebar 9y ago
  > let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process. I agree wholeheartedly that there is nothing wrong with valuing evidence-based judgements and due process. But that is not what I was ranting against. Conflating the trope of immediately jumping to a concern about false accusations while ignoring victims with "valuing evidence-based judgements and due process" is, however, a pretty good example of what I am bothered by. I think the real thought experiment is: Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims? I think the answer might be, most of us here have never had to worry about being harassed at work. Most of us here don't know what it's like to be worried for our safety -- psychological or sexual -- at work. Most of us don't know what it's like to be subjected to a constant stream of microagressions from coworkers. So most of us can't imagine what many minorities in tech go through on a daily basis. That's just because most of us fit in. What all of us can imagine is being falsely accused of doing something bad. And so since that's what we can imagine without effort, that's what we talk about, and worry about. Availability bias. Falling prey to the availability bias doesn't make you a bad person. But you can learn to be better.

zghst 9y ago

I can see this getting out of hand quickly. Humans have a tendency to amplify anxiety of local, improbable events. This is essentially a weapon that can quickly impact morale and elevate disruptive conversations that will become far removed from the situation with too many participants. I'd have optin, in-person support groups where nothing leaves the room and it is limited in size. Sometimes spreading a problem across more people does not fix it, it only makes it worse.

gertef 9y ago
being constantly disrespected by coworkers can also impact morale.

anothercomment 9y ago

"is facing growing pressure from diversity advocates and the media" I don't think these entities should have the power to exert pressure.

icc97 9y ago

I think this is excellent, especially seeing as how so often HR's duty is only to the company and not to the employee making the complaint. Tangentially I wonder if a similar system could be used to report bullying in schools. Perhaps the anonymity only works at a certain scale.

hagakure0c 9y ago

It's a Bentham construction inside Big Brother, how quaint.

ika_ 9y ago

"Menustration products in the male restrooms for 'men' who have periods" Thanks for reminding me how insane some people from California are... I almost thought this was a joke.

RoyTyrell 9y ago
You do realize there are trans people right?
- ika_ 9y ago
  I don't realize any need to accommodate a delusion

jrrrr 9y ago

What does "employee-run" mean in this context? (isn't everything at Google employee-run by definition?)

yuhong 9y ago

I am not quite sure about whether sexual harassment laws are a good idea yet.