5 ms·

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

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.

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.