5 ms·

So he's fired for asking the question? It's a very reasonable thing to ask. I've worked for companies that have instituted such policies -- minority candidates

by ng12 9y ago

So he's fired for asking the question? It's a very reasonable thing to ask. I've worked for companies that have instituted such policies -- minority candidates were given an HR-sanctioned "saving throw" before being rejected. It's not a good feeling to wonder if your new colleague would have been rejected if she were male, or if your referral would have still gotten rejected had they been a person of color.

Zeklandia 9y ago
He was fired for effectively casting doubt on whether his colleagues were qualified for their work or whether they were just hired to meet diversity quotas.
- ng12 9y ago
  And why is that wrong? Worrying about your company's hiring bar is a very normal thing. HR should have contacted him to explain how they balance the desire for diversity and the desire for hiring the best candidates. There's no need for a public execution.
  - thereare5lights 9y ago
    lmao, questioning why it's wrong to piss off large swaths of the company by questioning whether or not they should have been hired. that's rich. let me know what industry you work in where you can poison the well so badly and not get canned.
    - jethro_tell 9y ago
      > not get canned Or sued, seems like this would be an easy basis for a hostile work suit. Couple promotion denials, a documented complaint and this manifesto would probably be an easy lawsuit, though INAL.
    - eagsalazar2 9y ago
      Wrong and bad strategy are not the same thing. Policies that are effectively affirmative action are by definition lowering the bar for diversity candidates. His statement that it can lower the bar is correct but still not something people like to be reminded of. Google (and others) not recognizing this distinction and treating his lack of discretion as hate speech is irrational mob PC rule or just plain cowardice (if he was fired for PR reasons).
      - thereare5lights 9y ago
        "His statement that it can lower the bar is correct" In an n-dimensional space where we take into account all the factors that go into whether or not a candidate is given an offer, you're actually complaining about "lowering the bar" when the bar is already lower for people (for people that's not being targeted for affirmative action) due to systemic effects? You're actually complaining that we're lowering the bar by tweaking other variable so that the bar will be effectively the same obstacle for everyone? Please explain your rationale for doing so.
- nv-vn 9y ago
  I don't think that's what he means. I think he is saying they are qualified, but many qualified people have also been excluded based on gender or race (i.e. the "false negatives" that gets repeatedly left out). For all he knows, those same people might have been the most qualified, but much of the competition didn't (allegedly) get a shot to compete against them.
- moduspol 9y ago
  Even if logically valid, literally any criticism of any existing hiring policy except "hire the best candidate" falls into that category.
dguaraglia 9y ago
> It's not a good feeling to wonder if your new colleague would have been rejected if she were male Then maybe you should just not make that assumption and work with them as a peer? > or if your referral would have still gotten rejected had they been a person of color This is utter bullshit. As someone who used to work for Alphabet, gender and ethnic background never came up during interviews, simply because the interview process does not account for that. You are either able to solve the technical problems you are presented with during the interview or not. "Culture fit" - which is the one item that might be influenced by things related to gender or ethnic background - is actually a liability for minority groups.
- ng12 9y ago
  That's a good thing! Then Alphabet is doing a good job, and someone should have sat down with this particular employee to explain what controls are in place to ensure consistent hiring standards are enforced while being sensitive to the requirements of people from different backgrounds. This was not the case at the company I worked for and it was a very negative thing. > Then maybe you should just not make that assumption and work with them as a peer? Sorry, forgot to mention that I'm a human in my post.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    > someone should have sat down with this particular employee to explain what controls are in place to ensure consistent hiring standards are enforced while being sensitive to the requirements of people from different backgrounds He knows them. Everyone knows them. The average Alphabet employee does multiple interviews a month, sometimes multiple interviews a week (complaining about how many interviews you have to do is of the favorite pastimes in the company.) We are trained for this, and - surprise - none of the training says (or even suggest) 'you should lower your standards for minority candidates.' In fact, none of the interviewing training even mentions gender or ethnicity. I feel that this guy is coming from a disgruntled conservative-leaning position where he feels the company values don't represent his. That's a valid concern, but there's plenty of companies out there. He should just leave and find one that has values matching his. > This was not the case at the company I worked for and it was a very negative thing That's sad. Hope you had better luck with the next one! > Sorry, forgot to mention that I'm a human in my post. Sorry, didn't meant to be offensive. I just know intrigue (which this memo tries to stir up) is the shortest path to a dysfunctional workplace.

by ng12 9y ago

Zeklandia 9y ago

He was fired for effectively casting doubt on whether his colleagues were qualified for their work or whether they were just hired to meet diversity quotas.

ng12 9y ago
And why is that wrong? Worrying about your company's hiring bar is a very normal thing. HR should have contacted him to explain how they balance the desire for diversity and the desire for hiring the best candidates. There's no need for a public execution.
- thereare5lights 9y ago
  lmao, questioning why it's wrong to piss off large swaths of the company by questioning whether or not they should have been hired. that's rich. let me know what industry you work in where you can poison the well so badly and not get canned.
  - jethro_tell 9y ago
    > not get canned Or sued, seems like this would be an easy basis for a hostile work suit. Couple promotion denials, a documented complaint and this manifesto would probably be an easy lawsuit, though INAL.
  - eagsalazar2 9y ago
    Wrong and bad strategy are not the same thing. Policies that are effectively affirmative action are by definition lowering the bar for diversity candidates. His statement that it can lower the bar is correct but still not something people like to be reminded of. Google (and others) not recognizing this distinction and treating his lack of discretion as hate speech is irrational mob PC rule or just plain cowardice (if he was fired for PR reasons).
    - thereare5lights 9y ago
      "His statement that it can lower the bar is correct" In an n-dimensional space where we take into account all the factors that go into whether or not a candidate is given an offer, you're actually complaining about "lowering the bar" when the bar is already lower for people (for people that's not being targeted for affirmative action) due to systemic effects? You're actually complaining that we're lowering the bar by tweaking other variable so that the bar will be effectively the same obstacle for everyone? Please explain your rationale for doing so.
nv-vn 9y ago
I don't think that's what he means. I think he is saying they are qualified, but many qualified people have also been excluded based on gender or race (i.e. the "false negatives" that gets repeatedly left out). For all he knows, those same people might have been the most qualified, but much of the competition didn't (allegedly) get a shot to compete against them.
moduspol 9y ago
Even if logically valid, literally any criticism of any existing hiring policy except "hire the best candidate" falls into that category.

dguaraglia 9y ago

> It's not a good feeling to wonder if your new colleague would have been rejected if she were male Then maybe you should just not make that assumption and work with them as a peer? > or if your referral would have still gotten rejected had they been a person of color This is utter bullshit. As someone who used to work for Alphabet, gender and ethnic background never came up during interviews, simply because the interview process does not account for that. You are either able to solve the technical problems you are presented with during the interview or not. "Culture fit" - which is the one item that might be influenced by things related to gender or ethnic background - is actually a liability for minority groups.

ng12 9y ago
That's a good thing! Then Alphabet is doing a good job, and someone should have sat down with this particular employee to explain what controls are in place to ensure consistent hiring standards are enforced while being sensitive to the requirements of people from different backgrounds. This was not the case at the company I worked for and it was a very negative thing. > Then maybe you should just not make that assumption and work with them as a peer? Sorry, forgot to mention that I'm a human in my post.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  > someone should have sat down with this particular employee to explain what controls are in place to ensure consistent hiring standards are enforced while being sensitive to the requirements of people from different backgrounds He knows them. Everyone knows them. The average Alphabet employee does multiple interviews a month, sometimes multiple interviews a week (complaining about how many interviews you have to do is of the favorite pastimes in the company.) We are trained for this, and - surprise - none of the training says (or even suggest) 'you should lower your standards for minority candidates.' In fact, none of the interviewing training even mentions gender or ethnicity. I feel that this guy is coming from a disgruntled conservative-leaning position where he feels the company values don't represent his. That's a valid concern, but there's plenty of companies out there. He should just leave and find one that has values matching his. > This was not the case at the company I worked for and it was a very negative thing That's sad. Hope you had better luck with the next one! > Sorry, forgot to mention that I'm a human in my post. Sorry, didn't meant to be offensive. I just know intrigue (which this memo tries to stir up) is the shortest path to a dysfunctional workplace.