7 ms·

If he is, as the following article says, "considering legal options," then he wasn't given an exit package. Or I suppose he could have been offered one but turn

If he is, as the following article says, "considering legal options," then he wasn't given an exit package. Or I suppose he could have been offered one but turned it down. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/google-employee-fired-diversity-row-considers-legal-action-james-damore https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/google-em...

erentz 9y ago
Oh, wow in that case if I were him I'd probably sue. This termination will sadly haunt him and he will miss out on many job opportunities because of it. Even if you disagree with what he wrote, that's a huge price to pay for trying to have a discussion around making his workplace better and what he perceives fairer.
- HelloMcFly 9y ago
  This case isn't cut-and-dry. Much of that memo I disagreed with but generally found innocuous. However, there were notable aspects of that memo that could be argued to have created a hostile work environment for different groups were they to be forced to work with or for that engineer. It's clear that, in aggregate, he believes certain groups naturally more "fit" for the work. Now, if you're a woman who has to work with or for him, what do you feel? You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to (or for) starts out with an assumption that you're less capable. Comments and behaviors that make a protected class feel like that, even if made as "jokes" or "facilitators of open dialogue", are not permissible. It's not a cut-and-dry case. I wouldn't bet on a lawsuit either way, excepting the fact that Google's lawyers are probably the better lawyers in a legal tussle.
  - ng12 9y ago
    > You likely feel that your capability is more in question I don't really understand this. It's not like female engineers at Google had never noticed how few of them there were until this memo was published. Obviously you're a deviation from the average in some way if you're one of a few X in a large group of mostly Y.
    - therebedragons 9y ago
      > if you're one of a few X in a large group of mostly Y. Is that a pun? Maybe ... "if you're one of a few XX in a large group of mostly XY"?
    - HelloMcFly 9y ago
      Or perhaps you're a product of tokenism, as this memo implies may often be the case.
  - gizmo686 9y ago
    >Now, if you're a woman who has to work with or for him, what do you feel? You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to (or for) starts out with an assumption that you're less capable. I might be biased since my experience with data analysis gives me an above average internalization of the concept of "in aggregate", but I disagree with this assesment. The fact is, as a matter of aggregates, by my demographics [0], I am "in aggregate", more likely to be a drug addict, rapist, misogynist, and terrorist. There are some people who do hold these aggregate statistics against me personally, but they are very rare (or at least, avoid the circles where they will see me); and I would not suggest that any who observes or discusses these aggregate traits holds them against me personally. The beginning of the memo spends a paragraph (and illustrative diagram, which was removed from in the original article) making this exact distinction. >excepting the fact that Google's lawyers are probably the better lawyers in a legal tussle. Google's lawyer's are probably also willing to settle out of court. I doubt there will be a trial unless he want "unreasonable" compensation, or to make a political point. [0] Based on my current understanding; I have not verified any of these beliefs.
    - HelloMcFly 9y ago
      I realize the author tries to draw that distinction, but I think for many, on a personal level, the totality of the memo will be perceived to undercut that preface. You don't get to "hang a lantern" on emotionally-charged generalizations of competence so you have free reign to paint with a broad brush and expect everyone to just take your preface at face value. Second, much of the "science" cited was suspect at best, undercutting his credibility of objectivity. That memo very intentionally dove into issues of identity within certain subgroups. You can't expect members of those subgroups to just unemotionally detach themselves from perfunctory qualifiers. He clearly wrote that some personnel decisions were inappropriately made to those of lesser competence. If you're a women or a minority, he may have been talking about you. With a smidge of empathy - a concept he does not appreciate - you can see how that may read to someone from those groups.
      - imminentviolet 9y ago
  - kofejnik 9y ago
    I can't understand this logic. Replace 'coding' with 'volleyball', is it Ok for him to note that best volleyball players are more likely to be male? If so, and since it is not entirely impossible that some innate physiological difference causes best developers to more likely be male as well, then I can't see what's wrong with his argument at all. edit: take not volleyball, but chess. Let's take top1000 players by ELO, is it Ok to note that most are male?
    - doubleshame 9y ago
      Wait you're saying that of you take the top 100 women and the top 100 men in chess, who've been given the best of everything to succeed, that you can still distinguish performance on this intellectual task merely on the basis of sex? What are we going to do to solve this problem? Perhaps we should encourage more women in chess and train them better from all early age. Chess is sexist! Why do we even encourage things like chess in this enlightened age. And only a sexist person would bring up chess in this discussion. Atone! /s
    - HelloMcFly 9y ago
      If you can't understand this logic because your impulse is to equate physical characteristics with mental ones as if they are equivalent, then I really don't feel like you're trying all that hard.
      - kofejnik 9y ago
        i'll repeat this slowly just for you: it's obvious that physical characteristics are different, so by extension it is not impossible that mental characteristics are different, too. Exhibit A: top chess players. Exhibit B: it is known that gender gap in tech is _higher_ in more advanced and liberal countries (i.e. it is higher in Sweden than in Thailand)
        HelloMcFly 9y ago
        > it's obvious that physical characteristics are different, so by extension it is not impossible that mental characteristics are different, too. It's easy to say things are "not impossible." It's not impossible that were society restructured to systematically favor the current (vs. innate, whether ostensible or in fact) female gender roles that women would significantly outperform men on more mental tasks than they do today. No, it's not impossible. It is highly speculative based on many assumed truths. In truth, I don't have an issue with the belief or implication that women and men think differently. I do take issue that one is superior to the other based on present-day conditions. Men used to be better doctors. Men used to be better dentists. Men used to be better lots of things, when you took a snapshot in time. But, as barriers to entry were removed, and the gender balance began to change, and more women were participating in developing the next generation, and shaping the roles they were now participating in, the innate capability gap seemed to disappear. That may not be a phenomenon that repeats itself in every occupation, but I don't think we can say that about technology yet. What I'm not saying: men and women are innately equal at everything. What I am saying: relying on the analogy of physical tasks implies females are the disadvantaged group, where there is much more cultural noise that works to favor men on many sets of criteria. > Exhibit A: top chess players. There's no historical context to the game of chess that has traditionally favored men over women? This male-dominated mind game, taught by men, in ways that were honed around how men learn, in an environment that men were always welcome in, somehow has better results for men? Am I off-base here? I don't know the history of chess. > Exhibit B: it is known that gender gap in tech is _higher_ in more advanced and liberal countries (i.e. it is higher in Sweden than in Thailand) If you've got a reference for me I'd read it. I can't honestly react to this known fact without seeing the research behind it. I'm dubious that enough of the surround contextual variables were controlled for (e.g., size and maturity of the tech industry, workforce participation of the genders, etc.).
  - cstrahan 9y ago
    > You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to (or for) starts out with an assumption that you're less capable. I have a hard time understanding how one could come to such a conclusion. (In the following, "P(X|Y)" should understood as "the probability of X given Y") Starting with probabilities: P(capable|your-gender-race-etc) != P(capable|you-being-you) If your employer hired you and another peer, and assuming you were both put through the same hiring process for the same job, wouldn't you expect that you're of similar caliber, regardless of background? Would it not be irrational to expect anything else (unless, I suppose, you have little faith in said hiring process)? Strangely, there are people who respond the way you suggest: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/google-employees-anti-diversity-manifesto-womens-neuroticism-goes-viral-n790401 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/google-employe... In the video embedded in the article above, the Executive Editor of Recode responds with "I don't know about you, but I ate stress for breakfast and I like my big title at Recode." She and the news anchor then sarcastically tease each other for not being cut out for their jobs, as if anyone made a personal claim to that effect. But here's the thing: no one said they're unfit for their positions. What the author of the memo did express, however, was that he believed in the possibility of biological differences resulting in the distributions of capability of each gender being offset by some amount -- there's even a graphic of two normal distributions slightly offset right within the memo to help illustrate this point. I won't go into any argument for or against this belief, as that's a deviation from the topic that you first rose. However, I will address the implications of this belief: suppose for the sake of argument that we, too, share this belief. What does this say about any given female colleague? At worst, we could say she might be one of a minority of women who share in both an interest in and ability to write software. However, this shouldn't evoke any ill feelings, as not only is the probability at hand just a number, it's also a number which does not apply to her as an individual: we have from observation (e.g. passing the interview, acing performance reviews, 1-on-1 experience, etc) that the probability of her being a solid engineer is 100%; that is, the probability of any one random woman possessing both the interest and aptitude in software development is irrelevant, and conflating that general probability with the conditional probability of your colleague being fit for her job would be irrational. Now, here's where I ask you for your help: is there some angle that I'm missing here? I will admit that I tend to be more on the reptilian side of things, insofar as it behooves me to sequester my emotions; assuming agreement with my analysis (and if not, please do point out any flaws), is it unfair to expect people to not be emotionally stirred by a remark that decidedly has no bearing on them as an individual? The one thing I might understand (even if I can't empathize with it) is the tendency for many to equate oneself with their "group", such that an expression that can be taken to be a slight against a group resembling themselves is taken as a personal attack. While I find it hard to imagine, I suppose what could be happening in such scenarios is that many people feel targeted merely by association. As a white man with an extensive background in dance, I suppose this could be like being offended by tropes like "most white men have no rhythm" -- for me, I'm not "most white men", I'm Charles Strahan: I've won two state German folk dancing competitions, I led the Latin dance club in my high school days, and I generally (I think) don't suck at dancing; I couldn't give a single fuck what someone says about "most white men", or "most blue eyed people", or whatever -- it doesn't apply to me. To broaden the scope a bit, the same goes for insults like "most men who dance are <insert inflammatory remark regarding masculinity>". Is this what I'm missing, or something else entirely?
  - taneq 9y ago
    > It's clear that, in aggregate, he believes certain groups naturally more "fit" for the work. Now, if you're a woman who has to work with or for him, what do you feel? He explicitly states that the overall trends contribute to the resulting distributions (eg. overall trend where men are more interested in tech-type things leads to resulting distribution where more men than women work in tech) but that this should not be misinterpreted as having any relevance to any given individual. So if you're a woman working with or for this person, whose reading comprehension is roughly equivalent with that of your peers (and I'd expect no less at a company like Google), you would know that he explicitly does not view you as any less "fit" or capable, and so would not feel victimized or targeted in any way.
    - HelloMcFly 9y ago
      I know what he wrote, but don't feel that "solves the issue" on a personal level. Knowing how one views your entire group is enough to make you question one's opinion of "you." At least I think there's a credible argument to be made from that angle. I don't want to make any definitive claims on anyone's behalf.
- riku_iki 9y ago
  > This termination will sadly haunt him and he will miss out on many job opportunities because of it. But his employment is at will, Google can terminate contract any time, and it is not Google who caused that damage, but news outlets and information leakers, who distributed these information..
  - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
    You can terminate it at any time unless your reasoning was illegal, thus wrongful termination.
    - riku_iki 9y ago
      Wikipedia says that according to explanation by Supreme Court of California no reasoning is required: [A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms.
      - vanattab 9y ago
        IANAL But my understanding is "At will employment" does mean the employer can fire you for an illegal reason such as your race or as retaliation for a complaint. It really just means that the employer does not have to give the legal reason at the time of firing and there is no law requiring warning warnings or a formal evaluation system.
        patrickyan 9y ago
        It's on the employee to prove that the company fired them illegally. For example, if the employee had an email showing that their boss said "I hate X because he's black" then the employee would probably win.
- PopsiclePete 9y ago
  High price to pay? I don't think so. Writing and circulating that memo was a colossally stupid thing to do. Stupid on a level that basically puts you into the camp of "nobody wants to work with you anymore". You're now that guy. A liability for any company and obviously an unpleasant human being. I wouldn't want him at my company either, that's for sure. Computer programmers often make the mistake of treating other humans like cold, calculating machines. But they're not. They have emotions. Emotions, and past experiences, and history. And, unless you're in the extreme Asperger's spectrum of being unable to deal with other human beings, you should know, by age 15 or so, that there are certain subjects that are sensitive and that a company environment is not the place for them. To help other potential programmers from destroying their careers, I'll post a short list of risky topics here: * Politics * Race * The Holocaust * Sex Any one of those could land you in hot water for creating a hostile work environment. Nobody cares if you have scientific evidence that Jews make for inferior doctors, you don't post a memo claiming that in the company you work at. You just don't. Because you're working with other humans, not with machines, and you have to be smart enough to know what's acceptable office talk and what's acceptable poker night talk. This Google Engineer is an idiot. I don't care whether he can "out-prgoram" me and code a complete OS in 2 hours. He's still an idiot. And deserves to be fired, because Google doesn't want to employ idiots.
  - Caveman_Coder 9y ago
    I'd agree with your opinion if Google wasn't a place where political discussion is seemingly "welcomed" (eng-misc, Memegen, TGIFs). It's okay to express an opinion that is targeting a group of people (conservatives/Republicans/Trump supporters/etc.) if you belong to the right ideological group (progressives). Don't think for an instance that this is the first case of controversial content posted internally. It happened all the time when I worked there, just that the group getting targeted wasn't in the majority in the social dominance and power hierarchy.
    - PopsiclePete 9y ago
      There's welcoming political discussion, and then there's saying that all gay people need to be euthanized because god wills it. You could say that it's just another "political opinion" and I shouldn't face blow-back for expressing it in an open environment, but, no, that's just not the case. If I say something like that, I will (rightly) become a social pariah immediately and nobody would want to be around me. Same thing with that guy. Yeah, you can joke about Trump, and you can joke about Hillary's emails, but saying that women are inferior due to biology makes you an unpleasant human being to be around and I don't want to be in the same room as you, much less on the same team or the same company as you. If they hadn't fired his dumb ass, it would have sent a very bad message to all of Google's women employees.
MistahKoala 9y ago
'Considering' isn't the same as 'exercising', though. Of course, you might reasonably ask what he has to gain by bluffing like that. Nothing comes to mind straight away.
- grigjd3 9y ago
  Internet fame, like so many commenters on news aggregation sites?

erentz 9y ago

Oh, wow in that case if I were him I'd probably sue. This termination will sadly haunt him and he will miss out on many job opportunities because of it. Even if you disagree with what he wrote, that's a huge price to pay for trying to have a discussion around making his workplace better and what he perceives fairer.

HelloMcFly 9y ago
This case isn't cut-and-dry. Much of that memo I disagreed with but generally found innocuous. However, there were notable aspects of that memo that could be argued to have created a hostile work environment for different groups were they to be forced to work with or for that engineer. It's clear that, in aggregate, he believes certain groups naturally more "fit" for the work. Now, if you're a woman who has to work with or for him, what do you feel? You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to (or for) starts out with an assumption that you're less capable. Comments and behaviors that make a protected class feel like that, even if made as "jokes" or "facilitators of open dialogue", are not permissible. It's not a cut-and-dry case. I wouldn't bet on a lawsuit either way, excepting the fact that Google's lawyers are probably the better lawyers in a legal tussle.
- ng12 9y ago
  > You likely feel that your capability is more in question I don't really understand this. It's not like female engineers at Google had never noticed how few of them there were until this memo was published. Obviously you're a deviation from the average in some way if you're one of a few X in a large group of mostly Y.
  - therebedragons 9y ago
    > if you're one of a few X in a large group of mostly Y. Is that a pun? Maybe ... "if you're one of a few XX in a large group of mostly XY"?
  - HelloMcFly 9y ago
    Or perhaps you're a product of tokenism, as this memo implies may often be the case.
- gizmo686 9y ago
  >Now, if you're a woman who has to work with or for him, what do you feel? You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to (or for) starts out with an assumption that you're less capable. I might be biased since my experience with data analysis gives me an above average internalization of the concept of "in aggregate", but I disagree with this assesment. The fact is, as a matter of aggregates, by my demographics [0], I am "in aggregate", more likely to be a drug addict, rapist, misogynist, and terrorist. There are some people who do hold these aggregate statistics against me personally, but they are very rare (or at least, avoid the circles where they will see me); and I would not suggest that any who observes or discusses these aggregate traits holds them against me personally. The beginning of the memo spends a paragraph (and illustrative diagram, which was removed from in the original article) making this exact distinction. >excepting the fact that Google's lawyers are probably the better lawyers in a legal tussle. Google's lawyer's are probably also willing to settle out of court. I doubt there will be a trial unless he want "unreasonable" compensation, or to make a political point. [0] Based on my current understanding; I have not verified any of these beliefs.
  - HelloMcFly 9y ago
    I realize the author tries to draw that distinction, but I think for many, on a personal level, the totality of the memo will be perceived to undercut that preface. You don't get to "hang a lantern" on emotionally-charged generalizations of competence so you have free reign to paint with a broad brush and expect everyone to just take your preface at face value. Second, much of the "science" cited was suspect at best, undercutting his credibility of objectivity. That memo very intentionally dove into issues of identity within certain subgroups. You can't expect members of those subgroups to just unemotionally detach themselves from perfunctory qualifiers. He clearly wrote that some personnel decisions were inappropriately made to those of lesser competence. If you're a women or a minority, he may have been talking about you. With a smidge of empathy - a concept he does not appreciate - you can see how that may read to someone from those groups.
    - imminentviolet 9y ago
- kofejnik 9y ago
  I can't understand this logic. Replace 'coding' with 'volleyball', is it Ok for him to note that best volleyball players are more likely to be male? If so, and since it is not entirely impossible that some innate physiological difference causes best developers to more likely be male as well, then I can't see what's wrong with his argument at all. edit: take not volleyball, but chess. Let's take top1000 players by ELO, is it Ok to note that most are male?
  - doubleshame 9y ago
    Wait you're saying that of you take the top 100 women and the top 100 men in chess, who've been given the best of everything to succeed, that you can still distinguish performance on this intellectual task merely on the basis of sex? What are we going to do to solve this problem? Perhaps we should encourage more women in chess and train them better from all early age. Chess is sexist! Why do we even encourage things like chess in this enlightened age. And only a sexist person would bring up chess in this discussion. Atone! /s
  - HelloMcFly 9y ago
    If you can't understand this logic because your impulse is to equate physical characteristics with mental ones as if they are equivalent, then I really don't feel like you're trying all that hard.
    - kofejnik 9y ago
      i'll repeat this slowly just for you: it's obvious that physical characteristics are different, so by extension it is not impossible that mental characteristics are different, too. Exhibit A: top chess players. Exhibit B: it is known that gender gap in tech is _higher_ in more advanced and liberal countries (i.e. it is higher in Sweden than in Thailand)
      - HelloMcFly 9y ago
        > it's obvious that physical characteristics are different, so by extension it is not impossible that mental characteristics are different, too. It's easy to say things are "not impossible." It's not impossible that were society restructured to systematically favor the current (vs. innate, whether ostensible or in fact) female gender roles that women would significantly outperform men on more mental tasks than they do today. No, it's not impossible. It is highly speculative based on many assumed truths. In truth, I don't have an issue with the belief or implication that women and men think differently. I do take issue that one is superior to the other based on present-day conditions. Men used to be better doctors. Men used to be better dentists. Men used to be better lots of things, when you took a snapshot in time. But, as barriers to entry were removed, and the gender balance began to change, and more women were participating in developing the next generation, and shaping the roles they were now participating in, the innate capability gap seemed to disappear. That may not be a phenomenon that repeats itself in every occupation, but I don't think we can say that about technology yet. What I'm not saying: men and women are innately equal at everything. What I am saying: relying on the analogy of physical tasks implies females are the disadvantaged group, where there is much more cultural noise that works to favor men on many sets of criteria. > Exhibit A: top chess players. There's no historical context to the game of chess that has traditionally favored men over women? This male-dominated mind game, taught by men, in ways that were honed around how men learn, in an environment that men were always welcome in, somehow has better results for men? Am I off-base here? I don't know the history of chess. > Exhibit B: it is known that gender gap in tech is _higher_ in more advanced and liberal countries (i.e. it is higher in Sweden than in Thailand) If you've got a reference for me I'd read it. I can't honestly react to this known fact without seeing the research behind it. I'm dubious that enough of the surround contextual variables were controlled for (e.g., size and maturity of the tech industry, workforce participation of the genders, etc.).
- cstrahan 9y ago
  > You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to (or for) starts out with an assumption that you're less capable. I have a hard time understanding how one could come to such a conclusion. (In the following, "P(X|Y)" should understood as "the probability of X given Y") Starting with probabilities: P(capable|your-gender-race-etc) != P(capable|you-being-you) If your employer hired you and another peer, and assuming you were both put through the same hiring process for the same job, wouldn't you expect that you're of similar caliber, regardless of background? Would it not be irrational to expect anything else (unless, I suppose, you have little faith in said hiring process)? Strangely, there are people who respond the way you suggest: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/google-employees-anti-diversity-manifesto-womens-neuroticism-goes-viral-n790401 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/google-employe... In the video embedded in the article above, the Executive Editor of Recode responds with "I don't know about you, but I ate stress for breakfast and I like my big title at Recode." She and the news anchor then sarcastically tease each other for not being cut out for their jobs, as if anyone made a personal claim to that effect. But here's the thing: no one said they're unfit for their positions. What the author of the memo did express, however, was that he believed in the possibility of biological differences resulting in the distributions of capability of each gender being offset by some amount -- there's even a graphic of two normal distributions slightly offset right within the memo to help illustrate this point. I won't go into any argument for or against this belief, as that's a deviation from the topic that you first rose. However, I will address the implications of this belief: suppose for the sake of argument that we, too, share this belief. What does this say about any given female colleague? At worst, we could say she might be one of a minority of women who share in both an interest in and ability to write software. However, this shouldn't evoke any ill feelings, as not only is the probability at hand just a number, it's also a number which does not apply to her as an individual: we have from observation (e.g. passing the interview, acing performance reviews, 1-on-1 experience, etc) that the probability of her being a solid engineer is 100%; that is, the probability of any one random woman possessing both the interest and aptitude in software development is irrelevant, and conflating that general probability with the conditional probability of your colleague being fit for her job would be irrational. Now, here's where I ask you for your help: is there some angle that I'm missing here? I will admit that I tend to be more on the reptilian side of things, insofar as it behooves me to sequester my emotions; assuming agreement with my analysis (and if not, please do point out any flaws), is it unfair to expect people to not be emotionally stirred by a remark that decidedly has no bearing on them as an individual? The one thing I might understand (even if I can't empathize with it) is the tendency for many to equate oneself with their "group", such that an expression that can be taken to be a slight against a group resembling themselves is taken as a personal attack. While I find it hard to imagine, I suppose what could be happening in such scenarios is that many people feel targeted merely by association. As a white man with an extensive background in dance, I suppose this could be like being offended by tropes like "most white men have no rhythm" -- for me, I'm not "most white men", I'm Charles Strahan: I've won two state German folk dancing competitions, I led the Latin dance club in my high school days, and I generally (I think) don't suck at dancing; I couldn't give a single fuck what someone says about "most white men", or "most blue eyed people", or whatever -- it doesn't apply to me. To broaden the scope a bit, the same goes for insults like "most men who dance are <insert inflammatory remark regarding masculinity>". Is this what I'm missing, or something else entirely?
- taneq 9y ago
  > It's clear that, in aggregate, he believes certain groups naturally more "fit" for the work. Now, if you're a woman who has to work with or for him, what do you feel? He explicitly states that the overall trends contribute to the resulting distributions (eg. overall trend where men are more interested in tech-type things leads to resulting distribution where more men than women work in tech) but that this should not be misinterpreted as having any relevance to any given individual. So if you're a woman working with or for this person, whose reading comprehension is roughly equivalent with that of your peers (and I'd expect no less at a company like Google), you would know that he explicitly does not view you as any less "fit" or capable, and so would not feel victimized or targeted in any way.
  - HelloMcFly 9y ago
    I know what he wrote, but don't feel that "solves the issue" on a personal level. Knowing how one views your entire group is enough to make you question one's opinion of "you." At least I think there's a credible argument to be made from that angle. I don't want to make any definitive claims on anyone's behalf.
riku_iki 9y ago
> This termination will sadly haunt him and he will miss out on many job opportunities because of it. But his employment is at will, Google can terminate contract any time, and it is not Google who caused that damage, but news outlets and information leakers, who distributed these information..
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  You can terminate it at any time unless your reasoning was illegal, thus wrongful termination.
  - riku_iki 9y ago
    Wikipedia says that according to explanation by Supreme Court of California no reasoning is required: [A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms.
    - vanattab 9y ago
      IANAL But my understanding is "At will employment" does mean the employer can fire you for an illegal reason such as your race or as retaliation for a complaint. It really just means that the employer does not have to give the legal reason at the time of firing and there is no law requiring warning warnings or a formal evaluation system.
      - patrickyan 9y ago
        It's on the employee to prove that the company fired them illegally. For example, if the employee had an email showing that their boss said "I hate X because he's black" then the employee would probably win.
PopsiclePete 9y ago
High price to pay? I don't think so. Writing and circulating that memo was a colossally stupid thing to do. Stupid on a level that basically puts you into the camp of "nobody wants to work with you anymore". You're now that guy. A liability for any company and obviously an unpleasant human being. I wouldn't want him at my company either, that's for sure. Computer programmers often make the mistake of treating other humans like cold, calculating machines. But they're not. They have emotions. Emotions, and past experiences, and history. And, unless you're in the extreme Asperger's spectrum of being unable to deal with other human beings, you should know, by age 15 or so, that there are certain subjects that are sensitive and that a company environment is not the place for them. To help other potential programmers from destroying their careers, I'll post a short list of risky topics here: * Politics * Race * The Holocaust * Sex Any one of those could land you in hot water for creating a hostile work environment. Nobody cares if you have scientific evidence that Jews make for inferior doctors, you don't post a memo claiming that in the company you work at. You just don't. Because you're working with other humans, not with machines, and you have to be smart enough to know what's acceptable office talk and what's acceptable poker night talk. This Google Engineer is an idiot. I don't care whether he can "out-prgoram" me and code a complete OS in 2 hours. He's still an idiot. And deserves to be fired, because Google doesn't want to employ idiots.
- Caveman_Coder 9y ago
  I'd agree with your opinion if Google wasn't a place where political discussion is seemingly "welcomed" (eng-misc, Memegen, TGIFs). It's okay to express an opinion that is targeting a group of people (conservatives/Republicans/Trump supporters/etc.) if you belong to the right ideological group (progressives). Don't think for an instance that this is the first case of controversial content posted internally. It happened all the time when I worked there, just that the group getting targeted wasn't in the majority in the social dominance and power hierarchy.
  - PopsiclePete 9y ago
    There's welcoming political discussion, and then there's saying that all gay people need to be euthanized because god wills it. You could say that it's just another "political opinion" and I shouldn't face blow-back for expressing it in an open environment, but, no, that's just not the case. If I say something like that, I will (rightly) become a social pariah immediately and nobody would want to be around me. Same thing with that guy. Yeah, you can joke about Trump, and you can joke about Hillary's emails, but saying that women are inferior due to biology makes you an unpleasant human being to be around and I don't want to be in the same room as you, much less on the same team or the same company as you. If they hadn't fired his dumb ass, it would have sent a very bad message to all of Google's women employees.

MistahKoala 9y ago

'Considering' isn't the same as 'exercising', though. Of course, you might reasonably ask what he has to gain by bluffing like that. Nothing comes to mind straight away.

grigjd3 9y ago
Internet fame, like so many commenters on news aggregation sites?