20 ms·
James Damore has an above decent chance of winning his legal case against Google
- raisinbread1234 9y ago"No, I'm pretty sure he just wants attention." Not unlike women who claim sexism is the reason for their own failures
- VikingCoder 9y agoIf he wants to win a legal case, he should hire a good lawyer. If he had hired a good lawyer, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be seeing him doing interviews and tweeting images of himself wearing a T-shirt comparing Google to a gulag. No, I'm pretty sure he just wants attention.
- eng_monkey 9y agoWhy are you sure?
- eesmith 9y agoBecause a good lawyer typically advises their client to shut up, as these sorts of statements will be brought up in court. Based solely on VikingCoder's "T-shirt comparing Google to a gulag", the characterization will be of a disgruntled worker who didn't care about his job and felt like burning all his bridges before leaving in what he thought was a blaze of glory.
- davrosthedalek 9y agoBut the memo does not read this way. It clearly is written in a way to start discussion/make changes at google, not as a "so long suckers, f??k you all".
- eesmith 9y agoWhich is why a good lawyer would advise not going around with a "T-shirt comparing Google to a gulag", because the lawsuit won't be restricted to the content of the email but to the entire interaction between him and Google.
- spydum 9y agoI dunno, I'm pretty sure defense* would easily be able to paint the picture that employee spent hours researching and writing an article because he cared about the culture. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be bothered to invest effort into carefully addressing the topic. Heck, you could even go as far as to pull the google doc authoring logs and show (theoretically) that the employee worked on it in off hours (I dont know this to be true, but if it was, even a stronger defense). His actions after the firing could easily be explained away as hurt feelings for trying to be open and honest, and being publicly shamed? * it's not the defense I suppose if he originated the suit, but you know what i mean
- geofft 9y ago> I dunno, I'm pretty sure defense would easily be able to paint the picture that employee spent hours researching and writing an article because he cared about the culture. Something like half the citations are to Wikipedia. There are five actual scientific papers there, three or four of which don't even support his thesis, and, if I recall correctly, many of which are in the Wikipedia citations, the classic trick of a rushed undergrad who needs trustworthy citations but has no idea how to find them.
- eesmith 9y agoHave you not experienced a work environment where someone feels like burning bridges? There are some people who are "mad as hell, and ... not going to take this anymore", so write such essays to 'prove' that they aren't wrong, the company wrong. For that matter, there are some people in romantic relationships who do the same. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, I'm saying that this is what Google's lawyers will argue happened, so a good lawyer would advise him to not make things easier for Google. * the word you want is 'plaintiff' as this would be a civil suit.
- cabalamat 9y ago> If he wants to win a legal case, he should hire a good lawyer. That sounds reasonable. > If he had hired a good lawyer, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be seeing him doing interviews People who hire good lawyers don't do interviews? That's some stretch.
- heisenbit 9y agoWell, if you are accused then it is certainly advisable to not provide more material that could be used against you. But he is the accuser here and the damage he can do talking is more limited.
- dagw 9y agoAny decent lawyer will tell you that interviews rarely help and often hinder your case. And the times it can help your case it only does so if you've been well coached by a competent lawyer and manage to stick to the script.
- zimpenfish 9y agoAlso, if you're trying to claim you're pro-diversity, having your first two interviews be with people that many would consider strongly MRA / misogynistic might not look good.
- Alain-lf 9y agoDr. Jordan B Peterson a misogynist? Give me a break.
- andrewprock 9y agoHe may or may not be a misogynist, but looking at his wikipedia page, he certainly spends significant time in the culture wars gutter discussing topics like: 5.1 White privilege 5.2 Feminist postmodernists – the Oedipal pathology 5.3 Cultural appropriation 5.4 Neo-Marxist postmodernists and 'identity politics'
- 9y ago
- tyingq 9y ago>If he wants to win a legal case, he should hire a good lawyer. He did. This is who filed the complaint on his behalf. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hastings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hastings Clients, of course, can ignore good advice.
- empressplay 9y agoI don't think he can win on these grounds. He was terminated because he made his position untenable. Google did not prevent him from voicing his opinion (or "commenting on conditions).
- exergy 9y agoYeah, my understanding leads me to believe that he used the company's official "Air your grievance here" forum for posting the memo. So, he acted exactly in the manner that the company required him to. Google's case will probably focus on the result of him voicing his opinion, rather than the fact that he did in the first place. Still can't say I agree with them firing him. His memo was considerate enough to have not lead to a kneejerk firing.
- sebastianconcpt 9y agoIt depends on how it relates to the pretext Google used to fire him, no?
- danso 9y agoWIRED's take: https://www.wired.com/story/google-manifesto-author-just-might-have-a-legal-case/ https://www.wired.com/story/google-manifesto-author-just-mig... > The labor-relations law usually applies to union organizing, says Wagner. But over the years the act has been more broadly interpreted to protect employees who discuss their working conditions with each other. That might include Damore's memo, Wagner says. > Damore says he also plans to invoke a California law that bars employers from retaliating against workers who complain about illegal working conditions. He doesn't have to prove that his working conditions were illegal, Wagner says. Instead, she says Damore's lawyer might argue that his memo was protected under California law, because it related to allegedly unequal treatment of employees. Citing a law that was put in place to protect union organizers seemed weird, but I guess it makes sense if there is precedent for interpreting it in speech not explicitly related to union organizing. Arguing that Google retaliated because he made allegations about unethical/illegal corporate behavior seems like a much stronger case, since he literally did make those claims in the memo.
- zimpenfish 9y agoIt sounds like he might already have made a filing with the NLRB well before he was fired (going off the first 5 minutes of his interview with Molyneux) - that might bolster his case for anti-retaliation (depending on their response, I guess - if they sent it straight back with "LOL" on page 1, it'll probably hurt his case instead.)
- richmarr 9y ago(Not a lawyer) I would have thought Google would be able to argue other causes. Damore said Google policies "lower[ed] the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate" That statement is (a) factually inaccurate, you can't lower the bar by descreasing the false negative rate, and (b) slanders his colleagues hired through that policy by saying the bar had been lowered to allow them in. You could argue that the word "effectively" means he actually meant something slightly different in point (a), but he still made the claim in point(b).
- imron 9y ago
- AznHisoka 9y ago"Of course, the irony here is that if Damore wins it will be regarded as a big victory for conservatives who work in tech, even though the win would strengthen the kind of workers' rights that are traditionally the focus of the left." This last paragraph left a bad taste. Does everything need to be about politics?
- danso 9y agoProbably? But Damore's memo is unavoidably about politics, because he specifically complained about Google having a left-wing bias, how Google didn't value ideological diversity, and how he believes Google has a culture of shaming non-left-wing employees into silence.
- ue_ 9y agoIt would not surprise me if Google would done something similar with a Marxist or anarchist memo, though. I find it hard to call it left wing bias with that in mind.
- humanrebar 9y agoFair point. But these labels are generally inaccurate. Trump is clearly not ideological, do calling him right wing doesn't make sense either. He's not going to, out of principle, decide he doesn't have the legal ability to do something he wants. We obviously need a different political metaphor. I don't know if are ready for one though.
- thatonechad 9y agoThe difference is you are comparing an extremely far left memo Communism/Marxism to one he wrote that is backed by science and is middle of the road common sense. You are acting like this is some extreme right wing babble when all actuality its not.
- ue_ 9y ago>to one he wrote that is backed by science and is middle of the road common sense Being a Marxist/anarchist manifesto and being backed by science, economics or political philosophy aren't mutually exclusive. I don't view the memo as common sense - that's not to say it's incorrect, but I don't view it as common sense. I'm not acting as though it's right-wing babble; my point is that I am against people saying that Google has a left-wing bias, when it's hard to imagine that positions which are core to the left wing would be accepted at Google. As such, I'm not making a comment on the content of the piece, I'm making a comment on the culture at Google which is supposedly 'left-wing biased'.
- carlosrg 9y agoGood for him. I might not agree 100% with his memo, but what we've seen the last days, treating the guy like he just wrote Mein Kampf, silencing any favorable opinion in the media (big headlines when a scientist disagrees with him, being silent when a different scientist agrees with him) and internet forums like this one just hinders any possibility of real debate. And that fuels the most right-wing media and forums, by the way. Don't act surprised if the "alt-right" keeps growing in tech and elsewhere.
- puranjay 9y agoAgreed. His conclusions might have been disagreeable, but hardly worth the outrage. The media and the echo chamber it feeds is, once again, to blame.
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoAlways the media to blame, never the person who didnt have the self-discipline to not only keep their views to them-self, but made it in to a memo to circulate.
- kobeya 9y ago> keep their views to them-self So we want to ban open discussion now? "Have a complaint? Tell HR! But be careful cause if it's the wrong type of complaint we'll very publicly fire and shame you!"
- BLanen 9y agoIt wasn't a complaint to hr, don't act like it was. >So we want to ban open discussion now? Can you make a larger strawman than that? I don't know. You removed all context from the situation with that quotation and are representing it like it was some absolute.
- kickopotomus 9y agoThe memo was not some sort of mass email sent to all employees. It was posted on an internal message board that was purposed for discussion and peer review. The media is absolutely to blame as they blatantly doctored the original document with their own publications.
- arkitaip 9y agoEvery interview I've see with Damore after him getting fired confirms that he's a misogynist. I can't imagine any SV tech firm would want to hire him with his toxic background. I suspect he calculated this outcome in the first place, so I'm curious where he thought he would end up. My guess is some kind of "realist"/alt-right media outfit, where he can preach to the choir all he wants, or starting his own business.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- danso 9y agoWhat's an example of a revelation that "confirms" his misogyny?
- kuschku 9y agoHe argues against affirmative action that benefits women, because they are inferior[1] anyway, but then argues for affirmative action that benefits conservatives[2], and suggests to start by "breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation", and to hire more conservatives because "conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company" This shows he has no problem with affirmative action - aka discrimination - as long as he profits. But as soon as someone else profits, he disagrees. ________________________ [1] "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)", also see his point w.r.t. "Neuroticism" [2] because "Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently" EDIT: He argues that political diversity is most important: > Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. and that Google should change its hiring practices to improve this, instead of ethnical or national diversity. And he makes up more pseudo-scientific arguments for why Google should hire more conservatives: > conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. In the context of his memo - where he states that Google is too far left-wing - the recommended changes are obvious: Hire more conservative. He also recommends to track the political affiliation of all existing employees to track the diversity gap there: > I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation This is the same kind of affirmative action that he criticizes just a few paragraphs before. EDIT2: With regards to biologically inferior, he references IQ (see his footnote 8, and its use in text), "Neuroticism", and other pseudo-scientific arguments why women would be biologically inferior.
- abhi3 9y agoRewriting and posting a couple of past comments on the topic > One thing you learn quickly in law school is that you win cases not on the law but on facts, or rather your characterization of the facts. A good lawyer presenting facts in a way that they get through to a carefully selected jury can win almost any case that's based on a legally plausible claim. Also, Google will most likely offer a huge settlement just to avoid the negative publicity and embarrassing disclosures that come out during the discovery process (which in many cases may show further tortious conduct towards third parties and expose the company to further liability). The case doesn't need to be strong, rather just painful enough for Google to defend. Every suit has some nuisance value.
- Nokinside 9y agoEven if he wins the case, Google loses just limited amount of money. It's just a legal case instead of continuing PR + HR nightmare inside Google.
- allengeorge 9y agoFrom a financial damage-control perspective - exactly this. The money they'd have to pay out to him is far less than the social (and financial) cost of being blackballed in the media and by various groups.
- justin66 9y ago> The money they'd have to pay out to him is far less than the social (and financial) cost of being blackballed in the media and by various groups. The person you were replying to was referring to the "continuing PR + HR nightmare inside Google." The public reaction was a problem but the damage to morale and the culture of the company was, one assumes, considered a much bigger threat by management.
- calafrax 9y agofiring people because they have to audacity to question whether or not mandatory micro-aggression awareness training is a productive use of their time may be more of an HR nightmare than you expect.
- jerf 9y agoLawsuits like this are more about second-order effects than the primary effects. If he wins, and it becomes established that firing people for some reason related to this matter [1] is illegal and will carry large fines, then even if that one lawsuit's resulting fine is trivial to Google, the sum total of complaints that could be made if they don't change their policies is not, nor is it to all the other employers (as this isn't even an IT case at this point, this is an employment law case that will be relevant to all employers). If a case goes through and has a concrete result (as opposed to a settlement + gag order) it has a high potential of being a landmark case of one sort or another. It's difficult to say what that will be, though, because the details matter a lot and it will certainly be more complicated than any simple sentence will accurately capture. The findings and final judicial opinion matter too, not just the binary outcome of the case. I mark the "some reason related to this matter" with [1] above because the case itself will also be deciding what that reason ultimately was; none of us currently are capable of guessing what that is and I guarantee you your knee jerk will prove an inaccurate indication of the final judgment's logic. (And let me emphasize explicitly I've written this post generic to the outcome of the case. Either major outcome could be a landmark case depending on the reasoning given by the court.)
- Torai 9y agoThe media giving full attention to this issue, often taking an strong side in either extremes of the debate. I've noticed how in the last years, the debate about feminism/gender equality (or whatever It should be called) has gotten worse, more binary. And how movements like the alt-right directly has directly benefited from this.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago> often taking an strong side in either extremes of the debate. His memo is very firmly left-wing and liberal though, hardly an 'extreme'.
- sitkack 9y agoIt was basically the bell-curve of tech gender equality. To paraphrase > Autistic men have the fast-twitch OCD neurons that make them ideally suited for programming.
- sitkack 9y agoFor reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve and http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/michael_johnsons_gold_medal_in_ignorance/ http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/michael_johnsons_gold_medal_...
- jpttsn 9y agoBet you paraphrased the Bell Curve, too.
- sitkack 9y agoI'll let the Bell Curve speak for itself. The follow on comments by the authors are pure gold.
- kuschku 9y agoEDIT: I'll just post a bunch of quotes from the memo, and let you judge if that sounds left-wing. > the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences) > Stop alienating conservatives: Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. > conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. > I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation > Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture > which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians > Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices > Google’s left leaning
- pault 9y agoIt has so much utility because you can effectively call your opponent a nazi without invoking Godwin's law!
- geofft 9y agoGodwin's Law is that the probability of a comparison to the Nazis approaches one, not that the person making the comparison automatically loses. Furthermore, Mike Godwin himself says that you should make comparisons to the Nazis when warranted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/... Tomorrow the alt-right will be marching in Charlottesville in support of actual literal neo-Nazis who call themselves Nazis, and claiming that they share a common enemy with the neo-Nazis and will therefore not criticize the neo-Nazis about anything. AlternativeRight.com is run by actual literal neo-Nazi Richard Spencer. They're calling themselves Nazis, and it's technically accurate. There's no need for their opponents to do it, and also, why should we censor facts simply because they are politically incorrect? Does it hurt the alt-right's feelings to be called "Nazi"? Facts don't care about your feelings.
- thatonechad 9y agoThey aren't marching with neo nazis. You are generalizing an entire group of people based off a small few. Essentially this would be like saying all liberals are left wing terrorists because they support Black Lives Matter, whom speaks highly and celebrates a black nationalist who killed a police officer and fled to Cuba. Or all left wing groups are extremist because Antifa literally use communist and facist tactics to shut down there enemy. Stop and think before you post non sense.
- geofft 9y ago> They aren't marching with neo nazis. Let's see.... https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6rsng3/unite_the_right_in_charlottesville_next_week/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6rsng3/unite_th... > I want to be perfectly clear with you guys that many of the people who will be there are National Socialist and Ethnostate sort of groups. I don’t endorse them. In this case, the pursuit of preserving without shame white culture, our goals happen to align. I’ll be there regardless of the questionable company because saving history is more important than our differences. This is probably why they named the event “Unite the Right.” > Speaking for myself only, I won't be punching right. We need to save civilization first, we can argue about the exact details later. and from the comments: > Exactly. Anything to the right of Elizabeth warren is already a nazi ready to gas six trillion Jews so might as well say fuck it. The enemies of my enemy are my friends https://altright.com/2017/08/05/the-unite-the-right-rally-is-going-to-be-a-turning-point-for-white-identity-in-america/ https://altright.com/2017/08/05/the-unite-the-right-rally-is... > The Daily Stormer [a neo-Nazi site] has been promoting the event heavily and it looks like they are going to bring a lot of young new cadres to the rally. Identity Evropa [a white-nationalist group] will be there as well as several Southern Nationalist groups. There will be no Alt-Lite co-rally, it will be just us, the proverbial and literal White Guard out there defending the statue of General Lee. This is a good development. They are quickly becoming irrelevant and losing their street presence as we continue to grow and take up space. https://www.dailystormer.com/a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-right/ https://www.dailystormer.com/a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-righ... Describing the origin of the alt-right: > On 4chan, the Jewish problem was analyzed by news junkies and history buffs, feminism was deconstructred by sexually frustrated young men, and race was considered based on the actual data on the issue. The rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP largely took place on 4chan. > This newly formulated Nazi ideology was then combined with the established troll culture, based on memes, hilarious images designed to transmit cultural concepts, and “lulz,” a term coined by the troll Jameth which defines the type of malicious humor associated with trolling. The only way you can claim that they're not marching with neo-Nazis and promoting neo-Nazism is if you use a definition of alt-right that's different from how the alt-right define themselves. As far as I can tell, the term "alt-lite" was created specifically to disavow the small number of people who refused to stand with the neo-Nazis.
- raisinbread1234 9y agoMy company sent a mail to all...."we have achieved XX.X percentage of women...we intend to go for YY.Y percentage! ...we didn't do this by hiring women intentionally, we did this by choosing the best people for the job" What crap. The situation now is that even if a man qualifies better than a woman for a job, they would choose a woman for boosting the numbers. This is gender discrimination. The companies must be sued for that.
- geofft 9y ago> My company sent a mail to all...."we have achieved XX.X percentage of women...we intend to go for YY.Y percentage! ...we didn't do this by hiring women intentionally, we did this by choosing the best people for the job" What crap. The situation now is that even if a man qualifies better than a woman for a job, they would choose a woman for boosting the numbers. That is literally the opposite of what the email says, unless you think that a) the company is intentionally lying and b) fewer than XX.X percentage of women are qualified for the job. (Since you haven't stated what XX.X is, I am somewhat worried that you think that this is true for all XX.X > 0.) Also, this idea that there is a total order of humans on "qualified for the job" seems a little naive, as does the idea that your interview process can reliably identify the total order. In every interview process I've been involved with, we're perfectly happy to take anyone who's qualified for the job (and we barely trust our interview process to yield that one bit of information reliably) and interested in the job. If there are multiple candidates, we're usually happy to try to take all of them. If we can't, we're much more interested in finding who's the better fit for the team, including axes like skill gaps on the team and cultural fit, than ranking the successful candidates on who's "better qualified".
- leereeves 9y agoIt's pretty transparently a lie. If they intend to increase the percentage of women, they intend to hire women. Hiring "the best people for the job" might increase the percentage of women, or decrease it, and would not be a reliable strategy to achieve the stated goal.
- 9y ago
- skc 9y agoSmall price to pay for keeping some semblance of a functional working environment at Google.
- wonderwonder 9y agoI don't really understand the negativity being leveled at this guy. He has presented an opinion, whether you agree with his opinion or his presentation format, he does not seem to have taken any actions in a malicious way. He appears to have simply used the approved channels provided by google to air an employment related grievance. That the memo was not addressed and discussed by Google management prior to it going viral after being available for several months is no ones fault but Googles. Especially after he specifically forwarded it to Google's diversity department. That company executives are publicly demonizing him and essentially validating his complaints in regards to the silencing of alternative view points is not a forward thinking move by the company. Looking at the percentage of computer science degrees being presented to women which currently stands at less than 15% of the total, he may be on to something. Or he may not. For a company to insist on a goal of having a percentage of its workforce comprise a gender ratio higher than that of the available market of engineers means that they would have to be giving women preferential treatment. This appears to be forcing the issue and cannot help but discriminate against men. It's simply math. I'm not arguing for or against the validity of their approach but to deny that Damore has a legitimate axe to grind, opinion and legal case is not a valid view point.
- emodendroket 9y agoPeople aren't offended at the way he presented his views but at the content of them.
- humanrebar 9y agoI'm not sure people understand the content of them.
- jjjasfdj88 9y agoI'm not sure he understood it either. He admits such by saying he could be biased to only see the evidence that supports his points.
- emodendroket 9y ago
- thatonechad 9y agoFeminism has became useless this day in age. They have now resorted to man hating and complaining about everything and anyone who is the color white and the gender male. The gender pay gap has been disproven with studies and science yet the alt-left can't seem to grasp these concepts.
- tomp 9y agoI think your reply is a good example of the "more binary" that parent mentioned. I'm not saying your points aren't partially true, but you're taking them to the extreme - the world is more gray rather than black or white.
- humanrebar 9y agoBut employees deserve more than "gray" when it comes to codes of conduct and firings.
- sctb 9y ago> Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14988770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14988770.
- imron 9y ago> Because start-ups like Google Excuse me, what? Is Google still considered a startup?
- dionidium 9y agoDamore's NLRB claim is by far the most interesting aspect of this controversy. Counterpoint here: http://mattbruenig.com/2017/08/10/the-trump-nlrb-will-smash-the-google-guy/ http://mattbruenig.com/2017/08/10/the-trump-nlrb-will-smash-... He walks through all the relevant points, concluding: "In basically all cases, a conservative NLRB will want to reduce the ways workers can coordinate with one another, and increase employer discretion to terminate employees. When I raised this point on Twitter, someone said that this might be different under Trump because wouldn’t such a ruling feed into the political correctness and whatnot that he hates. And to that I can only laugh: at the end of the day, what conservatives want to do is shift power to bosses over workers, and they are really good at keeping their eyes on the prize."
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoGoogle is a private company. They did the right thing. He does not have a winning chance other than PR value, simply because his memo was divisive and just insanely bad for moral there. People have been fired/let go for way less. Just Look at the comments posted here already to see what this sort of "memo" does. Anyway, even if you think all the same things Damore did, why on earth would you grow a second ego, and circulate a memo of these ramblings to your company? Who in their right mind would do something like this? Who thinks that I MUST tell everyone at work my thoughts that I know to be highly controversial in the form of a memo? Who does this and expects to keep a job?
- mdekkers 9y agoHe does not have a winning chance, simply because his memo was divisive and just insanely bad for moral there That is not how law works
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoPerhaps, But its certainly how HR departments work!
- mabbo 9y agoThe man is guilty of the ultimate corporate crime: making his employer look bad. As one person I know put it, > If you write a document that becomes such a public relations nightmare that it requires the CEO to cut short a family vacation to deal with the mess, update your resume. (http://www.joeydevilla.com/2017/08/08/one-pragmatic-lesson-you-should-take-from-the-former-google-manifestbro/ http://www.joeydevilla.com/2017/08/08/one-pragmatic-lesson-y...)
- humanrebar 9y agoI agree, but when I read this point of view (I've seen it elsewhere), I can't tell if the problem is with the employee, the employer, both, or what. It's not a law of nature, so it's not the same as "you ran with scissors, dude". I'm concerned that the takeaway will be, "If you anger the employment gods, you get smote. That's the way the world works."
- anotherevan 9y agoLike how they have a photo of Damore with the American flag in the background. About as subtle as a television evangelist.