6 ms·

Even 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 ago
From 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 ago
firing 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 ago
Lawsuits 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.)
- cannonedhamster 9y ago
  Which is why he'll get some kind of settlement. Which is largely what this seemed about anyways. Any way you look at it this employee is costing Google money. He went right to alt-right commentators and podcasters and targetted a group of people inside Google as PC leftists, which has now led to Google employees having targets painted on their backs. Google loses no matter what they do here because this employee wrote an inflammatory internal post. This more and more comes off like the type of thing done by an individual who supports things like walking around with an AR15 in public. Sure it's legal but it's only being done to cause a reaction which can then be pointed at to claim oppression.
  - rapsey 9y ago
    > He went right to alt-right commentators and podcasters and targetted a group of people inside Google as PC leftists, And to how many leftist podcasts was he invited?
    - cannonedhamster 9y ago
      Leftists podcasts are generally known as "the news". I'm pretty sure there were people clamoring to talk to him as it's hot news right now. He chose the receptive audience that he knew would support him.
      - rapsey 9y ago
        If that is the case he made absolutely the right decision. The podcasts he appeared on allowed him to speak and state his case. "The news" is far from an editing unbiased reasonable discussion. They completely misrepresented his views already, there is absolutely zero reason to believe they would give him a fair chance to represent himself.

allengeorge 9y ago

From 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 ago

firing 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 ago

Lawsuits 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.)

cannonedhamster 9y ago
Which is why he'll get some kind of settlement. Which is largely what this seemed about anyways. Any way you look at it this employee is costing Google money. He went right to alt-right commentators and podcasters and targetted a group of people inside Google as PC leftists, which has now led to Google employees having targets painted on their backs. Google loses no matter what they do here because this employee wrote an inflammatory internal post. This more and more comes off like the type of thing done by an individual who supports things like walking around with an AR15 in public. Sure it's legal but it's only being done to cause a reaction which can then be pointed at to claim oppression.
- rapsey 9y ago
  > He went right to alt-right commentators and podcasters and targetted a group of people inside Google as PC leftists, And to how many leftist podcasts was he invited?
  - cannonedhamster 9y ago
    Leftists podcasts are generally known as "the news". I'm pretty sure there were people clamoring to talk to him as it's hot news right now. He chose the receptive audience that he knew would support him.
    - rapsey 9y ago
      If that is the case he made absolutely the right decision. The podcasts he appeared on allowed him to speak and state his case. "The news" is far from an editing unbiased reasonable discussion. They completely misrepresented his views already, there is absolutely zero reason to believe they would give him a fair chance to represent himself.