4 ms·

> The US concept of free speech protects citizens from government retaliation. This is true, but California presciently has other laws in place to protect work

> The US concept of free speech protects citizens from government retaliation. This is true, but California presciently has other laws in place to protect workers that want to discuss potentially illegal behavior in good faith. This is why Damore is suing Google, and why it's quite likely that he will win.

camgunz 9y ago
Why would that apply here? He didn't discuss anything illegal. Sorry I'm unfamiliar with California state law, and besides I don't really know why it pertains to a misunderstanding of speech protected under the 1st Amendment.
- chongli 9y ago
  The memo itself describes at least some of Google's diversity efforts as potentially illegal. Firing Damore for speaking up about illegal actions committed by management is a no-no.
  - camgunz 9y ago
    But wasn't he arguing the opposite; that Google's efforts to comply with US law were working to the detriment of men? I thought the US' case was essentially "Google is overwhelmingly White and Asian men", and Damore's case is "policies that decrease the numbers of men have got to go". It's like the government is indicting you for making gingerbread houses, and one of your employees argues against your policy prohibiting gingerbread in the workplace. Isn't it? EDIT: Oh it's gender pay, not diversity. Then I really don't at all get the relevance, Damore only mentioned the pay gap in a footnote that was totally unrelated to Google.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      From the memo: to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices [...] Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6] [6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs. > But wasn't he arguing the opposite; that Google's efforts to comply with US law were working to the detriment of men? And illegally so.
      - camgunz 9y ago
        Hmm, but aren't these reverse discrimination arguments? Fisher v. University of Texas makes those a long shot at best.
      - Caveman_Coder 9y ago
        I worked at Google. I've seen this before. "Desired" candidates (women, especially black and Hispanic) were hired on two occasions where the interviewing team gave them an average of 2s. Upper management took the "best" they could get of a certain "highly desired" demographic...I'm not sure how these two individuals made it past the hiring committee but they did...

camgunz 9y ago

Why would that apply here? He didn't discuss anything illegal. Sorry I'm unfamiliar with California state law, and besides I don't really know why it pertains to a misunderstanding of speech protected under the 1st Amendment.

chongli 9y ago
The memo itself describes at least some of Google's diversity efforts as potentially illegal. Firing Damore for speaking up about illegal actions committed by management is a no-no.
- camgunz 9y ago
  But wasn't he arguing the opposite; that Google's efforts to comply with US law were working to the detriment of men? I thought the US' case was essentially "Google is overwhelmingly White and Asian men", and Damore's case is "policies that decrease the numbers of men have got to go". It's like the government is indicting you for making gingerbread houses, and one of your employees argues against your policy prohibiting gingerbread in the workplace. Isn't it? EDIT: Oh it's gender pay, not diversity. Then I really don't at all get the relevance, Damore only mentioned the pay gap in a footnote that was totally unrelated to Google.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    From the memo: to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices [...] Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6] [6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs. > But wasn't he arguing the opposite; that Google's efforts to comply with US law were working to the detriment of men? And illegally so.
    - camgunz 9y ago
      Hmm, but aren't these reverse discrimination arguments? Fisher v. University of Texas makes those a long shot at best.
    - Caveman_Coder 9y ago
      I worked at Google. I've seen this before. "Desired" candidates (women, especially black and Hispanic) were hired on two occasions where the interviewing team gave them an average of 2s. Upper management took the "best" they could get of a certain "highly desired" demographic...I'm not sure how these two individuals made it past the hiring committee but they did...