6 ms·

Whatever you think of the memo, you have to be a little concerned about the precedent this would set if companies were not allowed to discriminate based on 'pol

Whatever you think of the memo, you have to be a little concerned about the precedent this would set if companies were not allowed to discriminate based on 'political' views. Should I be forced to hire a neo-nazi or a terrorist sympathiser so long as they're up to the job?

ihsw2 9y ago
Companies can simply have a straight-edged policy of no politics -- from religion to economics, it's all off-topic and out-of-bounds.
- oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
  If you ran a traditional company, and were interviewing a candidate who wanted to bring about the destruction of capitalism, would you hire them if there were equally-good alternatives?
  - ihsw2 9y ago
    If they lacked the emotional regulation to restrain themselves then that would be a red flag that disqualifies them.
    - oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
      Would publishing and distributing a manifesto amongst your colleagues fall beyond 'restraint'?
  - zbentley 9y ago
    Unequivocal yes. If I wasn't paying them to do that on company time, it would negatively impact their performance towards goals that were requested.
- stale2002 9y ago
  That is illegal, according to California law. It is illegal to prevent people from engaging in politics, in California.
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    This is not about politics. It is about basic human decency. There have been some that have since they to make it a social political thing. But the courts do not care about such things. You could never have someone like Damore on a team once they shared such an opinion. He should have kept it in his head. Why now nobody will hire him.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      I mean, the law is the law. The person I was responding to specifically suggested making politics not allow at work. This suggestion is illegal. California law is extremely pro employee.
      - jacksmith21006 9y ago
        Actually California is very pro employer and maybe what you meant? Google obviously has a lot of reasons to fire Damore but they do not even need a reason. Former Google engineer sitting at home unemployed and unable to find a job supports he should have been fired.
        stale2002 9y ago
        Google can fire people for no reason, but that can't fire people for an illegal reason. And google definitely didn't fire him for no reason. It is illegal to engage in "Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office." Here is the california law in question: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... If there are smoking gun emails that say "We are going to fire him for his politics", then Google broke the law. All this information will come out during the lawsuit, and during discovery, if it exists.
zpallin 9y ago
And this is the crux of the problem with his lawsuit. Political views are not a suspect class in US law afaik. What Damore may be trying to do is establish a legal understanding that the political discrimination (which definitely happened) was connected to racial discrimination (which would need to be proven in court). If Damore can do that successfully, he should be able to win the lawsuit. But I don't think it's possible. At least it shouldn't be possible. Like you suggested, companies must be able to discriminate against political behavior at work that is disruptive. Damore's memo was released in an unruly manner that disrupted Google's bottom line. It also brought down company morale, alienated fellow coworkers, and caused undue internal strife. His resulting unwillingness to help contain the drama demonstrated his lack of allegiance to the company's interest. Behavior like this cannot be protected from termination.
- mbrumlow 9y ago
  From my understanding he was getting death threats and misrepresented. He did the only thing he could do and try and set his name strait. The person who leaked it to vox should be on the chopping block.
  - zpallin 9y ago
    I agree that the person who leaked the memo against Damore's intent should be punished similarly (and I hope Google did). However, the death threats and misrepresentations of his text were not simply a factor of it being published globally. From what I have heard, the discussion was already heated inside of Google before it even got leaked. Also, I don't think Damore was ignorant to the fact that his content was divisive in nature. I think he knew exactly what he was trying to say and knew what kind of reaction it would provoke. I really think he needs to own it, and the lawsuit just proves the point to me why he was fired. He's not a "team player"; can't own up to his mistakes. Sure, perhaps this lawsuit will make it easier for people to discuss politics in the workplace without being fired, but his actions telegraph his intent, at least to me.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Do not think this had anything to do with social politics. It was about getting along with your co-workers.. It was external forces that tried to make it into some social political thing.
bzbarsky 9y ago
In California, by state law, companies are in fact not allowed to discriminate based on political views in hiring and firing. See http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... > Should I be forced to hire a neo-nazi or a terrorist sympathiser so long as they're up to the job? Just like you should be "forced" to hire a Greenpeace member, or a union organizer, or someone outspokenly pro-choice, or someone outspokenly pro-life, or someone running on the libertarian ticket, or someone running on the Communist ticket. How this would play out in practice if someone "brought their politics to work" and the case went to court, I can't tell you; I'm not an expert in California labor law. But if people aren't bringing their politics to work, firing people for political views would be an even more concerning precedent, to me. (In Damore's case, the politics was very much brought to work, and not just by him. I make absolutely no claims about what that means in terms of the above-cited law, or morality, for that matter.)
- tanilama 9y ago
  Isn't employment in California in major big tech companies are titled at will?
  - manfredo 9y ago
    At will employment makes it easier for both the employee and employer to terminate employment, but it doesn't exempt people from employment law. Companies can't outright refuse to hire people of certain races, religions, or genders even if they're at will. And in California, political affiliation belongs in that category as well.

ihsw2 9y ago

Companies can simply have a straight-edged policy of no politics -- from religion to economics, it's all off-topic and out-of-bounds.

oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
If you ran a traditional company, and were interviewing a candidate who wanted to bring about the destruction of capitalism, would you hire them if there were equally-good alternatives?
- ihsw2 9y ago
  If they lacked the emotional regulation to restrain themselves then that would be a red flag that disqualifies them.
  - oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
    Would publishing and distributing a manifesto amongst your colleagues fall beyond 'restraint'?
- zbentley 9y ago
  Unequivocal yes. If I wasn't paying them to do that on company time, it would negatively impact their performance towards goals that were requested.
stale2002 9y ago
That is illegal, according to California law. It is illegal to prevent people from engaging in politics, in California.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  This is not about politics. It is about basic human decency. There have been some that have since they to make it a social political thing. But the courts do not care about such things. You could never have someone like Damore on a team once they shared such an opinion. He should have kept it in his head. Why now nobody will hire him.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    I mean, the law is the law. The person I was responding to specifically suggested making politics not allow at work. This suggestion is illegal. California law is extremely pro employee.
    - jacksmith21006 9y ago
      Actually California is very pro employer and maybe what you meant? Google obviously has a lot of reasons to fire Damore but they do not even need a reason. Former Google engineer sitting at home unemployed and unable to find a job supports he should have been fired.
      - stale2002 9y ago
        Google can fire people for no reason, but that can't fire people for an illegal reason. And google definitely didn't fire him for no reason. It is illegal to engage in "Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office." Here is the california law in question: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... If there are smoking gun emails that say "We are going to fire him for his politics", then Google broke the law. All this information will come out during the lawsuit, and during discovery, if it exists.

zpallin 9y ago

And this is the crux of the problem with his lawsuit. Political views are not a suspect class in US law afaik. What Damore may be trying to do is establish a legal understanding that the political discrimination (which definitely happened) was connected to racial discrimination (which would need to be proven in court). If Damore can do that successfully, he should be able to win the lawsuit. But I don't think it's possible. At least it shouldn't be possible. Like you suggested, companies must be able to discriminate against political behavior at work that is disruptive. Damore's memo was released in an unruly manner that disrupted Google's bottom line. It also brought down company morale, alienated fellow coworkers, and caused undue internal strife. His resulting unwillingness to help contain the drama demonstrated his lack of allegiance to the company's interest. Behavior like this cannot be protected from termination.

mbrumlow 9y ago
From my understanding he was getting death threats and misrepresented. He did the only thing he could do and try and set his name strait. The person who leaked it to vox should be on the chopping block.
- zpallin 9y ago
  I agree that the person who leaked the memo against Damore's intent should be punished similarly (and I hope Google did). However, the death threats and misrepresentations of his text were not simply a factor of it being published globally. From what I have heard, the discussion was already heated inside of Google before it even got leaked. Also, I don't think Damore was ignorant to the fact that his content was divisive in nature. I think he knew exactly what he was trying to say and knew what kind of reaction it would provoke. I really think he needs to own it, and the lawsuit just proves the point to me why he was fired. He's not a "team player"; can't own up to his mistakes. Sure, perhaps this lawsuit will make it easier for people to discuss politics in the workplace without being fired, but his actions telegraph his intent, at least to me.
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Do not think this had anything to do with social politics. It was about getting along with your co-workers.. It was external forces that tried to make it into some social political thing.

bzbarsky 9y ago

In California, by state law, companies are in fact not allowed to discriminate based on political views in hiring and firing. See http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... > Should I be forced to hire a neo-nazi or a terrorist sympathiser so long as they're up to the job? Just like you should be "forced" to hire a Greenpeace member, or a union organizer, or someone outspokenly pro-choice, or someone outspokenly pro-life, or someone running on the libertarian ticket, or someone running on the Communist ticket. How this would play out in practice if someone "brought their politics to work" and the case went to court, I can't tell you; I'm not an expert in California labor law. But if people aren't bringing their politics to work, firing people for political views would be an even more concerning precedent, to me. (In Damore's case, the politics was very much brought to work, and not just by him. I make absolutely no claims about what that means in terms of the above-cited law, or morality, for that matter.)

tanilama 9y ago
Isn't employment in California in major big tech companies are titled at will?
- manfredo 9y ago
  At will employment makes it easier for both the employee and employer to terminate employment, but it doesn't exempt people from employment law. Companies can't outright refuse to hire people of certain races, religions, or genders even if they're at will. And in California, political affiliation belongs in that category as well.