5 ms·

There's also a difference between discriminating against people for their political views (which isn't a protected class anyway) and choosing to avoid adding pe

There's also a difference between discriminating against people for their political views (which isn't a protected class anyway) and choosing to avoid adding people to your team who have expressed opinions that make the workplace hostile to other employees -- which appears to have been the intention of the managers in question.

dominotw 9y ago
> political views (which isn't a protected class anyway) It is in some states in USA
- SteveNuts 9y ago
  Which states?
  - mieseratte 9y ago
    California, at least, where the alleged incidents took place. I encourage anyone interested in the situation to read the filed suit. The first 20 or so pages are specifically about Damore and it is a very approachable and an interesting read. It also specifies the alleged violated laws / section.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Most significantly, it is partially protected in California.
ng12 9y ago
> political views (which isn't a protected class anyway) Where's the line? Is being pro-life a political or a religious beliefs?
- ep103 9y ago
  This is why you don't mention your political or religious beliefs in the workplace. That said, other commenters are saying political affiliation is protected in california.
  - ng12 9y ago
    I don't think it's that simple -- there's a real risk that your opinions are outed. Perhaps even nefariously ala Drupal.
- jclulow 9y ago
  Whether it's religiously motivated or not, it's always a political view.
  - dta5003 9y ago
    Not necessarily. One difference between the two is whether you'd like the view to be applied via government force (political) or spread via discussion and persuasion (non-political).
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>choosing to avoid adding people to your team who have expressed opinions that make the workplace hostile to other employees But are you adding other people making other statements which make the workplace hostile to other individuals? Also, what happens if the misrepresentation of something causes the hostility while the original message does not? Often it life, it isn't what you say, but how you say it or who says it.
Helmet 9y ago
No, no there isn't. And if holding conservative views makes the workplace "hostile", a ridiculously vague and subjective state of affairs, it's not because of the conservatives.
- tdb7893 9y ago
  If you read the article the mangers don't talk about conservative views but 'anti-diversity' views, which make more sense how they can make an environment more "hostile".
  - gadders 9y ago
    Well, there are two ways you could be "anti-diversity": 1) You (for instance) don't support affirmative action 2) You are a dick to other genders/races in your team (2) does not always follow (1). Only (2) should be a matter for disciplinary action.
    - tdb7893 9y ago
      I think you are looking at it in too strict a sense and there is a lot of room between 1 and 2. His speculation on why there are less women in tech ended up really coming across as insulting to many of his colleagues as well as portraying his company in a bad light overall (whether that is a reasonable reaction or not is another discussion). It's not in Google's best interest to keep employing him unless he handled it really well after the fact but he seems to have mostly just doubled down.
  - Helmet 9y ago
    "Anti-Diversity" is a dog-whistle for a slew of brain-dead progressive groupthink, in the same way that "globalist" is, essentially, an anti-semitic slur. If you believe that your company should hire the best and most qualified people for the job, you probably hold "anti-diversity" views. If you do not believe me, below are some examples of "rascist" and "sexist" statements, per the University of Minnesota: http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf Examples: “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” “America is a melting pot.” “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.” “Where were you born?” “You speak good English.”
Torgo 9y ago
The entire keeping and sharing internal blacklists, threatening to put people on them, could make a hostile workplace. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know where the line is, but it seems possible.
- twobyfour 9y ago
  Yes, that's a good point. Even if the intentions were defensible, they seem to have overstepped with their methods.
forgottenpass 9y ago
The obvious follow on question is how much daylight exists between "expressing incompatible political views" and "making the workplace hostile." Team Edward will argue that there are people for whom their political mindset finds disagreement with certain political precepts to be tautologically hostile, no matter how they are expressed. Team Jacob will point to the news for an instance of egregious public political expression and say that it's obviously the category of hostility they're defending against. Around and around we go again...
leroy_masochist 9y ago
> choosing to avoid adding people to your team who have expressed opinions that make the workplace hostile to other employees -- which appears to have been the intention of the managers in question The complaint alleges multiple instances of Google managers declaring that they would exert significant effort to avoid adding white heterosexual men to their teams, and subsequently threatening retaliation against anyone who questioned this effort. The alleged behavior goes far, far beyond avoiding people who have contributed to a hostile workplace -- unless one defines all straight white men as inherently hostile to the workplace.

dominotw 9y ago

> political views (which isn't a protected class anyway) It is in some states in USA

SteveNuts 9y ago
Which states?
- mieseratte 9y ago
  California, at least, where the alleged incidents took place. I encourage anyone interested in the situation to read the filed suit. The first 20 or so pages are specifically about Damore and it is a very approachable and an interesting read. It also specifies the alleged violated laws / section.
thehardsphere 9y ago
Most significantly, it is partially protected in California.

ng12 9y ago

> political views (which isn't a protected class anyway) Where's the line? Is being pro-life a political or a religious beliefs?

ep103 9y ago
This is why you don't mention your political or religious beliefs in the workplace. That said, other commenters are saying political affiliation is protected in california.
- ng12 9y ago
  I don't think it's that simple -- there's a real risk that your opinions are outed. Perhaps even nefariously ala Drupal.
jclulow 9y ago
Whether it's religiously motivated or not, it's always a political view.
- dta5003 9y ago
  Not necessarily. One difference between the two is whether you'd like the view to be applied via government force (political) or spread via discussion and persuasion (non-political).

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

>choosing to avoid adding people to your team who have expressed opinions that make the workplace hostile to other employees But are you adding other people making other statements which make the workplace hostile to other individuals? Also, what happens if the misrepresentation of something causes the hostility while the original message does not? Often it life, it isn't what you say, but how you say it or who says it.

Helmet 9y ago

No, no there isn't. And if holding conservative views makes the workplace "hostile", a ridiculously vague and subjective state of affairs, it's not because of the conservatives.

tdb7893 9y ago
If you read the article the mangers don't talk about conservative views but 'anti-diversity' views, which make more sense how they can make an environment more "hostile".
- gadders 9y ago
  Well, there are two ways you could be "anti-diversity": 1) You (for instance) don't support affirmative action 2) You are a dick to other genders/races in your team (2) does not always follow (1). Only (2) should be a matter for disciplinary action.
  - tdb7893 9y ago
    I think you are looking at it in too strict a sense and there is a lot of room between 1 and 2. His speculation on why there are less women in tech ended up really coming across as insulting to many of his colleagues as well as portraying his company in a bad light overall (whether that is a reasonable reaction or not is another discussion). It's not in Google's best interest to keep employing him unless he handled it really well after the fact but he seems to have mostly just doubled down.
- Helmet 9y ago
  "Anti-Diversity" is a dog-whistle for a slew of brain-dead progressive groupthink, in the same way that "globalist" is, essentially, an anti-semitic slur. If you believe that your company should hire the best and most qualified people for the job, you probably hold "anti-diversity" views. If you do not believe me, below are some examples of "rascist" and "sexist" statements, per the University of Minnesota: http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf Examples: “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” “America is a melting pot.” “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.” “Where were you born?” “You speak good English.”

Torgo 9y ago

The entire keeping and sharing internal blacklists, threatening to put people on them, could make a hostile workplace. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know where the line is, but it seems possible.

twobyfour 9y ago
Yes, that's a good point. Even if the intentions were defensible, they seem to have overstepped with their methods.

forgottenpass 9y ago

The obvious follow on question is how much daylight exists between "expressing incompatible political views" and "making the workplace hostile." Team Edward will argue that there are people for whom their political mindset finds disagreement with certain political precepts to be tautologically hostile, no matter how they are expressed. Team Jacob will point to the news for an instance of egregious public political expression and say that it's obviously the category of hostility they're defending against. Around and around we go again...

leroy_masochist 9y ago

> choosing to avoid adding people to your team who have expressed opinions that make the workplace hostile to other employees -- which appears to have been the intention of the managers in question The complaint alleges multiple instances of Google managers declaring that they would exert significant effort to avoid adding white heterosexual men to their teams, and subsequently threatening retaliation against anyone who questioned this effort. The alleged behavior goes far, far beyond avoiding people who have contributed to a hostile workplace -- unless one defines all straight white men as inherently hostile to the workplace.