6 ms·

Most of that is on mailing lists that nobody forces you to subscribe to.

by puzzle 9y ago

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Mailing lists which have a direct and immediate effect on your employment status and ability to be promoted.
- puzzle 9y ago
  How so? For the majority of employees, the lists' main adverse effect on promotions is the time sink that they represent, just to read them. When I was there, only a minority of subscribers actually posted in the conversations. The rest would read them, mute them and sometimes frown ("why the hell did I sign up for eng-misc again?"). This is par for the course for any place where you're given a microphone, for good or for bad.
  - ben_jones 9y ago
    I would guess expressing a viewpoint strongly aligned with the individual most responsible for your promotion would help you land that promotion. Likewise voicing an opinion counter to a popular narrative of that individual could prevent you from getting one. If the majority of your team or even just the management level of your department are participating, you must pick a side, keeping in mind silence and abstaining from emotionally charged discussions if often seen as picking a side in and of itself.
    - puzzle 9y ago
      In my almost ten years, under almost as many managers and directors, only one of them was occasionally active on any of the lists I was on. Although some of his discussions with others got a bit tense, they were mostly of tech policy nature and I never felt afraid of disagreeing if I wanted to - with him, of all managers. Just one data point to say that perhaps "horrific" and "hostile" are a bit excessive.
    - boulos 9y ago
      Disclosure: I work at Google. Because the promotion process is based on feedback from your peers, but is decided by a random selection of people two levels higher than you, this shouldn't particularly be the case. I mean you could obviously alienate all your peers, such that nobody would give you even the faintest praise in your peer feedback, but that seems almost as hard as being promoted :). Again, your manager and your management chain don't directly decide whether or not you're promoted here. It's overall refreshing, if imperfect.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Damore's memo specificially cites Googlers receiving peer bonuses for participating in political conversation on these lists. Surely receipt (or lack thereof) of such bonuses would be taken into account by the random people who determine promotions, yes? At the very least, alienating peers puts you at a financial disadvantage.
        joshuamorton 9y ago
        I doubt anyone can give a very good answer to this without saying anything confidential, but suffice to say no, I don't believe that's the case. Perhaps others will chime in.
Yetanfou 9y ago
No, most of that is in the heads of employees and management. It leaks out through those mailing lists but that is not where it starts.
Meekro 9y ago
Damore's lawsuit included screenshots of a high-level manager boasting about blacklisting employees who say the wrong thing about social justice. That makes for a toxic environment, regardless of what mailing lists you happen to be on.
- gaius 9y ago
  And Google notoriously colluded with other employers in a “no poaching” scam that suppressed workers rights as well. Deeply toxic. More on the blacklisting http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/ http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-... The original scam https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/25/no_poaching_a_doj_no_no/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/25/no_poaching_a_doj_n...
- prepend 9y ago
  I haven’t seen this reported, but seems really interesting to me. I just spend five minutes googling trying to find the actual memo, but came up empty. Sorry with such a dumb request, but if you have the link ready I would appreciate it. Edit:never mind, I tried some more using “screenshot” instead of “filing.” I found them.
  - Meekro 9y ago
    Sorry, I should have been better about citing my sources. The manager who was blacklisting people for their opinion of social justice was Paul Cowan, see page 33 of Damore's lawsuit [1]. That section has many more examples of such behavior, which should be enough to persuade you that it's a systemic problem. This article[2] is also worth reading, it highlights a bunch of other shocking tidbits from the lawsuit. [1] https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Go... [2] http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/ http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-...
- hsod 9y ago
  Here's the quote which contains a justification, for anyone interested: “If you express a dunderheaded opinion about religion, about politics, or about ‘social justice’, it turns out I am allowed to think you’re a halfwit… I’m perfectly within my rights to mentally categorize you in my dickhead box… Yes, I maintain (mentally, and not (yet) publicly) [a blacklist]. If I had to work with people on this list, I would refuse, and try to get them removed; or I would change teams; or I would quit.” Kind of odd that the word "blacklist" only appears in square brackets (editorial insert?).

Most of that is on mailing lists that nobody forces you to subscribe to.

by puzzle 9y ago

Most of that is on mailing lists that nobody forces you to subscribe to.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Mailing lists which have a direct and immediate effect on your employment status and ability to be promoted.

puzzle 9y ago
How so? For the majority of employees, the lists' main adverse effect on promotions is the time sink that they represent, just to read them. When I was there, only a minority of subscribers actually posted in the conversations. The rest would read them, mute them and sometimes frown ("why the hell did I sign up for eng-misc again?"). This is par for the course for any place where you're given a microphone, for good or for bad.
- ben_jones 9y ago
  I would guess expressing a viewpoint strongly aligned with the individual most responsible for your promotion would help you land that promotion. Likewise voicing an opinion counter to a popular narrative of that individual could prevent you from getting one. If the majority of your team or even just the management level of your department are participating, you must pick a side, keeping in mind silence and abstaining from emotionally charged discussions if often seen as picking a side in and of itself.
  - puzzle 9y ago
    In my almost ten years, under almost as many managers and directors, only one of them was occasionally active on any of the lists I was on. Although some of his discussions with others got a bit tense, they were mostly of tech policy nature and I never felt afraid of disagreeing if I wanted to - with him, of all managers. Just one data point to say that perhaps "horrific" and "hostile" are a bit excessive.
  - boulos 9y ago
    Disclosure: I work at Google. Because the promotion process is based on feedback from your peers, but is decided by a random selection of people two levels higher than you, this shouldn't particularly be the case. I mean you could obviously alienate all your peers, such that nobody would give you even the faintest praise in your peer feedback, but that seems almost as hard as being promoted :). Again, your manager and your management chain don't directly decide whether or not you're promoted here. It's overall refreshing, if imperfect.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      Damore's memo specificially cites Googlers receiving peer bonuses for participating in political conversation on these lists. Surely receipt (or lack thereof) of such bonuses would be taken into account by the random people who determine promotions, yes? At the very least, alienating peers puts you at a financial disadvantage.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        I doubt anyone can give a very good answer to this without saying anything confidential, but suffice to say no, I don't believe that's the case. Perhaps others will chime in.

Yetanfou 9y ago

No, most of that is in the heads of employees and management. It leaks out through those mailing lists but that is not where it starts.

Meekro 9y ago

Damore's lawsuit included screenshots of a high-level manager boasting about blacklisting employees who say the wrong thing about social justice. That makes for a toxic environment, regardless of what mailing lists you happen to be on.

gaius 9y ago
And Google notoriously colluded with other employers in a “no poaching” scam that suppressed workers rights as well. Deeply toxic. More on the blacklisting http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/ http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-... The original scam https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/25/no_poaching_a_doj_no_no/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/25/no_poaching_a_doj_n...
prepend 9y ago
I haven’t seen this reported, but seems really interesting to me. I just spend five minutes googling trying to find the actual memo, but came up empty. Sorry with such a dumb request, but if you have the link ready I would appreciate it. Edit:never mind, I tried some more using “screenshot” instead of “filing.” I found them.
- Meekro 9y ago
  Sorry, I should have been better about citing my sources. The manager who was blacklisting people for their opinion of social justice was Paul Cowan, see page 33 of Damore's lawsuit [1]. That section has many more examples of such behavior, which should be enough to persuade you that it's a systemic problem. This article[2] is also worth reading, it highlights a bunch of other shocking tidbits from the lawsuit. [1] https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Go... [2] http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-damores-lawsuit-googles-office-environment/ http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-...
hsod 9y ago
Here's the quote which contains a justification, for anyone interested: “If you express a dunderheaded opinion about religion, about politics, or about ‘social justice’, it turns out I am allowed to think you’re a halfwit… I’m perfectly within my rights to mentally categorize you in my dickhead box… Yes, I maintain (mentally, and not (yet) publicly) [a blacklist]. If I had to work with people on this list, I would refuse, and try to get them removed; or I would change teams; or I would quit.” Kind of odd that the word "blacklist" only appears in square brackets (editorial insert?).