3 ms·
"...and in other news, water is still wet." There is nothing new about this type of behavior, at Google or any other company that has existed since, oh, the da
by eykanal 8y ago
"...and in other news, water is still wet."
There is nothing new about this type of behavior, at Google or any other company that has existed since, oh, the dawn of time. This happens in almost every sector that has large businesses. I guess the news is that "this happened again", but that's hardly news. Other than doing an expose on Google for not being a "perfect model company" I'm not entirely sure why this is front-page New York Times material.
- deeg 8y agoIf I understand the article correctly, Rubin was released due to credible evidence of sexual misconduct but was given $90M going out the door. How is this appropriate punishment? The "news" of the article is that this needs to change.
- icebraining 8y agoArguably only a judge could give out appropriate punishment for the described action.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- zaroth 8y agoIt wasn’t punishment. Google was paying him to sign a non-compete. It was in their corporate self-interest that if they couldn’t keep him due to a credible harassment accusation, they would pay for no one else to get him.
- Sacho 8y agoThe article's exact words are: > Google found her claim credible, they said. The company did not fire Mr. Singhal, but accepted his resignation and negotiated an exit package that paid him millions and prevented him from working for a competitor, said the people. Given the specific wording("found her claim credible"), it seems quite possible they did not have enough evidence to bring to court in case of a wrongful firing suit.