6 ms·

Every manager in California has to do mandatory 2 hour harassment prevention training every two years where such behavior is specifically called out as unaccept

Every manager in California has to do mandatory 2 hour harassment prevention training every two years where such behavior is specifically called out as unacceptable. So he would have known this was wrong. The irony is that this mandatory sexual harassment training was signed into law by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger a couple of years after he had been fornicating with his house maid.

packetslave 8y ago
fornicating You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- bsder 8y ago
  To be fair, I had to look it up to realize that the word implies that both parties are unmarried. In today's parlance, "fornicate" generally is just a synonym for sexual congress.
  - mikeryan 8y ago
    Wait now I'm confused. Fornicate means Have sexual intercourse with someone one is not married to. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fornicate https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fornicate Seems the original use was accurate no?
    - braythwayt 8y ago
      Welcome to English as it is spoken, vs, English as it is defined.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        Er, except the actual cited definition matches use (there is an uncited definition upthread that doesn't, but that definition of just a poor definition, since definitions aim to describe use.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
commandlinefan 8y ago
The problem is - what I see here is that a woman made a claim that a man did or said something that might have constituted harassment. As any employer ought, Google started investigating. Also, as any employer ought, they didn't go public about the claim, seeing as how that's a violation of everybody's privacy. They investigated, didn't find enough evidence to discipline the accused (or maybe they did, but that's also not, nor should it be, public). Independent of all of this, they made a payout that they were contractually obligated to pay out. Yet with the outrage machine in full gear, it's getting more and more like the only thing any company can do to avoid criticism is to not only terminate without investigating immediately when a claim is filed, but to also include "no accusation" clauses in all of their contracts so that they can default on their obligations essentially at whim. And it seems like most everybody on there thinks that's a good idea.
- geofft 8y ago
  > Independent of all of this, they made a payout that they were contractually obligated to pay out. Why did they make this payout and this contract? In other words—what benefit to Alphabet was it in exchange for? Not damaging the reputation of the company is a common clause in severance agreements. I bet that not being retroactively found to have violated company policy is also common. Would it be in Google's interest to pay out the severance if the employee were found to have stolen corporate secrets?
- stale2002 8y ago
  > Also, as any employer ought, they didn't go public about the claim, seeing as how that's a violation of everybody's privacy How is talking about things that happened to you a violation of anybody's privacy? It is prefectly reasonable to talk about true events that happened to you, especially in a interview, and to even use names. The truth is the Truth, and your interactions with someone that you are interviewing should not be treated as private.
- ru999gol 8y ago
  > And it seems like most everybody on there thinks that's a good idea. I think that probably almost anyone is aware of the danger that a system like that, its just that everyone is deliberately ignoring it and weighing it against the PR storm. Its pretty much universal, to throw due process out the window is something that a vast majority of people want to do after any heinous crime committed, something politicians also always exploited.
lawnchair_larry 8y ago
Having an affair is not the same thing as sexual harassment bu any stretch, so there is nothing ironic about that.
- umichguy 8y ago
  Came here to say that.

packetslave 8y ago

fornicating You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

bsder 8y ago
To be fair, I had to look it up to realize that the word implies that both parties are unmarried. In today's parlance, "fornicate" generally is just a synonym for sexual congress.
- mikeryan 8y ago
  Wait now I'm confused. Fornicate means Have sexual intercourse with someone one is not married to. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fornicate https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fornicate Seems the original use was accurate no?
  - braythwayt 8y ago
    Welcome to English as it is spoken, vs, English as it is defined.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Er, except the actual cited definition matches use (there is an uncited definition upthread that doesn't, but that definition of just a poor definition, since definitions aim to describe use.)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

commandlinefan 8y ago

The problem is - what I see here is that a woman made a claim that a man did or said something that might have constituted harassment. As any employer ought, Google started investigating. Also, as any employer ought, they didn't go public about the claim, seeing as how that's a violation of everybody's privacy. They investigated, didn't find enough evidence to discipline the accused (or maybe they did, but that's also not, nor should it be, public). Independent of all of this, they made a payout that they were contractually obligated to pay out. Yet with the outrage machine in full gear, it's getting more and more like the only thing any company can do to avoid criticism is to not only terminate without investigating immediately when a claim is filed, but to also include "no accusation" clauses in all of their contracts so that they can default on their obligations essentially at whim. And it seems like most everybody on there thinks that's a good idea.

geofft 8y ago
> Independent of all of this, they made a payout that they were contractually obligated to pay out. Why did they make this payout and this contract? In other words—what benefit to Alphabet was it in exchange for? Not damaging the reputation of the company is a common clause in severance agreements. I bet that not being retroactively found to have violated company policy is also common. Would it be in Google's interest to pay out the severance if the employee were found to have stolen corporate secrets?
stale2002 8y ago
> Also, as any employer ought, they didn't go public about the claim, seeing as how that's a violation of everybody's privacy How is talking about things that happened to you a violation of anybody's privacy? It is prefectly reasonable to talk about true events that happened to you, especially in a interview, and to even use names. The truth is the Truth, and your interactions with someone that you are interviewing should not be treated as private.
ru999gol 8y ago
> And it seems like most everybody on there thinks that's a good idea. I think that probably almost anyone is aware of the danger that a system like that, its just that everyone is deliberately ignoring it and weighing it against the PR storm. Its pretty much universal, to throw due process out the window is something that a vast majority of people want to do after any heinous crime committed, something politicians also always exploited.

lawnchair_larry 8y ago

Having an affair is not the same thing as sexual harassment bu any stretch, so there is nothing ironic about that.

umichguy 8y ago
Came here to say that.