4 ms·
Google sacks dozens over sexual harassment
- nosjwshere 8y agothis is always step one of cutbacks.
- _pmf_ 8y ago> Mr Pichai's letter said the New York Times story was "difficult to read" and that Google was "dead serious" about providing a "safe and inclusive workplace". Politically motivated cleaning of the workforce seems not very safe and inclusive to me.
- casiotone 8y agoIt’s motivated by sexual harassment, not politics
- StanislavPetrov 8y agoIt will be interesting to see how the performance of companies and universities like Google and Harvard suffer as they shift their emphasis from competence and performance to focus on "diversity" and "social justice".
- sieabahlpark 8y agoDown, I suppose.
- jg04svr 8y agoCompetence entails diversity and justice.
- helen___keller 8y agoThat’s 48 over 2 years, and Google(Alphabet) employs 85,000+ so 0.02% per year. That actually feels quite low, though perhaps we can generously say it’s due to Googles hiring and training standards.
- PhantomGremlin 8y agoDoes anyone know if David Drummond, Alphabet's Chief Legal Officer, was sacked? He was prominently featured in what Sundar Pichai called a "difficult to read" NY Times article. If Drummond is still working there, then Pichai's email is nothing but self-serving bullshit.
- csense 8y ago> "In a normal world this would mean Rubin is done" What is this supposed to mean? That accusing someone of sexual assault should not only result in the person being fired, but becoming unable to work anywhere else? Our society already has an underclass of unemployable people who have actually been convicted of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, since it is now common for many employers to run background checks and refuse employment to convicted felons. Won't that problem just get worse if we expand that system to include people who have been found guilty of sexual assault in settings where there are fewer protections for the accused? Such as a closed-door HR hearing, or the court of public opinion?