3 ms·

Just for context, google has 85,000 employees. They fired 0.0005% due to sexual harrassment. I wouldn’t call that a sexual harrassment problem, that’s just huma

by jbob2000 8y ago

Just for context, google has 85,000 employees. They fired 0.0005% due to sexual harrassment. I wouldn’t call that a sexual harrassment problem, that’s just humanity, shit is going to happen at that scale.

cjhopman 8y ago
You're off by multiple orders of magnitude.
- pariahHN 8y ago
  48/85000 = 0.000564706 I think he just forget to multiply by 100 to get percent instead of ratio - 0.0564706%, which still represents a pretty small fraction. His conclusion is still valid I think - two orders of magnitude difference still gives you a tiny number
eesmith 8y ago
The article references the NYT report, saying "a handful of Google executives, including Android creator Andy Rubin, were shielded by the company from sexual misconduct allegations and offered massive payouts to leave." We therefore know the number of firings does not reflect the total number of people that Google execs know were engaged in sexually harassing behavior, so focusing on the "0.05%" who were fired feels more like misdirection than context. I don't see how you can conclude that there is or isn't a sexual harassment problem. General emails from the CEO to all staff is usual selectively spun in favor of management, and I don't see why this would be any different. Consider what it doesn't report: how many reports of harassment have there been? How many were found to be credible? How many have been acted on (or ignored)? Do people trust the system well enough that they will make a report? Do managers get enough EEOC training that they can recognize harassment, and do they feel empowered to intervene? Also, why do you feel like you have to say you wouldn't call it a problem at all? What's wrong with saying that you don't think it's a big problem, and still acknowledge that it's a problem? I mean, it's only a small number of dog walkers who don't pick up their dog's shit. I still think it's a problem.

cjhopman 8y ago

You're off by multiple orders of magnitude.

pariahHN 8y ago
48/85000 = 0.000564706 I think he just forget to multiply by 100 to get percent instead of ratio - 0.0564706%, which still represents a pretty small fraction. His conclusion is still valid I think - two orders of magnitude difference still gives you a tiny number

eesmith 8y ago

The article references the NYT report, saying "a handful of Google executives, including Android creator Andy Rubin, were shielded by the company from sexual misconduct allegations and offered massive payouts to leave." We therefore know the number of firings does not reflect the total number of people that Google execs know were engaged in sexually harassing behavior, so focusing on the "0.05%" who were fired feels more like misdirection than context. I don't see how you can conclude that there is or isn't a sexual harassment problem. General emails from the CEO to all staff is usual selectively spun in favor of management, and I don't see why this would be any different. Consider what it doesn't report: how many reports of harassment have there been? How many were found to be credible? How many have been acted on (or ignored)? Do people trust the system well enough that they will make a report? Do managers get enough EEOC training that they can recognize harassment, and do they feel empowered to intervene? Also, why do you feel like you have to say you wouldn't call it a problem at all? What's wrong with saying that you don't think it's a big problem, and still acknowledge that it's a problem? I mean, it's only a small number of dog walkers who don't pick up their dog's shit. I still think it's a problem.