8 ms·

Google Workers Fume Over Executives’ Payouts After Sexual Misconduct Claims

108 points by eevilspock 8y ago

godzillabrennus 8y ago
Mass resignations threatened like after the James Damore memo? Doubt it. Sexual misconduct is more acceptable at Google than writing gender biased dogma.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  It's also acceptable for our head of state, so expectations for justice are extremely low.
  - ISL 8y ago
    It is not acceptable for our head of state.
    - sincerely 8y ago
      ...it seems like it is though. Curious why you'd say it isn't.
      - UncleEntity 8y ago
        One of our heads of state got impeached for (lying about) sexual misconduct so there's that.
        craftyguy 8y ago
        So your point is entirely different then. Lying trumps (no pun intended) sexual misconduct.
        zaroth 8y ago
        Perjury is a crime, for starters.
        craftyguy 8y ago
        Yes it is. They both are, technically (e.g. sexual harassment). Somehow sexual misconduct does not conjure nearly the same negative response that perjury does, and candidates/world leaders get a free pass for that one.
        zaroth 8y ago
        Sexual harassment is a civil matter not a criminal one. Sexual assault is a different matter.
        UncleEntity 8y ago
        No, they were investigating cases of sexual misconduct but the lying about it is what stuck. If there was a "free ride program" they wouldn't even have investigated it.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > No, they were investigating cases of sexual misconduct Actually, real estate transactions.
        krapp 8y ago
        Yeah, but sexual misconduct itself is clearly not the problem, so much as being of the wrong political party. As much flack as Trump (justifiably) takes for the remarks he made about how a celebrity like himself "can do anything" to women and "grab 'em by the pussy", he wasn't entirely wrong. Society has always seen sexual aggression by rich and powerful men as a signal of authority and virility.
      - ISL 8y ago
        One can readily argue that roughly 270 elected representatives appear to regard it as insufficiently unacceptable as to require corrective action in light of a broader political context. That doesn't mean something is, in isolation, acceptable.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    And has been since just about the dawn of the Republic. Turns out you don’t have to be a Saint to be leader of the free world. Might go as far to say that a Saint wouldn’t be particularly well suited for the job.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      Since we've presumably never had a 'saint', how would we know that they wouldn't be better for the job? It's hard to imagine that someone who had integrity and respected other genders would make a worse leader, so I'm interested in why you'd thing so.
      - zaroth 8y ago
        There’s a pretty wide margin between having integrity and respecting other genders, and Sainthood. IMO, I think that down on planet Earth two people may get into a sexual relationship that is anywhere from uncouth to unwise to unacceptable to illegal. As long as these affairs are consensual my own position is who the heck am I to judge? Further, someone who is so abjectly in control of their passion — someone who is so dispassionate — I think would have a hard time fighting so hard day in and day out for a grueling 4 or 8 years. Good leaders tend to have the personality, charisma, confidence, and ambition that they will go after the things they want even if it means some rules or social mores will be broken. To even think oneself possible of leading the Free World does require a certain arrogance. I certainly wouldn’t want a President feeling imposter syndrome in the Oval Office, even though it is certain to happen to some extent.
RickJWagner 8y ago
"Don't be evil." I really believe they believed it, at first. As the old saying goes, power corrupts.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- T2_t2 8y ago
  I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil, and Google chose the wrong one. So think that one through. Rubin was accused of whatever, and Google owes him money. Which is NOT evil: A. Not pay any money to Rubin - despite legally owing him some - because the mob has decided that is best? B. Pay the full amount he is owed to get rid of him? C. Negotiate a reduced amount, as he is indeed owed money? C. Take this to court, and make all parties go through all the hassle, be forced to keep Rubin, what, employed but suspended? and then hope that by some miracle you get the outcome you desire? Again, I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil, and Google chose the wrong one. They are all TERRIBLE options.
ve55 8y ago
Kind of funny how the NYT publishes the original story to generate outrage, then after successfully doing so to an extent, cherry-picks examples of the outrage in order to generate yet another article that is apparently worth publishing. Of course some Google employees are upset, there are 85,000 of them. You could have cherry-picked ones who weren't upset as well and written an article the opposite of this if desired. I'm not commenting on the claims themselves but it's just funny how the NYT is able to completely run their own show here.
- lsiebert 8y ago
  I think they published it because it was news. Many details in the news outrage me, but as long as they are based in fact, I consider that reporting of the news of the day, not an attempt to incite outrage. Also, "Callous Googlers Don't care about sex harassment payouts" doesn't seem like a particularly good potential news piece, if that's what you are suggesting they could have done. I mean, I was outraged by the Snowden revelations. Were those stories generating outrage, or just revealing an outrage that others had already perpetrated?
  - paulgrant999 8y ago
    why is it news? Because they have google in front of their name? If they want "concrete" action; perhaps google should just lay off half of its US staff, quit importing H1-B workers, and simply move their operations overseas. more simply: if you wanted executive control; you'ld work at a co-op. Google, is not a co-op. If you were only too happy to work for sociopaths, to get the high salary/stock options - why are you suddenly so eager to bite the hand that feeds you? - Comparing this to Snowden, is not a valid comparison. Snowden was news (if nothing else because he provided detailed, proof of illegalities most intelligent people, knew was going on).
  - ve55 8y ago
    >but as long as they are based in fact, I consider that reporting of the news of the day The issue is that they get to pick which facts are reported and which are not. They could publish 100 articles on all the good things Google is doing, or they could publish 100 articles on all the bad things google is doing, and they don't have to lie to do either of these things, but yet they would both give their readers very warped perspectives on reality. We see this a lot in politics, where we can have far-right and far-left websites that both technically report nothing but 'facts', but due to the extreme sampling biases used, present completely opposing views of reality. I'm not defending Google, I'm just pointing out who is running the show here, and the answer is the New York Times. They decide what happens next. Their next article could talk about all the positive discussion and improvements Google is making in this area, or it could talk about how many additional employees are upset and don't think things will get better.
kopo 8y ago
We seem to have moved from one person (Snowden type) dissent of institutional bullshit to groups standing up. The current bunch of leaders are great at keeping the ship on course to well known destinations (scale at all costs/maximize profits/wage war to keep peace). If the destination has to change, a new crop of leaders will have to take this bunch on. And it won't happen without employees making their voice heard.
- tdb7893 8y ago
  Like immediately after the original story aired an email was leaked where the CEO of Google basically admitted that it was fucked up and said the policy changed a couple years ago so there isn't going to be a big group dissenting over anything here.
- cyberluddite 8y ago
  >If the destination has to change, a new crop of leaders will have to take this bunch on. And it won't happen without employees making their voice heard. I think some form of labor organization, enforcing principles like the ACM Code of Ethics, is the only sane way forward. We in tech have to move beyond this reactive posture in how we approach what are really structural problems with how decision-making, power, and resources are distributed.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- 706f6f70 8y ago
  I can't remember who made the point, but the friction stems from the current generation of Silicon Valley still thinking they are counterculture rebels from a decade ago. Nobody working at Wallstreet would dispute that Wallstreet is huge, capitalistic, and corporate. Silicon Valley is the same, but it's filled with people wearing metaphorical Che Guevara t-shirts, clutching onto their copies of Marx's Manifesto, dying their hair purple or blue, and smoking weed. They have largely become that which they claim to hate, but have not realized it. Events like this are what we see and will continue to see as reality and self-image merge. The leadership is fine, but they are probably more cognizant of this fact than the rank and file. Their challenge is helping their employees make the transition without suffering an existential crisis.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
I've never seen a contract contain the clause, "We don't have to pay you what we owe you, simply by having one of our employees make an accusation of sexual harassment against you." I would never sign one.
- kevingadd 8y ago
  "Accusation of sexual harassment" is kind of an understatement given the massive amount of misconduct that occurred, often not even denied by the bad actor, in direct violation of company guidelines. You don't just get to light the employee handbook on fire and keep all your compensation. You can get fired with cause. Naturally trying to kick someone out and withhold compensation is a lot harder than just quietly ushering them out the door and paying them off, which is what typically happens here because Google does not want bad press and does not want to get dragged into a multi-year court case by someone they're trying to fire.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    In the case mentioned in the article the person accused denies it. According to other articles it was an accusation by somebody he had an affair with. I wouldn't take the situation filtered through journalists too seriously but I don't think he shouldn't get the money he's owed because believe women.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      You seem to conveniently ignore that Google investigated the claims internally and found them credible. He wasn't 'owed money', he was given a strong exit package in spite of being let go due to a credible accusation. The fact that you also flippantly toss a remark about 'believing women' in this circumstance does say a lot about your character.
      - SamReidHughes 8y ago
        Credible doesn't mean "true." It means "not incredible."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stilltorn 8y ago
The reason I step on my tiptoes around my female coworkers is they can fuck up my life completely. I wish there'll be a day we can just fuck around with each other equally. It’s what what we generally do, give each other shit for giggles. As it is, no one would do more than crack a smile when a female coworker does something fucking stupid. We’ll give a pat on the head. Any male one gets very much frowned upon, you should've done better despite not having any prior information. This is Finland. Unless you’re female. Then you’re just haha, not your fault.
- stilltorn 8y ago
  The leeway that's given around here to complete fuck-ups only serves to fuck over the real professional women.

108 points by eevilspock 8y ago

Mass resignations threatened like after the James Damore memo? Doubt it. Sexual misconduct is more acceptable at Google than writing gender biased dogma.

craftyguy 8y ago
It's also acceptable for our head of state, so expectations for justice are extremely low.
- ISL 8y ago
  It is not acceptable for our head of state.
  - sincerely 8y ago
    ...it seems like it is though. Curious why you'd say it isn't.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      One of our heads of state got impeached for (lying about) sexual misconduct so there's that.
      - craftyguy 8y ago
        So your point is entirely different then. Lying trumps (no pun intended) sexual misconduct.
        zaroth 8y ago
        Perjury is a crime, for starters.
        craftyguy 8y ago
        Yes it is. They both are, technically (e.g. sexual harassment). Somehow sexual misconduct does not conjure nearly the same negative response that perjury does, and candidates/world leaders get a free pass for that one.
        zaroth 8y ago
        Sexual harassment is a civil matter not a criminal one. Sexual assault is a different matter.
        UncleEntity 8y ago
        No, they were investigating cases of sexual misconduct but the lying about it is what stuck. If there was a "free ride program" they wouldn't even have investigated it.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > No, they were investigating cases of sexual misconduct Actually, real estate transactions.
      - krapp 8y ago
        Yeah, but sexual misconduct itself is clearly not the problem, so much as being of the wrong political party. As much flack as Trump (justifiably) takes for the remarks he made about how a celebrity like himself "can do anything" to women and "grab 'em by the pussy", he wasn't entirely wrong. Society has always seen sexual aggression by rich and powerful men as a signal of authority and virility.
    - ISL 8y ago
      One can readily argue that roughly 270 elected representatives appear to regard it as insufficiently unacceptable as to require corrective action in light of a broader political context. That doesn't mean something is, in isolation, acceptable.
- zaroth 8y ago
  And has been since just about the dawn of the Republic. Turns out you don’t have to be a Saint to be leader of the free world. Might go as far to say that a Saint wouldn’t be particularly well suited for the job.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Since we've presumably never had a 'saint', how would we know that they wouldn't be better for the job? It's hard to imagine that someone who had integrity and respected other genders would make a worse leader, so I'm interested in why you'd thing so.
    - zaroth 8y ago
      There’s a pretty wide margin between having integrity and respecting other genders, and Sainthood. IMO, I think that down on planet Earth two people may get into a sexual relationship that is anywhere from uncouth to unwise to unacceptable to illegal. As long as these affairs are consensual my own position is who the heck am I to judge? Further, someone who is so abjectly in control of their passion — someone who is so dispassionate — I think would have a hard time fighting so hard day in and day out for a grueling 4 or 8 years. Good leaders tend to have the personality, charisma, confidence, and ambition that they will go after the things they want even if it means some rules or social mores will be broken. To even think oneself possible of leading the Free World does require a certain arrogance. I certainly wouldn’t want a President feeling imposter syndrome in the Oval Office, even though it is certain to happen to some extent.

RickJWagner 8y ago

"Don't be evil." I really believe they believed it, at first. As the old saying goes, power corrupts.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
T2_t2 8y ago
I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil, and Google chose the wrong one. So think that one through. Rubin was accused of whatever, and Google owes him money. Which is NOT evil: A. Not pay any money to Rubin - despite legally owing him some - because the mob has decided that is best? B. Pay the full amount he is owed to get rid of him? C. Negotiate a reduced amount, as he is indeed owed money? C. Take this to court, and make all parties go through all the hassle, be forced to keep Rubin, what, employed but suspended? and then hope that by some miracle you get the outcome you desire? Again, I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil, and Google chose the wrong one. They are all TERRIBLE options.

ve55 8y ago

Kind of funny how the NYT publishes the original story to generate outrage, then after successfully doing so to an extent, cherry-picks examples of the outrage in order to generate yet another article that is apparently worth publishing. Of course some Google employees are upset, there are 85,000 of them. You could have cherry-picked ones who weren't upset as well and written an article the opposite of this if desired. I'm not commenting on the claims themselves but it's just funny how the NYT is able to completely run their own show here.

lsiebert 8y ago
I think they published it because it was news. Many details in the news outrage me, but as long as they are based in fact, I consider that reporting of the news of the day, not an attempt to incite outrage. Also, "Callous Googlers Don't care about sex harassment payouts" doesn't seem like a particularly good potential news piece, if that's what you are suggesting they could have done. I mean, I was outraged by the Snowden revelations. Were those stories generating outrage, or just revealing an outrage that others had already perpetrated?
- paulgrant999 8y ago
  why is it news? Because they have google in front of their name? If they want "concrete" action; perhaps google should just lay off half of its US staff, quit importing H1-B workers, and simply move their operations overseas. more simply: if you wanted executive control; you'ld work at a co-op. Google, is not a co-op. If you were only too happy to work for sociopaths, to get the high salary/stock options - why are you suddenly so eager to bite the hand that feeds you? - Comparing this to Snowden, is not a valid comparison. Snowden was news (if nothing else because he provided detailed, proof of illegalities most intelligent people, knew was going on).
- ve55 8y ago
  >but as long as they are based in fact, I consider that reporting of the news of the day The issue is that they get to pick which facts are reported and which are not. They could publish 100 articles on all the good things Google is doing, or they could publish 100 articles on all the bad things google is doing, and they don't have to lie to do either of these things, but yet they would both give their readers very warped perspectives on reality. We see this a lot in politics, where we can have far-right and far-left websites that both technically report nothing but 'facts', but due to the extreme sampling biases used, present completely opposing views of reality. I'm not defending Google, I'm just pointing out who is running the show here, and the answer is the New York Times. They decide what happens next. Their next article could talk about all the positive discussion and improvements Google is making in this area, or it could talk about how many additional employees are upset and don't think things will get better.

kopo 8y ago

We seem to have moved from one person (Snowden type) dissent of institutional bullshit to groups standing up. The current bunch of leaders are great at keeping the ship on course to well known destinations (scale at all costs/maximize profits/wage war to keep peace). If the destination has to change, a new crop of leaders will have to take this bunch on. And it won't happen without employees making their voice heard.

tdb7893 8y ago
Like immediately after the original story aired an email was leaked where the CEO of Google basically admitted that it was fucked up and said the policy changed a couple years ago so there isn't going to be a big group dissenting over anything here.
cyberluddite 8y ago
>If the destination has to change, a new crop of leaders will have to take this bunch on. And it won't happen without employees making their voice heard. I think some form of labor organization, enforcing principles like the ACM Code of Ethics, is the only sane way forward. We in tech have to move beyond this reactive posture in how we approach what are really structural problems with how decision-making, power, and resources are distributed.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
706f6f70 8y ago
I can't remember who made the point, but the friction stems from the current generation of Silicon Valley still thinking they are counterculture rebels from a decade ago. Nobody working at Wallstreet would dispute that Wallstreet is huge, capitalistic, and corporate. Silicon Valley is the same, but it's filled with people wearing metaphorical Che Guevara t-shirts, clutching onto their copies of Marx's Manifesto, dying their hair purple or blue, and smoking weed. They have largely become that which they claim to hate, but have not realized it. Events like this are what we see and will continue to see as reality and self-image merge. The leadership is fine, but they are probably more cognizant of this fact than the rank and file. Their challenge is helping their employees make the transition without suffering an existential crisis.

SamReidHughes 8y ago

I've never seen a contract contain the clause, "We don't have to pay you what we owe you, simply by having one of our employees make an accusation of sexual harassment against you." I would never sign one.

kevingadd 8y ago
"Accusation of sexual harassment" is kind of an understatement given the massive amount of misconduct that occurred, often not even denied by the bad actor, in direct violation of company guidelines. You don't just get to light the employee handbook on fire and keep all your compensation. You can get fired with cause. Naturally trying to kick someone out and withhold compensation is a lot harder than just quietly ushering them out the door and paying them off, which is what typically happens here because Google does not want bad press and does not want to get dragged into a multi-year court case by someone they're trying to fire.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  In the case mentioned in the article the person accused denies it. According to other articles it was an accusation by somebody he had an affair with. I wouldn't take the situation filtered through journalists too seriously but I don't think he shouldn't get the money he's owed because believe women.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    You seem to conveniently ignore that Google investigated the claims internally and found them credible. He wasn't 'owed money', he was given a strong exit package in spite of being let go due to a credible accusation. The fact that you also flippantly toss a remark about 'believing women' in this circumstance does say a lot about your character.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      Credible doesn't mean "true." It means "not incredible."

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

stilltorn 8y ago

The reason I step on my tiptoes around my female coworkers is they can fuck up my life completely. I wish there'll be a day we can just fuck around with each other equally. It’s what what we generally do, give each other shit for giggles. As it is, no one would do more than crack a smile when a female coworker does something fucking stupid. We’ll give a pat on the head. Any male one gets very much frowned upon, you should've done better despite not having any prior information. This is Finland. Unless you’re female. Then you’re just haha, not your fault.

stilltorn 8y ago
The leeway that's given around here to complete fuck-ups only serves to fuck over the real professional women.