13 ms·

Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

203 points by tareqak 8y ago

tareqak 8y ago
Original title: "Google Engineers Are Organizing A Walk Out To Protest The Company’s Protection Of An Alleged Sexual Harasser" (28 characters too long).
rayvy 8y ago
Someone with more info please correct me: But from what I read it sounds as if Google had to pay him the $90MM+, else be sued by him right? Because if they didn't pay him, he'd sue, then they [Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever), which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser said they were coerced (not forced). So it seems as if Google's hands were tied legally on this.
- bdcravens 8y ago
  Most issues of social or civil justice typically have at least one conflict of interest. However, individuals are burned at the proverbial stake daily for far less than coercion, and the idea that Google would sweep this under the rug instead of fighting the fight is sickening to some.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    But this wasn't swept under the rug. The alleged harasser was fired. Google took steps to remove the alleged harasser. Keeping the details private is standard practice and is usually something all the parties involved want. From what I'm reading, Google paid Rubin the amount he was entitled to in his contract. Some people point out that Google could have paid him next to nothing for firing him with cause - but Rubin could have sued Google, and almost certainly would have made the claim that the harassment allegations we're Google's way of trying to avoid paying him - and from what I read, Google probably wanted to avoid this, because it would inevitably involve the details of the alleged assault going public. I assume that the alleged victim doesn't want this, we don't have good reports of how much proof there is for these allegations, and there's also the possibility of Google losing the suit and looking like they're the ones in the wrong.
    - filmgirlcw 8y ago
      But it was swept under the rug. He got a splashy send-off and a thanks for his service. At the very least, that seems over the top. The reasons for his ouster weren't disclosed. I would be curious if Essential's investors (Redpoint, Altimeter, Amazon Alexa Fund) were aware of why Rubin left Google. Moreover, this is a pattern at Google. Amit Singhal[1] was fired (also with a send-off and goodbye party and settled outstanding grants) after accusations of harassment were found credible. He then landed as SVP of engineering at Uber, where he was forced to resign because he hadn't disclosed the prior HR complaint at Google. Now, obviously, the lack of disclosure is what did him in -- but why did Google not tell Uber that he was asked to leave during his background check? Yes, Rubin likely would have sued. Yes, it likely would have been messy and very public. No, I do not believe for a second that Google settled to "protect" the victim; Google's settlement with the the alleged victim was certainly less than $90m. Google settled b/c in 2014, the drama of fighting with someone like Rubin seemed more risky than just paying him off -- even with the risk that the reasons why might become public later. The climate of 2018 makes me believe that was a fundamental mistake and the company should have fought back to not pay money that a labor attorney could argue was not owed. [1]: https://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-google-uber https://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-googl...
      - manfredo 8y ago
        To sweep something under the rug means to ignore it and not deal with it. Google did deal with it, so it's incorrect to say that the accusation was swept under the rug. Sure, you may be displeased at how they handled it but there's no denial of the fact that they did take the accusations seriously and fired a high level exec. You're ignoring the damage cause by the optics of such a lawsuit. Google being known as the company that used an allegation of harassment to try and cheat an exec out of his outstanding compensation would be atrocious for the company's image - and not to mention attach huge negative stigma around people who come forward with harassment campaigns against powerful people. It's easy to be idealistic when you're not the person or group who is at stake.
        jakelazaroff 8y ago
- azhenley 8y ago
  The cost of fighting it in court may be far less than the cost of the public/employee backlash.
  - olliej 8y ago
    The problem here is the "it costs more to do the right thing" is a bad argument. If you have a serial harasser, who is just paid off to leave quietly, then you just ensure that he gets to go off and do the same thing again. And be richer. How about instead of giving him $90 million, you give that to his victims in exchange for them not making claims against him? The result is approximately the same, but at least you're giving money to the victim rather than the criminal.
    - azhenley 8y ago
      I completely agree. My comment was actually saying I think it is often cheaper to do the right thing (even if it means spending more money initially).
      - olliej 8y ago
        Ah! To verify my reading (oh text communication :D) Companies often say "court is more expensive than Y" because that's a directly measurable thing, and simply ignore the actual long term costs. Much like elected officials :-O [edit: wtf typing :D)
    - tw04 8y ago
      >If you have a serial harasser Except Rubin was never accused of being a serial harasser that I've seen. He was terminated for having sexual relations with a subordinate.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        He was not "terminated for having sexual relations with a subordinate". From the article: > Google gave Rubin a reported $90 million exit package in 2014, following an investigation into an allegation that he had coerced another employee to perform oral sex on him. That investigation reportedly found that allegation to be credible.
- tw04 8y ago
  Furthermore, correct me if I misread, but what he did wrong was have consensual sexual relations with a subordinate, right? And then he was fired for it (which he should be). And they protected him how? Paying him the severance package he was owed? I'm not following if that's all correct.
  - olliej 8y ago
    No, he coerced them into it - if you have a position of power, and you say "have sex with me", effectively in exchange for your treatment/employment in the company - I can't recall if Rubin was the burning man "sex or no job" guy, or that was another - that is sex discrimination and/or harassment. I doubt Rubin would have had the same behaviour with male subordinates, so that's a difference in treatment based on gender (woman who have to sleep with him to get equal treatment, or super devil advocate here, against men unable to "sleep to the top"). The reason companies have clear rules against this - which should be super easy to enforce - is because if you are in a position of power over someone, even if it was a hypothetical case of not abusing power, the subordinate can't tell so may feel coerced. If your underling feels coerced, they are. That it was unintentional is not relevant. Note, this is distinct from consent, which may or may not apply. Certainly if it's consent related the company should be forwarding to police. In addition to that it seems like there is a large body of evidence of what is at minimum inappropriate behaviour of any employee, let alone the management and executive tiers. Any of which should have been firable.
    - asianthrowaway 8y ago
      The burning man guy is another guy (who still works at Google afaik). This Rubin guy was no doubt a creep. From the NYT article: "The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”" Yikes!
      - claydavisss 8y ago
        I'm amazed all the women at Essential haven't bolted....I mean...gross....
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  From the original NY Times article [1]: > Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. [...] > When Google fires lower-level employees, it typically marches them out immediately and pays little, if any, severance. But for senior executives, Google weighs other factors, said former executives. A wrongful termination lawsuit could mean unwanted media attention for Google and the victims of a misconduct case, with a loss resulting in significant damages. It doesn't say explicitly, but it sounds like they didn't have a legal obligation to pay him; rather, they did so to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit or bad press. What they definitely didn't have to do was this: > Afterward, Google invested in Playground Global, a venture firm Mr. Rubin started six months after leaving the company. It's one thing to pay severance if you don't think you can win an unlawful termination lawsuit, but it's another entirely to invest in that person's next venture after you're absolved of any legal obligation to them. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
  - filmgirlcw 8y ago
    Precisely. Quoting myself from upthread >My gut tells me that at the time of his ouster, Alphabet was worried more about the optics of a protracted lawsuit with Rubin, rather than a cover-up for a harassment claim coming to light. Presumably the other individual in the harassment case settled and signed an NDA, which would preclude public discussion and disclosure. In 2014, that may have seemed like the "safe" bet. In 2018, it's coming back to bite Alphabet in the ass.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > It doesn't say explicitly, but it sounds like they didn't have a legal obligation to pay him; rather, they did so to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit The possibility of the lawsuit indicates there was at least a plausible argument for a legal requirement.
- olliej 8y ago
  It's not "malicious", its the assumption that he gets to act like that. What they need to do is prove that he behaved in a way that was inappropriate. It sounds like there's plenty of evidence that he did - hell, they had enough evidence to record, in writing, that they found the claims against him credible. The difference between him and the people that they did fire was his position. Which is entirely backwards - the penalties for criminal behaviour should be higher for people with more power, not less.
  - filmgirlcw 8y ago
    Exactly. Unfortunately, this is also all too common. But that doesn't make it OK and that doesn't mean that when it happens in our backyard (and not in Hollywood or finance or [insert industry here]), we should stand back and not do anything about it or speak up that it's not alright.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > It sounds like there's plenty of evidence that he did - hell, they had enough evidence to record, in writing, that they found the claims against him credible. “Credible” is a far cry from being likely to meet the civil “preponderance of the evidence” standard, it literally is just “not implausible”. > The difference between him and the people that they did fire was his position. Which is entirely backwards - the penalties for criminal behaviour should be higher for people with more power, not less. Google doesn't impose criminal punishment, and I don't think anyone wants that to change.
    - akiselev 8y ago
      Preponderance of the evidence would be the standard if Rubin sued Google for wrongful termination, not the standard for evaluating allegations against executives - the latter is entirely up to Google. Rubin would have to convince the jury that he was terminated wrongfully against Google's argument that a credible allegation against senior management is enough to terminate with cause. > Google doesn't impose criminal punishment, and I don't think anyone wants that to change. GP never suggested that Google hand out jail sentences, just that they shouldn't be giving $90 million severance to Rubin when many employees who got fired for a lot less egregious behavior got nothing.
- abalone 8y ago
  Even if they were legally obligated to pay him, they were not obligated to protect him. They had nice parting words for him and invested in his subsequent venture. They could have just kept their mouths shut and cut off all contact. They didn't.
- filmgirlcw 8y ago
  As bdcravens says, what upsets some is that THIS executive and THIS situation was deemed worthy of sweeping under the rug, paying out the $90m and giving a hero's send-off of sorts (yes, anyone with eyes knew Andy was forced out, but there wasn't any chatter that I was aware of that he was forced out for personnel reasons. Instead, it was assumed to be a power struggle that he lost.), when many others are often let-go for far less compelling reasons (there might not be an HR report that finds fault), without their options fully vested. It isn't clear if Rubin's actions reached a level that would breach his contracts morality clause (assuming one existed -- and one almost always exists), which would allow them to fire him with cause -- but the fact that an internal investigation found that he acted inappropriately, would at least indicate there was a legal way to fire Rubin without paying him $90m. (I am not a lawyer, FWIW.) My gut tells me that at the time of his ouster, Alphabet was worried more about the optics of a protracted lawsuit with Rubin, rather than a cover-up for a harassment claim coming to light. Presumably the other individual in the harassment case settled and signed an NDA, which would preclude public discussion and disclosure. In retrospect, that was a bad call -- because in 2018, the optics of sweeping credible harassment allegations by a senior executive under the rug and then guiding them out the door with a $90m settlement is something that sickens and angers many individuals. It's the sort of move that is incredibly common in other parts of business (Hollywood and the media business in general), but that doesn't make it OK. And it is particularly offensive when the industry in which it takes place -- and the company it is taking place at -- have a history of trying to be "better" than the status quo.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    > In retrospect, that was a bad call -- because in 2018, the optics of sweeping credible harassment allegations by a senior executive under the rug and then guiding them out the door with a $90m settlement is something that sickens and angers many individuals. And then, not three months later, investing substantially in his next venture...
- jdavis703 8y ago
  At my company the employment contract limits the company's liability if you're fired for harassment (this was standard at past places too). Executives probably have different contracts than mere rank-and-file employees though, in which case I hope we get a law that forbids companies from paying out "golden parachutes" if they conduct an investigation and find proof of sexual misconduct.
  - csdreamer7 8y ago
    Yikes... now is a good time to look for a new job.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  A lot of the popular unrest facing both corporations & governments today is people learning that conflict gets results. The logic goes that "Well, Andy Rubin managed to exercise his threat to sue to get a $90M severance package, and he doesn't even work for the company anymore. We do work for the company, so we are going to exercise our power as employees to put pressure on the company to not do this again, so that our interests as current employees who don't want to work in an environment rife in sexual harassment aren't discounted." The whole point is to make the company uncomfortable so that they realize they're caught between a rock and a hard place, and the next time an executive's caught with his dick in somebody's face the company's like "Well, we really wish we could work out an amiable settlement with you for your past service, but you remember the protests when this happened with Andy Rubin? Our hands are tied here - the whole company almost fell apart, and if we avoid your lawsuit we'll just end up with a bigger one from them." They aren't really wrong in this - the squeaky wheel gets the grease and always has, and now a much larger portion of the population is willing to squeak. The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally, but that's where game theory is taking us. I wonder if much of the appeal of the crypto world (where whole organizations are disintermediated in favor of smart contracts) is because people are realizing that an organization is nothing but a target for angry people, and so by getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it anonymous & fungible, you can continue to organize economic activity without painting a target on your face.
  - rdl 8y ago
    This is like the business version of Assassination Politics leading to all identifiable people being utterly milquetoast and all activity happening under crypto-secure nyms. Someone will win an Econ Nobel for this.
  - crwalker 8y ago
    Yes. Crypto is a compelling simulacrum of classical liberalism (free individuals engaging in trade and limited governments using precise laws to protect the commons). This time we are trusting machines and mathematics to preserve individual rights rather than culture.
- bedhead 8y ago
  They could've claimed he broke his employment contract (I'm assuming he had a contract - he almost certainly did) which presumably had some "bad boy" clause in it, thus firing him for cause and not paying him anything. But that is messy, and costly, and the outcome is uncertain, and while Rubin sounds like a scumbag here, this also wasn't the most egregious behavior out there. Bottom line, Google was screwed the moment they signed that employment contract...those things are written incredibly favorably for the employee.
- trhway 8y ago
  >[Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever), which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser said they were coerced (not forced). my understanding (IANAL) is that sexual coercion is illegal under CA labor laws. And it would definitely be a clear violation of a policy in any corp i've worked at and i suppose Google has a similar policy as well.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
And then, after the walk out, they will return to their desks and continue working for the company. If you want a walk out to matter, you leave... and don't come back for free food in the employee cafeteria right after.
- dawhizkid 8y ago
  That's like saying you should've left the country after Trump's election as an effective means of protesting his presidency.
  - azhenley 8y ago
    I think these are two very different things. The cost of changing companies (especially if you are at Google) is fairly low (and often comes with a salary increase). The cost of changing citizenship could be exorbitant. People claim that if you want change in a country, you vote. If you don't believe in a company's values, you join another. Tech employees in this economy do have a lot of power. I think that is a more apt comparison.
    - jfk13 8y ago
      > The cost of changing citizenship could be exuberant. That's a rather delightful image! But I think you meant "exorbitant".
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - filmgirlcw 8y ago
      That's not universally true. If you have a family, if a lot of your salary is tied up in stock grants, or you are an immigrant, leaving isn't always so easy. I'm none of those things (well, I'm married but we're child-free by choice and that's not changing), and even if tech employees do have more power than employees in other industries, that doesn't make "quitting" so easy. And my past work in organized labor certainly gives me a bias here, but I'm of the opinion that if you like the place you work and you enjoy your job -- the appropriate response to bad things happening isn't always to quit (sometimes it is. Sometimes things are too egregious and you walk out. I did this once when I worked retail in college and saw blatant racism targeted at an employee by a regional manager and I walked out), the appropriate response is to fight internally to change things to make them better.
kerng 8y ago
Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out his behavior. But what happened was that Google only said how awesome everything is and hence in fact protected and worse, basically endorsed, his behavior. I find it good that Google employees stand up here. I'm already wondering what will Google do about that other guy who gives back rubs in interviews? He got similar support and is still at Google as far as I understood.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out his behavior. Probably not; mutual non-disparagement clauses are extremely common in executive contracts. Breaking that would have been the same, in terms of kind of litigation risk, as not paying the $90 million.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Is it disparagement to report facts without attaching an opinion?
    - Judgmentality 8y ago
      It depends on the contract, but based on one I recently saw for a very sizable startup (several billion raised) - yes. The document I saw specifically stated you cannot say anything, written or otherwise, that speaks negatively of the company regardless of validity.
    - skissane 8y ago
      Non-disparagement clauses are usually worded in such a way to prohibit making disparaging statements even if the statements are true. The disparagement is based in the fact that it will damage the party's reputation, not on whether it is true or substantiated or not. (It all depends on the wording of the contract of course, and also how the courts are likely to interpret or enforce it, which is why professional legal advice is so essential in these matters.) For some examples of how non-disparagement clauses are commonly worded: https://www.contractstandards.com/public/clauses/non-disparagement#examples https://www.contractstandards.com/public/clauses/non-dispara...
roenxi 8y ago
This article is missing a fairly important detail - the demands of the protesters. It is one thing to be unhappy with a situation, but given that the situation is now in the past - what exactly do they want to change going forward? The article is almost scrupulous in painting the walkout as out-of-control employees rather than the precursors of organised labour.
- philwelch 8y ago
  "Demands" are so passé. Most protests anymore don't have any more depth than a slogan, usually in the form of a hashtag.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- danso 8y ago
  It seems that the protesters believe that Google erred too much in favor of Andy Rubin (and other protected execs). A protest makes these concerns known to Google -- and just as importantly, to the public -- and ostensibly reduces the chances that Google will have a different mindset when a similar situation arises in the future. In any case, the article describes this particular walkout as part of an ongoing/emerging movement: > Employees participating in this movement for increased transparency and ethics within Google have presented management with petitions, made demands for greater employee oversight into product decisions made by management, and even quit their jobs in protest of Google’s decisions. Increasingly, employees have been signing their names to a spreadsheet, refusing to participate in screening interviews for potential new hires at Google as a form of protest.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Increasingly, employees have been signing their names to a spreadsheet, refusing to participate in screening interviews for potential new hires at Google as a form of protest. That last seems particularly counterproductive.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cityzen 8y ago
a "walk out"... one in which people are so darn angry they walk out of work.. and then walk right back in and keep doing their job. I wish more people would quit these mega-corps over stuff like this. "Google engineers outraged...", "Facebook employees outraged..."... so quit. Go find work at a place that isn't an evil corporation. If you didn't get the memo, Facebook, Amazon, Google and Microsoft are all pretty evil.
- danso 8y ago
  What if the employees genuinely believe the company's overall work is good, and that these flaws can be mitigated?
  - almost_usual 8y ago
    So you're saying if these corporations paid the same as other startups their employees wouldn't leave over this. I find that hard to believe.
  - cityzen 8y ago
    If you work at Google and you really, truly believe that Google's overall work is good, good for you! I suppose I have more self respect to say that if a company is going to push me far enough to walk out, I probably need to move on in general.
incredalus33 8y ago
As a side note: Microsoft will do AI work for the military: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/10/26/technology-and-the-us-military/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/10/26/technol... And Amazon will host the Pentagon cloud, and no one really cares, employees aren't derailing things and they sure aren't protesting. Meanwhile at Google there is one employee driven mess after another, they leak everything to the press, and have no regard for company image or reputation, maybe Google should just show the door to those threatening to quit and start incorporating these lessons into their hiring process.
claydavisss 8y ago
Rubin is still on the exec team roster at Essential. Man do people just wince when they pass this guy in the hall?
lotgon 8y ago
200 engineers organizing a protest. 2000 engineers are afraid to organize a protest against false accusations. Inverted democracy
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  As about a dozen people in this thread have already patiently explained, Google investigated the accusations and found them credible. If you have evidence to the contrary, which Google didn’t have at the time of its investigation, kindly present it.
  - lotgon 8y ago
    I believe in the law. Google guys are smart, but they don`t have enough skills and intelligence in this kind of investigation and they can`t make any decision about guilty/not guilty.
    - rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
      $90m payout sounds like a pretty solid guilty decision to me.
    - Analemma_ 8y ago
      That’s not what you said in your first comment, you clearly said “false accusations”. Are you walking back that claim now?
jeffdavis 8y ago
Do we know what actually happened? Why is anyone protesting over an allegation?
sfcguyus 8y ago
Would be more meaningful if they quit in protest to a lower paying job. This type of protest is merely exercise or a routine jog.
- dcre 8y ago
  If they quit they don't have leverage at Google anymore. This is why unions exist: they can threaten to quit, extract concessions, and not quit.
  - smokeyj 8y ago
    Can you imagine a search engine developed by union labor? It’s actually funny if you think about it. Side note: Do you think police officers act with more accountability or less considering their unions status? As if anyone else can shoot innocent people and take paid leave.
    - gumby 8y ago
      Why? I built my house with union labor. I think I got a much better result.
    - almost_usual 8y ago
      Can you imagine a city built by Google engineers? It's kinda creepy when you think about it.
      - rhizome 8y ago
        It would be a simple design, with strong walls, complicated HVAC, and no floors.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    When negotiation fails, unions extract concessions by trying to prevent anyone (members or not) from doing the work. Unions are rather weak when they can't prevent employers from hiring strikebreakers.
stuntkite 8y ago
I wonder what it would take for google to lose it's star as being such a great career defining place to work? I think it's kind of happening. We need more people out of the motherships and doing new, innovative stuff and defining their own progressive policies in their companies to compete with the motherships. I get the scale of capital and everything, but the internet is still a changing place and could be so much more if people just said no.
- amrx431 8y ago
  I am only interested in Google becoming uncool so that Googles hiring practice of LeetCode is not replicated everywhere.
Ptyx 8y ago
Reminds me that Kierkegaard has written about Google: "A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. In the present age a rebellion is, of all things, the most unthinkable. Such an expression of strength would seem ridiculous to the calculating intelligence of our times. On the other hand a political virtuoso might bring off a feat almost as remarkable. He might write a manifesto suggesting a general assembly at which people should decide upon a rebellion, and it would be so carefully worded that even the censor would let it pass. At the meeting itself he would be able to create the impression that his audience had rebelled, after which they would all go quietly home – having spent a very pleasant evening."
- chewxy 8y ago
  Kierkegaard has been dead for 200 years....
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    All the more impressive.
- matt4077 8y ago
  If this is aiming to invoke the tired "virtue signalling" cliché, it's rather vacuous. Kierkegaard's alternative was an armed rebellion. Are you seriously advocating for civil war, and dismissing all peaceful methods of achieving change? That gets to the heart of what's wrong with the concept as it is used by the 4chan crowd these days: The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change without shouldering grave personal risks. Trying to reframe this accomplishment as ineffective, weak, or lazy runs the danger of provoking exactly the sort of dramatic, self-sacrificing gestures that have been in the news recently. In the specific case, maybe quitting would be slightly less dramatic but more forceful form of protest. But it's quite obvious that exists a gray area where it's perfectly legitimate to try to change an organisation, while still being convinced of its overall benefit. Recruitment & retainment are also huge factors for Google's future prospect, making a walk-out with the implied threat of quitting, an effective tool.
tokai 8y ago
I have no idea whats up and down in this case, but it is good to see engineers waking up to the power of collective action.
diddid 8y ago
Whenever I hear about things like this, I always believe that only a fraction really care about the issue. The other half are saying “Wait... we can skip work and not get in trouble? Count me in!”
outside1234 8y ago
Good on them - it is always great to see employees doing the brave and right thing.
3stax 8y ago
The same company that threw James Damore out for his scientifically backed opinion saying that misogyny isn't tolerated? They're a soulless entity that doesn't give a shit about people.
ironfootnz 8y ago
Every story needs two sides, I think Google didn't predicted that employees will be against the company policy. Well it's a two way highway and using everything to barricade themselves against an employee isn't the most constructive way of a dialog and change of policies.
Para2016 8y ago
Oh cool. I wonder when they will stop working because of dragonfly...
akswamy 8y ago
Have the protest organizers communicated any specific set of outcomes they wish to achieve from the walkout? The news article does not go into those details. Perhaps I have missed out something there. In the previous protests, Google employees had their demands penned in open letters which I believe also contributed to concrete actions taken or responses given by Google. A generic protest is bound to only draw vague assurances such as those given in their all-hands meeting as reported in the article.

203 points by tareqak 8y ago

Original title: "Google Engineers Are Organizing A Walk Out To Protest The Company’s Protection Of An Alleged Sexual Harasser" (28 characters too long).

rayvy 8y ago

Someone with more info please correct me: But from what I read it sounds as if Google had to pay him the $90MM+, else be sued by him right? Because if they didn't pay him, he'd sue, then they [Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever), which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser said they were coerced (not forced). So it seems as if Google's hands were tied legally on this.

bdcravens 8y ago
Most issues of social or civil justice typically have at least one conflict of interest. However, individuals are burned at the proverbial stake daily for far less than coercion, and the idea that Google would sweep this under the rug instead of fighting the fight is sickening to some.
- manfredo 8y ago
  But this wasn't swept under the rug. The alleged harasser was fired. Google took steps to remove the alleged harasser. Keeping the details private is standard practice and is usually something all the parties involved want. From what I'm reading, Google paid Rubin the amount he was entitled to in his contract. Some people point out that Google could have paid him next to nothing for firing him with cause - but Rubin could have sued Google, and almost certainly would have made the claim that the harassment allegations we're Google's way of trying to avoid paying him - and from what I read, Google probably wanted to avoid this, because it would inevitably involve the details of the alleged assault going public. I assume that the alleged victim doesn't want this, we don't have good reports of how much proof there is for these allegations, and there's also the possibility of Google losing the suit and looking like they're the ones in the wrong.
  - filmgirlcw 8y ago
    But it was swept under the rug. He got a splashy send-off and a thanks for his service. At the very least, that seems over the top. The reasons for his ouster weren't disclosed. I would be curious if Essential's investors (Redpoint, Altimeter, Amazon Alexa Fund) were aware of why Rubin left Google. Moreover, this is a pattern at Google. Amit Singhal[1] was fired (also with a send-off and goodbye party and settled outstanding grants) after accusations of harassment were found credible. He then landed as SVP of engineering at Uber, where he was forced to resign because he hadn't disclosed the prior HR complaint at Google. Now, obviously, the lack of disclosure is what did him in -- but why did Google not tell Uber that he was asked to leave during his background check? Yes, Rubin likely would have sued. Yes, it likely would have been messy and very public. No, I do not believe for a second that Google settled to "protect" the victim; Google's settlement with the the alleged victim was certainly less than $90m. Google settled b/c in 2014, the drama of fighting with someone like Rubin seemed more risky than just paying him off -- even with the risk that the reasons why might become public later. The climate of 2018 makes me believe that was a fundamental mistake and the company should have fought back to not pay money that a labor attorney could argue was not owed. [1]: https://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-google-uber https://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-googl...
    - manfredo 8y ago
      To sweep something under the rug means to ignore it and not deal with it. Google did deal with it, so it's incorrect to say that the accusation was swept under the rug. Sure, you may be displeased at how they handled it but there's no denial of the fact that they did take the accusations seriously and fired a high level exec. You're ignoring the damage cause by the optics of such a lawsuit. Google being known as the company that used an allegation of harassment to try and cheat an exec out of his outstanding compensation would be atrocious for the company's image - and not to mention attach huge negative stigma around people who come forward with harassment campaigns against powerful people. It's easy to be idealistic when you're not the person or group who is at stake.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
azhenley 8y ago
The cost of fighting it in court may be far less than the cost of the public/employee backlash.
- olliej 8y ago
  The problem here is the "it costs more to do the right thing" is a bad argument. If you have a serial harasser, who is just paid off to leave quietly, then you just ensure that he gets to go off and do the same thing again. And be richer. How about instead of giving him $90 million, you give that to his victims in exchange for them not making claims against him? The result is approximately the same, but at least you're giving money to the victim rather than the criminal.
  - azhenley 8y ago
    I completely agree. My comment was actually saying I think it is often cheaper to do the right thing (even if it means spending more money initially).
    - olliej 8y ago
      Ah! To verify my reading (oh text communication :D) Companies often say "court is more expensive than Y" because that's a directly measurable thing, and simply ignore the actual long term costs. Much like elected officials :-O [edit: wtf typing :D)
  - tw04 8y ago
    >If you have a serial harasser Except Rubin was never accused of being a serial harasser that I've seen. He was terminated for having sexual relations with a subordinate.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      He was not "terminated for having sexual relations with a subordinate". From the article: > Google gave Rubin a reported $90 million exit package in 2014, following an investigation into an allegation that he had coerced another employee to perform oral sex on him. That investigation reportedly found that allegation to be credible.
tw04 8y ago
Furthermore, correct me if I misread, but what he did wrong was have consensual sexual relations with a subordinate, right? And then he was fired for it (which he should be). And they protected him how? Paying him the severance package he was owed? I'm not following if that's all correct.
- olliej 8y ago
  No, he coerced them into it - if you have a position of power, and you say "have sex with me", effectively in exchange for your treatment/employment in the company - I can't recall if Rubin was the burning man "sex or no job" guy, or that was another - that is sex discrimination and/or harassment. I doubt Rubin would have had the same behaviour with male subordinates, so that's a difference in treatment based on gender (woman who have to sleep with him to get equal treatment, or super devil advocate here, against men unable to "sleep to the top"). The reason companies have clear rules against this - which should be super easy to enforce - is because if you are in a position of power over someone, even if it was a hypothetical case of not abusing power, the subordinate can't tell so may feel coerced. If your underling feels coerced, they are. That it was unintentional is not relevant. Note, this is distinct from consent, which may or may not apply. Certainly if it's consent related the company should be forwarding to police. In addition to that it seems like there is a large body of evidence of what is at minimum inappropriate behaviour of any employee, let alone the management and executive tiers. Any of which should have been firable.
  - asianthrowaway 8y ago
    The burning man guy is another guy (who still works at Google afaik). This Rubin guy was no doubt a creep. From the NYT article: "The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”" Yikes!
    - claydavisss 8y ago
      I'm amazed all the women at Essential haven't bolted....I mean...gross....
jakelazaroff 8y ago
From the original NY Times article [1]: > Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. [...] > When Google fires lower-level employees, it typically marches them out immediately and pays little, if any, severance. But for senior executives, Google weighs other factors, said former executives. A wrongful termination lawsuit could mean unwanted media attention for Google and the victims of a misconduct case, with a loss resulting in significant damages. It doesn't say explicitly, but it sounds like they didn't have a legal obligation to pay him; rather, they did so to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit or bad press. What they definitely didn't have to do was this: > Afterward, Google invested in Playground Global, a venture firm Mr. Rubin started six months after leaving the company. It's one thing to pay severance if you don't think you can win an unlawful termination lawsuit, but it's another entirely to invest in that person's next venture after you're absolved of any legal obligation to them. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
- filmgirlcw 8y ago
  Precisely. Quoting myself from upthread >My gut tells me that at the time of his ouster, Alphabet was worried more about the optics of a protracted lawsuit with Rubin, rather than a cover-up for a harassment claim coming to light. Presumably the other individual in the harassment case settled and signed an NDA, which would preclude public discussion and disclosure. In 2014, that may have seemed like the "safe" bet. In 2018, it's coming back to bite Alphabet in the ass.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It doesn't say explicitly, but it sounds like they didn't have a legal obligation to pay him; rather, they did so to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit The possibility of the lawsuit indicates there was at least a plausible argument for a legal requirement.
olliej 8y ago
It's not "malicious", its the assumption that he gets to act like that. What they need to do is prove that he behaved in a way that was inappropriate. It sounds like there's plenty of evidence that he did - hell, they had enough evidence to record, in writing, that they found the claims against him credible. The difference between him and the people that they did fire was his position. Which is entirely backwards - the penalties for criminal behaviour should be higher for people with more power, not less.
- filmgirlcw 8y ago
  Exactly. Unfortunately, this is also all too common. But that doesn't make it OK and that doesn't mean that when it happens in our backyard (and not in Hollywood or finance or [insert industry here]), we should stand back and not do anything about it or speak up that it's not alright.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It sounds like there's plenty of evidence that he did - hell, they had enough evidence to record, in writing, that they found the claims against him credible. “Credible” is a far cry from being likely to meet the civil “preponderance of the evidence” standard, it literally is just “not implausible”. > The difference between him and the people that they did fire was his position. Which is entirely backwards - the penalties for criminal behaviour should be higher for people with more power, not less. Google doesn't impose criminal punishment, and I don't think anyone wants that to change.
  - akiselev 8y ago
    Preponderance of the evidence would be the standard if Rubin sued Google for wrongful termination, not the standard for evaluating allegations against executives - the latter is entirely up to Google. Rubin would have to convince the jury that he was terminated wrongfully against Google's argument that a credible allegation against senior management is enough to terminate with cause. > Google doesn't impose criminal punishment, and I don't think anyone wants that to change. GP never suggested that Google hand out jail sentences, just that they shouldn't be giving $90 million severance to Rubin when many employees who got fired for a lot less egregious behavior got nothing.
abalone 8y ago
Even if they were legally obligated to pay him, they were not obligated to protect him. They had nice parting words for him and invested in his subsequent venture. They could have just kept their mouths shut and cut off all contact. They didn't.
filmgirlcw 8y ago
As bdcravens says, what upsets some is that THIS executive and THIS situation was deemed worthy of sweeping under the rug, paying out the $90m and giving a hero's send-off of sorts (yes, anyone with eyes knew Andy was forced out, but there wasn't any chatter that I was aware of that he was forced out for personnel reasons. Instead, it was assumed to be a power struggle that he lost.), when many others are often let-go for far less compelling reasons (there might not be an HR report that finds fault), without their options fully vested. It isn't clear if Rubin's actions reached a level that would breach his contracts morality clause (assuming one existed -- and one almost always exists), which would allow them to fire him with cause -- but the fact that an internal investigation found that he acted inappropriately, would at least indicate there was a legal way to fire Rubin without paying him $90m. (I am not a lawyer, FWIW.) My gut tells me that at the time of his ouster, Alphabet was worried more about the optics of a protracted lawsuit with Rubin, rather than a cover-up for a harassment claim coming to light. Presumably the other individual in the harassment case settled and signed an NDA, which would preclude public discussion and disclosure. In retrospect, that was a bad call -- because in 2018, the optics of sweeping credible harassment allegations by a senior executive under the rug and then guiding them out the door with a $90m settlement is something that sickens and angers many individuals. It's the sort of move that is incredibly common in other parts of business (Hollywood and the media business in general), but that doesn't make it OK. And it is particularly offensive when the industry in which it takes place -- and the company it is taking place at -- have a history of trying to be "better" than the status quo.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  > In retrospect, that was a bad call -- because in 2018, the optics of sweeping credible harassment allegations by a senior executive under the rug and then guiding them out the door with a $90m settlement is something that sickens and angers many individuals. And then, not three months later, investing substantially in his next venture...
jdavis703 8y ago
At my company the employment contract limits the company's liability if you're fired for harassment (this was standard at past places too). Executives probably have different contracts than mere rank-and-file employees though, in which case I hope we get a law that forbids companies from paying out "golden parachutes" if they conduct an investigation and find proof of sexual misconduct.
- csdreamer7 8y ago
  Yikes... now is a good time to look for a new job.
nostrademons 8y ago
A lot of the popular unrest facing both corporations & governments today is people learning that conflict gets results. The logic goes that "Well, Andy Rubin managed to exercise his threat to sue to get a $90M severance package, and he doesn't even work for the company anymore. We do work for the company, so we are going to exercise our power as employees to put pressure on the company to not do this again, so that our interests as current employees who don't want to work in an environment rife in sexual harassment aren't discounted." The whole point is to make the company uncomfortable so that they realize they're caught between a rock and a hard place, and the next time an executive's caught with his dick in somebody's face the company's like "Well, we really wish we could work out an amiable settlement with you for your past service, but you remember the protests when this happened with Andy Rubin? Our hands are tied here - the whole company almost fell apart, and if we avoid your lawsuit we'll just end up with a bigger one from them." They aren't really wrong in this - the squeaky wheel gets the grease and always has, and now a much larger portion of the population is willing to squeak. The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally, but that's where game theory is taking us. I wonder if much of the appeal of the crypto world (where whole organizations are disintermediated in favor of smart contracts) is because people are realizing that an organization is nothing but a target for angry people, and so by getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it anonymous & fungible, you can continue to organize economic activity without painting a target on your face.
- rdl 8y ago
  This is like the business version of Assassination Politics leading to all identifiable people being utterly milquetoast and all activity happening under crypto-secure nyms. Someone will win an Econ Nobel for this.
- crwalker 8y ago
  Yes. Crypto is a compelling simulacrum of classical liberalism (free individuals engaging in trade and limited governments using precise laws to protect the commons). This time we are trusting machines and mathematics to preserve individual rights rather than culture.
bedhead 8y ago
They could've claimed he broke his employment contract (I'm assuming he had a contract - he almost certainly did) which presumably had some "bad boy" clause in it, thus firing him for cause and not paying him anything. But that is messy, and costly, and the outcome is uncertain, and while Rubin sounds like a scumbag here, this also wasn't the most egregious behavior out there. Bottom line, Google was screwed the moment they signed that employment contract...those things are written incredibly favorably for the employee.
trhway 8y ago
>[Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever), which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser said they were coerced (not forced). my understanding (IANAL) is that sexual coercion is illegal under CA labor laws. And it would definitely be a clear violation of a policy in any corp i've worked at and i suppose Google has a similar policy as well.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

And then, after the walk out, they will return to their desks and continue working for the company. If you want a walk out to matter, you leave... and don't come back for free food in the employee cafeteria right after.

dawhizkid 8y ago
That's like saying you should've left the country after Trump's election as an effective means of protesting his presidency.
- azhenley 8y ago
  I think these are two very different things. The cost of changing companies (especially if you are at Google) is fairly low (and often comes with a salary increase). The cost of changing citizenship could be exorbitant. People claim that if you want change in a country, you vote. If you don't believe in a company's values, you join another. Tech employees in this economy do have a lot of power. I think that is a more apt comparison.
  - jfk13 8y ago
    > The cost of changing citizenship could be exuberant. That's a rather delightful image! But I think you meant "exorbitant".
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - filmgirlcw 8y ago
    That's not universally true. If you have a family, if a lot of your salary is tied up in stock grants, or you are an immigrant, leaving isn't always so easy. I'm none of those things (well, I'm married but we're child-free by choice and that's not changing), and even if tech employees do have more power than employees in other industries, that doesn't make "quitting" so easy. And my past work in organized labor certainly gives me a bias here, but I'm of the opinion that if you like the place you work and you enjoy your job -- the appropriate response to bad things happening isn't always to quit (sometimes it is. Sometimes things are too egregious and you walk out. I did this once when I worked retail in college and saw blatant racism targeted at an employee by a regional manager and I walked out), the appropriate response is to fight internally to change things to make them better.

kerng 8y ago

Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out his behavior. But what happened was that Google only said how awesome everything is and hence in fact protected and worse, basically endorsed, his behavior. I find it good that Google employees stand up here. I'm already wondering what will Google do about that other guy who gives back rubs in interviews? He got similar support and is still at Google as far as I understood.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out his behavior. Probably not; mutual non-disparagement clauses are extremely common in executive contracts. Breaking that would have been the same, in terms of kind of litigation risk, as not paying the $90 million.
- gowld 8y ago
  Is it disparagement to report facts without attaching an opinion?
  - Judgmentality 8y ago
    It depends on the contract, but based on one I recently saw for a very sizable startup (several billion raised) - yes. The document I saw specifically stated you cannot say anything, written or otherwise, that speaks negatively of the company regardless of validity.
  - skissane 8y ago
    Non-disparagement clauses are usually worded in such a way to prohibit making disparaging statements even if the statements are true. The disparagement is based in the fact that it will damage the party's reputation, not on whether it is true or substantiated or not. (It all depends on the wording of the contract of course, and also how the courts are likely to interpret or enforce it, which is why professional legal advice is so essential in these matters.) For some examples of how non-disparagement clauses are commonly worded: https://www.contractstandards.com/public/clauses/non-disparagement#examples https://www.contractstandards.com/public/clauses/non-dispara...

roenxi 8y ago

This article is missing a fairly important detail - the demands of the protesters. It is one thing to be unhappy with a situation, but given that the situation is now in the past - what exactly do they want to change going forward? The article is almost scrupulous in painting the walkout as out-of-control employees rather than the precursors of organised labour.

philwelch 8y ago
"Demands" are so passé. Most protests anymore don't have any more depth than a slogan, usually in the form of a hashtag.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
danso 8y ago
It seems that the protesters believe that Google erred too much in favor of Andy Rubin (and other protected execs). A protest makes these concerns known to Google -- and just as importantly, to the public -- and ostensibly reduces the chances that Google will have a different mindset when a similar situation arises in the future. In any case, the article describes this particular walkout as part of an ongoing/emerging movement: > Employees participating in this movement for increased transparency and ethics within Google have presented management with petitions, made demands for greater employee oversight into product decisions made by management, and even quit their jobs in protest of Google’s decisions. Increasingly, employees have been signing their names to a spreadsheet, refusing to participate in screening interviews for potential new hires at Google as a form of protest.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Increasingly, employees have been signing their names to a spreadsheet, refusing to participate in screening interviews for potential new hires at Google as a form of protest. That last seems particularly counterproductive.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

cityzen 8y ago

a "walk out"... one in which people are so darn angry they walk out of work.. and then walk right back in and keep doing their job. I wish more people would quit these mega-corps over stuff like this. "Google engineers outraged...", "Facebook employees outraged..."... so quit. Go find work at a place that isn't an evil corporation. If you didn't get the memo, Facebook, Amazon, Google and Microsoft are all pretty evil.

danso 8y ago
What if the employees genuinely believe the company's overall work is good, and that these flaws can be mitigated?
- almost_usual 8y ago
  So you're saying if these corporations paid the same as other startups their employees wouldn't leave over this. I find that hard to believe.
- cityzen 8y ago
  If you work at Google and you really, truly believe that Google's overall work is good, good for you! I suppose I have more self respect to say that if a company is going to push me far enough to walk out, I probably need to move on in general.

incredalus33 8y ago

As a side note: Microsoft will do AI work for the military: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/10/26/technology-and-the-us-military/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/10/26/technol... And Amazon will host the Pentagon cloud, and no one really cares, employees aren't derailing things and they sure aren't protesting. Meanwhile at Google there is one employee driven mess after another, they leak everything to the press, and have no regard for company image or reputation, maybe Google should just show the door to those threatening to quit and start incorporating these lessons into their hiring process.

claydavisss 8y ago

Rubin is still on the exec team roster at Essential. Man do people just wince when they pass this guy in the hall?

lotgon 8y ago

200 engineers organizing a protest. 2000 engineers are afraid to organize a protest against false accusations. Inverted democracy

Analemma_ 8y ago
As about a dozen people in this thread have already patiently explained, Google investigated the accusations and found them credible. If you have evidence to the contrary, which Google didn’t have at the time of its investigation, kindly present it.
- lotgon 8y ago
  I believe in the law. Google guys are smart, but they don`t have enough skills and intelligence in this kind of investigation and they can`t make any decision about guilty/not guilty.
  - rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
    $90m payout sounds like a pretty solid guilty decision to me.
  - Analemma_ 8y ago
    That’s not what you said in your first comment, you clearly said “false accusations”. Are you walking back that claim now?

jeffdavis 8y ago

Do we know what actually happened? Why is anyone protesting over an allegation?

sfcguyus 8y ago

Would be more meaningful if they quit in protest to a lower paying job. This type of protest is merely exercise or a routine jog.

dcre 8y ago
If they quit they don't have leverage at Google anymore. This is why unions exist: they can threaten to quit, extract concessions, and not quit.
- smokeyj 8y ago
  Can you imagine a search engine developed by union labor? It’s actually funny if you think about it. Side note: Do you think police officers act with more accountability or less considering their unions status? As if anyone else can shoot innocent people and take paid leave.
  - gumby 8y ago
    Why? I built my house with union labor. I think I got a much better result.
  - almost_usual 8y ago
    Can you imagine a city built by Google engineers? It's kinda creepy when you think about it.
    - rhizome 8y ago
      It would be a simple design, with strong walls, complicated HVAC, and no floors.
- leereeves 8y ago
  When negotiation fails, unions extract concessions by trying to prevent anyone (members or not) from doing the work. Unions are rather weak when they can't prevent employers from hiring strikebreakers.

stuntkite 8y ago

I wonder what it would take for google to lose it's star as being such a great career defining place to work? I think it's kind of happening. We need more people out of the motherships and doing new, innovative stuff and defining their own progressive policies in their companies to compete with the motherships. I get the scale of capital and everything, but the internet is still a changing place and could be so much more if people just said no.

amrx431 8y ago
I am only interested in Google becoming uncool so that Googles hiring practice of LeetCode is not replicated everywhere.

Ptyx 8y ago

Reminds me that Kierkegaard has written about Google: "A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. In the present age a rebellion is, of all things, the most unthinkable. Such an expression of strength would seem ridiculous to the calculating intelligence of our times. On the other hand a political virtuoso might bring off a feat almost as remarkable. He might write a manifesto suggesting a general assembly at which people should decide upon a rebellion, and it would be so carefully worded that even the censor would let it pass. At the meeting itself he would be able to create the impression that his audience had rebelled, after which they would all go quietly home – having spent a very pleasant evening."

chewxy 8y ago
Kierkegaard has been dead for 200 years....
- jacquesm 8y ago
  All the more impressive.
matt4077 8y ago
If this is aiming to invoke the tired "virtue signalling" cliché, it's rather vacuous. Kierkegaard's alternative was an armed rebellion. Are you seriously advocating for civil war, and dismissing all peaceful methods of achieving change? That gets to the heart of what's wrong with the concept as it is used by the 4chan crowd these days: The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change without shouldering grave personal risks. Trying to reframe this accomplishment as ineffective, weak, or lazy runs the danger of provoking exactly the sort of dramatic, self-sacrificing gestures that have been in the news recently. In the specific case, maybe quitting would be slightly less dramatic but more forceful form of protest. But it's quite obvious that exists a gray area where it's perfectly legitimate to try to change an organisation, while still being convinced of its overall benefit. Recruitment & retainment are also huge factors for Google's future prospect, making a walk-out with the implied threat of quitting, an effective tool.

tokai 8y ago

I have no idea whats up and down in this case, but it is good to see engineers waking up to the power of collective action.

diddid 8y ago

Whenever I hear about things like this, I always believe that only a fraction really care about the issue. The other half are saying “Wait... we can skip work and not get in trouble? Count me in!”

outside1234 8y ago

Good on them - it is always great to see employees doing the brave and right thing.

3stax 8y ago

The same company that threw James Damore out for his scientifically backed opinion saying that misogyny isn't tolerated? They're a soulless entity that doesn't give a shit about people.

ironfootnz 8y ago

Every story needs two sides, I think Google didn't predicted that employees will be against the company policy. Well it's a two way highway and using everything to barricade themselves against an employee isn't the most constructive way of a dialog and change of policies.

Para2016 8y ago

Oh cool. I wonder when they will stop working because of dragonfly...

akswamy 8y ago

Have the protest organizers communicated any specific set of outcomes they wish to achieve from the walkout? The news article does not go into those details. Perhaps I have missed out something there. In the previous protests, Google employees had their demands penned in open letters which I believe also contributed to concrete actions taken or responses given by Google. A generic protest is bound to only draw vague assurances such as those given in their all-hands meeting as reported in the article.