5 ms·

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

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
GP isn't ignoring the optics of the situation, they're just asserting that being perceived as a company that paid a sexual predator almost one hundred million dollars to avoid dealing with a sexual assault claim is worse than the scenario you described.
- manfredo 8y ago
  I dispute that. Google going to trial, exposing the victim to the public eye, and risking the possibility that the public remembers this episode as an example of harassment claims being weaponized by corporations is a worse scenario. I think people are really underestimating the last one of those. Would the metoo movent have even spread to tech if an there existed a public (or at least, what the public percieves to be) instance of a company using allegations of harassment to cheat employees out of compensation? Would it have even existed at all?
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    You keep saying "cheat", but Google found the allegations credible; I'm genuinely confused as to your position here. Are you saying that companies should still pay severance to employees fired for sexual assault?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > You keep saying "cheat", but Google found the allegations credible “Credible” isn't the same as “true” or even “more likely than not to be true”, even though it has recently become popular for credible allegations of certain wrongs to be treated as if they were proven true. > Are you saying that companies should still pay severance to employees fired for sexual assault? If a contract requires payment unless a certain wrong has been done, a party finding it credible that the wrong has been done that would relieve it of it's obligations, even if it would get a trier of fact to the same conclusion, hasn't actually established that it is free of the obligation. Contract vs. at-will employment presents different considerations.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      I'm saying there's a good change Rubin's lawyers could convince a jury that Google wrongfully avoided paying him the compensation that was due. This would almost certainly cause the public to view allegations of sexual assault with greater suspicion. The point is, while Google itself determined that they had enough evidence to conclude that Rubin harassed someone, they probably didn't think they had enough evidence to convince a jury. All I'm saying is that the company should choose the least harmful option. Sometimes, being inflexible does more harm than good. For all we know, bringing this to trial would have made Google and the victim look like the bad guys, while the harasser looks like a hero standing up to a deceitful corporation. Instead, Google played it safe and chose not to risk it's reputation (which is an act of self interest) but also to avoid risking the reputation of the alleged victim (which is a benefit). Was this the right decision? Ultimately we'll never know short of inventing a time machine, but saying that Google unambiguously chose the worse of two options is short sighted.
    - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
      Executive employment contracts are a whole other universe away from what the rank and file gets. How do people not know this? Google for "golden parachute" and "termination clause", e.g. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/golden-parachute-2276017 https://www.thebalancecareers.com/golden-parachute-2276017. Yes, when you're valuable enough, you can actually require as part of your employment agreement that your employer pay you massive amounts of money for being terminated, even if it's for cause. Had they tried not to pay out the golden parachute, it would have been an open and shut case ending in a loss for them. (And, believe me, they wouldn't have been even remotely tempted to try because every executive there also has their own personal golden parachute.)
filmgirlcw 8y ago
>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 That's not the case with Matt Lauer at NBC. Lauer sued and NBC has continued to fight back. It's also not the case with Les Moonves at CBS (the CBS situation is much more complicated because of the broader disputes between CBS, Viacom, and the infighting on the board of directors) -- in fact, CBS has been roundly criticized for potentially paying out $100m to Moonves (even if they withheld $80m in stock). CBS' business reputation is in the shitter b/c they have paid out. >- 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. This stigma already exists. Refusing to settle doesn't make it go away or make it any better. Any person who goes forward against a powerful executive -- no matter how much proof they have -- is almost always fucked over. Going forward doesn't lead to someone winning. Financial settlements mostly exist b/c it's understood that the complainant will have an incredibly difficult time finding future employment. And you're also forgetting that the person who is the alleged victim in this case could and would be protected in filings by shield laws (it's possible that someone on the other side would leak the identity, but that's legally not supposed to happen). This would be a civil complaint, not criminal. Moreover, I feel certain that there was already a settlement with a very strict NDA in place (and if either party were to violate the NDA, there would be substantial consequences). The person who brought the claims against Rubin already has a stigma around her neck. Her life was already torn apart in an investigation by HR and presumably in whatever settlement was achieved. Please don't use the fact that those that come forward are often re-victimized as an excuse to PAY PEOPLE WITH CREDIBLE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THEM $90 MILLION AND GIVE A HERO'S SENDOFF. People who come forward almost always lose in very tangible ways -- even if they win. That's why coming forward is so difficult and why those that do are so incredibly brave.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Another example: the recent situation around a certain Supreme Court justice appointment.
- manfredo 8y ago

jakelazaroff 8y ago

GP isn't ignoring the optics of the situation, they're just asserting that being perceived as a company that paid a sexual predator almost one hundred million dollars to avoid dealing with a sexual assault claim is worse than the scenario you described.

manfredo 8y ago
I dispute that. Google going to trial, exposing the victim to the public eye, and risking the possibility that the public remembers this episode as an example of harassment claims being weaponized by corporations is a worse scenario. I think people are really underestimating the last one of those. Would the metoo movent have even spread to tech if an there existed a public (or at least, what the public percieves to be) instance of a company using allegations of harassment to cheat employees out of compensation? Would it have even existed at all?
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  You keep saying "cheat", but Google found the allegations credible; I'm genuinely confused as to your position here. Are you saying that companies should still pay severance to employees fired for sexual assault?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > You keep saying "cheat", but Google found the allegations credible “Credible” isn't the same as “true” or even “more likely than not to be true”, even though it has recently become popular for credible allegations of certain wrongs to be treated as if they were proven true. > Are you saying that companies should still pay severance to employees fired for sexual assault? If a contract requires payment unless a certain wrong has been done, a party finding it credible that the wrong has been done that would relieve it of it's obligations, even if it would get a trier of fact to the same conclusion, hasn't actually established that it is free of the obligation. Contract vs. at-will employment presents different considerations.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    I'm saying there's a good change Rubin's lawyers could convince a jury that Google wrongfully avoided paying him the compensation that was due. This would almost certainly cause the public to view allegations of sexual assault with greater suspicion. The point is, while Google itself determined that they had enough evidence to conclude that Rubin harassed someone, they probably didn't think they had enough evidence to convince a jury. All I'm saying is that the company should choose the least harmful option. Sometimes, being inflexible does more harm than good. For all we know, bringing this to trial would have made Google and the victim look like the bad guys, while the harasser looks like a hero standing up to a deceitful corporation. Instead, Google played it safe and chose not to risk it's reputation (which is an act of self interest) but also to avoid risking the reputation of the alleged victim (which is a benefit). Was this the right decision? Ultimately we'll never know short of inventing a time machine, but saying that Google unambiguously chose the worse of two options is short sighted.
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    Executive employment contracts are a whole other universe away from what the rank and file gets. How do people not know this? Google for "golden parachute" and "termination clause", e.g. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/golden-parachute-2276017 https://www.thebalancecareers.com/golden-parachute-2276017. Yes, when you're valuable enough, you can actually require as part of your employment agreement that your employer pay you massive amounts of money for being terminated, even if it's for cause. Had they tried not to pay out the golden parachute, it would have been an open and shut case ending in a loss for them. (And, believe me, they wouldn't have been even remotely tempted to try because every executive there also has their own personal golden parachute.)

filmgirlcw 8y ago

>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 That's not the case with Matt Lauer at NBC. Lauer sued and NBC has continued to fight back. It's also not the case with Les Moonves at CBS (the CBS situation is much more complicated because of the broader disputes between CBS, Viacom, and the infighting on the board of directors) -- in fact, CBS has been roundly criticized for potentially paying out $100m to Moonves (even if they withheld $80m in stock). CBS' business reputation is in the shitter b/c they have paid out. >- 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. This stigma already exists. Refusing to settle doesn't make it go away or make it any better. Any person who goes forward against a powerful executive -- no matter how much proof they have -- is almost always fucked over. Going forward doesn't lead to someone winning. Financial settlements mostly exist b/c it's understood that the complainant will have an incredibly difficult time finding future employment. And you're also forgetting that the person who is the alleged victim in this case could and would be protected in filings by shield laws (it's possible that someone on the other side would leak the identity, but that's legally not supposed to happen). This would be a civil complaint, not criminal. Moreover, I feel certain that there was already a settlement with a very strict NDA in place (and if either party were to violate the NDA, there would be substantial consequences). The person who brought the claims against Rubin already has a stigma around her neck. Her life was already torn apart in an investigation by HR and presumably in whatever settlement was achieved. Please don't use the fact that those that come forward are often re-victimized as an excuse to PAY PEOPLE WITH CREDIBLE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THEM $90 MILLION AND GIVE A HERO'S SENDOFF. People who come forward almost always lose in very tangible ways -- even if they win. That's why coming forward is so difficult and why those that do are so incredibly brave.

jacquesm 8y ago
Another example: the recent situation around a certain Supreme Court justice appointment.
manfredo 8y ago