5 ms·

This retaliation in response to anti-harassment protests is actually illegal. It's pretty obvious these actions were done before legal got involved: When Claire

This retaliation in response to anti-harassment protests is actually illegal. It's pretty obvious these actions were done before legal got involved: When Claire Stapleton had a lawyer contact Google they walked back the demotion.

Aqua 7y ago
It feels like Google eventually started disciplining disobedient employees. I mean, can you imagine Goldman Sachs bankers organising a protest to express their dissatisfaction with certain decisions their upper management makes? They would be fired on spot. Now, Google has been facing employee revolt for the last couple of years (military projects, James Damore, China search engine), and Google kept allowing that to happen without any consequences. Now that changed, and it makes sense, because employees don't own the company, employees work for the company in exchange for compensation and don't really have to grounds to constantly blackmail the management just because they don't like the direction the company is going. You have to be delusional to think acting like that won't jeopardise your career... Besides if you need to involve a lawyer you are most certainly unwelcome there and should probably just quit (however, finding a new role might prove difficult given the circumstances. Which company would employ someone that organised a revolt against their leadership in their previous workplace and eventually ran crying to the media about retaliation instead of handling the situation quietly).
- closetohome 7y ago
  Good lord. What kind of terrible person thinks Goldman Sachs is some kind of role model?
  - _cs2017_ 7y ago
    For better or worse, a lot of people admire and respect success. Goldman Sachs is very successful, so unless it does something really bad, it will be respected by many. I don't think you should refer to people as terrible just because they don't admire the same qualities that you do.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      You do realize you’re talking about the same people who nearly took down the entire US banking system 10 years ago, right? The only thing they’ve been “successful” at recently is getting the government to bail them out of the mess they created.
      - _cs2017_ 7y ago
        I didn't say they made the world a better place. They weren't trying to. They had one clear goal: make a lot of money for themselves. And they have, for many years, achieved this goal splendidly, through hard work, financial and business skills, reputation, innovation, connections, lies, market manipulation, government bailouts, etc. This is considered success, and earns respect, in both Western and Eastern cultures. There are people who hate the way Goldman makes money, but they are not the majority even in the general population. For example, take a look at this: https://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-reputation-score-has-improved-since-the-financial-crisis-2018-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-reputation-sco... or http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/banking/vault-banking-50/ http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/banking/vault-banking-...
        closetohome 7y ago
        Country over party. Country over profit. Only the unethical respect the unethical.
        pmiller2 7y ago
        Where I come from, that’s considered sociopathic (and, yes, I know it applies to all corporations, not just GS or investment banks).
        _cs2017_ 7y ago
        Do you mind if I ask you which country you're referring to? Does it mean people in your country would hate for their kids to get a job at Goldman Sachs, organizations would hesitate to take Goldman Sachs donations, etc?

Aqua 7y ago

It feels like Google eventually started disciplining disobedient employees. I mean, can you imagine Goldman Sachs bankers organising a protest to express their dissatisfaction with certain decisions their upper management makes? They would be fired on spot. Now, Google has been facing employee revolt for the last couple of years (military projects, James Damore, China search engine), and Google kept allowing that to happen without any consequences. Now that changed, and it makes sense, because employees don't own the company, employees work for the company in exchange for compensation and don't really have to grounds to constantly blackmail the management just because they don't like the direction the company is going. You have to be delusional to think acting like that won't jeopardise your career... Besides if you need to involve a lawyer you are most certainly unwelcome there and should probably just quit (however, finding a new role might prove difficult given the circumstances. Which company would employ someone that organised a revolt against their leadership in their previous workplace and eventually ran crying to the media about retaliation instead of handling the situation quietly).

closetohome 7y ago
Good lord. What kind of terrible person thinks Goldman Sachs is some kind of role model?
- _cs2017_ 7y ago
  For better or worse, a lot of people admire and respect success. Goldman Sachs is very successful, so unless it does something really bad, it will be respected by many. I don't think you should refer to people as terrible just because they don't admire the same qualities that you do.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    You do realize you’re talking about the same people who nearly took down the entire US banking system 10 years ago, right? The only thing they’ve been “successful” at recently is getting the government to bail them out of the mess they created.
    - _cs2017_ 7y ago
      I didn't say they made the world a better place. They weren't trying to. They had one clear goal: make a lot of money for themselves. And they have, for many years, achieved this goal splendidly, through hard work, financial and business skills, reputation, innovation, connections, lies, market manipulation, government bailouts, etc. This is considered success, and earns respect, in both Western and Eastern cultures. There are people who hate the way Goldman makes money, but they are not the majority even in the general population. For example, take a look at this: https://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-reputation-score-has-improved-since-the-financial-crisis-2018-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-reputation-sco... or http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/banking/vault-banking-50/ http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/banking/vault-banking-...
      - closetohome 7y ago
        Country over party. Country over profit. Only the unethical respect the unethical.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        Where I come from, that’s considered sociopathic (and, yes, I know it applies to all corporations, not just GS or investment banks).
        _cs2017_ 7y ago
        Do you mind if I ask you which country you're referring to? Does it mean people in your country would hate for their kids to get a job at Goldman Sachs, organizations would hesitate to take Goldman Sachs donations, etc?