8 ms·

I don't really know what anyone* can do to address some of these, as unacceptable as the occurrence of these stories are. Reading through the document (linked t

I don't really know what anyone* can do to address some of these, as unacceptable as the occurrence of these stories are. Reading through the document (linked to by SolaceQuantum), there's one case where someone felt unprotected by HR because they asked HR not to investigate and HR did, and claimed to have fired the person for other HR problems. I'm not sure what HR should have done there. Are they supposed to not at least investigate serious accusations so they know what happened, even if they never reveal who reported the manager? There are other stories where someone claims something that can't be proven and that was either not witnessed, or must have been denied by everyone. Yeah it sucks if everyone on your team is protecting a douche, but... is HR supposed to intervene and fire someone because only one person claims something happened? edit: *I mean anyone in HR. Obviously the team members protecting people are at fault in the first place. If you're on the victim side of this, you have to have a paper trail. Even messaging a coworker, "Didn't [boss]'s joke bother you? Where he/she [dropped the N-word | kept talking about sex]?" Then HR investigation can't say there's no evidence. If it progresses to the point of a lawsuit, now you actually have evidence.

dominotw 7y ago
> someone felt unprotected by HR How can this ever be true. Why would someone possibly expect HR to protect them. Isn't it basic commonsense that HR( or anyone) works for person who pays them. Their job is to protect their employers from you ( not the other way around). I've never worked at a place where this wasn't true. Maybe this should be taught in college or something.
- trenning 7y ago
  If you ever want to proceed with legal actions against the company then you have to put it into record somewhere which typically means reporting incidents to HR. Which ultimately leads to getting fired. What else are people supposed to do? It's a shitty unwinnable situation for employees, I've been on the shit end of this stick before at a different tech co for complaining and was retaliated against. It's not fun and I feel sympathy for anyone who's lives are being turned over because of it.
  - dominotw 7y ago
    > If you ever want to proceed with legal actions against the company then you have to put it into record somewhere which typically means reporting incidents to HR. This is not true. You don't have to record anything with HR for legal action. Its not a prerequisite by any means. Going to HR is always a wrong move. Get a lawyer.
    - anoncareer0212 7y ago
      If you're ever lucky enough to need a lawyer for a situation like this, one of the first things they'll need is for you to report this to the company – it's very, very, difficult to argue negligence or retaliation if the company never heard about it in the first place
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      My mother was a lawyer and did a lot of sexual harassment / workplace descriminiation work. Obviously that doesn't make me a lawyer or anything close to one, but she would have advised going to HR as soon as possible (I even asked just now to be sure.) It's important to document in/action and/or a pattern of abuse on the company's part. You can (and should) certainly document these things on your own, but if you never go to HR the company will have an avenue of escape open ("s/he never told us, this is a rogue manager, we had no idea", etc.) BTW, you sue your company and you're gone either way.
    - tomnipotent 7y ago
      > Going to HR is always a wrong move. Get a lawyer. This is horrible advice. Going to HR is about leaving a paper trail, which is very important. No judge or arbitrator is going to give two hoots about i-said/they-said without (dated) documentation to back it up.
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        HR is not obligated to keep any paper trail, but if you went there, they can be made to testify under oath.
- bhk 7y ago
  Employee: "HR's priority is protecting me." Experienced employee: "HR's priority is protecting management." Manager: "HR's priority is protecting the company." Experienced manager: "HR's priority is protecting HR."
harryh 7y ago
here's one case where someone felt unprotected by HR because they asked HR not to investigate and HR did FWIW, this sort of thing is included in every HR training I have ever done. HR is obligated to investigate issues regardless of the desire of the complainant. This is both for the benefit of the company (that doesn't want to employ a problematic employee) and other employees (that do not want to be future victims).
jm4 7y ago
That's a complaint from someone who doesn't understand the function of HR. HR isn't there to protect the employee. They are there to protect the company while giving the impression they are there for the employees. Sometimes that means they protect both at the same time. It always means they operate in the company's interests, sometimes to the detriment of an employee or employees. A lot of what I hear about google sounds like what you get when you let the inmates run the asylum. For example, allowing political discussions on company forums or letting employees get the impression they have some social responsibility or a responsibility to take a position is just a recipe for disaster. What you end up with is conflict and immaturity in the workplace because politics and career have combined to become part of their identity. That's toxic in the type of organization that has historically been disconnected from politics and social causes. It's no surprise this kind of stuff is going on and people are chalking it up to retaliation for this, that or the other thing. In normal companies, people get moved around, demoted or ignored all the time and they don't always blame it on retaliation for political beliefs or for reporting abuse. They blame it on some asshole manager or decide the company isn't for them and they move on. Sounds like google needs a higher degree of professionalism.
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  Having served in the military, this rings extremely true to me. Most individual traits are eliminated with hair cut and uniform requirements, but anything left is seized upon with extra vigor. This is demonstrated aptly against women. Men blame both failure and success of women on their gender. And the reality? Do women hide in their separated berthings and screen calls for each other? You bet. Do women get promoted because theyre more flirtatious and more easy to get along with? Duh. People that bitch about the above like to focus on those 6 problem women and forget theres 50 men you can barely count on to piss on a fire. Side story: I knew a salty submarine (100% male until ~5 years ago in US) male master chief that summed women in the navy perfectly: women are people; some good, some bad, some in the middle, and if you treat them like sailors, they act like sailors. Point is, non-professional discussion rarely belong in the workplace. Letting those go basically guarantees conflict.
- Angostura 7y ago
  > HR isn't there to protect the employee. They are there to protect the company while giving the impression they are there for the employees. An overly broad generalisation. In situations where there's a direct conflict between the needs of the company and the employee - yes, absolutely. But those are relatively rare, in my experience,
drevil-v2 7y ago
> There are other stories where someone claims something that can't be proven and that was either not witnessed, or must have been denied by everyone. Yeah it sucks if everyone on your team is protecting a douche, but... is HR supposed to intervene and fire someone because only one person claims something happened? That's the gist of the #believeallwomen movement. No due process or innocent until proven guilty, just one accusation from a person with an identity that has more "oppression" points than your own identity and it is off to the guillotine with you. I do not believe this is the correct way for society to function and thrive. It will self-select for sub-optimal or even outright dystopian outcomes. I wonder how SV tech companies that encourage and hire people with these viewpoints will fare once the money hose runs out?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- wolco 7y ago
  That's a lawsuit of a movement if it happens in the workplace. What seemed like an enlightened powerpoint presentation that couldn't fail is turning against them. By activity seeking out these viewpoints google should have expected to make internal changes that promoted fairness over value. Google refuses to prioritize empowerment over functioning process and there is a mismatch between what they say and do. Google can't have teams decide by a manager picking who they want because they may be biased. Culturally that's a big change.

dominotw 7y ago

> someone felt unprotected by HR How can this ever be true. Why would someone possibly expect HR to protect them. Isn't it basic commonsense that HR( or anyone) works for person who pays them. Their job is to protect their employers from you ( not the other way around). I've never worked at a place where this wasn't true. Maybe this should be taught in college or something.

trenning 7y ago
If you ever want to proceed with legal actions against the company then you have to put it into record somewhere which typically means reporting incidents to HR. Which ultimately leads to getting fired. What else are people supposed to do? It's a shitty unwinnable situation for employees, I've been on the shit end of this stick before at a different tech co for complaining and was retaliated against. It's not fun and I feel sympathy for anyone who's lives are being turned over because of it.
- dominotw 7y ago
  > If you ever want to proceed with legal actions against the company then you have to put it into record somewhere which typically means reporting incidents to HR. This is not true. You don't have to record anything with HR for legal action. Its not a prerequisite by any means. Going to HR is always a wrong move. Get a lawyer.
  - anoncareer0212 7y ago
    If you're ever lucky enough to need a lawyer for a situation like this, one of the first things they'll need is for you to report this to the company – it's very, very, difficult to argue negligence or retaliation if the company never heard about it in the first place
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    My mother was a lawyer and did a lot of sexual harassment / workplace descriminiation work. Obviously that doesn't make me a lawyer or anything close to one, but she would have advised going to HR as soon as possible (I even asked just now to be sure.) It's important to document in/action and/or a pattern of abuse on the company's part. You can (and should) certainly document these things on your own, but if you never go to HR the company will have an avenue of escape open ("s/he never told us, this is a rogue manager, we had no idea", etc.) BTW, you sue your company and you're gone either way.
  - tomnipotent 7y ago
    > Going to HR is always a wrong move. Get a lawyer. This is horrible advice. Going to HR is about leaving a paper trail, which is very important. No judge or arbitrator is going to give two hoots about i-said/they-said without (dated) documentation to back it up.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      HR is not obligated to keep any paper trail, but if you went there, they can be made to testify under oath.
bhk 7y ago
Employee: "HR's priority is protecting me." Experienced employee: "HR's priority is protecting management." Manager: "HR's priority is protecting the company." Experienced manager: "HR's priority is protecting HR."

harryh 7y ago

here's one case where someone felt unprotected by HR because they asked HR not to investigate and HR did FWIW, this sort of thing is included in every HR training I have ever done. HR is obligated to investigate issues regardless of the desire of the complainant. This is both for the benefit of the company (that doesn't want to employ a problematic employee) and other employees (that do not want to be future victims).

jm4 7y ago

That's a complaint from someone who doesn't understand the function of HR. HR isn't there to protect the employee. They are there to protect the company while giving the impression they are there for the employees. Sometimes that means they protect both at the same time. It always means they operate in the company's interests, sometimes to the detriment of an employee or employees. A lot of what I hear about google sounds like what you get when you let the inmates run the asylum. For example, allowing political discussions on company forums or letting employees get the impression they have some social responsibility or a responsibility to take a position is just a recipe for disaster. What you end up with is conflict and immaturity in the workplace because politics and career have combined to become part of their identity. That's toxic in the type of organization that has historically been disconnected from politics and social causes. It's no surprise this kind of stuff is going on and people are chalking it up to retaliation for this, that or the other thing. In normal companies, people get moved around, demoted or ignored all the time and they don't always blame it on retaliation for political beliefs or for reporting abuse. They blame it on some asshole manager or decide the company isn't for them and they move on. Sounds like google needs a higher degree of professionalism.

kryogen1c 7y ago
Having served in the military, this rings extremely true to me. Most individual traits are eliminated with hair cut and uniform requirements, but anything left is seized upon with extra vigor. This is demonstrated aptly against women. Men blame both failure and success of women on their gender. And the reality? Do women hide in their separated berthings and screen calls for each other? You bet. Do women get promoted because theyre more flirtatious and more easy to get along with? Duh. People that bitch about the above like to focus on those 6 problem women and forget theres 50 men you can barely count on to piss on a fire. Side story: I knew a salty submarine (100% male until ~5 years ago in US) male master chief that summed women in the navy perfectly: women are people; some good, some bad, some in the middle, and if you treat them like sailors, they act like sailors. Point is, non-professional discussion rarely belong in the workplace. Letting those go basically guarantees conflict.
Angostura 7y ago
> HR isn't there to protect the employee. They are there to protect the company while giving the impression they are there for the employees. An overly broad generalisation. In situations where there's a direct conflict between the needs of the company and the employee - yes, absolutely. But those are relatively rare, in my experience,

drevil-v2 7y ago

> There are other stories where someone claims something that can't be proven and that was either not witnessed, or must have been denied by everyone. Yeah it sucks if everyone on your team is protecting a douche, but... is HR supposed to intervene and fire someone because only one person claims something happened? That's the gist of the #believeallwomen movement. No due process or innocent until proven guilty, just one accusation from a person with an identity that has more "oppression" points than your own identity and it is off to the guillotine with you. I do not believe this is the correct way for society to function and thrive. It will self-select for sub-optimal or even outright dystopian outcomes. I wonder how SV tech companies that encourage and hire people with these viewpoints will fare once the money hose runs out?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wolco 7y ago
That's a lawsuit of a movement if it happens in the workplace. What seemed like an enlightened powerpoint presentation that couldn't fail is turning against them. By activity seeking out these viewpoints google should have expected to make internal changes that promoted fairness over value. Google refuses to prioritize empowerment over functioning process and there is a mismatch between what they say and do. Google can't have teams decide by a manager picking who they want because they may be biased. Culturally that's a big change.