8 ms·

I consider this and the other article by the international relations guy to be very one-sided accounts. A couple of people are unhappy, out of a workforce of 1

I consider this and the other article by the international relations guy to be very one-sided accounts. A couple of people are unhappy, out of a workforce of 100000. So what? It also mostly seems to be political reasons. I would imagine a lot of people working for Google just want to do a good job for a good salary, not make Google a vehicle for their political opinions. I think people pushing their political agenda within a company tend to harm the company and it should therefore be ok to fire them. That said, I haven't wanted to work for Google for years. But I am from the opposite side from these veterans. I felt it was very unjust when James Damore was fired, and I really don't want to work at a place that distrusts its workers so much that it forces them to go through diversity trainings and things like that. I would feel "unsafe" at Google.

adamsea 7y ago
Did you know that Damor filed a complaint with the National Labor Board? “ ... an internal NLRB memo found that his firing was legal. The memo, which was not released publicly until February 2018, said that while the law shielded him from being fired solely for criticizing Google, it did not protect discriminatory statements, that his memo's "statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected", and that these "discriminatory statements", not his criticisms of Google, were the reason for his firing.“ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_...
- adventskalender 7y ago
  I know he sued Google, not details, though. This statement by the NBL just proves to me that the NBL is a batshit crazy untrustworthy institution. (Add the NBL to the list of places I wouldn't want to work for...). I guess that is just the modern world, people have so different views (perspectives) that no reconciliation seems possible. In any case, no need to discuss the Damore memo again, I just wanted to point out that there are different sides, and these recent articles seem to represent only one side.
  - adamsea 7y ago
    What in particular about the statement do you see as batshit crazy? FYI I erred - it’s the NLRB not the NLB - my bad.
    - adventskalender 7y ago
      "statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected" I actually read the memo by Damore. But OK, "batshit crazy" goes more for the "movement" as a whole. This is just crazy. Or maybe just legal weirdness?
jpmoral 7y ago
>I think people pushing their political agenda within a company tend to harm the company and it should therefore be ok to fire them. >That said, I haven't wanted to work for Google for years. But I am from the opposite side from these veterans. >I felt it was very unjust when James Damore was fired Well, it can be argued that he was fired for similar reasons.. Are you saying that it's okay depending on which 'side' (a whole other story) someone is on?
- userbinator 7y ago
  I didn't follow it too closely, but the whole Damore thing seemed like it was more of a reaction to the increasingly political nature of the company.
  - jpmoral 7y ago
    Neither did I, just pointing out that someone's POV might colour what they perceive as justified vs not.
- adventskalender 7y ago
  "Well, it can be argued that he was fired for similar reasons.. Are you saying that it's okay depending on which 'side' (a whole other story) someone is on? " Good point. I guess what feels particularly unfair to me is that (afaik) Damore published his paper on an internal board, after having been encouraged to state his opinions in a diversity training session. He didn't start out accusing Google publicly. Also, another bit that feels unfair to me is the interpretation of his memo as "hateful". Other than that - I personally think companies should be allowed to fire whoever they want. Them firing Damore (among other things) just makes them a company I don't want to work for.
hnarn 7y ago
> I really don't want to work at a place that distrusts its workers so much that it forces them to go through diversity trainings and things like that. So for the sake of argument, if you worked at a company where one of your colleagues was being overtly racist and made another employee uncomfortable, you as a third party would feel "unsafe" by the diversity training that this person would be required to attend (likely not even only for ethical or corporate reasons, but likely also legal)?
- catalogia 7y ago
  If somebody was being overtly racist, I would not feel better knowing that they've then been put through diversity training. Why? Because I don't think it likely that diversity training would convince the racist to stop being a racist. It may teach the racist to conceal his racism, which from the corporation's perspective might well be good enough, but a crypto-racist is still a racist and would still make me feel uncomfortable. Or to put this another way, how many sessions of diversity training would you need to put James Damore through before the women of google felt comfortable working with him?
  - hnarn 7y ago
    Nobody puts anyone in diversity training to change their mind. It's a way of explaining very thoroughly how you are expected to act in the workplace, and if you choose to ignore it, there is a good foundation to let you go because you were very clearly informed of the rules.
    - adventskalender 7y ago
      That's a completely different way to frame it. "Here is a course on how to avoid the legal pitfalls in the workplace" is something I might be able to accept. Indoctrinating people on why they should behave in a certain way is a different matter. And again, the insult of assuming employees are in need of such training.
      - jrockway 7y ago
smt88 7y ago
> I would feel "unsafe" at Google. What would make you feel unsafe? It seems like you're suggesting the answer is diversity trainings. What about them would make you feel that way?
- adventskalender 7y ago
  That putting forth rational thoughts for discussion would label me a hateful, sexist person and get me fired? That the company bestows powers on "social justice warriors" (as is demonstrated for example by implementing their demands for diversity trainings) and put me at the mercy of these people (whom I consider borderline insane)?
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    You've opened by suggesting people you disagree with might have mental health issues. You are going well beyond 'putting forth rational thoughts for discussion' already.
    - adventskalender 7y ago
      This is not a Google internal discussion, though, and I am not working for YCombinator. I am stating the fact that I would feel unsafe working for a company like Google. Whether my feeling of being unsafe is warranted is up for discussion. That I have the feeling (or expect to have it) is a fact. By the way, forcing people through diversity training is also like that: it is saying "you are racist and need to be reprogrammed". That is likewise not a good entry for discussion. Except that compared to my comment on an internet forum, it is official company policy.
      - Pfhreak 7y ago
        I don't disagree with your feelings. Those are totally valid (even if my feelings about it are different than yours.) I'm just suggesting you might want to take some time to be introspective. Personally, I read many of your comments as emotionally charged personal opinions rather than 'rational thoughts for discussion'. I'm not going to invalidate what you feel, but I do suggest that you might not be effectively translating those feelings into rational discussion points as much as you think you are?
zozbot234 7y ago
Some people would argue that James Damore was fired precisely because he chose to make Google workplace discussions "a vehicle for [his] political opinions". I don't think you can avoid "politics" of some sort in the workplace, no matter how hard you try. Are you "harming" the company by trying to advocate for improvements in workplace conditions? It depends on who you ask.
- adventskalender 7y ago
  He didn't, though - he published his memo in an internal discussion group (after being encouraged to think about solutions in a diversity training session), and it was published widely without his consent, making him a worldwide outcast. IIRC - it's been a while.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

adamsea 7y ago

Did you know that Damor filed a complaint with the National Labor Board? “ ... an internal NLRB memo found that his firing was legal. The memo, which was not released publicly until February 2018, said that while the law shielded him from being fired solely for criticizing Google, it did not protect discriminatory statements, that his memo's "statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected", and that these "discriminatory statements", not his criticisms of Google, were the reason for his firing.“ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_...

adventskalender 7y ago
I know he sued Google, not details, though. This statement by the NBL just proves to me that the NBL is a batshit crazy untrustworthy institution. (Add the NBL to the list of places I wouldn't want to work for...). I guess that is just the modern world, people have so different views (perspectives) that no reconciliation seems possible. In any case, no need to discuss the Damore memo again, I just wanted to point out that there are different sides, and these recent articles seem to represent only one side.
- adamsea 7y ago
  What in particular about the statement do you see as batshit crazy? FYI I erred - it’s the NLRB not the NLB - my bad.
  - adventskalender 7y ago
    "statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected" I actually read the memo by Damore. But OK, "batshit crazy" goes more for the "movement" as a whole. This is just crazy. Or maybe just legal weirdness?

jpmoral 7y ago

>I think people pushing their political agenda within a company tend to harm the company and it should therefore be ok to fire them. >That said, I haven't wanted to work for Google for years. But I am from the opposite side from these veterans. >I felt it was very unjust when James Damore was fired Well, it can be argued that he was fired for similar reasons.. Are you saying that it's okay depending on which 'side' (a whole other story) someone is on?

userbinator 7y ago
I didn't follow it too closely, but the whole Damore thing seemed like it was more of a reaction to the increasingly political nature of the company.
- jpmoral 7y ago
  Neither did I, just pointing out that someone's POV might colour what they perceive as justified vs not.
adventskalender 7y ago
"Well, it can be argued that he was fired for similar reasons.. Are you saying that it's okay depending on which 'side' (a whole other story) someone is on? " Good point. I guess what feels particularly unfair to me is that (afaik) Damore published his paper on an internal board, after having been encouraged to state his opinions in a diversity training session. He didn't start out accusing Google publicly. Also, another bit that feels unfair to me is the interpretation of his memo as "hateful". Other than that - I personally think companies should be allowed to fire whoever they want. Them firing Damore (among other things) just makes them a company I don't want to work for.

hnarn 7y ago

> I really don't want to work at a place that distrusts its workers so much that it forces them to go through diversity trainings and things like that. So for the sake of argument, if you worked at a company where one of your colleagues was being overtly racist and made another employee uncomfortable, you as a third party would feel "unsafe" by the diversity training that this person would be required to attend (likely not even only for ethical or corporate reasons, but likely also legal)?

catalogia 7y ago
If somebody was being overtly racist, I would not feel better knowing that they've then been put through diversity training. Why? Because I don't think it likely that diversity training would convince the racist to stop being a racist. It may teach the racist to conceal his racism, which from the corporation's perspective might well be good enough, but a crypto-racist is still a racist and would still make me feel uncomfortable. Or to put this another way, how many sessions of diversity training would you need to put James Damore through before the women of google felt comfortable working with him?
- hnarn 7y ago
  Nobody puts anyone in diversity training to change their mind. It's a way of explaining very thoroughly how you are expected to act in the workplace, and if you choose to ignore it, there is a good foundation to let you go because you were very clearly informed of the rules.
  - adventskalender 7y ago
    That's a completely different way to frame it. "Here is a course on how to avoid the legal pitfalls in the workplace" is something I might be able to accept. Indoctrinating people on why they should behave in a certain way is a different matter. And again, the insult of assuming employees are in need of such training.
    - jrockway 7y ago

smt88 7y ago

> I would feel "unsafe" at Google. What would make you feel unsafe? It seems like you're suggesting the answer is diversity trainings. What about them would make you feel that way?

adventskalender 7y ago
That putting forth rational thoughts for discussion would label me a hateful, sexist person and get me fired? That the company bestows powers on "social justice warriors" (as is demonstrated for example by implementing their demands for diversity trainings) and put me at the mercy of these people (whom I consider borderline insane)?
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  You've opened by suggesting people you disagree with might have mental health issues. You are going well beyond 'putting forth rational thoughts for discussion' already.
  - adventskalender 7y ago
    This is not a Google internal discussion, though, and I am not working for YCombinator. I am stating the fact that I would feel unsafe working for a company like Google. Whether my feeling of being unsafe is warranted is up for discussion. That I have the feeling (or expect to have it) is a fact. By the way, forcing people through diversity training is also like that: it is saying "you are racist and need to be reprogrammed". That is likewise not a good entry for discussion. Except that compared to my comment on an internet forum, it is official company policy.
    - Pfhreak 7y ago
      I don't disagree with your feelings. Those are totally valid (even if my feelings about it are different than yours.) I'm just suggesting you might want to take some time to be introspective. Personally, I read many of your comments as emotionally charged personal opinions rather than 'rational thoughts for discussion'. I'm not going to invalidate what you feel, but I do suggest that you might not be effectively translating those feelings into rational discussion points as much as you think you are?

zozbot234 7y ago

Some people would argue that James Damore was fired precisely because he chose to make Google workplace discussions "a vehicle for [his] political opinions". I don't think you can avoid "politics" of some sort in the workplace, no matter how hard you try. Are you "harming" the company by trying to advocate for improvements in workplace conditions? It depends on who you ask.

adventskalender 7y ago
He didn't, though - he published his memo in an internal discussion group (after being encouraged to think about solutions in a diversity training session), and it was published widely without his consent, making him a worldwide outcast. IIRC - it's been a while.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]