10 ms·

It's pretty wild that he was there since 2002, he's practically a founder.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
He specifies that he was there over 20 years, prior to the company being incorporated, and only joined full-time in 2002. That being said: David Drummond is a terrible person[0], who only has been there this long because of Larry Page and Sergey Brin's protection, because they are terrible people too[1][2]. The way Google's highest executives have treated women is disgusting and inexcusable. And while Drummond may not be getting an exit package, he sold off $200 million in stock this past year. Evil is still very, very good business. [0] https://medium.com/@jennifer.blakely/my-time-at-google-and-after-b0af688ec3ab https://medium.com/@jennifer.blakely/my-time-at-google-and-a... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-employees-masseuse-room-2018-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-employees... [2] https://fossbytes.com/larry-page-andy-rubin-150m-sexual-harassment-lawsuit/ https://fossbytes.com/larry-page-andy-rubin-150m-sexual-hara...
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Holy crap, that is some story.
- jakobegger 7y ago
  > After our son was born, I received a call from HR notifying me that one of us would have to leave the legal department where David was now Chief Legal Officer (...) This sounds like the worst possible policy I can think of. Get pregnant from your boss, and HR kicks you from the team! How does that help anyone?
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    > How does that help anyone? It helps the boss, of course.
  - snowwrestler 7y ago
    The right way to implement a policy like that is to say that supervisors are not permitted to have relationships with their subordinates. That way, if such a relationship develops against the rules, it's clear upon whom the consequences should fall: the supervisor. Supervisors get more money and power from the organization than their subordinates, so it's fair for the organization to have higher expectations for the behavior of the supervisor than the subordinate.
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      Supervisors also have more skin in the game so, quite trivially, making the supervisor responsible also means it's inherently easier to enforce that policy! The fact that they'd try to shift that burden onto the subordinate just tells you how much they care about following the rules, i.e. not at all.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      Agreed, but a bigger factor is the power differential, IMO: the boss has the higher need to maintain at least an image of impartiality, and it's harder for the subordinate to resist advances knowing that the giver is key in deciding when they can and can't get time off, pay rises, etc.
      - snowwrestler 7y ago
        Great point.
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      Google had one that said exactly that when I joined in 2009, but that post-dates the alleged affair(s) here, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was introduced directly because of this. Drummond wasn't the only one engaged in such shenanigans, too - I can think of at least half a dozen executives (including both founders) who engaged in relationships within their reporting chain.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    > Get pregnant from your boss There isn't much anyone can do to prevent disaster after this.
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    It's not a punishment, it's to prevent nepotism and moral hazard. I think normally they will try to place you in the same role in some other project but that may not have been possible in this case(?)
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      The way you implement that is by proactively asking for a transfer before the relationship comes to light. If you don't do that, this is essentially proof that you were seeking to abuse the situation in some way hence penalties (on the supervisor, see my side comment) are very much appropriate.
    - unapologetic 7y ago
      No, it's punishment. It's not down out of cruelty, it's done out of greed. He's more important, so even though he should absolutely 1000% be the one on the chopping block, she gets forced to sales. Then he uses the financial hardship and promises from him to get her to quit. How to tidy up a disastrous bit of professional misconduct in just a few easy completely sociopathic steps.
  - ProAm 7y ago
    They knew the relationship was against company policy from the get go, what did they think was going happen? Two people made a poor decision and have to live with the consequences? > aware that our relationship was in violation of Google’s new policy which went from “discouraging” direct-reporting-line relationships to outright banning them.
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      Both people knew it was wrong, but Larry and Sergey's best buddy got promoted to become one of the most powerful executives on the planet and paid hundreds of millions of dollars, and the woman got pushed out of her job and left to support their kid herself.
      - ProAm 7y ago
        She was forced out because it was against company policy. She wasnt forced out of google, but to a different department. And she voluntarily quit google, she was never fired. It's a sad story, but it's just adults making their own decisions that don't work out. > so I quit Google, signing whatever documents they required because likewise, I wanted to protect him
        ocdtrekkie 7y ago
        And David wasn't forced out for violating company policy because...? He's a man? He's Larry and Sergey's friend?
        ProAm 7y ago
        No one was forced out, HR said one of them had to leave. We dont know anything beyond that she was the one to change departments. She wasnt fired.
        sokoloff 7y ago
        She worked for him in the legal department. If she's asked to change departments, what's someone presumably trained and skilled in law going to do? Start coding? Run a product team? Do sales?
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    I wonder what they would have said if her response had been, "OK, David can leave. I'm fine right here." It's hardly like they could fire her for refusing to leave her job after her boss knocked her up. Unfortunately all these kinds of hypotheticals that come up in these situations are impossible to test, because the person without power always has too much on the line to stand up and fight.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago
  Well, she thought that he'd marry, and stay faithful to her. She knew the deal, should be happy with child support...the rest is bitter grapes
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    You clearly did not read the linked article.
    - ProAm 7y ago
      Yes, this is a woman who entered a relationship and it didnt work out. Ive definitely read it and this is not a #metoo story. He didnt force himself up on, he didnt take advantage of her, he didnt threaten her, he didnt demand she date him, it's about dating someone at work when there are clear rules around it. No one said she had to leave the department, but that one of them would have to leave. It's a tragically sad story, especially for the child, but this was two consenting adults in an adult relationship that was full of bad choices.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        Well, then maybe you read the story but did not understand it. That's fine with me, but I did read the story and that is not my takeaway at all. For starters, there is a clear abuse of power here with one party being the senior person at the company suggesting that things will be 'ok' when clearly there was a plan all along to create a situation of asymmetry and dependency, followed up with a lot of very mean and manipulative action. Besides using the child as leverage against the mother there is a clear - and continuous - act in the self interest of the dominant party, more wealthy, still employed and willing to use every dirty tactic in the book and a couple I'd never even seen before against the other. Utterly revolting and not simply 'two consenting adults in an adult relationship full of bad choices'. That's victim blaming at its worst.
        ProAm 7y ago
        An abuse of power? They had an affair, how was that a plan to create a situation of asymmetry and dependency? How did she not know this was a bad idea all along? Did she think a person willing to cheat on a spouse was going to be a good person down the road? > David and I began an affair shortly after that night and we were together for years. She made a bad choice in life. She had an affair with a married man that worked in her department, when she knew such a relationship was against company policy. No one said she had to leave the department, only that one of them had to. Everything that happened after, while terribly cruel, is not anything you dont see frequently when a relationship falls apart that involves children. It's very sad story but I am not victim blaming anyone, they are both at fault. But they both willingly went into this situation with their eyes open knowing full well what the consequences could be.
- rdtsc 7y ago
  Oh wow. > David would go for months or even years at a time completely ignoring my pleas to see his son — not even so much as a text to us, despite living about a mile away. I can see not having the desire to be with her and break up the relationship, but abandoning his child and not seeing them for years at a time is downright evil. It's so strange to hear how Google touts itself to be at the forefront of inclusivity and tolerance, and here their executive acting this way for decades and nobody does anything.
  - hackinthebochs 7y ago
    What is "evil" about not wanting to see a child that you presumably didn't want to begin with? A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can abort. Men don't have that option. But that doesn't obligate them to an emotional bond with the child.
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      Read the article - he wanted the son until he didn't, and then he peaced out.
    - vanusa 7y ago
      Okay - "evil" may have been a touch too strong. I'll go with "scummy and reprehensible". And: "deeply at odds with the ethical standards that Google once claimed to stand for (not that we ever took them seriously when they said those things)."
      - hackinthebochs 7y ago
        I can endorse scummy and reprehensible.
      - senordevnyc 7y ago
        Do we really want companies firing employees for personal morality issues that have zero bearing on their ability to do their job?
- throwaway490194 7y ago
  Yes they are terrible people too. But "the way they have treated women"? ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS? The women who participated in these extra-marital affairs are every bit as evil!
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    Nah, women are victims with no agency, men are predators. Get with the times!
    - throwaway490194 7y ago
      LOL. They're BOTH narcissists and narcissism is genetic so the baby she popped out will be a narcissist as well.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 7y ago
  Please keep the "terrible person" trope off HN. The online call-out culture is good for shaming and indignation, but it wrecks curious conversation. Here we want curious conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    Does this extend to conversations about Trump as well?
    - dang 7y ago
      Two answers. First: sure it does. It's not about the person, it's about ourselves and what things like personal attacks do to the community [1]. The second answer is more pragmatic: in practice, it's much easier to simply ask "please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar" [2]. Everyone understands that. If we say "please don't do personal attacks" or "please don't do online shaming" about a major political figure, people mistake that for an expression of political support and object sharply. It's not worth the confusion, and I only have so much energy for explaining that it doesn't mean we're Trump supporters or communists or whatever. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20maybe%20you%20don%27t%20owe%20better&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20partisan&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

He specifies that he was there over 20 years, prior to the company being incorporated, and only joined full-time in 2002. That being said: David Drummond is a terrible person[0], who only has been there this long because of Larry Page and Sergey Brin's protection, because they are terrible people too[1][2]. The way Google's highest executives have treated women is disgusting and inexcusable. And while Drummond may not be getting an exit package, he sold off $200 million in stock this past year. Evil is still very, very good business. [0] https://medium.com/@jennifer.blakely/my-time-at-google-and-after-b0af688ec3ab https://medium.com/@jennifer.blakely/my-time-at-google-and-a... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-employees-masseuse-room-2018-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-employees... [2] https://fossbytes.com/larry-page-andy-rubin-150m-sexual-harassment-lawsuit/ https://fossbytes.com/larry-page-andy-rubin-150m-sexual-hara...

jacquesm 7y ago
Holy crap, that is some story.
jakobegger 7y ago
> After our son was born, I received a call from HR notifying me that one of us would have to leave the legal department where David was now Chief Legal Officer (...) This sounds like the worst possible policy I can think of. Get pregnant from your boss, and HR kicks you from the team! How does that help anyone?
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  > How does that help anyone? It helps the boss, of course.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  The right way to implement a policy like that is to say that supervisors are not permitted to have relationships with their subordinates. That way, if such a relationship develops against the rules, it's clear upon whom the consequences should fall: the supervisor. Supervisors get more money and power from the organization than their subordinates, so it's fair for the organization to have higher expectations for the behavior of the supervisor than the subordinate.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    Supervisors also have more skin in the game so, quite trivially, making the supervisor responsible also means it's inherently easier to enforce that policy! The fact that they'd try to shift that burden onto the subordinate just tells you how much they care about following the rules, i.e. not at all.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    Agreed, but a bigger factor is the power differential, IMO: the boss has the higher need to maintain at least an image of impartiality, and it's harder for the subordinate to resist advances knowing that the giver is key in deciding when they can and can't get time off, pay rises, etc.
    - snowwrestler 7y ago
      Great point.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    Google had one that said exactly that when I joined in 2009, but that post-dates the alleged affair(s) here, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was introduced directly because of this. Drummond wasn't the only one engaged in such shenanigans, too - I can think of at least half a dozen executives (including both founders) who engaged in relationships within their reporting chain.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  > Get pregnant from your boss There isn't much anyone can do to prevent disaster after this.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  It's not a punishment, it's to prevent nepotism and moral hazard. I think normally they will try to place you in the same role in some other project but that may not have been possible in this case(?)
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    The way you implement that is by proactively asking for a transfer before the relationship comes to light. If you don't do that, this is essentially proof that you were seeking to abuse the situation in some way hence penalties (on the supervisor, see my side comment) are very much appropriate.
  - unapologetic 7y ago
    No, it's punishment. It's not down out of cruelty, it's done out of greed. He's more important, so even though he should absolutely 1000% be the one on the chopping block, she gets forced to sales. Then he uses the financial hardship and promises from him to get her to quit. How to tidy up a disastrous bit of professional misconduct in just a few easy completely sociopathic steps.
- ProAm 7y ago
  They knew the relationship was against company policy from the get go, what did they think was going happen? Two people made a poor decision and have to live with the consequences? > aware that our relationship was in violation of Google’s new policy which went from “discouraging” direct-reporting-line relationships to outright banning them.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Both people knew it was wrong, but Larry and Sergey's best buddy got promoted to become one of the most powerful executives on the planet and paid hundreds of millions of dollars, and the woman got pushed out of her job and left to support their kid herself.
    - ProAm 7y ago
      She was forced out because it was against company policy. She wasnt forced out of google, but to a different department. And she voluntarily quit google, she was never fired. It's a sad story, but it's just adults making their own decisions that don't work out. > so I quit Google, signing whatever documents they required because likewise, I wanted to protect him
      - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
        And David wasn't forced out for violating company policy because...? He's a man? He's Larry and Sergey's friend?
        ProAm 7y ago
        No one was forced out, HR said one of them had to leave. We dont know anything beyond that she was the one to change departments. She wasnt fired.
        sokoloff 7y ago
        She worked for him in the legal department. If she's asked to change departments, what's someone presumably trained and skilled in law going to do? Start coding? Run a product team? Do sales?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  I wonder what they would have said if her response had been, "OK, David can leave. I'm fine right here." It's hardly like they could fire her for refusing to leave her job after her boss knocked her up. Unfortunately all these kinds of hypotheticals that come up in these situations are impossible to test, because the person without power always has too much on the line to stand up and fight.
onetimemanytime 7y ago
Well, she thought that he'd marry, and stay faithful to her. She knew the deal, should be happy with child support...the rest is bitter grapes
- jacquesm 7y ago
  You clearly did not read the linked article.
  - ProAm 7y ago
    Yes, this is a woman who entered a relationship and it didnt work out. Ive definitely read it and this is not a #metoo story. He didnt force himself up on, he didnt take advantage of her, he didnt threaten her, he didnt demand she date him, it's about dating someone at work when there are clear rules around it. No one said she had to leave the department, but that one of them would have to leave. It's a tragically sad story, especially for the child, but this was two consenting adults in an adult relationship that was full of bad choices.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      Well, then maybe you read the story but did not understand it. That's fine with me, but I did read the story and that is not my takeaway at all. For starters, there is a clear abuse of power here with one party being the senior person at the company suggesting that things will be 'ok' when clearly there was a plan all along to create a situation of asymmetry and dependency, followed up with a lot of very mean and manipulative action. Besides using the child as leverage against the mother there is a clear - and continuous - act in the self interest of the dominant party, more wealthy, still employed and willing to use every dirty tactic in the book and a couple I'd never even seen before against the other. Utterly revolting and not simply 'two consenting adults in an adult relationship full of bad choices'. That's victim blaming at its worst.
      - ProAm 7y ago
        An abuse of power? They had an affair, how was that a plan to create a situation of asymmetry and dependency? How did she not know this was a bad idea all along? Did she think a person willing to cheat on a spouse was going to be a good person down the road? > David and I began an affair shortly after that night and we were together for years. She made a bad choice in life. She had an affair with a married man that worked in her department, when she knew such a relationship was against company policy. No one said she had to leave the department, only that one of them had to. Everything that happened after, while terribly cruel, is not anything you dont see frequently when a relationship falls apart that involves children. It's very sad story but I am not victim blaming anyone, they are both at fault. But they both willingly went into this situation with their eyes open knowing full well what the consequences could be.
rdtsc 7y ago
Oh wow. > David would go for months or even years at a time completely ignoring my pleas to see his son — not even so much as a text to us, despite living about a mile away. I can see not having the desire to be with her and break up the relationship, but abandoning his child and not seeing them for years at a time is downright evil. It's so strange to hear how Google touts itself to be at the forefront of inclusivity and tolerance, and here their executive acting this way for decades and nobody does anything.
- hackinthebochs 7y ago
  What is "evil" about not wanting to see a child that you presumably didn't want to begin with? A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can abort. Men don't have that option. But that doesn't obligate them to an emotional bond with the child.
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    Read the article - he wanted the son until he didn't, and then he peaced out.
  - vanusa 7y ago
    Okay - "evil" may have been a touch too strong. I'll go with "scummy and reprehensible". And: "deeply at odds with the ethical standards that Google once claimed to stand for (not that we ever took them seriously when they said those things)."
    - hackinthebochs 7y ago
      I can endorse scummy and reprehensible.
    - senordevnyc 7y ago
      Do we really want companies firing employees for personal morality issues that have zero bearing on their ability to do their job?
throwaway490194 7y ago
Yes they are terrible people too. But "the way they have treated women"? ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS? The women who participated in these extra-marital affairs are every bit as evil!
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  Nah, women are victims with no agency, men are predators. Get with the times!
  - throwaway490194 7y ago
    LOL. They're BOTH narcissists and narcissism is genetic so the baby she popped out will be a narcissist as well.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dang 7y ago
Please keep the "terrible person" trope off HN. The online call-out culture is good for shaming and indignation, but it wrecks curious conversation. Here we want curious conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  Does this extend to conversations about Trump as well?
  - dang 7y ago
    Two answers. First: sure it does. It's not about the person, it's about ourselves and what things like personal attacks do to the community [1]. The second answer is more pragmatic: in practice, it's much easier to simply ask "please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar" [2]. Everyone understands that. If we say "please don't do personal attacks" or "please don't do online shaming" about a major political figure, people mistake that for an expression of political support and object sharply. It's not worth the confusion, and I only have so much energy for explaining that it doesn't mean we're Trump supporters or communists or whatever. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20maybe%20you%20don%27t%20owe%20better&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20partisan&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...