5 ms·

> This happened to me last year. I was in the middle of a potential lawsuit for which Kat Herller and I hired feminist lawyers who threatened to sue Google (whi

> This happened to me last year. I was in the middle of a potential lawsuit for which Kat Herller and I hired feminist lawyers who threatened to sue Google (which is when they backed off--before that Google lawyers were prepared to throw us under the bus and our leaders were following as instructed) and the next day I get some random “impact award.” Pure gaslighting. And she was under the impression that her company would value her so much that, not only they wouldn't take the first "clean" opportunity to let her go, but that they'd want her to stay so much that she could leverage it? That's just you not realizing how your company sees you as a litigious/PR disaster timebomb and are tiptoeing around you. The worst part is that there was a path for you to be professional and achieve your goals, but then I guess you don't get to bask in Twitter's righteous indignation that way.

malcolmgreaves 6y ago
Don't ask questions, just fall in line like a good cog in the machine. You shouldn't question the overlords!
adamsea 6y ago
> The worst part is that there was a path for you to be professional and achieve your goals, but then I guess you don't get to bask in Twitter's righteous indignation that way. IMHO we don’t really know if that part (achieving your goals) is true, or not true.
thebladerunner 6y ago
To clarify, the first paragraph of defertoreotar@'s comment is a quote from Timnit Gebru's tweet where she admits to recently conspiring a legal battle against Google, while on Google's payroll. A wolf in sheep's clothing...
- istjohn 6y ago
  I'm not sure why you seem to think that her willingness to assert her rights under the law should discredit her in any way.
  - refulgentis 6y ago
    The thrust of her thread today is that it is shocking how Google dumped her with no warning - it sounds like, instead, they continued employing her for months and months while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company, and the culminating event was making demands for the company to meet if she was to stay. Declining to accept an employee's set of ultimatums, an employee who already engaged in threatening legal action for months and months, is arguably a much clearer framing than "her willingness to assert her rights under the law" Therefore "recently conspiring a legal battle against Google, while on Google's payroll." is worth sharing, it provides information not present in the limited frame of "her willingness to assert her rights under the law"
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > instead, they continued employing her for months and months while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company This doesn't at all sound like the case. It sounds like the company did something aggressive, she got representation who threatened to sue, and the company backed off, and all of this happened over a year ago and is essentially a closed chapter.
      - refulgentis 6y ago
        Sorry, dumb question, which part are you disputing? I must be being too literal. What you called out as "doesn't at all sound like the case": [1: they continued employing her for months and months] [2: while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company] First paragraph of the email OP posted, which I am defending as worth sharing: "This happened to me last year. [[1]: there has been 11+ months, or months and months, since this occurred and she continued employment] I was in the middle of a potential lawsuit for which Kat Herller and I hired feminist lawyers who threatened to sue Google [[2]: her lawyer was threatening to sure the company]"
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        "while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company" My reading is that the situation you're describing is resolved, and has been for quite a while. Thus no lawyer is currently threatening to sue, nor have they for quite a while. Thus: an employee asserted her rights under the law in the past, and the situation was, apparently, resolved to everyone's pleasure. "recently conspiring a legal battle against Google" is a misrepresentation of that.
ianbicking 6y ago
> And she was under the impression that her company would value her so much that, not only they wouldn't take the first "clean" opportunity to let her go, but that they'd want her to stay so much that she could leverage it? In a realpolitik sense you are probably right. But right now I'm going through standard onboarding training and they are VERY explicit that it's not supposed to work this way, and that you are not supposed to retaliate or exclude someone because they make complaints or take actions based on the defense of a protected group (including themselves).
- woko 6y ago
  You are right, but off-topic in this specific context. Indeed, it was neither retaliation, nor exclusion. She offered her employer a "clean" opportunity to let her go, and they accepted it. It will be difficult for her lawyers to prove that she was let go as a retaliation, which it is not. The only thing which is apparent is that her employer did not value her work as much as she thought, so that her demands and her threat to resign (and the tarnishment of the Google brand because of the Twitter threads which she would write about it) would actually turn into a "clean" opportunity to let her go. That is what happens when you are supposed to negotiate, and go the confrontational way. You have to estimate your leverage accurately before the full-blown war, otherwise it is a blitzkrieg.
  - ianbicking 6y ago
    There is "legally liable for retaliation" and "morally liable". I think you are right, they aren't legally liable. I personally try not to be morally liable for an injustice, even if my actions are legally defensible, and I expect the same from the people I work with. I think many people at Google feel similarly, which is why the question of legal liability will not settle the matter internally. But yeah, another lesson from this: never offer to quit.

malcolmgreaves 6y ago

Don't ask questions, just fall in line like a good cog in the machine. You shouldn't question the overlords!

adamsea 6y ago

> The worst part is that there was a path for you to be professional and achieve your goals, but then I guess you don't get to bask in Twitter's righteous indignation that way. IMHO we don’t really know if that part (achieving your goals) is true, or not true.

thebladerunner 6y ago

To clarify, the first paragraph of defertoreotar@'s comment is a quote from Timnit Gebru's tweet where she admits to recently conspiring a legal battle against Google, while on Google's payroll. A wolf in sheep's clothing...

istjohn 6y ago
I'm not sure why you seem to think that her willingness to assert her rights under the law should discredit her in any way.
- refulgentis 6y ago
  The thrust of her thread today is that it is shocking how Google dumped her with no warning - it sounds like, instead, they continued employing her for months and months while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company, and the culminating event was making demands for the company to meet if she was to stay. Declining to accept an employee's set of ultimatums, an employee who already engaged in threatening legal action for months and months, is arguably a much clearer framing than "her willingness to assert her rights under the law" Therefore "recently conspiring a legal battle against Google, while on Google's payroll." is worth sharing, it provides information not present in the limited frame of "her willingness to assert her rights under the law"
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > instead, they continued employing her for months and months while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company This doesn't at all sound like the case. It sounds like the company did something aggressive, she got representation who threatened to sue, and the company backed off, and all of this happened over a year ago and is essentially a closed chapter.
    - refulgentis 6y ago
      Sorry, dumb question, which part are you disputing? I must be being too literal. What you called out as "doesn't at all sound like the case": [1: they continued employing her for months and months] [2: while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company] First paragraph of the email OP posted, which I am defending as worth sharing: "This happened to me last year. [[1]: there has been 11+ months, or months and months, since this occurred and she continued employment] I was in the middle of a potential lawsuit for which Kat Herller and I hired feminist lawyers who threatened to sue Google [[2]: her lawyer was threatening to sure the company]"
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        "while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company" My reading is that the situation you're describing is resolved, and has been for quite a while. Thus no lawyer is currently threatening to sue, nor have they for quite a while. Thus: an employee asserted her rights under the law in the past, and the situation was, apparently, resolved to everyone's pleasure. "recently conspiring a legal battle against Google" is a misrepresentation of that.

ianbicking 6y ago

> And she was under the impression that her company would value her so much that, not only they wouldn't take the first "clean" opportunity to let her go, but that they'd want her to stay so much that she could leverage it? In a realpolitik sense you are probably right. But right now I'm going through standard onboarding training and they are VERY explicit that it's not supposed to work this way, and that you are not supposed to retaliate or exclude someone because they make complaints or take actions based on the defense of a protected group (including themselves).

woko 6y ago
You are right, but off-topic in this specific context. Indeed, it was neither retaliation, nor exclusion. She offered her employer a "clean" opportunity to let her go, and they accepted it. It will be difficult for her lawyers to prove that she was let go as a retaliation, which it is not. The only thing which is apparent is that her employer did not value her work as much as she thought, so that her demands and her threat to resign (and the tarnishment of the Google brand because of the Twitter threads which she would write about it) would actually turn into a "clean" opportunity to let her go. That is what happens when you are supposed to negotiate, and go the confrontational way. You have to estimate your leverage accurately before the full-blown war, otherwise it is a blitzkrieg.
- ianbicking 6y ago
  There is "legally liable for retaliation" and "morally liable". I think you are right, they aren't legally liable. I personally try not to be morally liable for an injustice, even if my actions are legally defensible, and I expect the same from the people I work with. I think many people at Google feel similarly, which is why the question of legal liability will not settle the matter internally. But yeah, another lesson from this: never offer to quit.