3 ms·

I didn't write that that we couldn't, it was about how we could. For example we shouldn't tell a coworker that he/she's pretty, shouldn't get drunk together, a

I didn't write that that we couldn't, it was about how we could. For example we shouldn't tell a coworker that he/she's pretty, shouldn't get drunk together, and a lot of behaviour that is considered flirting and getting to know eachother in Switzerland. In US behaviour outside Google is handled by the company as well, but in Switzerland there are very strict privacy laws and culture that forbid companies to control any part of the life of people outside work. The right to privacy is part of the Swiss constitution, and it's taken there very seriously (to the point where generally the tax authorities don't have the right to look at your bank accounts, unlike in US for example). Edit: I can't reply, so I extend this comment ,,shouldn't'' is not banning. And also what you write that Google may have a problem if harassment happens is true, but I still think you think in US law terms: privacy in Switzerland is like voting right in US: it's like telling that ,,you are not advised to vote for Trump as a president''. Or telling you that ,,you are hired, but you should probably go back to Mexico''. warkdarrior: Again, yes, in US that training is legal and socially acceptable. But the training was in violation of the Swiss constitution...I'm not sure why people in US don't understand that the laws are different in different countries (people from other countries understand it generally). Harassment is a trendy topic right now, but it doesn't trump privacy and the right for not controlling any part of a person's life outside work, even if that's with coworkers, and even if it may lead to a legal problem for Google. In Switzerland people are grownups, they don't need babysitting. I have to add one more thing: Andy Ruby belongs to prison, everybody knows it, and giving us more trainings won't help the main issue, that the top management was/is raping women or coercing them to have sex to keep their jobs.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
TBH I am again skeptical that there was a training that said this. I could buy if there were a training that explained that such behaviors could be construed as harassment under certain circumstances (e.g. if you had previously made advances and been turned down). I could buy if there were a training that told you you should think twice before doing these sorts of things. That's just sensible advice, since if someone does take your behavior as harassment and took the complaint to HR, then you're in a bad situation, at best. A training that banned you from doing those things? I doubt.
- Quarrelsome 6y ago
  Corps have a habit of buying in US services tailored for a US audience and then just blithely pushing that crap out to all their international employees with scant attention about outcomes, its just "mandatory". As such you have to watch some real thoughtless, poorly put together, bottom of the barrel crap so legal can tick a box that diminishes their responsibility. Given the motivations at play here I wouldn't be surprised if they ballsed it up like this.
warkdarrior 6y ago
Typically that type of employee training in US is meant to limit sexual harassment, where a person thinks they are flirting and the co-worker on the receiving end is offended. HR would step in at that point and take action against the harasser, so i see that kind of training about being careful in socializing as a way to warn people about the consequences of their actions.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Castration leads to decreased sexual harassment too. But we don't allow companies to castrate their employees.
- wreath 6y ago
  Is it sexual harassment because it's in the workplace or it's because the receiving end didn't like it/the flirting person or because flirting IS a sexual harassment?
ma2rten 6y ago
I work at Google in California. Unless you have completely different trainings, I don't think your characterization is accurate. For one it doesn't say at all that you should not get drunk together. In fact there are many company events where alcohol is served and some teams keep a stash of liquor in the office.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

TBH I am again skeptical that there was a training that said this. I could buy if there were a training that explained that such behaviors could be construed as harassment under certain circumstances (e.g. if you had previously made advances and been turned down). I could buy if there were a training that told you you should think twice before doing these sorts of things. That's just sensible advice, since if someone does take your behavior as harassment and took the complaint to HR, then you're in a bad situation, at best. A training that banned you from doing those things? I doubt.

Quarrelsome 6y ago
Corps have a habit of buying in US services tailored for a US audience and then just blithely pushing that crap out to all their international employees with scant attention about outcomes, its just "mandatory". As such you have to watch some real thoughtless, poorly put together, bottom of the barrel crap so legal can tick a box that diminishes their responsibility. Given the motivations at play here I wouldn't be surprised if they ballsed it up like this.

warkdarrior 6y ago

Typically that type of employee training in US is meant to limit sexual harassment, where a person thinks they are flirting and the co-worker on the receiving end is offended. HR would step in at that point and take action against the harasser, so i see that kind of training about being careful in socializing as a way to warn people about the consequences of their actions.

im3w1l 6y ago
Castration leads to decreased sexual harassment too. But we don't allow companies to castrate their employees.
wreath 6y ago
Is it sexual harassment because it's in the workplace or it's because the receiving end didn't like it/the flirting person or because flirting IS a sexual harassment?

ma2rten 6y ago

I work at Google in California. Unless you have completely different trainings, I don't think your characterization is accurate. For one it doesn't say at all that you should not get drunk together. In fact there are many company events where alcohol is served and some teams keep a stash of liquor in the office.