4 ms·

The takeaway I get from the comments here is, "HR isn't your friend." Okay, so what should she have done about being harassed? She ignored it for a year. If it'

The takeaway I get from the comments here is, "HR isn't your friend." Okay, so what should she have done about being harassed? She ignored it for a year. If it's naive to go to HR then what is the "not naive" option? I see 3 options: (1) Put up with harassment, (2) Quit her job (forgoing her salary and stock) or (3) Go to HR. She tried (1) for a year, then tried (3) which ultimately led to (2). What is the "not naive" way to deal with being harassed?

loopz 6y ago
Not saying she was wrong, but getting help for systemic issues has never ever helped much. There's very little you can do but ignore assholes, or learn how to tear them a new one (you need to become damaged first). Anything in between only backfire and drag you down. That workplace environment was already dystopia. Realizing it sooner is preferable. There are every option before leaving too. But you rarely win with such people, so you only do it because it's the right thing to do. Don't ask what you should do. Do.
alpha_squared 6y ago
No one has really given an answer besides what you've stated. Personally, I have no idea what the best option is; my cynicism tells me that making it public may be the best course of action, though it's a very scorched-earth approach. By making the harassment known publicly (within the workplace, possibly outside), it forces HR's hand in dealing with the abuser rather than the abused. It also has a chance to backfire spectacularly and alienate the person. It probably would result in alienation even if the abuser was dealt with. There's really no good answer here, just varying degrees of bad ones. Perhaps there needs to be a fine against companies that attempt to silence/remove the victims, that'd create a financial incentive for HR to protect the company by removing the abuser.
js2 6y ago
My inclination would be to document as much as possible and talk to a lawyer for advice.
abandonliberty 6y ago
Don't ignore it for a year. She did very well to tell her lead that behavior made her uncomfortable. When it continued, it was time to bring it up with HR or her manager. Looks like the stress of living with it for a year made her want more action than HR provided for a first offence. If you re-read the article, it's not clear where Google HR is at fault. The investigation took too long? They didn't make him move his desk, work from home, or take leave? He was likely told a repeat incidence would lead to termination. She would have mentioned if the behavior continued, and doesn't. Her peer group/friends thought the behavior was mild, but she wanted Google to punish him for betrayals of her past. A more severe response wasn't warranted for a mild first offence (lots of people like this never reoffend). It wasn't bad enough to change his position, and obviously you can't ask the victim to change teams. Maybe more could have been done to help smooth their relationship, like an apology. Her career unravelling comes after this.
- js2 6y ago
  > Maybe more could have been done to help smooth their relationship, like an apology. Total tangent. I've recently watched a lot of the Dardenne brothers' films, and in one of them, The Kid with a Bike, the kid has assaulted and robbed a man and his son. He's caught, and there's a scene where his foster mom pays restitution directly to the man, but also, the kid apologies to the man he assaulted. (The man's son refuses to accept an apology.) It struck me as a very humane form of justice, and I think we could do more of that in the U.S. So yes, an apology I think can go a long way.
  - candiodari 6y ago
    This is a double criminal admission of guilt (triple if that payment can be proven), and probably said foster mom will repeat what she's done to the police, if prompted. If that person or the son decides to go the police and the foster mom or "the kid" repeats that, there is no coming back from that in court. And if there is even a tangential case to be made that it was an assault, may result in a year's incarceration for the kid, minimum (and punishment for the foster mom too, if the police really wants to). Can be over 10 years incarceration. In other words, exposing yourself like that can, quite literally, end their childhood entirely. Don't do that. This is what we've been taught is the right thing to do, it's moral, but, crucially, it's not lawful. A CPS kid may very well see the whole world as their enemy and therefore it is a near-guarantee that some people are out to get these kids. If you do this against someone like that, the kids' life is destroyed. As soon as this gets told to the police there is nothing a lawyer or even their youth worker can do to rectify the situation from that point on. From that point it makes zero sense to try to rectify the situation with the victim, it can only makes things worse, it cannot make anything better. This is criminal law, the victim has no rights. Only the judge and public prosecutor have any influence on the situation from that point forward. You should NOT do this, for that reason. I get that the result is going to be stimulating that behavior (problem is that incarcerating said kid is also stimulating that behavior, because the consequences are too great and take away the chance for a normal future, leaving fewer options, but always leaving the option of criminality). Otherwise: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=2687 https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=2687 Note that letting the kid get away with it entirely DOES provide multiple options for that behavior to stop, and cannot be so easily defeated by so many people. He could see someone else get caught. It could be a phase. He could get beaten up by the next victim. He could choose to take responsibility for something (girlfriend, a kid, even a dog, or, even more extreme, his foster mom could get sick or in trouble and depend on him) and see this as an unacceptable risk, ... What I'm saying is that firstly, this choice isn't as wrong as it first appears, and second isn't nearly as vulnerable to so many people. Many people will not react positively to putting yourself in such an extreme vulnerable position and will exploit it. For money, for ego, for ... it doesn't matter. You cannot risk the criminal justice system for a kid, you just can't, it just isn't a moral choice. You have a kid, you unconditionally defend them against anyone. In private talk to them, yell if you must, but you unconditionally defend them everywhere. I would also like to add that this "humane form of justice" will have almost opposite effects depending on the trust level between all involved parties. If that trust is lacking, no matter where exactly, the foster mom's behavior strongly stimulates criminal behavior by the foster kid, including against herself. Trust issues between foster mom and kid? This will backfire. Trust issues between foster mom and either victim? Will very likely backfire. Only if you have near-perfect trust between all parties (and let's not forget one party just used violence against another, so lacking trust is expected).

loopz 6y ago

Not saying she was wrong, but getting help for systemic issues has never ever helped much. There's very little you can do but ignore assholes, or learn how to tear them a new one (you need to become damaged first). Anything in between only backfire and drag you down. That workplace environment was already dystopia. Realizing it sooner is preferable. There are every option before leaving too. But you rarely win with such people, so you only do it because it's the right thing to do. Don't ask what you should do. Do.

alpha_squared 6y ago

No one has really given an answer besides what you've stated. Personally, I have no idea what the best option is; my cynicism tells me that making it public may be the best course of action, though it's a very scorched-earth approach. By making the harassment known publicly (within the workplace, possibly outside), it forces HR's hand in dealing with the abuser rather than the abused. It also has a chance to backfire spectacularly and alienate the person. It probably would result in alienation even if the abuser was dealt with. There's really no good answer here, just varying degrees of bad ones. Perhaps there needs to be a fine against companies that attempt to silence/remove the victims, that'd create a financial incentive for HR to protect the company by removing the abuser.

js2 6y ago

My inclination would be to document as much as possible and talk to a lawyer for advice.

abandonliberty 6y ago

Don't ignore it for a year. She did very well to tell her lead that behavior made her uncomfortable. When it continued, it was time to bring it up with HR or her manager. Looks like the stress of living with it for a year made her want more action than HR provided for a first offence. If you re-read the article, it's not clear where Google HR is at fault. The investigation took too long? They didn't make him move his desk, work from home, or take leave? He was likely told a repeat incidence would lead to termination. She would have mentioned if the behavior continued, and doesn't. Her peer group/friends thought the behavior was mild, but she wanted Google to punish him for betrayals of her past. A more severe response wasn't warranted for a mild first offence (lots of people like this never reoffend). It wasn't bad enough to change his position, and obviously you can't ask the victim to change teams. Maybe more could have been done to help smooth their relationship, like an apology. Her career unravelling comes after this.

js2 6y ago
> Maybe more could have been done to help smooth their relationship, like an apology. Total tangent. I've recently watched a lot of the Dardenne brothers' films, and in one of them, The Kid with a Bike, the kid has assaulted and robbed a man and his son. He's caught, and there's a scene where his foster mom pays restitution directly to the man, but also, the kid apologies to the man he assaulted. (The man's son refuses to accept an apology.) It struck me as a very humane form of justice, and I think we could do more of that in the U.S. So yes, an apology I think can go a long way.
- candiodari 6y ago
  This is a double criminal admission of guilt (triple if that payment can be proven), and probably said foster mom will repeat what she's done to the police, if prompted. If that person or the son decides to go the police and the foster mom or "the kid" repeats that, there is no coming back from that in court. And if there is even a tangential case to be made that it was an assault, may result in a year's incarceration for the kid, minimum (and punishment for the foster mom too, if the police really wants to). Can be over 10 years incarceration. In other words, exposing yourself like that can, quite literally, end their childhood entirely. Don't do that. This is what we've been taught is the right thing to do, it's moral, but, crucially, it's not lawful. A CPS kid may very well see the whole world as their enemy and therefore it is a near-guarantee that some people are out to get these kids. If you do this against someone like that, the kids' life is destroyed. As soon as this gets told to the police there is nothing a lawyer or even their youth worker can do to rectify the situation from that point on. From that point it makes zero sense to try to rectify the situation with the victim, it can only makes things worse, it cannot make anything better. This is criminal law, the victim has no rights. Only the judge and public prosecutor have any influence on the situation from that point forward. You should NOT do this, for that reason. I get that the result is going to be stimulating that behavior (problem is that incarcerating said kid is also stimulating that behavior, because the consequences are too great and take away the chance for a normal future, leaving fewer options, but always leaving the option of criminality). Otherwise: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=2687 https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=2687 Note that letting the kid get away with it entirely DOES provide multiple options for that behavior to stop, and cannot be so easily defeated by so many people. He could see someone else get caught. It could be a phase. He could get beaten up by the next victim. He could choose to take responsibility for something (girlfriend, a kid, even a dog, or, even more extreme, his foster mom could get sick or in trouble and depend on him) and see this as an unacceptable risk, ... What I'm saying is that firstly, this choice isn't as wrong as it first appears, and second isn't nearly as vulnerable to so many people. Many people will not react positively to putting yourself in such an extreme vulnerable position and will exploit it. For money, for ego, for ... it doesn't matter. You cannot risk the criminal justice system for a kid, you just can't, it just isn't a moral choice. You have a kid, you unconditionally defend them against anyone. In private talk to them, yell if you must, but you unconditionally defend them everywhere. I would also like to add that this "humane form of justice" will have almost opposite effects depending on the trust level between all involved parties. If that trust is lacking, no matter where exactly, the foster mom's behavior strongly stimulates criminal behavior by the foster kid, including against herself. Trust issues between foster mom and kid? This will backfire. Trust issues between foster mom and either victim? Will very likely backfire. Only if you have near-perfect trust between all parties (and let's not forget one party just used violence against another, so lacking trust is expected).