4 ms·

> Quoting the article: > "The group is well-documented: There are allegations of child abuse, human trafficking, forced abortions, and rape within the group, w

> Quoting the article: > "The group is well-documented: There are allegations of child abuse, human trafficking, forced abortions, and rape within the group, which has some 1,500 members worldwide and makes frequent prophecies of an imminent apocalypse." Those seem like issues for prosecutors to pursue, not for Google, unless the abuses were happening in Google offices or were sponsored by them.

rl3 4y ago
>... or were sponsored by them. Quoting again from the article: "The wine was our most consistent feature, and the invoices I’ve seen suggest we were buying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth every year, just from Grant Marie."
- JetAlone 4y ago
  Yep, the credibility of the risk is in the wine suppliership, at the very least.
cpncrunch 4y ago
From what I can see, those allegations were from the 90s, but still nothing seems to have been substantiated. I'm not saying I condone this cult, but I don't see how it was having any effect on his work. It didn't become a problem until he himself complained to another manager. I mean: if you're going to get worked up about cults, why the fuck are we all watching Top Gun? Shouldn't we be protesting or something? Scientology is a lot worse than this lot.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  Lot's of people do get worked up about scientology and I know people who won't watch Tom Cruise in a movie. Besides, "$X group also does bad things" is a shitty cop out of an excuse to avoid doing something about another group. There's probably not much Google can do about sexual assault/trafficking claims but they can do something about the hiring/firing practices along with crooked procurement practices.
  - cpncrunch 4y ago
    Does this group actually do bad things though? Is there any actual evidence? I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting people you know to get hired. If anything the author of this blog post caused his own problems when he blew this up into a big deal and made a lot of accusations based on decades old unproven allegations. Buying the wine from this group seems to be the only possible issue. If he had simply suggested that maybe they shouldn't be wine from this group and left it at that, there wouldn't have been any problem.
    - rendall 4y ago
      It's not even from their group. It's from a winery run by an ex-member
rendall 4y ago
> Those seem like issues for prosecutors to pursue, not for Google, unless the abuses were happening in Google offices or were sponsored by them. I'm glad someone else gets my point. These were all someone else's problems to deal with, but this guy kept sticking his nose in even when he was repeatedly asked by his friend, a manager, to butt out.
- rl3 4y ago
  >I'm glad someone else gets my point. These were all someone else's problems to deal with, but this guy kept sticking his nose in even when he was repeatedly asked by his friend, a manager, to butt out. That manager could very well have been complicit in corruption. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in wine purchases isn't exactly trivial. That said, it sounds like the guy was just trying to keep the GDS division afloat, lest it be struck down from above after being seen as problematic. Perhaps noble depending on how you look at it, but certainly protecting his own paycheck either way. Regardless, I don't see the justification in hating on someone for blowing the whistle here. In fact, one could argue it's very likely a necessary step in making it someone else's problem to deal with in the first place. Sunlight is a very effective disinfectant.
  - rendall 4y ago
    > certainly protecting his own paycheck either way Yeah, no. He did not protect his paycheck. He did the opposite.
    - rl3 4y ago
      >Yeah, no. He did not protect his paycheck. He did the opposite. Admittedly my wording was a bit ambiguous, to clarify: I was referring to the manager's intent [by not taking action]. Granted your statement's probably true either way at this point.
      - rendall 4y ago
        True that

rl3 4y ago

>... or were sponsored by them. Quoting again from the article: "The wine was our most consistent feature, and the invoices I’ve seen suggest we were buying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth every year, just from Grant Marie."

JetAlone 4y ago
Yep, the credibility of the risk is in the wine suppliership, at the very least.

cpncrunch 4y ago

From what I can see, those allegations were from the 90s, but still nothing seems to have been substantiated. I'm not saying I condone this cult, but I don't see how it was having any effect on his work. It didn't become a problem until he himself complained to another manager. I mean: if you're going to get worked up about cults, why the fuck are we all watching Top Gun? Shouldn't we be protesting or something? Scientology is a lot worse than this lot.

ineedasername 4y ago
Lot's of people do get worked up about scientology and I know people who won't watch Tom Cruise in a movie. Besides, "$X group also does bad things" is a shitty cop out of an excuse to avoid doing something about another group. There's probably not much Google can do about sexual assault/trafficking claims but they can do something about the hiring/firing practices along with crooked procurement practices.
- cpncrunch 4y ago
  Does this group actually do bad things though? Is there any actual evidence? I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting people you know to get hired. If anything the author of this blog post caused his own problems when he blew this up into a big deal and made a lot of accusations based on decades old unproven allegations. Buying the wine from this group seems to be the only possible issue. If he had simply suggested that maybe they shouldn't be wine from this group and left it at that, there wouldn't have been any problem.
  - rendall 4y ago
    It's not even from their group. It's from a winery run by an ex-member

rendall 4y ago

> Those seem like issues for prosecutors to pursue, not for Google, unless the abuses were happening in Google offices or were sponsored by them. I'm glad someone else gets my point. These were all someone else's problems to deal with, but this guy kept sticking his nose in even when he was repeatedly asked by his friend, a manager, to butt out.

rl3 4y ago
>I'm glad someone else gets my point. These were all someone else's problems to deal with, but this guy kept sticking his nose in even when he was repeatedly asked by his friend, a manager, to butt out. That manager could very well have been complicit in corruption. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in wine purchases isn't exactly trivial. That said, it sounds like the guy was just trying to keep the GDS division afloat, lest it be struck down from above after being seen as problematic. Perhaps noble depending on how you look at it, but certainly protecting his own paycheck either way. Regardless, I don't see the justification in hating on someone for blowing the whistle here. In fact, one could argue it's very likely a necessary step in making it someone else's problem to deal with in the first place. Sunlight is a very effective disinfectant.
- rendall 4y ago
  > certainly protecting his own paycheck either way Yeah, no. He did not protect his paycheck. He did the opposite.
  - rl3 4y ago
    >Yeah, no. He did not protect his paycheck. He did the opposite. Admittedly my wording was a bit ambiguous, to clarify: I was referring to the manager's intent [by not taking action]. Granted your statement's probably true either way at this point.
    - rendall 4y ago
      True that