10 ms·

At minimum Google could have investigated the odd clustering of employees that indicated some sort of nepotistic hiring practice. Of course they might be doing

At minimum Google could have investigated the odd clustering of employees that indicated some sort of nepotistic hiring practice. Of course they might be doing exactly that, but it's not the sort of thing they can really comment on. Edit: also the self-dealing on hundreds of thousands of dollars in wine.

newbie2020 4y ago
That is what DEI boards are for. Stamping out these natural clusters that form via social networks
- troon-lover 4y ago
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  DEI has its own cult leaders that set definitions many people would not agree with but tend to become mandatory dogma. Example is sexism, racism and topics relating to gender. It is just as ideological, maybe it has another algebraic sign but the animosity is easy to see. Problem with DEI is that it has official support contrary to this cult, which shouldn't have leadership positions as well of course.
paxys 4y ago
Well if you expand that to a more generic "employees shouldn't be involved in hiring people who they know and associate with outside of work" then they'd have to fire half the company.
- kodah 4y ago
  I work at a large tech firm and do interviewing and referrals almost routinely. I have regularly excused myself from the opportunity to sit on panels or provide feedback. I can provide all the input I want, but the people making the decision need to not be me or feel pressured by me. That's not a deep ethical challenge in the slightest.
  - M2Ys4U 4y ago
    This is Google we're talking about... ethics isn't exactly their strong suit.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  Systemic nepotism is not reason to avoid investigating a specific incidents where it is especially prevalent. There's also a difference between hiring someone you know vs. only hiring a person because you know them. Besides which it is possible to have hiring practices that make this abuse more difficult: where I work friends & family of a candidate are obligated to identify such prior relationships during the hiring process so that another person can review any decision to hire that candidate. Maybe things are that bad at Google, but that would be precisely the reason for casting more light on the issue in order to change things.
- glenstein 4y ago
  I don't understand why Google would have to answer for a more expansive charge, rather than the one that's actually leveled. Of course if you expand any principle to an unreasonable extreme it becomes unreasonable but I don't see how this observation has anything to do with anything.
- 789itsfine 4y ago
  There is an argument to be made wrt the deleterious effects of modern recruitment's overreliance on informal personal networks.
nitwit005 4y ago
The problem in this case would be they seem to be hiring almost exclusively from a rather obscure religious group. That means they're illegally discriminating against members other religions.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Cults are not “obscure religious groups.” It varies widely by state (and in federal jurisprudence), but most states have a “free association”-style test: if members aren’t free to come and go, it’s a cult and not a religion. Google would not be exposed to any significant liability here. Particularly not when the cult has a well-documented history of sexual abuse.
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    On the contrary, google employees would be breaking the law by hiring primarily because of religious preference and thus discriminating against competent candidates of other religious (or non) preference
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Cults are not religions. The body of decisions is remarkably explicit about this, when you consider how difficult the question “what is a religion” actually is. Edit: I forgot to provide references. Here’s a summary[1] of a 1988 California Supreme Court ruling in which the court determined that cult conduct does not fall under religious protections, even if the cult’s members might genuinely believe the cult’s doctrines. In other words, an internal decision by Google to terminate cult members because of their history of sex abuse or self dealing is unlikely expose them to civil litigation risk. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-18-mn-4552-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-18-mn-4552-s...
      - volume 4y ago
        To me, there's a venn diagram. some cults are religions. Some are just cults and not religions. It sounds like you're coming from a legal perspective. Is that really the end-all-be-all representation of reality?
jonas21 4y ago
There was also an odd clustering among early Google employees who all came from a place called "Stanford." It may be difficult to distinguish between these two hiring patterns without asking the sorts of questions that are illegal for employers to ask.
- dubswithus 4y ago
  I don’t understand your point. The cult we are discussing here is accused of engaging in grooming and pedophilia. That’s comparable to a bunch of people that went to Stanford?
  - madrox 4y ago
    I think the point was that you can't really go after nepotistic hiring practices alone without also throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nepotism happens all the time, and it's usually benign, like Stanford grads hiring Stanford grads. We want to work with our friends, people we've worked with before, and people with similar backgrounds as ours. This comment thread is about what policy, if any, can these people really be investigated or fired for. If association with an organization whose leadership engages in grooming and pedophilia, while distasteful, is a firing offense, then should we be firing all catholics? There seems to be no way to articulate a policy here that a lot of well-meaning people wouldn't run afoul of, and you can't selectively implement policy without then running afoul of discriminatory business practices.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > I think the point was that you can't really go after nepotistic hiring practices alone without also throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The comment just said "investigate"! This is getting very strawmanny.
      - madrox 4y ago
        I tend to agree, but I think that's because people want to see these cult members fired and are working backward from there to find grounds. That's an easy lawsuit at best and illegal at worst.
dubswithus 4y ago
No, at a minimum they should have fired all these people for funding a pedophile with their salaries. Absolutely disgusting. > I found support groups where ex-members talk about their time in the group, including discussions of sexual abuse and grooming. > Members have described him grooming and sexually assaulting male followers, including minors
- 24rf24r2f 4y ago
- ineedasername 4y ago
  I don't think Google could do that when there hasn't been a criminal case. I don't particularly like this situation but I also think it would be problematic to fire employees that were not part of the specific rumored incidents. I'll grant that destructive cults are different than established religions, but firing these workers specifically over the sexual allegations wouldn't be much different than firing an employee who happened to be a deacon in a their local church in a Catholic diocese where the Cardinal abused children.
  - dubswithus 4y ago
    Google can fire them and let the lawyers deal with it. Maybe they lose but at least they tried. Fined billions of dollars? Worth it.
- mandevil 4y ago
  So, does that mean that funding the Roman Catholic Church is a fire-able offense? What about the Southern Baptist Convention? Or Penn State University (at least while Jerry Sandusky was working there)? Or Michigan State (at least while Nassar was there)? Or the BBC (whilst Jimmy Savile was there)? I'm definitely not trying to defend Fellowship of Friends here, just pointing out that a zero tolerance policy for supporting pedophiles pretty quickly falls apart because the successful abusers- those who can consistently abuse lots of people, like Burton, are almost always in a position of power in some organization or another. That's what gives them access and cover to do it to so many victims after all.

newbie2020 4y ago

That is what DEI boards are for. Stamping out these natural clusters that form via social networks

troon-lover 4y ago
raxxorraxor 4y ago
DEI has its own cult leaders that set definitions many people would not agree with but tend to become mandatory dogma. Example is sexism, racism and topics relating to gender. It is just as ideological, maybe it has another algebraic sign but the animosity is easy to see. Problem with DEI is that it has official support contrary to this cult, which shouldn't have leadership positions as well of course.

paxys 4y ago

Well if you expand that to a more generic "employees shouldn't be involved in hiring people who they know and associate with outside of work" then they'd have to fire half the company.

kodah 4y ago
I work at a large tech firm and do interviewing and referrals almost routinely. I have regularly excused myself from the opportunity to sit on panels or provide feedback. I can provide all the input I want, but the people making the decision need to not be me or feel pressured by me. That's not a deep ethical challenge in the slightest.
- M2Ys4U 4y ago
  This is Google we're talking about... ethics isn't exactly their strong suit.
ineedasername 4y ago
Systemic nepotism is not reason to avoid investigating a specific incidents where it is especially prevalent. There's also a difference between hiring someone you know vs. only hiring a person because you know them. Besides which it is possible to have hiring practices that make this abuse more difficult: where I work friends & family of a candidate are obligated to identify such prior relationships during the hiring process so that another person can review any decision to hire that candidate. Maybe things are that bad at Google, but that would be precisely the reason for casting more light on the issue in order to change things.
glenstein 4y ago
I don't understand why Google would have to answer for a more expansive charge, rather than the one that's actually leveled. Of course if you expand any principle to an unreasonable extreme it becomes unreasonable but I don't see how this observation has anything to do with anything.
789itsfine 4y ago
There is an argument to be made wrt the deleterious effects of modern recruitment's overreliance on informal personal networks.

nitwit005 4y ago

The problem in this case would be they seem to be hiring almost exclusively from a rather obscure religious group. That means they're illegally discriminating against members other religions.

woodruffw 4y ago
Cults are not “obscure religious groups.” It varies widely by state (and in federal jurisprudence), but most states have a “free association”-style test: if members aren’t free to come and go, it’s a cult and not a religion. Google would not be exposed to any significant liability here. Particularly not when the cult has a well-documented history of sexual abuse.
- throwoutway 4y ago
  On the contrary, google employees would be breaking the law by hiring primarily because of religious preference and thus discriminating against competent candidates of other religious (or non) preference
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Cults are not religions. The body of decisions is remarkably explicit about this, when you consider how difficult the question “what is a religion” actually is. Edit: I forgot to provide references. Here’s a summary[1] of a 1988 California Supreme Court ruling in which the court determined that cult conduct does not fall under religious protections, even if the cult’s members might genuinely believe the cult’s doctrines. In other words, an internal decision by Google to terminate cult members because of their history of sex abuse or self dealing is unlikely expose them to civil litigation risk. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-18-mn-4552-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-18-mn-4552-s...
    - volume 4y ago
      To me, there's a venn diagram. some cults are religions. Some are just cults and not religions. It sounds like you're coming from a legal perspective. Is that really the end-all-be-all representation of reality?

jonas21 4y ago

There was also an odd clustering among early Google employees who all came from a place called "Stanford." It may be difficult to distinguish between these two hiring patterns without asking the sorts of questions that are illegal for employers to ask.

dubswithus 4y ago
I don’t understand your point. The cult we are discussing here is accused of engaging in grooming and pedophilia. That’s comparable to a bunch of people that went to Stanford?
- madrox 4y ago
  I think the point was that you can't really go after nepotistic hiring practices alone without also throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nepotism happens all the time, and it's usually benign, like Stanford grads hiring Stanford grads. We want to work with our friends, people we've worked with before, and people with similar backgrounds as ours. This comment thread is about what policy, if any, can these people really be investigated or fired for. If association with an organization whose leadership engages in grooming and pedophilia, while distasteful, is a firing offense, then should we be firing all catholics? There seems to be no way to articulate a policy here that a lot of well-meaning people wouldn't run afoul of, and you can't selectively implement policy without then running afoul of discriminatory business practices.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > I think the point was that you can't really go after nepotistic hiring practices alone without also throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The comment just said "investigate"! This is getting very strawmanny.
    - madrox 4y ago
      I tend to agree, but I think that's because people want to see these cult members fired and are working backward from there to find grounds. That's an easy lawsuit at best and illegal at worst.

dubswithus 4y ago

No, at a minimum they should have fired all these people for funding a pedophile with their salaries. Absolutely disgusting. > I found support groups where ex-members talk about their time in the group, including discussions of sexual abuse and grooming. > Members have described him grooming and sexually assaulting male followers, including minors

24rf24r2f 4y ago
ineedasername 4y ago
I don't think Google could do that when there hasn't been a criminal case. I don't particularly like this situation but I also think it would be problematic to fire employees that were not part of the specific rumored incidents. I'll grant that destructive cults are different than established religions, but firing these workers specifically over the sexual allegations wouldn't be much different than firing an employee who happened to be a deacon in a their local church in a Catholic diocese where the Cardinal abused children.
- dubswithus 4y ago
  Google can fire them and let the lawyers deal with it. Maybe they lose but at least they tried. Fined billions of dollars? Worth it.
mandevil 4y ago
So, does that mean that funding the Roman Catholic Church is a fire-able offense? What about the Southern Baptist Convention? Or Penn State University (at least while Jerry Sandusky was working there)? Or Michigan State (at least while Nassar was there)? Or the BBC (whilst Jimmy Savile was there)? I'm definitely not trying to defend Fellowship of Friends here, just pointing out that a zero tolerance policy for supporting pedophiles pretty quickly falls apart because the successful abusers- those who can consistently abuse lots of people, like Burton, are almost always in a position of power in some organization or another. That's what gives them access and cover to do it to so many victims after all.