5 ms·

Google is guilty of a lot of things but this is a drive-by shakedown by predatory law firms.

yieldcrv 2y ago
Except people on Blind brag about doing this under the domains they control. I wouldn't interpret this as a top-level policy, just some individuals in some hiring and pay/leveling decisions with little accountability. This does mean they represent Google though, and one remedy for that is a settlement by the corporate entity. Ideally shareholders would become interested in rooting this out and creating better, less expensive, accountability. It creates an environment where everyone (or some additional subset of everyone) feels they need to elevate their own in-group.
- theflyinghorse 2y ago
  What's the effective difference between unofficial policy of discrimination and individual groups conducting discrimination en mass? Thinking back to a unicorn I worked for we were unofficially told to favour women in hiring. We all thought it was a great idea at that time, but also I do remember a coworker saying how her group has been doing heavy favouring of women in hiring for years already before being told to do so.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    There isn't an effective difference If people want to change anything about it, they need to know the structure of it
- asabjorn 2y ago
  I've observed orgs go from diverse to turn largely Indian or Chinese based upon who does the hiring, the only group that doesn't seem to do this is Americans of all ethnicities (Chinese american, indian american, white american etc). White americans seem like the ones having the least legal recourse. When these leaders move they pull these buddies into their new companies, and they often form cliques that operate using their groups culture and protect each other over company interests.
rchaud 2y ago
Got any evidence for that? Is Google in the habit of paying out giant HR-related settlements for something other than protecting good ol' boys like Andy Rubin? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-sexual-harassment-android-creator-310-million/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-se... Google has enough money to hire the best law firms too. Why would any law firm engage in frivolous litigation against a potential future client? The linked settlement is 10X that of this one, which if paid, would be divided among 6,600 people. Not exactly a huge payday.
- ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
  >Why would any law firm engage in frivolous litigation against a potential future client? Because the chances is getting a payout is greater than the chances of ever working for Google.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    I also doubt that Google will avoid hiring a law firm just because they were on the other side in the past.
- reissbaker 2y ago
  As another commenter pointed out elsewhere, Google recently paid out a settlement claiming that it discriminated against Asians. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201 https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201 This settlement claims they favored Asians, but Google paid it out too! So, yes, it appears Google is in the habit of paying out contradictory settlements rather than litigating them.
  - GordonS 2y ago
    Google is a huge organisation, so both claims could certainly be true.
  - tdb7893 2y ago
    One thing I will note is that both of these can be true. Google is a huge company run by a lot of people and unless the specific claims are contradictory there's nothing stopping Google from doing both. It's not like we can expect it to be run with any consistent ideology
footlose_3815 2y ago
The people who are running the diversity stuff at Google when I was there were very "Eye-for-an-eye". Some dumb stuff that happened while I was at Google: * There was a ERG for literally every single race except White people. "Just join one of the others" was what they told me. * During an onboarding learning exercise because I was merely showing initiative before the rest of the group. "Ok everyone here's my idea". I was tapped on the shoulder by the contractor-teacher-person and asked to move aside and let the group do the very same thing without me. * Nonwhite employees in my org also got a special mentor who helped them get a leg-up in the company. Some employees were whisked-away from their work responsibilities to go on little field trips with other teams. A few of these people were totally inept technically at their job and I saw them convert into better jobs. It must have been nice. I'm pretty liberal, but this corpo-liberalism that somehow thinks an eye-for-an-eye to people living in 2025 is insane to me. It might even burn someone so much it changes their politics if they're whimsical.
- bena 2y ago
  FYI to those not in the lingo ERG is an "Employee Resource Group". I don't know if it's a common thing at companies or not, but it's a new initialism to me.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >There was a ERG for literally every single race except White people. "Just join one of the others" was what they told me. Imagine moving to say, Switzerland, to work for a massive corporation. 90% of the employees are Swiss. The other 10% come from a smattering of other countries from around the world. To help those employees acclimate to a new culture and find support, the company sponsors country-based ERGs. Of course, there is no Swiss ERG, as it's the "default", because the entire company is essentially a Swiss ERG. But, the company encourages its Swiss employees to join the others as a show of support and cultural exchange. If you had attended one of those groups, you might have found yourself feeling extraordinarily welcome, and even learned a few things about your fellow employees. >A few of these people were totally inept technically at their job and I saw them convert into better jobs. It must have been nice. If "totally inept" people are being promoted with any frequency, then that's a problem for any company. I think we have all seen this occasionally but, in my experience, it has very little to do with race (or other identity) and more to do with the Peter Principle and the fact that hiring and HR management is notoriously hard to get right. I'm not suggesting anything about the earnestness of your observations, but you should be aware that assuming every non-white person you see at a company is the beneficiary of preferential treatment is a bit of a canard. And the idea that a disproportionate number of those are inept is yet another. As such, whimsical people might draw rather nasty conclusions from your statements, that are other than what you intended.

Except people on Blind brag about doing this under the domains they control. I wouldn't interpret this as a top-level policy, just some individuals in some hiring and pay/leveling decisions with little accountability. This does mean they represent Google though, and one remedy for that is a settlement by the corporate entity. Ideally shareholders would become interested in rooting this out and creating better, less expensive, accountability. It creates an environment where everyone (or some additional subset of everyone) feels they need to elevate their own in-group.

theflyinghorse 2y ago
What's the effective difference between unofficial policy of discrimination and individual groups conducting discrimination en mass? Thinking back to a unicorn I worked for we were unofficially told to favour women in hiring. We all thought it was a great idea at that time, but also I do remember a coworker saying how her group has been doing heavy favouring of women in hiring for years already before being told to do so.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  There isn't an effective difference If people want to change anything about it, they need to know the structure of it
asabjorn 2y ago
I've observed orgs go from diverse to turn largely Indian or Chinese based upon who does the hiring, the only group that doesn't seem to do this is Americans of all ethnicities (Chinese american, indian american, white american etc). White americans seem like the ones having the least legal recourse. When these leaders move they pull these buddies into their new companies, and they often form cliques that operate using their groups culture and protect each other over company interests.

rchaud 2y ago

Got any evidence for that? Is Google in the habit of paying out giant HR-related settlements for something other than protecting good ol' boys like Andy Rubin? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-sexual-harassment-android-creator-310-million/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-se... Google has enough money to hire the best law firms too. Why would any law firm engage in frivolous litigation against a potential future client? The linked settlement is 10X that of this one, which if paid, would be divided among 6,600 people. Not exactly a huge payday.

ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
>Why would any law firm engage in frivolous litigation against a potential future client? Because the chances is getting a payout is greater than the chances of ever working for Google.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  I also doubt that Google will avoid hiring a law firm just because they were on the other side in the past.
reissbaker 2y ago
As another commenter pointed out elsewhere, Google recently paid out a settlement claiming that it discriminated against Asians. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201 https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201 This settlement claims they favored Asians, but Google paid it out too! So, yes, it appears Google is in the habit of paying out contradictory settlements rather than litigating them.
- GordonS 2y ago
  Google is a huge organisation, so both claims could certainly be true.
- tdb7893 2y ago
  One thing I will note is that both of these can be true. Google is a huge company run by a lot of people and unless the specific claims are contradictory there's nothing stopping Google from doing both. It's not like we can expect it to be run with any consistent ideology

footlose_3815 2y ago

The people who are running the diversity stuff at Google when I was there were very "Eye-for-an-eye". Some dumb stuff that happened while I was at Google: * There was a ERG for literally every single race except White people. "Just join one of the others" was what they told me. * During an onboarding learning exercise because I was merely showing initiative before the rest of the group. "Ok everyone here's my idea". I was tapped on the shoulder by the contractor-teacher-person and asked to move aside and let the group do the very same thing without me. * Nonwhite employees in my org also got a special mentor who helped them get a leg-up in the company. Some employees were whisked-away from their work responsibilities to go on little field trips with other teams. A few of these people were totally inept technically at their job and I saw them convert into better jobs. It must have been nice. I'm pretty liberal, but this corpo-liberalism that somehow thinks an eye-for-an-eye to people living in 2025 is insane to me. It might even burn someone so much it changes their politics if they're whimsical.

bena 2y ago
FYI to those not in the lingo ERG is an "Employee Resource Group". I don't know if it's a common thing at companies or not, but it's a new initialism to me.
unclebucknasty 2y ago
>There was a ERG for literally every single race except White people. "Just join one of the others" was what they told me. Imagine moving to say, Switzerland, to work for a massive corporation. 90% of the employees are Swiss. The other 10% come from a smattering of other countries from around the world. To help those employees acclimate to a new culture and find support, the company sponsors country-based ERGs. Of course, there is no Swiss ERG, as it's the "default", because the entire company is essentially a Swiss ERG. But, the company encourages its Swiss employees to join the others as a show of support and cultural exchange. If you had attended one of those groups, you might have found yourself feeling extraordinarily welcome, and even learned a few things about your fellow employees. >A few of these people were totally inept technically at their job and I saw them convert into better jobs. It must have been nice. If "totally inept" people are being promoted with any frequency, then that's a problem for any company. I think we have all seen this occasionally but, in my experience, it has very little to do with race (or other identity) and more to do with the Peter Principle and the fact that hiring and HR management is notoriously hard to get right. I'm not suggesting anything about the earnestness of your observations, but you should be aware that assuming every non-white person you see at a company is the beneficiary of preferential treatment is a bit of a canard. And the idea that a disproportionate number of those are inept is yet another. As such, whimsical people might draw rather nasty conclusions from your statements, that are other than what you intended.