
Google staff walk out over women's treatment - oneeyedpigeon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46054202
======
slivym
All of their demands seem pretty reasonable. It looks like the big gripe is
that basically there's no real process in place for situations of misconduct
in the office. To draw an analogy, this would be like Google not having a
process to investigate and resolve site outages - it would be unthinkable, so
why aren't they treating their organisation with the same rigor they treat
their website.

~~~
anon1252
> there's no real process in place for situations of misconduct in the office.

There shouldn't be a "process" set by Google when it comes to sexual
harassment, employees should be able to sue, that's the process,sexual
harassment is a crime, they can't sue because Google force them into
arbitration, which should be illegal for an employer to do that to an employee
IMHO. this is a denial of justice.

~~~
sunir
Prosecution is one method of deterring thieves from robbing my store blind. I
have also tried locked doors, security cameras and not leaving the store
unattended.

I like your argument that it is cheaper to just let people rob me blind and
then burn time and energy catching them, prosecuting time, and hoping for a
conviction as a deterrent.

With any luck using your system crime will magically disappear on it’s own.

I am going to put my fingers in my ears now and make noises and ignore the
worlds problems. It is certainly easier to not take responsibility. Good
advice.

~~~
cjslep
Comparing sexual assault to a store robbery in a tone of sarcasm is at best a
poor judgement call.

I agree that assaulters need to take responsibility for their actions.
However, when they don't, the law needs to be there to protect the victims.

~~~
sunir
I think it is poor judgment to create an organization that does nothing to
secure its people from sexual harassment. Not sure why you would disagree but
if that is what you intended I do not want to work for you.

~~~
cjslep
Youre being incredibly unfair: That's not at all what I said, and your post I
responded to also made no claim along these lines. You're misrepresenting my
and your past statements.

What we were talking about is ending forced arbitration (the "process"
referred to by the person you responded to) so that the law can be used to
protect victims. That doesn't mean protections at work suddenly go away. It
also doesn't mean suddenly employers will let sexual harassment run rampant
either. It's not a binary either-or choice at all. So why not _all_
protections.

~~~
sunir
The post I replied to implied that the criminal justice system is the only
solution to these problems:

"employees should be able to sue, that's the process,sexual harassment is a
crime, they can't sue because Google force them into arbitration,"

Notwithstanding the unbelievable confusion of law in that post is a whole
other conversation.

I argued that companies should also have a plan in place to prevent sexual
harassment at work by using an analogy to robbery, also a crime, that we use
preventative measures to stop despite there being a criminal system punishing
robbery.

Your response was claiming I was expressing poor judgment for arguing that
companies are responsible for not creating environments rife for sexual
harassment.

"Comparing sexual assault to a store robbery in a tone of sarcasm is at best a
poor judgement call."

I don't agree. I think it's a reasonable demonstration of the absurdity of the
position I'm replying to.

I don't know what else you wrote, but that's what I replied to.

~~~
cjslep
Re-read his post: _people should be able to sue in lieu of forced arbitration_
, they're never advocating for "create an environment _for_ sexual assaults".
Nowhere and no one is arguing for creating an environment _for_ sexual
assaults in this thread. The reason it seems like an absurdity is because
you're setting it up to be one when no one is advocating it, which is the
definition of a strawman.

Sorry, but if you're still going to stick on this point then this'll be the
last thing I say on the matter.

~~~
sunir
This is a frustrating thread. Everyone is trying to outdo themselves. Feels
like the Peoples front of Judea

------
sizzle
"A clear, uniform, globally inclusive process for reporting sexual misconduct
safely and _anonymously_ "

Can anyone help me understand the rationale behind the anonymous part, with
respect to due process and how the framework for anonymous accusations can be
abused by bad actors?

 _Edit_ \- I have a question about the anonymous nature of reporting to HR,
with respect to due process for the accuser and accused, maybe some of you can
shed light on how you've seen it work in your experiences.

I've heard stories in the past, with details I'm not privy to, where coworkers
were let go based on anonymous HR sexual misconduct allegations. I really hope
that due process is involved for the accused and not just a "guilty until
proven innocent" situation. What I mean is that evidence by the accuser is
judged along the lines of probable cause that our police force uses to arrest
or judges use to prosecute e.g. inappropriate advances caught on tape,
unwanted email/text/chat messages in line with allegations, eye witness
statements corroborated by fellow co-worker, etc.

There are a lot of introverted, socially awkward personality types in
technical roles (on the spectrum?) with traits that can be perceived
incorrectly, even negatively by neurotypical individuals and I fear the power
of anonymous, "guilty until proven innocent" allegations standard that HR
might start using to police the accused and trample on their right to due
process since employment is at-will and you can be terminated for any reason,
at any time, but in this situation you are ineligible for unemployment if it's
recorded as misconduct.

~~~
gingerbread-man
Maybe they're referencing something like Callisto (YC Nonprofit W18):

"Founders will be able to use Callisto to securely store the identities of
perpetrators of sexual coercion and assault. These identities will be
encrypted in a way that not even the Callisto team can view. If multiple
founders name the same perpetrator, they will be referred to an attorney who
can then decrypt the founder’s contact info and reach out to provide them with
free advice on their options for coming forward, including the option to share
information with other victims of the same perpetrator." Source:
[https://blog.ycombinator.com/survey-of-yc-female-founders-
on...](https://blog.ycombinator.com/survey-of-yc-female-founders-on-sexual-
harassment-and-coercion-by-angel-and-vc-investors/)

~~~
qbaqbaqba
It's hard to imagine something more illegal than this when it comes to
personal data protection.

------
ChrisRR
So the first demand is "A commitment to end pay and opportunity inequality"

I'd like to see the actual data behind this constant inequality claim. I would
be genuinely interested to see what kind of difference there is between the
sexes when comparing like-for-like jobs.

I've heard speculation that women don't argue for higher salaries as much as
men, I've also heard that the data is never accurate because it doesn't
compare the same jobs. I want to see some actual numbers so people can figure
out where the issue actually lies.

~~~
brobdingnagians
Time magazine, which doesn't exactly seem to be a bastion of conservatism, had
an article about this [http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-
feminism/](http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/) , which had
more hard-facts than anyone else I've seen, but the conclusion was that most
of the claims made by the wage gap supporters are cherrypicked and false.
Although, if Google specifically has a problem with it, I'd definitely be
willing to listen. If they are protecting people like Rubin, it does seem
plausible that other things could be going on.

~~~
zimpenfish
> Time magazine, which doesn't exactly seem to be a bastion of conservatism

Although Christina Hoff Sommers does have a noticeable bias/axe to grind since
she's pretty anti-feminism and considers there to be a "war against boys".
Also she works for the AEI which _is_ a conservative think tank.

~~~
Nelkins
Agree. When you perform an online search for articles on the "wage gap myth,"
the majority of the articles seem traceable back to her.

~~~
malvosenior
It's because even though there is no data to support the wage gap, it's very
unpopular to question it. Christina Hoff Summers is a pioneer in the field of
gender equality and has paid a huge price by actually investigating these
issues. It's a risky position to take in today's political climate so not many
have followed her footsteps.

~~~
astura
>there is no data to support the wage gap

This is false.

[https://www.epi.org/publication/what-is-the-gender-pay-
gap-a...](https://www.epi.org/publication/what-is-the-gender-pay-gap-and-is-
it-real/)

>it's very unpopular to question it.

Also false, it's very popular (and almost cliché) to dismiss it.

>Christina Hoff Summers... has paid a huge price by actually investigating
these issues.

And what price would that be? She seems extremely successful.

[http://www.aei.org/scholar/christina-hoff-
sommers/](http://www.aei.org/scholar/christina-hoff-sommers/)

~~~
malvosenior
From your link:

" _$3.27 less per hour than men. The median hourly wage is $15.67 for women
and $18.94 for men.

The gender wage gap is a measure of what women are paid relative to men. It is
commonly calculated by dividing women’s wages by men’s wages, and this ratio
is often expressed as a percent, or in dollar terms. This tells us how much a
woman is paid for each dollar paid to a man. This gender pay ratio is often
measured for year-round, full-time workers and compares the annual wages (of
hourly wage and salaried workers) of the median (“typical”) man with that of
the median (“typical”) woman; measured this way, the current gender pay ratio
is 0.796, or, expressed as a percent, it is 79.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau
2016). In other words, for every dollar a man makes, a woman makes about 80
cents._"

It's meaningless to compare different positions pay to each other. "Typical"
men vs "typical" women doesn't tell us anything about potential
discrimination.

~~~
astura
Oh, FFS, c'mon.

There's over 12,800 words in the article and 67 citations. It includes
sections such as "How do work experience, schedules, and motherhood affect the
gender wage gap?", "How do education and job and occupational characteristics
affect the gender wage gap?", "Does a woman’s race, age, or pay level affect
the gender gap she experiences?", and "What role do 'unobservables' like
discrimination and productivity play in the wage gap?" yet you choose to
ignore all of it and argue against something from the introduction that's
expanded upon further down.

You're arguing on bad faith here.

~~~
malvosenior
It's an argument against adjusted wage gap calculations or comparing salaries
in the same roles. I fundamentally object to the very premise.

> _You 're arguing on bad faith here._

No, I just disagree with you.

------
shados
Something Ive never understood (not in the sense of I dont agree. What I
really mean is I'm uneducated on the topic and would like to find out more,
but my searches returned little, since it's a pretty heated topic), is why the
company should be the primary responsible entity for this. Maybe for light
cases where someone just need a stern talking to, but a lot of the cases are
downright criminal acts. Having a private entity that has a vested interest in
the events seem...unwise.

Shouldn't it be better to have law enforcement handle it, and have companies
forced to cooperate instead?

Like, if it's someone who said something slightly inappropriate/gray area to
another and just needs a stern talking to, sure. Have a process/HR deal with
it. But so many occurrences are so much worse than that...

Not the same situation at all, but similar reasoning: I once had a colleague
corner me in the office because of a disagreement in a meeting earlier in the
day, where they threatened to "meet me outside to settle things". I mentioned
it to my boss/HR/etc, and sure enough, they told me to just talk it out with
them and were generally useless. I ended up having to quit. In hindsight, it
wasn't my boss I needed to talk to, it was the freagin cops. (Not, of course,
cops are frequently useless too, and that's a separate problem...but if we
have to change the world somewhere, maybe pushing it all on private entities
isn't the best thing to do in this case).

~~~
jib
The police are not primarily there to solve civil disputes and disagreements.
There is a pretty wide area where things are not illegal and possible to
convict, but you would probably want to do something.

The police’s mindset (at least the ones I’ve interacted with) is one of three
things:

1\. Deterrance from crimes to be committed (doesn’t apply here)

2\. Achieve convictions for crimes (would also not apply in your situation)

3\. Deploy force to break up ongoing altercations (also doesn’t apply)

2 is interesting. Talk about a specific alleged crime with a police officer
and they will not be discussing whether it was a crime or not much, nor if the
person committed it, they will be discussing whether it can be proven in a
court of law or not that a criminal act was committed by a specific person,
beyond reasonable doubt. It is a purely pragmatic operation of “how can I
provide proof that something occurred that is against this list of rules”.

The police are in no way useless, most people just misunderstand what their
job is. Their job is not to dispense justice, or make sure you get your
revenge.

In your specific situation it sucked, but from a police point of view what
would they do? Is there a crime? Maybe. Would they be able to present a chain
of evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that a crime occurred - most
assuredly not. Would a conviction, however unlikely, achieve something
meaningful? Nope, the guy would get a fine at most, but would still be working
with you.

On the other hand, an employer is fully within their right to fire someone for
a situation like that. They do not have the same burden of proof, they can
refer to previous records of incidents, and the consequences would better
match what you’d want (removal of the hostile environment).

~~~
gambler
_> Their job is not to dispense justice, or make sure you get your revenge._

This shouldn't be the job of HR either.

What you describe is what civil courts are for. From societal perspective, it
is their _exact_ purpose: to dispense justice and _prevent_ revenge. If they
don't work, they need to be made to work, instead of relegating this function
to random people with random training and random incentives following random
policies that are ultimately designed to safeguard companies, not employees.

~~~
bunderbunder
Going through the civil courts is very time-consuming and expensive for all
parties involved.

Focusing specifically on the company's perspective, it's also a terrible
option from a risk management perspective. It leaves them exposed to the
possibility of a very expensive judgment. (Especially if it's a big well-known
company that the courts might want to make an example of.) If they can resolve
the dispute internally in a quick and satisfactory manner, then that is very
much in the company's interest.

Which is exactly why it typically ends up being HR's job. And why it _should_
officially be someone's job.

Framing it this way, I guess the company's internal culture being less
dysfunctional because these sorts of problems are more likely to be addressed
instead of being allowed to fester is just a happy side effect, but it bears
mentioning, all the same.

~~~
jib
I mean, Id argue that is exactly the way the system is designed, and it mostly
does the job it is designed to do, not just a side effect.

Defining what makes a non-hostile workplace is hard, enforcing it on
individuals is harder, so instead delegate that responsibility to each
individual company and take action on the company if it does not do that.

In no way is it a perfect system (cue tons of excessively formalized training
etc), but it is the best system I know of.

Allowing companies to remove the external force of "If you do not do this, you
may face civil action" breaks the model though, so I completely understand why
Googlers would like to remove forced arbitration. The risk of that is a
contributing factor towards compliance.

~~~
bunderbunder
Yeah, 100% agreed. Sorry - I was responding specifically to the question of
whether HR should be in the loop, and didn't intend to suggest that the civil
courts shouldn't also be part of it.

I wouldn't shed a tear if forced arbitration were banned. I can't really see
it as not being at least partially an attempt to wiggle out from under the
rule of law.

------
tylerl
This entire protest would have generally been a non-event if the company
hadn't sent out a memo telling managers to accommodate people who want to
participate, ensure there is no retaliation or penalty, be flexible with
schedules, etc., effectively advertising the event to everyone in the process.
So then it looks like employees are being unsupportive of their co-workers if
they don't participate. Which sort of shuffles the understanding of a "walk
out" to be a far cry from the sort of thing that happened in the union days,
and puts this firmly in the Just Google Things category, where even protesting
the company becomes an activity that the company officially supports.

~~~
adrianmonk
One view is that management knows that and did it anyway.

Perhaps they felt it was worth letting it be a bigger event and taking a PR
hit if in return what they get is that the employees feel that the company
supports them.

~~~
Balgair
Good Machiavellian way to oust competing managers as well. Personally, that
would be a horrible thing to do to another person, but then again, we know at
least some of these managers kept silent during this whole fiasco; we're not
talking about saints here.

------
jiveturkey
Very disappointed with mainstream media coverage here.

The walkout is being headlined as a complaint against harassment. It's not.
It's a complaint against the company (rightly so) valuing its corporate
reputation in _the world in which we live_ vs standing behind the victims as
if they were family, and going medieval (eg excommunication) on the harassers.

Certainly there's a balance and perhaps google is on the wrong side of it, but
don't kid yourself, google isn't going to take your insignificant side of it
when the other side is a $100MM liability to an executive.

That a walkout like this only happens at Google and not, say, microsoft, where
surely sexual harassment also occurs and is also brushed aside, is telling
about the employee culture at Google. It's sad that the media coverage is so
trivial and can't look deeper.

And to the organizers: you should have recruited tech workers at all FAANG to
support this walkout. You missed a moment.

~~~
sah2ed
> _That a walkout like this only happens at Google and not, say, microsoft,
> where surely sexual harassment also occurs and is also brushed aside, is
> telling about the employee culture at Google._

There's a much simpler explanation than you are implying. The trigger for
Googlers is the story from last week in the NYT about a former Google exec.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-
sexual-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-
harassment-andy-rubin.html)

~~~
jiveturkey
Yes of course. I recognize that, but I don't understand your argument. Are you
saying that from the cause of mainstream media (NYT) exposure of this payment,
to the effect of a walkout, there is no aspect of Google-specific culture that
makes this a unique Google occurrence? This was primed by previous walkouts
such as the protest against the Trump immigrant travel ban nearly 2 years ago,
and previous Google-internal petitions against things such as G+ real names
(which people actually quit over) and the now infamous Damore memo.

Your comment seemingly argues that the story is just a simple one and I'm a
fool (rhetorically) for thinking there's anything deeper.

I submit, again, that there is a deep story here that was missed.

------
justaguyhere
How is this handled at other biggies in the valley - Apple, Microsoft etc? Do
they also have the arbitration thing?

There was an awesome site on the front page yesterday, that compared career
levels in the companies. Someone should make one comparing these companies on
things like - treatment of women/minorities, age discrimination, side project
policies, access to upper management etc

~~~
shareometry
I have never understood why employees accept the restrictive clauses which
assign ownership for any side projects to the employer. I am not a lawyer, but
this has always struck me as amounting to a type of serfdom. If you are seen
as a 24/7 unit of the company, and anything at all that you creatively produce
can be claimed by the company, then your working capacity and creative
capacity is essentially owned entirely by the company while you are employed
there. You are not being paid just for your time and the work product you
produce during that time. Rather you are literally selling an aspect of
yourself. Does that sound reasonable at all? (of course, California has some
protections against this. but that's just one state)

I would really like to see people rallying against many more things like this.

~~~
dev_dull
They tolerate it because it’s largely unenforceable.

~~~
justaguyhere
That is one reason.

Many people aren't even aware of such draconian policies they are signing up
for. And companies are probably counting on it too.

It is also possible that even the owners of the company (especially small,
family owned companies) aren't aware of these dumb policies. They just trust
their lawyers to write up the contracts. There was a comment recently on HN -
employee reads up the contract, goes to the owner to ask about some clause,
and the owner himself is surprised and calls the lawyer to sort it out.

Big companies that spend shit ton of money on lawyers have no excuse - they're
likely doing all this intentionally.

~~~
dev_dull
It’s like they select a box for “maximum liability protection” not realizing
some of it provides no protection at all

------
StudentStuff
There is no will from upper management to handle these issues appropriately,
which is part of why Google as an organization is in its current state. Google
has been able to paper over issues with copious amounts of money thus far, but
that is breaking down as time goes on.

~~~
geofft
I think it is more than that: there is a will from upper management to
actively prevent such issues from being handled appropriately.

> _Larry and Sergey had like this gaggle of girls who were hot, and all become
> like their little harem of admins, I call them the L &S Harem, yes. All
> those girls are now different heads of departments in that company, years
> later._

> _Sergey’s the Google playboy. He was known for getting his fingers caught in
> the cookie jar with employees that worked for the company in the masseuse
> room. He got around._

> _H.R. told me that Sergey’s response to it was, “Why not? They’re my
> employees.” But you don’t have employees for fucking! That’s not what the
> job is._

[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/valley-of-genius-
exc...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/valley-of-genius-excerpt-
google)

~~~
HillaryBriss
holy shit. i hadn't seen that before. HR seems to have been completely
captured by the forces it was supposed to resist.

~~~
wombatpm
HR is never there for the employee. They exist to protect the Company. They
give lip service to protecting and nurturing the employees and our people are
our most precious asset BS. The only time HR will go after any of the big boys
is when they are on the outs with the board. Example: Mark Hurd when he was
forced out at HP.

------
tareqak
Another article:

 _We’re the Organizers of the Google Walkout. Here Are Our Demands_

[https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/google-walkout-organizers-
exp...](https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/google-walkout-organizers-explain-
demands.html)

------
samstave
I'd wager that the walkout was over the $2,000,000 a month paid to Rubin.

Also, people claimed that the payment was to keep Rubin from working with
competitors... But some others say that it was to buy his silence over what
others might have been doing...

------
duxup
To clarify I'm not disagreeing with the walk out.

I do wonder if any reporting process at a company can ever really be trusted
to have the employee's interests in mind. HR, legal, and etc all are there to
protect the company. They're not there for your standard employee.

Again, not disagreeing with having a process, I just wonder if a process
handled by the typical parties really can be trusted. I've never felt that HR,
legal, or any of those departments are there FOR me. Rather they are there to
prevent any problems the company may have, and that is not likely to be in my
interests if I were to make a complaint about something.

~~~
sjg007
They aren't there for you but for the company. They are really only there for
you in any way that protects the company. Having a neutral third party would
be one idea. It would have to be funded by employee and employer contributions
though. Outside of that you have the EEOC in the US that has some authority.

------
DoreenMichele
I don't understand this at all.

 _Google chief executive Sundar Pichai has told staff he supports their right
to take the action.

"I understand the anger and disappointment that many of you feel," he said in
an all-staff email. "I feel it as well, and I am fully committed to making
progress on an issue that has persisted for far too long in our society… and,
yes, here at Google, too."_

If someone at the top is sincerely interested in resolving this
satisfactorily, why the walk-out? I don't get it.

Are they saying they don't really believe him?

~~~
solipsism
Words are cheap.

~~~
DoreenMichele
So is grandstanding by people with well paid, cushy as hell jobs who are happy
to point fingers.

My mother always told me "When you point a finger at others, you have three
fingers pointing back at you." What are these people personally doing to
ensure that they are respecting women, creating the right kind of social
climate at work, etc?

Because all the policy in the world can't per se fix a shitty culture. Shitty
culture is as shitty culture does and it is perpetuated by every single
individual in the organization and their individual choices.

I'm not impressed with people who point fingers. They are usually people
wanting someone else to fix a problem so they don't have to actually change.

~~~
Harimwakairi
> What are these people personally doing to ensure that they are respecting
> women, creating the right kind of social climate at work, etc?

Part of the reason to go to the walkout was to find out what to do. People
didn't just stand there doing nothing. They listened to women speak about
their experiences and ask for specific, concrete actions from attendees that
would lead to less sexual harassment, bias, and associated garbage.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Okay, cool. Is there some reason this piece couldn't be done after hours? (Or,
alternately) Is there some reason this couldn't be framed as "We are taking
time off to discuss this amongst ourselves and better understand the problem
space" without it being framed as a _walk-out_ with a flyer left on the desk
filled with their opinion?

Do these things have to go hand in hand?

~~~
tomjakubowski
The company created a problem. It makes sense that their employees are using
company time to work on fixing it.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Yes, and the comment you are replying to allows for that as a possibility
without it being framed as "a walk-out."

I'm not suggesting they shouldn't take company time. I'm wondering why this
can't be done differently. And so far the replies I'm getting don't actually
address such inquiries.

------
rurban
Sounds like pre-unionizing to me. Wonder where this will lead to...

~~~
kamaal
This is the most under rated comment in this thread.

Don't know what the Google management is thinking at this point in time. But
I'm damn sure, unless you are making it rain hundreds of millions in dollars,
and you are a part of these pre-unionizing exercises- You are very likely
getting marked up as a trouble maker, and may be already a part of purge
lists.

This is also a small industry. You don't want your name to smeared as a person
who comes with a high trouble/contribution ratio. Nobody wants to hire people
to do their jobs, and get employees running their part time political projects
with their fellow colleagues in paid office time, on office issues.

There are also a huge range legal landmines you are likely to step over even
without active knowledge that you are.

~~~
smacktoward
_> This is also a small industry. You don't want your name to smeared as a
person who comes with a high trouble/contribution ratio._

What you are suggesting is called "blacklisting." You may be interested to
learn that in many states it is illegal behavior itself. See
[https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-
books/employee-...](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-
books/employee-rights-book/chapter10-9.html).

 _> Nobody wants to hire people to do their jobs, and get employees running
their part time political projects with their fellow colleagues in paid office
time, on office issues._

Union organizing is not a "part time political project," it is a legally
protected right. See [https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-
law/employees/i...](https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-
law/employees/i-am-not-represented-union/your-rights-during-union-organizing).

~~~
kamaal
Nobody ever gets interview feedbacks in this industry.

What you are saying is true, but its always impossible to establish
intentions. And either way you have to sue. All the best ever getting a job if
you are known to do legal fights against prospective employers.

>>Union organizing is not a "part time political project," it is a legally
protected right.

One believes in these things only until they become managers themselves. And
every one aspires to be one in this industry.

~~~
smacktoward
_> One believes in these things only until they become managers themselves._

The law isn't Tinker Bell, it doesn't require you to believe in it to exist.

 _> And every one aspires to be one in this industry._

It's difficult to think of anything sadder than a person who assents to his
own exploitation in the hopes that _maybe, someday,_ he will get to exploit
someone else.

~~~
lucio
so all managers are exploiters?

------
PopsiclePete
The DeVaul guy from Division X actually made _sexual advances_ towards someone
being _interviewed_ for a job where he'd have been the manager. Has called it
"an error in judgement".

I'm sorry, DeVaul, but that's not "an error in judgement", that is pure
harassment, and I'd pay $2000 to watch you try your "moves" on someone who'd
knock your teeth in for that.

------
ddebernardy
[https://twitter.com/GoogleWalkout/status/1057804203895283712](https://twitter.com/GoogleWalkout/status/1057804203895283712)

^ Might be a better source article.

------
thatgerhard
this is why we are all going to be replaced by machines.

------
n4r9
Interesting to contrast this story with Damore's claims of left-wing bias and
overemphasis on diversity and inclusion. It's uncomfortable exercise to put
myself in the shoes of a young woman considering applying to Google; the
prospect of unwanted advances from higher-ups and suspicions from the
occasional peer of being hired for my gender might be enough to put me off
completely.

~~~
brobdingnagians
The interesting thing is that the #MeToo movement naturally targeted a lot of
liberals, because almost everyone in Hollywood is liberal. The right also has
some issues with harassment, etc. but the left is far from immune to having it
and in some ways has more trouble. I'm not sure why that is, but the "free
love" and unrestrained sexual expression type culture of the left might have
something to do with it.

~~~
tootahe45
It's called white knighting, you see it a lot with feminist men who are often
the abusers.

------
qubax
"A commitment to end pay and opportunity inequity"?

I'm confused here. Are they demanding that preferential hiring and advancement
practices and programs for women and certain minorities be stopped?

~~~
alexis_fr
As you can see, the divide is becoming greater between ones who “believe” and
ones who “don’t”, and the audience is massively imposing a bias here in this
thread. We’ve lost our ability to listen to each other, and it’s sad that it
happened on a topic which is still very easy to judge using science.

~~~
debacle
Most reasonable people on HN stay out of these threads. You're not going to
change anyone's mind at this point.

~~~
ergothus
I think it is true that you wont change most people's minds. (When I
discovered the psychological concept of schema, I was literally horrified)

But some of us are discovering that what we thought of as "normal" (and thus
forms the basis of many of of our value judgements) is quite narrow, so we
have to adjust our expectations and that changes a lot of things... getting
perspectives from others is a necessary and tedious process.

Im in my early 40s and despite thinking I was pretty liberal on most social
issues I've spent the last 10 years discovering I've been wrong, poorly
informed, and/or ignorant on a lot of details. At this rate, I dont expect to
be done with these self-updates anytime soon, and reasoned arguments and
shared experiences, fears, concerns, and hopes are essential for me to re-
determine where I now stand, each and every day.

Just as an example, another comment made an argument about why the market
would theoretically prefer underpaid staff. (Which would then not make them
underpaid). A good point, but irreconciable with pay gap data...how do I
resolve that? Ah, someone replied with a decent response about the issue BEING
perceived value. Armed with these positions I can now spend a few minutes of
much more effective research, and have better chances of noticing details in
my day-to-day life.

For people who are tired of rehashing the same old arguments with data and
answers that are out there for anyone serious to find...it's actually quite
hard to find if you dont really know the question, and as unfair as it is,
there is a limit to how much time and effort will people will spend grasping
at straws about how they themselves might be reinforcing terrible systems.
Implicit bias is IMPLICIT and thus it is hard to find out what your biased
thoughts are. Effective arguments dramatically reduce that time and effort,
and even if most wont take them for that final step, some of us are trying,
and are grateful to those that are willing to once again rehash the "obvious"
with those that are unlikely to change their minds.

~~~
malvosenior
> _A good point, but irreconciable with pay gap data_

> _For people who are tired of rehashing the same old arguments with data and
> answers that are out there for anyone serious to find..._

It's funny that you say that since there is no data supporting the pay gap. In
fact there are people posting data in this thread contradicting the pay gap.

If you say data is available to support your argument, you should link to it.

~~~
ergothus
> It's funny that you say that

I think you misunderstood my point in the "answers that are out there for
anyone serious to find" \- I'm saying it's worth restating your arguments even
if you think people "should" know the "obvious" and "proven". Nothing in that
position makes it ironic that I also stated my understanding of things (Be
that understanding right or wrong).

> If you say data is available to support your argument, you should link to
> it.

I've chased this rabbit hole before - assuming you are sincere, I'll point to
Wikipedia and let you follow their citations, but there's lots out there:

> In the US the average woman's unadjusted annual salary has been cited as 78%
> to 82% of that of the average man's. However, after adjusting for choices
> made by male and female workers in college major, occupation, working hours,
> and parental leave, multiple studies find that pay rates between males and
> females varied by 5–6.6% or, females earning 94 cents to every dollar earned
> by their male counterparts. The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated
> to originate from gender discrimination and a difference in ability and/or
> willingness to negotiate salaries.

I'll be conservative and take the lowest difference and assume that college
major, occupation, working hours, and parental leave are 100% by un-pressured
choice: 95 cents to the dollar doesn't sound like a lot, until you ask
yourself if a 5% raise is significant, particularly since the amount of money
in question takes effect every single year. My anecdotal experience suggests
the conservative assumptions for that are not reasonable, but YMMV.

~~~
malvosenior
Even the wikipedia article says there's no citation given to backup the claims
(see first paragraph).

> _The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from gender
> discrimination and a difference in ability and /or willingness to negotiate
> salaries._

So according to wikipedia, men _may_ have higher ability or be better
negotiators? I don't see a gender pay gap here.

Here's a good article on the subject:

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-
buy...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-
gender-pay-gap-myth/#31a03bbd2596)

~~~
ergothus
> Here's a good article on the subject:

How so? The article rants about the 78% claim, without addressing that (a)
even correcting for the concerns they state a pay gap exists, and (b) those
"choices" men and women make aren't always free choices (witness who takes
parental leave in the US vs in more egalitarian countries.

> men may have higher ability or be better negotiators? I don't see a gender
> pay gap here.

I fail to see how not knowing the source of a gap disproves the gap.

And men having more frequent and successful negotiations is a pretty tested
topic itself. When perceived aggression garners one gender respect and another
disdain, it's an inevitable result.

------
rustcharm
How do these protestors know the facts of the matter better than the people
who investigated?

~~~
ummonk
The facts are not in dispute by the people who investigated. They found the
allegation credible.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The facts are not in dispute by the people who investigated

That is not established.

> They found the allegation credible.

“Credible” is not “true”; it is quite possible to find both a claim and it's
negation to be credible.

~~~
ummonk
Yes, but even if the specic allegation was not true, his whole relationship
with someone he had power over was highly inappropriate. Unfortunately though,
given that the senior leadership had a history of engaging in such
inappropriate relationships, Google’s action here is to be expected.

------
SirLJ
Should they ask for the immediate termination of all past abusers and how high
they should they go in the company?

------
VBprogrammer
Wouldn't it be easier to create an algorithm for compensation which clearly
didn't involve gender (i.e. no deep learning stuff). Something which boils
down to base salary + experience factor + google service factor.

Honestly, I can imagine that being less troublesome even outside of attempting
to be fair an equitable regardless of race / gender / sexual orientation.

~~~
gambiting
Blind hiring can have the exact opposite effect:

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-
tri...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-
improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888)

My point is - there's zero guarantee that a "logical" algorithm would be
"fair". Just like if you trained an ML algorithm on the database of people
currently in American prisons it would most likely conclude that black=more
likely to be a criminal, which is obviously an unfair assumption to make.

------
trhway
Write a contrarian opinion - get publicly fired zero tolerance style, coerce
for sex using the force of your position - get quietly paid $90M.

Looks like Google thinks that the former is much worse than the latter. Either
that, or they apply different sexual harassment policies for rank-and-file
employees and executives.

~~~
sah2ed
The first (Damore) was an engineer. The second (Rubin) was an executive.

To Google, executive >> engineer hence the outrage by rank and file.

~~~
casefields
Don’t act like most of those rank and file support Damore in any way. There
was a mob abrewing within that very group right before he was fired.

------
vynyl
Google needs to stand firm against these policies. Making the "chief diversity
officer" answer directly to the CEO and make recommendations to the board of
directors is an absurd demand. They would open themselves up to huge amounts
of foreign manipulation and political sabotage.

~~~
drdeadringer
> They would open themselves up to huge amounts of foreign manipulation and
> political sabotage.

I'd like to know how you envision this happening. Like, China calls Google's
CDO and says "We'd love to see more Chinese hires, we might consider sending
you a welcome-back invitation"?

~~~
ryanmercer
>I'd like to know how you envision this happening

Botnets of fake social media accounts for starters. You think if they are
currently manipulating political elections they won't ever try and use similar
tactics to tank a company?

China: "Google give us user data!"

Google: "No way!"

China: "PLA Unit 61398, hurt the Google! Make accusations! Lots of
accusations! Many many many accusations!"

\----

China: "State media, run articles about how the evil uncivilized Google makes
a hostile environment for female/gay/green cardigan wearing employees!"

\---

China: "Movie studios, make this romantic comedy but be sure to vilify a
company identical to Google!"

\---

China: "People's Worker, scour the internet for any controversial quote from
any corporate member of Google, great, yes, that! PLA Unit 61398, have an
account 'discover' this quote and use the botnet to get it trending!"

~~~
drdeadringer
... but some of these examples happen already. How is a CDO reporting to the
CEO going to amplify any already magnified negative PR and force action?

~~~
ryanmercer
>How is a CDO

By existing. If you make a 'chief diversity officer' then you make an ideal
candidate to compromise access to their accounts. Any policy discussion, any
reports, any internal discussion of incidents become excellent ammunition for
a campaign.

------
Kiro
I support this but I also wish other companies would be under the same
scrutiny as Google. I've been at companies where women not only were paid much
much less but also more or less objects that were openly treated as such.

There would be management meetings about rating the sexiest coworkers and who
could lay down the most (obviously not a single woman in whole of management
and they had no chance of moving even close to it in their career). All
sanctioned from the highest level and not a single person would dare to
question it. I was not actively participating but also part of the problem
since I didn't say anything.

This was not even done in secret and more or less public knowledge. The
communication from management had a lot of sexist jokes and pictures and
anyone questioning it "had no humor".

Mind you, this was not a tech company per say and I believe the further you
get from tech the worse it gets. I think it's sad that the huge problem
affecting 99% of women gets reduced to a single company which probably is one
of the few in the world that even has a code of conduct against this stuff.

------
readhn
"there's no real process in place for situations of misconduct in the office.
...why aren't they treating their organisation with the same rigor they treat
their website."

there is an interesting tendency that many psychologists pointed out: in many
professions for some reason psychopaths tend to get to the top an stay there.
Specifically CEOs tend to be people with most psychopathic traits:

[https://www.businessinsider.com/professions-with-the-most-
ps...](https://www.businessinsider.com/professions-with-the-most-
psychopaths-2018-5)

[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wisdom-Psychopaths-Saints-
Killers-S...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wisdom-Psychopaths-Saints-Killers-
Success-ebook/dp/B007NKN9U8?tag=skim0x70967-21)

Now consider for a second, if you have psychopaths with money running the
companies - why would they be interested in well being of their employees?

I am not saying every CEO is a psycho, but many are (as research shows):

[https://hbr.org/2004/10/executive-
psychopaths](https://hbr.org/2004/10/executive-psychopaths)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace)

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-
dis...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-
link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/#2e2a21734104)

