
A note to our employees - minimaxir
https://www.blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/note-our-employees/
======
ericabiz
One of the more interesting pieces is buried in the linked PDF:

"Excessive alcohol: Harassment is never acceptable and alcohol is never an
excuse. But one of the most common factors among the harassment complaints
made today at Google is that the perpetrator had been drinking (~20% of
cases). Our policy is clear: Excessive consumption of alcohol is not permitted
when you are at work, performing Google business, or attending a Google-
related event, whether onsite or offsite. Going forward, all leaders at the
company - Directors, VPs and SVPs - will be expected to create teams, events,
offsites and environments in which excessive alcohol consumption is strongly
discouraged. For example, many teams have already put two-drink limits in
place for events. Others use drink ticket systems. The onus will be on leaders
to take appropriate steps to restrict any excessive consumption among their
teams, and we will impose more onerous actions if problems persist."

As someone who's been exposed to heavy drinking culture in Silicon Valley,
this is a huge step in the right direction. I hope more companies and tech
events adopt this.

~~~
philip1209
Why not just ban alcohol at work? Why can't work be work, and social stuff can
happen outside of it?

I know it sounds a bit extreme. But, after reading "It doesn't have to be
crazy it work," I feel like companies use alcohol to bribe employees to stay
at the office after-hours.

A midground would be drinking only with sit-down food. Nobody is doing shots
while having dinner. Another idea could be making company social functions a
lunch activity, rather than a dinner one.

~~~
zaroth
Feel free to ban anything you want at work. And the people who work there will
select for if they want to be a part of it by becoming or remaining employees.
(There are, of course, things that are illegal to ban)

I personally want to work somewhere who values me as a responsible human
being, and expects me to behave like one. The more a workplace feels like they
have to micromanage their employees like children, the more I would expect
their workplace to be filled with people who act like children. And I
personally wouldn’t want to work somewhere like that.

Hire intelligent, respectful, ethical, empathetic, mature adults to do
interesting work. Fire the ones who don’t live up to it.

I expect workplace requirements to be spelled out in terms of expected
behavior, expected performance, expected results. Define the _outputs_.

And _take responsibility up the chain_. IMO the right policy is not to ban
alcohol entirely. Rather, if an employee behaves inappropriately the employee
is responsible, but if the manager created the environment which lead to the
behavior (whether that be approving the purchase of a keg and cheering for a
keg stand, or not stopping that engineer from being verbally abusive at the
daily stand ups) the manager is _also_ held to account.

~~~
roenxi
> I personally want to work somewhere who values me as a responsible human
> being, and expects me to behave like one.

Responsible human beings don't drink alcohol in the workplace. If a person is
drawing a salary, they should be presenting to work fit & as prepared as
possible to do it. There is no good reason for employees to be drinking at or
prior to work. Unless, I suppose, there is some well-replicated study showing
that alcohol in low doses increases cognitive function despite all my
expectations.

Management doesn't have a magic crystal ball to tell truth from falsehood and
fact from hearsay - and because of that uncertainty firing people is a far
last resort for creating a safe and welcoming workspace. Banning alcohol at
work is both prudent and reasonable.

~~~
afandian
You have a very narrow view of "the workplace".

I used to work for a large well respected software company. On Fridays, after
work, there was a subsidized bar where we could have a beer or two and discuss
work or non-work things in a more relaxed atmosphere. Would you ban that?

If I go to a conference and we have an official conference social meet-up
should I be prohibited from consuming alcohol?

I have my own straw man. You say:

> they should be presenting to work fit & as prepared as possible to do it

I propose that we ban coffee in the workplace because we should all be at 100%
all the time and coffee obviously shows you aren't turning up ready to work.

~~~
roenxi
> You have a very narrow view of "the workplace".

On the contrary, I have a very broad view of the workplace. Yes to all your
questions. I don't work in tech, and there are no subsidised bars or alcohol
at conferences. We got subsidised gym memberships and tea at the conferences
I'm used to. If you want to drink, your money, your time, after work. If you
want to get tipsy with colleagues in your own time, it is not in any way
endorsed by the company.

My personal guess is the tech industry _will_ eventually ban alcohol at all
such things as the link between drinking, uninhibited men and sexual
harassment is bought up again and again. The bad apples will spoil the whole
barrel.

> I propose that we ban coffee in the workplace because we should all be at
> 100% all the time and coffee obviously shows you aren't turning up ready to
> work.

Well, I don't agree with you. But if you have evidence, sure. My understanding
is coffee is a mild stimulant, so it should be linked to a very mild
improvement in work performance - so I doubt you have evidence.

People do turn up to work unprepared. We can't really stop that - maybe they
just get a bad nights sleep. But alcohol is going to have a pretty strictly
negative effect, so employees shouldn't be drinking it in company hours or
before work.

~~~
afandian
Both of my examples were _after_ work. So we're not talking about being at
your desk answering support tickets and calculating bridge loading equations.

My point about taking a narrow view is that "the workplace" is not only at-
your-desk time. Its geographic-but-after-hours, related but off-site social
events.

On a related note, a lot of the discussions around software project codes of
conduct are based on the fact that software projects fundamentally are human
endeavours. It's not just about the code you churn out. If you want to employ
humans you have to let them be human. That means some degree of socializing.
If you want to employ machines you have to maintain them too.

My coffee counterexample was to illustrate that your approach seems to be
binary, zero tolerance. With humans involved, I think it's just not that
simple.

~~~
roenxi
:P I don't understand why you are insisting that I have a narrow view of the
workplace, I've read what you've written and agree. I can tell that your
examples are after work, we're not talking about sitting at your desk. I'm
talking about geographic-but-after-hours and related but off-site social
events too.

> a subsidized bar

And if an employee does something stupid after being in that bar, it requires
an absolute contortion of language to say that maybe the presence and
cheapness of the grog wasn't a contributing factor. Say in a bad case a male
employee sexually harasses some female coworker - the woman involved (and, I
suspect, a judge) might well question why the company was enabling this. I
personally think that the company should be held responsible as much as the
drunk employee.

It is simply too easy to link subsidised alcohol to someone acting
inappropriately due to alcohol.

> official conference social meet-up

Ditto. If the meetup is official, there should be no alcohol. Learn to
socialise over a lemonade. I've seen a very large number of professionals who,
somehow, manage to do just that.

> My coffee counterexample was to illustrate that your approach seems to be
> binary, zero tolerance. With humans involved, I think it's just not that
> simple.

If I, in a capacity as an employer, am going to have some responsibility for
some employees actions then that employee, whilst I am responsible for them,
is not going to be drinking alcohol. There risk far outweighs the hypothetical
employee who can only socialise with a glass in hand.

I'm not even making that decision on any specific risk factor - alcohol leads
to worse decisions, in a way that coffee does not. We live in an age where
companies are often responsible for outcomes in a _very broad_ definition of
"workplace". If the company might be responsible, then employees have a
responsibility to be making their best decisions.

If you want to drink with your workmates the process should be organise it
unofficially, go find a bar and don't wear a hat with a corporate logo on it.
It isn't hard to do. If drinking is mandatory to having a career then that is
the problem, not my hardline approach to alcohol.

------
duxup
This reminds me of a company I worked at where they deiced people were
spending too much on travel. So they came out with new rules about travel
expenses every 6 months until large swaths of people simply couldn't travel
(me included).

But the problem wasn't solved at all because the bulk of the absurd spending
was caused by people who the rules didn't apply to....

~~~
habosa
[Googler] This is how I feel when I see an increased emphasis on training.
Making a bunch of leaf-node employees like me sit through more simple online
training is not going to fix the problem we have (although it can't hurt). It
doesn't address the harassment that comes from extreme differences in power
and a lack of accountability.

Still, I am cautiously optimistic about today's announced changes.

~~~
noobermin
It's the neoliberal response to everything. Make cosmetic, progressive changes
but don't address underlying structural inequalities between groups.

~~~
duxup
I would say it is the response by any group in power, corporate, politics,
whatever.

They want to makes some news they're doing something, but regardless of
organization or politics, the rules often don't apply to those in power.

------
tptacek
I don't understand why the "mandatory" training has a penalty for skipping it.
If it's mandatory, it's mandatory.

This isn't rocket surgery; there are all sorts of mandatory training things
big companies do, and they are often actually mandatory. For instance, we've
worked with HIPAA-encumbered clients where you'll lose access to their network
and applications if you don't complete annual security awareness training.

The "docking people in Perf" thing just seems like needless drama. Just
require people to do the damn training.

~~~
schintan
and what if they still do not take the training, fire them ?

~~~
mattmanser
Yeah, why wouldn't you? Either you believe it necessary or you don't.

------
HarryHirsch
Look at the overspecific promises going forward!

\- We will make arbitration optional for _individual sexual harassment_ and
_sexual assault_ claims

Ordinary harassment and assault is still covered by forced arbitration, as is
systemic sexual harassment. Good to know.

\- We will update and expand our _mandatory sexual harassment_ training

Everyone knows already that mandatory XY training serves to deflect liability
from the company. If the previous instance wasn't good enough for its purpose,
the new one will certainly be.

Why not just follow policy in the employee handbook? They usually have a
section on harassment and appropiate conduct, and form part of the employment
contract.

~~~
hkon
What is mandatory sexual harassment training? If you're not a sexual harassor,
it must be frustrating having to attend such an event.

~~~
always_good
Reminds me of the ethics class they started at the University of Texas in the
business school because one kid lied on his resume and "made a fool of the
university" with his ridiculous bullshitting during the senior-year
interviewing process.

It was a comical waste of time, and the whole time you're there wondering how
it could possibly change someone who already had no scruples. You're left
bitter that you had to participate in a function that had no purpose beyond
making some decision-maker feel like they were moving the needle on some
issue.

------
kyberias
It looks to me like US is like an alien planet. What does arbitration even
mean in this context? It's crazy that employees need to know these things.

~~~
xyzzyz
Arbitration means that you don't get to sue in real court, but instead you are
forced to go through "arbitration", which is a private company hired by your
employer that's supposed to make fair decisions in disputes between the party
that brings them continued business, and the random person that will never
talk to them if they weren't forced to.

~~~
albertgoeswoof
Isn’t sexual assault / harassment a criminal offence though? Surely the state
should be prosecuting the moment a law is broken?

Or does the US justice system work differently?

~~~
xyzzyz
There are plenty of fireable offenses of sexual harrasment type that don’t
meet the relevant criminal standard of sexual assault. Sexual harrasment is
_not_ a crime, though often it is very close to the crime of sexual assault
(e.g. unwanted touching _is_ a crime).

------
SpikeDad
That really said nothing. They actually previously had a policy that if you
were required to take sexual harassment training and didn't you got docked 1
point? Wouldn't getting fired be a more appropriate penalty?

However they take this "seriously" so I'm sure everything will be fine for
Google employees.

~~~
jahlove
> Wouldn't getting fired be a more appropriate penalty?

no.

~~~
craftyguy
Care to explain why you think not?

~~~
01100011
Have you ever been through sexual harassment training? Did you feel like it
was helpful?

I've been through several and found that no one really takes it seriously. If
the things they tell you in sexual harassment training are new to you, you
probably aren't going to learn your lesson. Problem employees aren't going to
change their behavior. Enforcement of standards is much more critical.

Sexual harassment training is a CYA move by companies.

~~~
lallysingh
I think it's helpful if you come from a different culture where some of those
things would be considered acceptable.

~~~
adamrezich
Can you give a concrete example of this? I'm having a hard time imagining it.

~~~
lallysingh
Repeatedly asking a woman out. I recall a friend upsetting a love interest
because he didn't repeatedly ask her out, as was customary where she was from.
She didn't think he was serious because he wasn't trying hard enough.

Not ok here, but different in other places.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
In which country is it customary to repeatedly ask someone out?

~~~
repolfx
It used to be quite common everywhere. The idea that you should immediately
give up after a single "no" is very modern even in the west, and by no means
is it an idea all women are on board with.

For example. George Clooney had to ask his wife out three times before she
said yes. I believe Melinda Gates said no to Bill Gates the first time he
asked her out (and of course, he was her boss). In Russian culture it's common
for women to say no to a man even if she likes him, because making him work
for it is thought to increase the eventual strength of the relationship (you
don't value what you get for free, essentially). In fact a friend of mine is
married to a Russian woman and she's said in the past she said yes to him too
easily and regretted not rejecting him before - but he's told her, if she'd
done that, he'd have immediately given up because he was quite burned out on
dating at the time. So she sort of accepts it but has small regrets.

Just search on Google and you can find many examples of cases where men asked
women out several times and are now married.

Never mix up feminists with women, they aren't the same. I've met plenty of
women who wish men would chase them, but it's too risky for men to do that
these days.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
You’re talking about something different. Or at least mixing examples. I’m
quite aware that there are many examples of men not giving up the first time,
but parent comment seemed to suggest that in their culture, the woman is
_expected_ to say no, despite their positive interest, and the man is
expecting to receive a no, and is then expected to try more, as though this
scenario is the norm and not the exception.

------
mxstbr
The linked PDF contains a lot more substance than this PR-ey blogpost:
[https://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/november_announce...](https://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/november_announcement.pdf)

------
ummonk
_> We will recommit to our company-wide OKR around diversity, equity and
inclusion again in 2019, focused on improving representation—through hiring,
progression and retention—and creating a more inclusive culture for everyone._

What meaningful difference is there between representation OKRs and quotas?

~~~
ThrustVectoring
A quota would be a documented mandate to engage in illegal behavior, while the
OKRs will just encourage lower-level employees into doing illegal behavior
without the documentation and the corporate liability.

Remember Wells Fargo and how their sales mandates lead to retail bankers
opening up fraudulent accounts? Same concept. Don't demand anything specific,
just demand that something be done and apply rewards and punishments
appropriately.

------
abalone
How does this compare with the protesters' demands? Anything missing?

~~~
wffurr
No employee rep on the board. Chief Diversity Officer still reports to C-team
not the board.

------
lgleason
How about banning all mandatory arbitration so that it is fair for everybody?

~~~
travellingbuyer
That would be unfair for people who want the arbitration.

------
cphoover
Sexual harassment training... what a joke

~~~
scottlocklin
Anyone want to bet whether or not Andy Rubin has actually attended sexual
harassment training?

------
x0x0
Am I the only one who reads a bunch of the stuff Sundar has done recently as
(1) Sundar disagreeing very strongly with how Larry handled sexual harassment
issues at google (see eg Andy), and (2) making it clear that he handles them
differently?

eg in his Oct memo Sundar carefully pointed out that people at google on his
watch have been fired for sexual harassment, and none of them got a package
[1].

[1] [https://deadline.com/2018/10/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-
fired-...](https://deadline.com/2018/10/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-
fired-48-people-sexual-harassment-1202489812/)

------
walshemj
Interesting I sort of got the impression that it was mandatory company
provided arbitration with NDA's was one of the key elements of the walkout.

------
politician
I thought this would be about facilitating Chinese surveillance initiatives,
but on reflection, I suppose that was naive.

------
brynjolf
The normal way to deal with corruption, make new rules for everyone except the
people committing the corruption.

------
dionian
> We will recommit to our company-wide OKR around diversity, equity and
> inclusion again in 2019, focused on improving representation—through hiring,
> progression and retention—and creating a more inclusive culture for
> everyone.

How does more diversity solve anything?

~~~
travellingbuyer
If anything, diversity potentially makes it worse, because you'd have people
from more distinct cultures, some of which have customs diametrically opposed
to the company's policies. Unless, of course, they are talking about
superficial diversity: skin colour, sex, etc. Still, wouldn't solve anything.

------
robut_98765
I wonder how long it will be until there is A note to our employees version
2.0

------
gchokov
“We will update and expand our mandatory sexual harassment training.“ That
sounds as they will train how to do it properly and not get caught:)

------
cryoshon
statements like

>Going forward, we will provide more transparency on how we handle concerns.
We’ll give better support and care to the people who raise them

and

>We’re overhauling our reporting channels by bringing them together on one
dedicated site and including live support. We will enhance the processes we
use to handle concerns—including the ability for Googlers to be accompanied by
a support person. And we will offer extra care and resources for Googlers
during and after the process.

immediately set off my BS detector. whenever someone talks about meta-issues
surrounding another issue without ever directly touching on the main issue
itself, they're being evasive. the arbitration clause change is a good one.
but the entire statement lacks any genuine taking of responsibility regarding
the prior anti-employee practices. nor is there any "we're gonna try to stamp
out sexual harassment".

notably, there is also _no_ acknowledgement of other recent internal concerns,
namely aiding governments in the oppression of their people (china and
arguably others) and aiding governments in warfare (the US). while googlers
have been shamefully complacent about getting their employers to drop these
collaborations, the fact that it isn't even mentioned by pichai in a "please
shut up and go back to work" letter is a bit sad.

in conclusion: googlers need to step on the gas WRT sexual harassment changes
if they want anything beyond the modest changes announced in this letter and
other social issues regarding the company must also be brought to the point of
conflict internally.

------
knl
I'm not a native speaker, but doesn't "We will update and expand our mandatory
sexual harassment training" mean that trainings teach how to do sexual
harassment, not prevent it? Shouldn't it be "prevention of sexual harassment"?

~~~
rjknight
A few years ago I had to do "financial crime training", and although I had
heard all kinds of rumours about what working in financial services is like, I
was surprised that they were so up-front about it!

More seriously, I think this is what happens when certain words or phrases
become jargon terms - they're used to invoke a concept, and lose their literal
meaning. Something similar is happening with "mental health", as in "we should
be concerned about mental health", where "mental illness" would seem to be a
more accurate term.

The jarring effect comes when people who use these terms frequently and for
whom they have become jargon have to talk to everyone else, for whom the term
carries its literal meaning. "Sexual harassment" and "financial crime" stand
out because their literal meaning also carries a strong emotional charge for
most people, whereas their jargon invocation doesn't.

~~~
scrollaway
> _Something similar is happening with "mental health", as in "we should be
> concerned about mental health", where "mental illness" would seem to be a
> more accurate term._

I don't think it's happening to the term "mental health". Maybe it is being
used as a superset of "mental illness" sometimes when talking about eg.
homelessness, but most of the time it talks about the general psychological
health of people. Eg "People in tech need to manage their mental health".

------
rpvreviews
Like salesforce, let companies ban the drug, sorry alcohol.

------
thoughtexplorer
Serious question: Does the Chief Diversity Officer include diversity of ideas
and experience? Or is it just skin deep like it sounds?

Edit: Lots of up and down votes. Why is this question so controversial? I'd
like to see an argument as to why it's an invalid or flawed question.

~~~
Aqua
To me the notion of a need for diversity in a workplace is absurd. Seriously,
whats the point? There are and always have been professions dominated by men
and those dominated by women. From the perspective of an employer, gender,
skin colour or political views should be completely irrelevant when it comes
to making a hire/no hire decision. By introducing rules that aim to achieve a
50/50 distribution of e.g. each gender in any field, you're forming up an
artificial construct that ultimately results in poorer overall performance
(since you had to reject a number of candidates that likely were more
qualified for the position in order to reach your equal distribution goals).

~~~
kaitai
You seem to be conflating quotas and diversity, and also conflating mechanisms
and results. The point of a diversity office or officer is to provide a
resource for discussing whether mechanisms of hiring and recruitment are fair,
and trying to improve them if they're not.

Once all those studies that send out the same exact resume with the names
John, Jane, T'yesha, Jamal, Xiaoying, and Shan Shan at the top find you get
the same number of callbacks, then we'll actually be in a situation where
people are being hired on their qualifications!

~~~
Aqua
Apologies, I should have been more clear as I intended to point out an
example, not a fixed quota, because clearly if you consider diversity when
making a hiring decision you inevitably have to end up aiming to hire more
people of certain characteristics(and not necessarily qualifications) that fit
your long term quota goals.

Besides, what do you mean by fair recruitment? Because personally in this
context I view diversity and fairness as contradicting terms, since it would
always be more fair to hire a candidate that has higher qualifications and is
a good cultural fit over one that wasn't as qualified, but turned out to be a
good match when it comes to meeting present quarter's diversity goals?

I believe that basing hiring decisions on physical appearance, race, religion,
gender or political views is simply wrong. I recall there was a company that
focused on distorting candidates' voices during phone interviews that
effectively prevented the interviewers from distinguishing the interviewees'
gender. If companies like Google want to actually be more "fair", perhaps they
should move in that direction rather than introducing artificial quotas and
justifying them with a vague "need for diversity"?

~~~
amanaplanacanal
You mentioned "good cultural fit". I have heard many hiring managers mention
that they want somebody who is a good fit for the team. And it's very natural,
I mean, everybody is going to have to work with this person, right?

This almost guarantees the perpetuation of inequality. We need to stop hiring
for that kind of fit.

I'm certain that I have heard of research (by IBM maybe?) that determined that
more diversity made teams more productive, but the people on the teams were
less happy/comfortable.

~~~
tk75x
> more diversity made teams more productive, but the people on the teams were
> less happy/comfortable.

Maybe because nobody wanted to socialize with each other so they spent more
time doing work?

------
shmel
Mandatory sexual harassment training sounds quite disturbing. Anybody can
comment in detail how it is conducted? Is it really mandatory for everyone or
only for men?

~~~
bauerd
I'm from Germany and I find it sounds disturbing as well, never heard of such
thing before. However according to some this apparently is common industry
practice. So I wonder, what exactly happens at a sexual harassment training?

~~~
michaelt

      I find it sounds disturbing as well, never
      heard of such thing before.
    

Here in the UK, you go to an independent mechanic, maybe somewhere in the
workshop they have a calendar with pictures of topless women.

On the other hand, you go to a national chain, the calendar has a message
about the importance of embracing teamwork.

Sexual harassment training purports to transform organisations that behave
like the first one into organisations that behave like the second one. How
much of the difference in behaviour is a consequence of the training and how
much from other factors is obviously difficult to measure.

------
ocdtrekkie
Looks like Google has tried to dodge directly acquiescing to most of the
walkout's demands.

The chief diversity officer will "continue" to report to the leadership team,
rather than being promoted. No mention of the employee representative on the
board, either. Pichai states they'll add detail to their sexual harassment
report, but doesn't commit to release it publicly, as demanded. Google also
didn't address pay inequality, likely because doing so would require admitting
they've been lying to the Department of Labor by claiming there is none.

But there's an end to forced arbitration, we'll see if that's enough for the
walkout crowd. I kinda doubt it.

~~~
rifung
> No mention of the employee representative on the board, either.

Can someone who knows better than me explain whether this is actually a
reasonable request? It sounded ridiculous to me but I admit I am not
knowledgeable in these matters.

~~~
nrook
This is required in some European countries. For example, in Germany, workers
have a right to 50% of the board for companies with more than 2,000 employees.
(Ties break for shareholders, due to the way the chair position works.)

[https://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-
Rela...](https://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-
Relations/Countries/Germany/Board-level-Representation)

Obviously, this hasn't destroyed Germany's economy, so it's doubtful it would
hurt Google's profits much either.

~~~
lozaning
50% of the board with votes breaking for shareholders sounds a lot like the
workers don't actually have any control at all. What prevents the shareholders
from just consistently railroading the workers, forcing everything to a tie,
and then having the decision break their way?

------
Joakal
This whole PR looks like a CYA for the company because all if not most of
these changes occur are mandatory [0] or gestures due to the power that the
harassers have over their subordinates (report me and you're fired!). Am I
wrong to assume that all the serial sex harassers have been managers to their
targets?

How about a subordinate relationship ban? This policy prohibiting
relationships already occur for between doctor and patient, teacher and
student. Even the recent police and detained people sex ban? [1]

[0] [https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2018/10/04/new-california-
law...](https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2018/10/04/new-california-law-requires-
sexual-harassment-training-for-all-employees/)

[1] [http://m.amsterdamnews.com/news/2018/apr/05/bill-bans-
cops-s...](http://m.amsterdamnews.com/news/2018/apr/05/bill-bans-cops-sex/)

If I was a protester, I would ask Google execs how these policies will tackle
the abuse of power for sexual activity.

------
buboard
Why don't they make all their employees remote? Having them in the office only
seems to bring trouble.

Or just separate men from women. It works in the middle east

