
Executive accused of harassment at Alphabet 'X' unit is out - jpm_sd
https://www.axios.com/executive-accused-of-harassment-at-alphabet-x-unit-is-out-6f583d1e-91e3-4a8b-ae2b-51fd4517ec74.html
======
GeekyBear
The problem for Google is that the company has condoned these sorts of
inappropriate behaviors right from the start and from the very highest levels
of the company.

>Here Fisher quotes Google’s first executive chef, Charlie Ayers, and Heather
Cairns, the company’s first HR manager:

Charlie Ayers: 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.

Heather Cairns: And we didn’t have locks, so you can’t help it if you walk in
on people if there’s no lock. Remember, we’re a bunch of twentysomethings
except for me—ancient at 35, so there’s some hormones and they’re raging.

Charlie Ayers: 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.

Heather Cairns: Oh my God: This is a sexual harassment claim waiting to
happen! That was my concern.

[https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-
with-...](https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-some-
strange-ideas-about-his-female-employees-according-to-a-new-book/)

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
> The problem for Google is that the company has condoned . . .

That is _a_ problem, but it is not _the_ problem. _The_ problem is developing
good practices for handling harassment situations going forward. We can fret
over what has been done, but we can only change the future.

------
relaunched
It seems like many leaders fall down when it comes to protecting the company.
It seems like leaders may fail to understand that no one person makes or
breaks a company, not a great company anyway. There are many more people
willing and able to step up, then their are opportunities to step up into - no
matter what the job is.

I find it impossible to believe that lawyers are giving sub-optimal advice.
Generally, it's probably situations where lawyers say "x is the best
practice", leaders say, "what else do you have" and they end up with some sort
of compromising, risk-accepting solution - a la any number of Google recent
announcements or any other number of companies that bury things until it makes
the headlines.

------
astrodust
They've got an awful lot of house-cleaning to do, this is just the start.

~~~
caseysoftware
All their posturing and positioning lately is looking more and more like over
compensating.

Cut out this sort of crap first.

~~~
rdtsc
That's always how it works. To make sure everything stays hidden for years it
has to be combined with a robust yet superficial call for antiharrasment. Lots
of blogs and talks about it. This is not unlike say Harvey Weinstein showing
up at the Women's March.

~~~
Joakal
Someone gave a clear way to prevent abuse: prohibit sexual/etc relationships
with subordinates. Well, except for couples that were already in one.

A lot of places have this rule. Why doesn't Google adopt this rule?

~~~
nradov
That's a good start but insufficient. In large, complex matrix organizations
someone at a high level has a lot of power over others even if they aren't
formally his subordinates.

------
FireBeyond
> Alphabet CEO Larry Page, who was aware of the allegations and the
> investigation’s findings, did not disclose publicly Rubin’s reason for
> leaving, saying in a statement at the time, “I want to wish Andy all the
> best with what’s next.”

Maybe Google could invest in his next venture, like they did with Andy
Rubin...

------
natch
If the allegations about Rubin are true, whoever greenlighted Rubin's exit
package should also resign.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
Exit package that big? You'd be looking at the CEO and the Chairman. Fat
chance. :-/

~~~
natch
And some board members possibly. In any case whoever it is has lost any
respectability.

------
skh
Do no evil apparently does not extend to doing the right thing. It should not
take publicity to force companies/people to do the right thing.

~~~
ConceptJunkie
It was "Don't be evil." and they dropped it a while ago. At least they're
being honest by omission.

~~~
delroth
Open [https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-
conduct.html](https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html) and
^F "evil".

You should verify your facts before repeating provably false information.

~~~
tedsanders
I mean, it is a verified fact that they dropped it from the code of
conduct.[1,2] My understanding is that, consistent with your link, they added
it back later.

[1] [https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-
do...](https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-
from-1826153393) [2] [http://time.com/4060575/alphabet-google-dont-be-
evil/](http://time.com/4060575/alphabet-google-dont-be-evil/)

~~~
delroth
Your sources disagree with your statement.

In [1]: > The updated version of Google’s code of conduct still retains one
reference to the company’s unofficial motto

[2] is not about Google and explicitly says: > Google, which will going
forward be a subsidiary of Alphabet, is retaining the creedo however.

~~~
tedsanders
Thank you for the correction. I see now that Google dropped the 'Don't be
evil' clause from their code of conduct, but left in one instance of the
phrase itself.

------
dang
Url changed from [https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/30/18045230/alphabet-
google...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/30/18045230/alphabet-google-rich-
devaul-resigns-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin-investigation), which points to
this.

------
georgeburdell
The hubris displayed by Google and other tech companies in their response to
sexual harassment claims suggests to me that they have become poorly run. They
have benefitted from an enormous bull market and so bad or wasteful behavior
has been ex post facto rationalized as correct or inconsequential. In this
time, the cost of keeping an alleged harasser on the payroll is nearly
infinite. A good recession will clean house.

Maybe it’s just me, but I get the impression from these articles that Google
et al. has been an auspicious hidey hole for well-pedigreed sexual deviants.

~~~
munificent
Bias up front: I work at Google. I obviously don't speak for the company here.

We are definitely hearing a lot about this stuff from Google and other tech
companies lately. I don't know what we can reliably infer from the absence of
that kind of news what that says about other industries.

My intuition is that workplace sexual harassment has been rife in all aspects
of human endeavor since the dawn of time. The "boss screwing the secretary"
trope isn't exactly a new one. It may be that we're seeing a combination of
things:

1\. Thanks to the #metoo movement, people who get harassed now have enough
power to actually be able to stand up and cause the person they accuse to face
some scrutiny. Before, it was just swept under the rug. "Boys will be boys",
"that's what you get for dressing like that", "you should have known better to
stay late at work with him", etc.

2\. The very rapid rise of tech as a cultural dominator makes them a prime
actor in our moral narratives. The average person sees a handful of giant tech
companies dramatically changing the way we all live, and they naturally want
to know if they are a force for good or evil. Those kinds of journalistic
narratives sell.

For all we know, sexual harassment could be 10x worse in the insurance
industry but we won't know because who wants to read articles about the
insurance industry?

3\. There's also the obvious bias that if something happens too much, it
ceases to be news. "Newsworthiness" is a combination of significance and
novelty. The former is where good investigative journalism can show the scope
of a sweeping hidden problem. The latter is the old "dog bites man" isn't news
but "man bites dog" is. It's easy to mistake the latter for the former and
assume that something being reported indicates a trend, when really it
indicates the exact opposite.

So, it may be that things really are worse at Google than at other places, but
I don't know if we can rely on the presence of news articles to judge that.

~~~
rayiner
These are all good points. Certainly, there are tons of examples of sexual
harassment in other industries. I'll submit, however, that tech is a bit
outside the mainstream on this. While sexual harassment happens for example at
law firms, nobody in the legal profession (and I suspect, most of "sanitized
corporate America") would try to defend with a straight face the practice of
relationships between supervisors and underlings, as is typical here on HN.

~~~
askafriend
In the legal profession which is prestige driven, relationship based,
artificially supply constrained and very lucrative, you would fear for your
career over most else especially if you're lower on the totem pole.

This creates a perverse set of incentives to hide all misbehavior even if
you're a victim of it.

So I don't know where you're getting this idea that lawyers would
automatically defend themselves in those kinds of situations when the
incentives are heavily weighted towards ignoring the situations and moving on.

As a software engineer in the tech industry though (especially at a place like
Google), you can tell your employer to fuck off and you can find a new high-
paying job tomorrow.

~~~
eridius
> _As a software engineer in the tech industry though (especially at a place
> like Google), you can tell your employer to fuck off and you can find a new
> high-paying job tomorrow._

A white or asian man can do that, sure. But that's not necessarily true for
women and other marginalized groups in the tech industry. Especially if this
means they won't get a reference from their current employer.

~~~
sublupo
Many tech companies that I know actually huge preference to "marginalized"
group. I don't know if it is still done but Microsoft used to have a
reputation that they would call females in for a second interview as long as
the first wasn't terrible.

~~~
eridius
It's rather dehumanizing to refer to woman as "females". Please don't do that.

~~~
sublupo
Sorry, not my first language

------
thrower123
> In the Times story, DeVaul allegedly invited hardware engineer Star Simpson,
> who was interviewing to work at Google, to the art and culture festival
> Burning Man, telling her he and his wife were polyamorous. Simpson attended
> the festival in hopes it would improve her chances of getting hired — she
> brought her mother with her and “professional attire,” according to the
> Times. Yet DeVaul encouraged her to remove her clothing and asked to give
> her a massage.

> Later on, Simpson learned that she did not get the job, and that DeVaul knew
> this when she chose to attend Burning Man.

> he thought Simpson had been aware that she did not get the job when she
> attended the festival.

This is all kinds of weird, and I am not sure how I feel about any of it. It
seems like a failure to communicate all around, with some information
asymmetry muddying the waters.

On one hand, what the hell are you discussing your sexual relationship with
your wife to an interviewee for? How _does_ that come up in an interview
process?

On the other hand, Burning Man is not a place one goes to for professional
reasons. Unless you've been under a rock, you know what Burning Man is, and
what goes on there.

~~~
moate
I know exactly how I feel about this: Gross!

Telling someone that's interviewing "you should come to burning man because my
wife and I are swingers" is gross and inappropriate (borderline illegal?).

If you're inclined to ask someone who you were interviewing for a job to come
do sex to you and your wife, I think it's a very reasonable expectation that
you confirm this person is aware they have not gotten the job. Doubly so when
you're an executive of one of the largest companies in the world. Seems like
this is extremely poor judgement at best, and abuse of his position/the
implication of a job at worst.

~~~
jtr_47
What kind of person would consider going or being interviewed after they heard
that statement? Regardless if they wore a suit and brought their mother to the
event. It shows that you may be interested but are testing the waters? If this
person really wanted the job, it looks like she would have done almost
anything to get it.

I do not condone the behavior of either party involved. But at least one
person should be strong enough to say no thanks, I don't believe in
compromising my integrity for an interview with those requirements attached.
I'd report this to HR ASAP too.

peace.

~~~
moate
Spoken like someone who's never been jobless long enough to wonder when, not
if, the electricity is going to be turned off...

Great that you have such high moral standards. Here's the thing: You're victim
blaming. This is a bad look. This sort of "there are bad people on both sides"
choice is ignoring that you're only condemning her behavior because she
responded to his horrible behavior. She did report this behavior to google.
She also said she didn't have sex with the guy, and only gave him a neck
massage after constant badgering.

TL;dr- You're being part of the problem here bro, and you need to knock that
off if you want to maintain this air of moral superiority.

------
HiroshiSan
One consequence of this naming and shaming type editorial is that you end up
with paragraphs like these:

"In the Times story, DeVaul allegedly invited hardware engineer Star Simpson,
who was interviewing to work at Google, to the art and culture festival
Burning Man, telling her he and his wife were polyamorous. Simpson attended
the festival in hopes it would improve her chances of getting hired — she
brought her mother with her and “professional attire,” according to the Times.
Yet DeVaul encouraged her to remove her clothing and asked to give her a
massage."

~~~
bitwize
Wow, small world.I think this is the same girl who was arrested as a suspected
terrorist a few years back because as far as the BoPo is concerned, exposed
circuit board + blinking lights = bomb.

~~~
geezerjay
For those of us wondering, here's a link:

[https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Student_arrested_over_%22art%22...](https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Student_arrested_over_%22art%22_shirt_with_exposed_wiring_at_Boston_Airport)

~~~
jkaplowitz
Thanks! Do you have a link to how her case turned out? That article stops
after her not guilty plea and her release on bond.

~~~
Terretta
In her words on the record, "... the deal made with the D.A. was to perform 50
hours of community service, to not be arrested in Massachusetts, for an entire
year, and that I had to issue a public apology to Boston."

[https://boingboing.net/2008/09/22/star-simpson-one-
yea.html](https://boingboing.net/2008/09/22/star-simpson-one-yea.html)

~~~
jkaplowitz
Thanks. It's still more than the "be careful of uninformed non-scientist
public perception" warning that she should have gotten, but it's probably the
least the DA could politically speaking get away with and still save face.
Society's reactions to this kind of thing are messed up in a complicated way.

Good interview there.

