
Andy Rubin Takes Leave of Absence Amid Report of ‘Inappropriate Relationship’ - artsandsci
https://gizmodo.com/andy-rubin-takes-leave-of-absence-from-essential-amid-r-1820832278
======
throwaway6497
The title is click-baity. He took leave of absence from the current company
Essential because reports of an in-appropriate relationship at Google surfaced
publicly?

Leaders and board at Essential seem to be aware of his relationship at Google
prior to the press reports. So, it is not clear why is this suddenly a big
deal and requires leave of absence. Are they embarrassed that they got
publicly caught and doing this for optics? What are they embarrassed about?

~~~
bitL
This could entirely be a CYA strategy of the board as the phone seems to be a
flop and somebody has to be made accountable for that - here Andy might be a
welcome scapegoat and distraction for not very smart investors.

------
ocdtrekkie
So, this appears to be about having an allegedly consensual relationship with
a subordinate. And I get why that's a problem, because of the power dynamic.

But I think it's a little funny if this is how he ended up getting pushed out
at Google given that Sergey Brin had an affair with a Google X employee while
working on Glass and is none the worse for it.

~~~
jonstokes
Don't forget that Larry dated Marissa for a long time, and she was his
subordinate. And then there's Eric, who was notorious...

Anyway, my understanding was that it has historically been OK at Google to
date subordinates, so I'm waiting for more to come out because I can't imagine
that "he had a consensual relationship with a subordinate" is all that's going
on here.

But maybe someone who has worked there for a long time can correct me?

~~~
ronilan
A lot of things have been "historically OK" (at Google and elsewhere), but are
no longer acceptable in today's society. It is called progress.

Reminds me of this:
[https://youtu.be/GrlEQ15mVPM](https://youtu.be/GrlEQ15mVPM)

~~~
tryingagainbro
_> >after a woman complained to Human Resource_

Did you miss this^^? She complained. Maybe she complained to get back at him
but still, she complained.

Bill Gates also dated and married a subordinate. Poor woman, where was Gloria
Allred to save her...

~~~
jonstokes
No I didn't miss it. That's what I'm saying -- there has to be something
beyond "consensual relationship with subordinate" going on here. The fact that
someone complained to HR supports that hypothesis.

My point was that sleeping with subordinates is not historically the kind of
thing that gets people fired at Google. I make no claim about whether that's
good or bad (whether or not that should ever be ok is a different discussion),
just an observation that that's the way it has been, which (along with the HR
complaint) indicates to me that this wasn't a simple case of Rubin sleeping
with a subordinate.

------
therealmarv
In the EU (at least in Germany) this would be illegal in a normal company
because it is against the law and/of personal freedom! Why are this personal
rules allowed in a company in the USA? Nobody should say to me that's ok or
not ok to get in a relationship with one of my coworker and I have not to
report it to my supervisor!

~~~
pfarnsworth
Do you not understand the power imbalance between an employee and an
executive? How can a subordinate consent if their job is potentially on the
line? This exists to protect people from being threatened into going into a
relationship against their will.

Every time a power imbalance exists there is always a chance it will be
exploited and people must be protected from this.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I agree. I want to make sure you don't overstate your case.

It _is_ possible to have a relationship with a subordinate that's nothing but
equal and fair. People do it all the time.

Where the problem comes in is when there's a problem, either somebody did
something wrong or the people just don't get along anymore. Suddenly every
little piece of the relationship is now the company's business -- and there's
no way anybody can go back in time and piece together what happened in private
between two consenting adults. This makes what is usually a private emotional
mess between two adults (and possibly a criminal case if something was done
wrong) into this huge corporate-wide drama that can never be resolved well.
The only thing to do when something like this is discovered, crisis or not, is
to fire both parties immediately for violating policy.

So there's nothing puritanical going on at all here. And manager/subordinate
relationships are not always bad and evil. Just from a practical standpoint,
it makes the employer's job impossible to do well, so it has to be avoided.

------
bitL
After all the recent high-profile cases the outcome is going to be brutal -
zero trust between genders, open door policy for any 1:1 meetings, recorded if
law allows; minimal and legally pre-approved communication, covering one's
back in all cases, reduced VC spending in opposite gender-led companies,
making work a hell where only lawyers would thrive.

~~~
DonHopkins
And all of the blame for this inconvenient atmosphere lies squarely with the
harassers. So direct it at them, not the victims. As long as Trump and Moore
and everyone on down are immune to these accusations, everybody else is just
going to have to suck it up.

~~~
coldtea
> _And all of the blame for this inconvenient atmosphere lies squarely with
> the harassers. So direct it at them, not the victims._

If what 1/Nth of a group (the harassers) do, is applied to "all men" or "all
VCs" or wharever, and are all "presumed guilty" then you can also blame those
doing that lousy extrapolation.

The idea that "all X are Y", is of the same nature as the racist notion that
"all blacks are criminals" because they know of _some_ black criminals.

~~~
dguaraglia
Notice that the comment mentioned _harassers_ not "men", so maybe you are
jumping the gun a bit there. The idea that "all harassers are harassers"
sounds pretty solid reasoning to me.

~~~
coldtea
> _Notice that the comment mentioned harassers not "men", so maybe you are
> jumping the gun a bit there_

I'm not discussing the parent comment itself (that would be extremely narrow
focused).

I'm answering the ideas expressed in the comment, based on the general
context, and how we've seen things play out in the world.

~~~
dguaraglia
So you are making a general argument on the toxic role such generalizations
have? ;)

I understand where you are coming from, but I feel like jumping to conclusions
about anything related to this story is way too soon.

~~~
coldtea
> _So you are making a general argument on the toxic role such generalizations
> have? ;)_

Yes, on the toxic role SUCH (not ALL) generalizations have. So no need for
sarcasm ;)

(Generalization, I'd say, is both the start point of knowledge, and the start
(or maybe end?) point of prejudice. It's a tool. If it's not representative,
or if it's representative but misreads the causes why it is so -- e.g. "blacks
are overrepresented in jails because they're an inferior race with crime in
their dna", it's harmful. Otherwise, it allows us to use abstractions, which
elevate our thinking just like a higher level programming language does).

