
Google Board Sued for Hushing Claims of Executive Misconduct - jacquesm
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-10/google-board-sued-for-hushing-misconduct-claims-against-rubin
======
tuesdayrain
Sounds more like a basic sugar daddy relationship than sex trafficking. When I
think of victims of sex trafficking, the description "highly paid" does not
come to mind.

~~~
ggggtez
It turns out paying someone a LOT of money for sex isn't any more legal. The
courts are likely to agree, if any person wanted to press criminal charges.

~~~
vowelless
I think it should be. It is the people’s body and their choices. I’m surprised
these puritanical laws are still on the books. It leads to weird edge cases,
like that of filming being legal.

------
mrjaeger
As Matt Levine likes to say, everything is securities fraud!

------
bluehazed
Yikes, this is looking pretty bad:

"Rubin was also 'alleged to have engaged in human sex trafficking': in an
October 2018 lawsuit brought by his ex-wife, Rie Rubin, she claimed that Andy
Rubin had multiple 'ownership relationships' with several highly paid women.
In text messages produced in that case, Andy Rubin allegedly claimed that he
could 'loan' these women as they were 'kinda like… my property.'"

~~~
sergers
sounds like master-slave/sub-dom relationship.

it could be related to sex trafficking, or more likely just had some fetishes
with willing participants.

~~~
mc32
There was an advocate for DA/DV victims in SF who surprisingly engaged in
BDSM. He got caught putting ads on Craigslist. A couple of his “mistresses”
accused him of beating them.

Edit, it was a labor lawyer[1] In any event, says he it was consensual.
Charges later dropped.

[1][https://abc7news.com/archive/8337736/](https://abc7news.com/archive/8337736/)

~~~
ksherlock
I assume you mean "Domestic Abuse/Domestic Violence"... DVDA is also a sex
term involving one girl and 4 guys. Hard to tell from the context!

------
mlthoughts2018
I posted an earlier thread on this in case anyone is interested in the article
that The Gaurdian had released:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18880603](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18880603)

------
dang
Url changed from [https://boingboing.net/2019/01/10/google-board-sued-
for-90-m...](https://boingboing.net/2019/01/10/google-board-sued-
for-90-mill.html), which points to this.

------
johan_larson
I thought "Big Swinging Dicks" was a purely figurative term.

------
stcredzero
This case looks like it involves master-slave/sub-dom sexual deviancy, which
seems aesthetically opposed to prevailing social mores at Google, which place
a high moral value on consensuality. Leaving aside who's right or wrong,
innocent or guilty, I wonder if there isn't a cultural and world view
disconnect between the rank and file at Google and the high ranking
executives? Could it be of the same size and nature as that between the Saudi
rank and file and their elites?

Many of the rank and file Google employees I know personally seem to hold with
a quasi-fundamentalist fervor to the secular belief system of
"Intersectionality" \-- especially similar with regards to parallel mental
constructs to purity and original sin, like "privilege."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AvyqUOKhGA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AvyqUOKhGA)

This case may have privilege at its core. Elites across history and cultures
often adopt more permissive sexual behavior, as their position and resources
enable this. It's quite common to see a disconnect between their mores and the
standards of the rank and file.

(I'd much rather see social norms of "live and let live," while personally, I
think keeping one's personal life simple and uncomplicated is by far the best
policy.)

~~~
pjc50
BDSM is .. rather widespread .. in the tech community; however it
traditionally comes with a much higher awareness of the need for clear
consent.

No, the clear thing here that applies up and down the hierarchy is that
_managers should not have sexual relations with their reports_. It's not a
complicated rule that people should not be put in the position of having to
decide whether refusing sex will ruin their career.

~~~
mc32
Having a (sexual) relationship with reports even co-workers isn't the best
idea. It can lead to thing as superficial as embarrassing interactions to
acrimony and then to labor disputes (favoritism and punishment for following
along or not), but it's not a crime in and of itself nor should it be. It
should be frowned upon because it not only "looks" "bad" but because it can
place the individual and the employer in an unenviable position.

~~~
pjc50
It's not illegal, but it absolutely should be a sackable offence because it
completely compromises the manager and the organisation's equal treatment of
staff.

~~~
mc32
I would disagree about fireable. Do the majority of countries in Europe
consider this a grave sin? I think people should be fired if something bad
comes as a result, but I don't think we should prejudge the possibility ahead
of time. It comes across as puritanical.

~~~
pjc50
It's workplace policy in a lot of places e.g.:
[https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/77485/am-i-
req...](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/77485/am-i-required-to-
report-a-relationship-am-i-in-a-supervisory-relationship-h)

The intent is not puritanical but egalitarian - against the "old days" of
using employment power relations for sexual harassment and assault.

~~~
mc32
I see the benefits but I still think that unless the act results in
repercussions, then the company should not exercise its right to fire for
going against a social mores policy. People should be free to associate, so
long as they don't do each other "harm". Now, I certainly would advocate and
advise people to keep work and relationships separate.

The reason for corporate policies like that are there is only to protect the
company from risk, not because they are trying to protect their workers.

~~~
pjc50
I don't think you're seeing the power relations aspect.

