
Former Google employee says MeToo behavior 'institutionalized' at search giant - lladnar
https://www.cnet.com/news/former-google-employee-says-metoo-behavior-institutionalized-at-search-giant/
======
luckylion
What did she expect Google to do in her case? I understand she dated Drummond
and had a consensual relationship with him, Google moved her to a different
team (because there's a conflict of interest if somebody is the manager of
their partner).

After their relationship ended, it got ugly, but what is Google's supposed
role in their custody battle? And how is that related to sexual harassment?

~~~
pnw_hazor
Move the boss to another job, not the junior.

At my firm, the partner is forced out if they are caught banging juniors or
staff.

In this case, moving the claimant to another position is text book retaliation
because of the power mismatch.

~~~
luckylion
> In this case, moving the claimant to another position is text book
> retaliation because of the power mismatch.

But the move happened _before_ the break-up, so there really wasn't anything
to retaliate for (other than "don't date within the company", which apparently
isn't actually a problem at Google if what she writes is accurate).

It's a very different story if the company got involved in the custody battle
and took the exec's side, but I understand that's not what happened - when she
was moved they were still on good terms. She quit shortly thereafter (because
of the move), while still being on good terms with him.

~~~
blub
You misunderstood: the manager should be moved as punishment for them being
stupid and screwing a subordinate. And yes, the move happens ASAP.

~~~
rdtwo
There is no legal reason that has to happen, in fact the subordinate can get
moved to night shift for example and it’s still not considered retaliation.

~~~
pnw_hazor
It opens you up for a trial.

claimant - I told Mr Big at home that he should divorce his wife so he can
help me with this incoming baby...then BOOM I am on the night shift.... =>
probably gets over summary judgment motion.

~~~
rdtwo
You would think but that does not appear to be the standard. The company
merely has make an attempt to separate the two parties and it doesn’t have to
be super equitable. Plenty of cases where the victim ends up being punished
and the company does not have to pay

------
3xblah
A dysfunctional legal department at Google. Who would have guessed? The
founder/CEO Gates marrying someone in Marketing. The CEO of a software company
I worked for having an affair with his secretary. This is what one had to
tolerate to work in the software industry, and now has to tolerate to work in
"tech". A complete absence of ethics and common sense. Pathetic. Other
industries employing intelligent people are not like that, not to the same
extent anyway.

~~~
solipsism
_Other industries employing intelligent people are not like that, not to the
same extent anyway._

Name one.

The news here (if it's news to you) is that tech is not special like everyone
once thought. Everyone thought tech was above that kind of thing. It turns out
everyone in tech is just human, just like the rest of the world.

The story here could not possible be more incredibly mundane and familiar and
boring.

~~~
3xblah
"Everyone thought tech was above that kind of thing."

That is news to me. Based on experience with the software industry in the
1990's, there was no reason for me to think that companies like Google would
be any different.

------
scoobyyabbadoo
Where do people find the time to fit all this sexual harassment on their
schedules?? I feel like I'm always sprinting towards completing 3 different
projects at any given time.

~~~
chii
You might notice these harrassment cases are almost always someone high up in
the org chart.

They, I suspect, do not real work and thus have the time to conduct these
activities.

------
blub
Wow, if what she says in her original post is true, the guy is a regular
sociopath. She claims he completely switched off his affection for the son and
then used him as a tool against her. Then justified his philandering by giving
Eric Schmidt as an example, and claiming it's his right as a powerful man.

No wonder the company's abusing the privacy of everyone and was keen to
support a totalitarian regime with such "leaders".

