
Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin - tareqak
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/googles-female-engineers-walkout-sexual-harassment
======
Ptyx
Reminds me that Kierkegaard has written about Google:

"A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and
publicity. In the present age a rebellion is, of all things, the most
unthinkable. Such an expression of strength would seem ridiculous to the
calculating intelligence of our times. On the other hand a political virtuoso
might bring off a feat almost as remarkable. He might write a manifesto
suggesting a general assembly at which people should decide upon a rebellion,
and it would be so carefully worded that even the censor would let it pass. At
the meeting itself he would be able to create the impression that his audience
had rebelled, after which they would all go quietly home – having spent a very
pleasant evening."

~~~
matt4077
If this is aiming to invoke the tired "virtue signalling" cliché, it's rather
vacuous.

Kierkegaard's alternative was an armed rebellion. Are you seriously advocating
for civil war, and dismissing all peaceful methods of achieving change?

That gets to the heart of what's wrong with the concept as it is used by the
4chan crowd these days: The success of democracy _is exactly_ the possibility
to effect change _without_ shouldering grave personal risks. Trying to reframe
this accomplishment as ineffective, weak, or lazy runs the danger of provoking
exactly the sort of dramatic, self-sacrificing gestures that have been in the
news recently.

In the specific case, maybe quitting would be slightly less dramatic but more
forceful form of protest. But it's quite obvious that exists a gray area where
it's perfectly legitimate to try to change an organisation, while still being
convinced of its overall benefit. Recruitment & retainment are also huge
factors for Google's future prospect, making a walk-out with the implied
threat of quitting, an effective tool.

~~~
bilbo0s
> _The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change
> without shouldering grave personal risks..._

True. In effect, we have a civil war every 4 years. During these civil wars
there is zero personal risk to the participants. And even still, the largest
bloc of us chooses not to participate.

~~~
cyphar
Describing the process of voting and elections as a civil war is something
that I think (and no offense meant by this) only be done by an American. No
other democracy would describe voting this way (with the exception of
dictatorships in democracy's clothing).

------
kerng
Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out
his behavior.

But what happened was that Google only said how awesome everything is and
hence in fact protected and worse, basically endorsed, his behavior.

I find it good that Google employees stand up here. I'm already wondering what
will Google do about that other guy who gives back rubs in interviews? He got
similar support and is still at Google as far as I understood.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call
> out his behavior.

Probably not; _mutual_ non-disparagement clauses are extremely common in
executive contracts. Breaking that would have been the same, in terms of kind
of litigation risk, as not paying the $90 million.

~~~
gowld
Is it disparagement to report facts without attaching an opinion?

~~~
skissane
Non-disparagement clauses are usually worded in such a way to prohibit making
disparaging statements even if the statements are true. The disparagement is
based in the fact that it will damage the party's reputation, not on whether
it is true or substantiated or not. (It all depends on the wording of the
contract of course, and also how the courts are likely to interpret or enforce
it, which is why professional legal advice is so essential in these matters.)

For some examples of how non-disparagement clauses are commonly worded:
[https://www.contractstandards.com/public/clauses/non-
dispara...](https://www.contractstandards.com/public/clauses/non-
disparagement#examples)

------
roenxi
This article is missing a fairly important detail - the demands of the
protesters. It is one thing to be unhappy with a situation, but given that the
situation is now in the past - what exactly do they want to change going
forward?

The article is almost scrupulous in painting the walkout as out-of-control
employees rather than the precursors of organised labour.

~~~
danso
It seems that the protesters believe that Google erred too much in favor of
Andy Rubin (and other protected execs). A protest makes these concerns known
to Google -- and just as importantly, to the public -- and ostensibly reduces
the chances that Google will have a different mindset when a similar situation
arises in the future.

In any case, the article describes this particular walkout as part of an
ongoing/emerging movement:

> _Employees participating in this movement for increased transparency and
> ethics within Google have presented management with petitions, made demands
> for greater employee oversight into product decisions made by management,
> and even quit their jobs in protest of Google’s decisions. Increasingly,
> employees have been signing their names to a spreadsheet, refusing to
> participate in screening interviews for potential new hires at Google as a
> form of protest._

~~~
dragonwriter
> Increasingly, employees have been signing their names to a spreadsheet,
> refusing to participate in screening interviews for potential new hires at
> Google as a form of protest.

That last seems particularly counterproductive.

~~~
munchbunny
How so?

In general protests involve some amount of inflicting inconvenience or pain.
Google is short on interviewer bandwidth, so bottlenecking it more is
certainly a way to get management to feel the pain.

~~~
dragonwriter
It's protesting culture by forgoing an opportunity to shape it.

I do see your point it this is a real resource constraint, but though.

~~~
munchbunny
Do you mean forgoing an opportunity to shape it through choosing who gets
hired?

Google's process is engineered in such a way that individuals will not be able
to individually skew cultural selection for new hires, so I don't think they
would even see hiring as such an opportunity.

Or were you talking about the more classic issue of whether it's more
effective to be an insider vs. an outsider to affect change?

------
sfcguyus
Would be more meaningful if they quit in protest to a lower paying job. This
type of protest is merely exercise or a routine jog.

~~~
dcre
If they quit they don't have leverage at Google anymore. This is why unions
exist: they can threaten to quit, extract concessions, and not quit.

~~~
leereeves
When negotiation fails, unions extract concessions by trying to prevent anyone
(members or not) from doing the work.

Unions are rather weak when they can't prevent employers from hiring
strikebreakers.

~~~
notacoward
Yes, because there's an infinite supply of completely interchangeable workers,
and no costs associated with hiring or training.

~~~
leereeves
Yes, those are two obstacles that employers face when hiring strikebreakers,
along with more significant obstacles like laws forbidding strikebreakers,
licensing, and union violence.

The common factor is that it's not enough to refuse to work, unions must be
able to ensure that no one does the work.

~~~
notacoward
> unions must be able to ensure that no one does the work.

Often the barrier is natural, such as with folks at Google who built the
systems and are (collectively) the only ones who can keep them running without
significant interruption. By what authority, for what compelling reason, would
you abridge their freedom of association (or in this case non-association)?

~~~
leereeves
I wouldn't, they should be free to work or not as they choose. But they
shouldn't be able to abridge anyone else's freedom and I doubt they're as
irreplaceable as you think.

~~~
notacoward
Doubt all you like. It doesn't matter. What matters is whether _Google_ doubts
it, and I think they know better. They know the costs of hiring and training
and downtime for their business. Do you seriously suppose that _they_ think
they could just find a few thousand replacements on a moment's notice?

~~~
leereeves
Now you're making a different argument. Yes, there are costs involved in
replacing employees, and there are costs involved in allowing employees to
walk out or refuse to work on certain projects. Naturally Google will weigh
those costs.

But earlier you claimed they were "the only ones" capable, and that I wanted
to abridge their freedom of association. I disagreed with both those
statements.

Now that you've restricted your position to acknowledging a reasonable
cost/benefit tradeoff for Google, I agree.

~~~
notacoward
> earlier you claimed they were "the only ones" capable

No, I claimed that they were the only ones capable of running the systems
_without significant interruption_. Others can be trained up, but it would
take months and there would be some failures along the way. You're the one
whose argument has been changing, since you started with the presumption that
strikes' effectiveness relies on explicitly excluding others (e.g. via law or
force).

------
rayvy
Someone with more info please correct me:

But from what I read it sounds as if Google had to pay him the $90MM+, else be
sued by him right? Because if they didn't pay him, he'd sue, then they
[Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever),
which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser
said they were _coerced_ (not forced).

So it seems as if Google's hands were tied legally on this.

~~~
nostrademons
A lot of the popular unrest facing both corporations & governments today is
people learning that _conflict gets results_. The logic goes that "Well, Andy
Rubin managed to exercise his threat to sue to get a $90M severance package,
and he doesn't even work for the company anymore. We _do_ work for the
company, so we are going to exercise our power as employees to put pressure on
the company to _not do this again_ , so that our interests as current
employees who don't want to work in an environment rife in sexual harassment
aren't discounted." The whole _point_ is to make the company uncomfortable so
that they realize they're caught between a rock and a hard place, and the next
time an executive's caught with his dick in somebody's face the company's like
"Well, we really wish we could work out an amiable settlement with you for
your past service, but you remember the protests when this happened with Andy
Rubin? Our hands are tied here - the whole company almost fell apart, and if
we avoid your lawsuit we'll just end up with a bigger one from them."

They aren't really wrong in this - the squeaky wheel gets the grease and
always has, and now a much larger portion of the population is willing to
squeak.

The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the
ground, literally, but that's where game theory is taking us. I wonder if much
of the appeal of the crypto world (where whole organizations are
disintermediated in favor of smart contracts) is because people are realizing
that an organization is nothing but a target for angry people, and so by
getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it anonymous &
fungible, you can continue to organize economic activity without painting a
target on your face.

~~~
inetknght
> _The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to
> the ground, literally_

The end does not justify the means. So what good is a society built on
prejudice, harassment, and corruption?

If you can sweep controversy under the rug until such time that it's
convenient then good luck ever getting change to occur for the better.

> _by getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it
> anonymous & fungible, you can continue to organize economic activity without
> painting a target on your face._

Making it anonymous & fungible is only necessary if you're unable or unwilling
to stand up for your actions. If you're unwilling to stand up for what's right
or are doing something you know is unethical, then what right do you have to
the proceeds from your actions?

~~~
leereeves
What good is a society without due process or presumption of innocence, where
a disputed allegation would be punished without proof?

~~~
lovich
Do companies apply any of that to employees unless they are a protected class?
If they want you gone you're gone for whatever reason they make up if they
even make one. You don't get to have a presumption of innocence or due
process.

Why shouldnt companies be treated the same way by their employees?

~~~
leereeves
I think we'd all like to see contracts meant to prevent those abuses honored.
It's only unfortunate that more of us don't have such contracts.

------
stuntkite
I wonder what it would take for google to lose it's star as being such a great
career defining place to work? I think it's kind of happening. We need more
people out of the motherships and doing new, innovative stuff and defining
their own progressive policies in their companies to compete with the
motherships.

I get the scale of capital and everything, but the internet is still a
changing place and could be so much more if people just said no.

~~~
amrx431
I am only interested in Google becoming uncool so that Googles hiring practice
of LeetCode is not replicated everywhere.

------
jeffdavis
Do we know what actually happened? Why is anyone protesting over an
allegation?

------
tareqak
Original title: "Google Engineers Are Organizing A Walk Out To Protest The
Company’s Protection Of An Alleged Sexual Harasser" (28 characters too long).

------
akswamy
Have the protest organizers communicated any specific set of outcomes they
wish to achieve from the walkout? The news article does not go into those
details. Perhaps I have missed out something there.

In the previous protests, Google employees had their demands penned in open
letters which I believe also contributed to concrete actions taken or
responses given by Google. A generic protest is bound to only draw vague
assurances such as those given in their all-hands meeting as reported in the
article.

------
tokai
I have no idea whats up and down in this case, but it is good to see engineers
waking up to the power of collective action.

------
ironfootnz
Every story needs two sides, I think Google didn't predicted that employees
will be against the company policy. Well it's a two way highway and using
everything to barricade themselves against an employee isn't the most
constructive way of a dialog and change of policies.

------
claydavisss
Rubin is still on the exec team roster at Essential. Man do people just wince
when they pass this guy in the hall?

------
Para2016
Oh cool. I wonder when they will stop working because of dragonfly...

------
diddid
Whenever I hear about things like this, I always believe that only a fraction
really care about the issue. The other half are saying “Wait... we can skip
work and not get in trouble? Count me in!”

------
outside1234
Good on them - it is always great to see employees doing the brave and right
thing.

------
lotgon
200 engineers organizing a protest. 2000 engineers are afraid to organize a
protest against false accusations. Inverted democracy

~~~
Analemma_
As about a dozen people in this thread have already patiently explained,
Google investigated the accusations and found them credible. If you have
evidence to the contrary, which Google didn’t have at the time of its
investigation, kindly present it.

~~~
lotgon
I believe in the law. Google guys are smart, but they don`t have enough skills
and intelligence in this kind of investigation and they can`t make any
decision about guilty/not guilty.

~~~
Analemma_
That’s not what you said in your first comment, you clearly said “false
accusations”. Are you walking back that claim now?

------
cityzen
a "walk out"... one in which people are so darn angry they walk out of work..
and then walk right back in and keep doing their job. I wish more people would
quit these mega-corps over stuff like this. "Google engineers outraged...",
"Facebook employees outraged..."... so quit. Go find work at a place that
isn't an evil corporation. If you didn't get the memo, Facebook, Amazon,
Google and Microsoft are all pretty evil.

~~~
danso
What if the employees genuinely believe the company's overall work is good,
and that these flaws can be mitigated?

~~~
cityzen
If you work at Google and you really, truly believe that Google's overall work
is good, good for you! I suppose I have more self respect to say that if a
company is going to push me far enough to walk out, I probably need to move on
in general.

------
ocdtrekkie
And then, after the walk out, they will return to their desks and continue
working for the company. If you want a walk out to matter, you leave... and
don't come back for free food in the employee cafeteria right after.

~~~
tom_
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty)

~~~
rhizome
Oh nice, I had forgotten about this. It came onto my radar when Occupy Wall
Street was going on. Thanks for the reminder!

------
incredalus33
As a side note: Microsoft will do AI work for the military:
[https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-
issues/2018/10/26/technol...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-
issues/2018/10/26/technology-and-the-us-military/)

And Amazon will host the Pentagon cloud, and no one really cares, employees
aren't derailing things and they sure aren't protesting.

Meanwhile at Google there is one employee driven mess after another, they leak
everything to the press, and have no regard for company image or reputation,
maybe Google should just show the door to those threatening to quit and start
incorporating these lessons into their hiring process.

