
Google Workers Fume Over Executives’ Payouts After Sexual Misconduct Claims - eevilspock
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/technology/sexual-harassment-google.html
======
ve55
Kind of funny how the NYT publishes the original story to generate outrage,
then after successfully doing so to an extent, cherry-picks examples of the
outrage in order to generate yet another article that is apparently worth
publishing.

Of course some Google employees are upset, there are 85,000 of them. You could
have cherry-picked ones who weren't upset as well and written an article the
opposite of this if desired. I'm not commenting on the claims themselves but
it's just funny how the NYT is able to completely run their own show here.

~~~
lsiebert
I think they published it because it was news. Many details in the news
outrage me, but as long as they are based in fact, I consider that reporting
of the news of the day, not an attempt to incite outrage.

Also, "Callous Googlers Don't care about sex harassment payouts" doesn't seem
like a particularly good potential news piece, if that's what you are
suggesting they could have done.

I mean, I was outraged by the Snowden revelations. Were those stories
generating outrage, or just revealing an outrage that others had already
perpetrated?

~~~
ve55
>but as long as they are based in fact, I consider that reporting of the news
of the day

The issue is that they get to pick which facts are reported and which are not.
They could publish 100 articles on all the good things Google is doing, or
they could publish 100 articles on all the bad things google is doing, and
they don't have to lie to do either of these things, but yet they would both
give their readers very warped perspectives on reality.

We see this a lot in politics, where we can have far-right and far-left
websites that both technically report nothing but 'facts', but due to the
extreme sampling biases used, present completely opposing views of reality.

I'm not defending Google, I'm just pointing out who is running the show here,
and the answer is the New York Times. They decide what happens next. Their
next article could talk about all the positive discussion and improvements
Google is making in this area, or it could talk about how many additional
employees are upset and don't think things will get better.

~~~
kopo
That's what happens when they are conditioned to produce content that
maximizes view/click counts. Who created that incentive? Google did.

~~~
sattoshi
While this may be true, it falls flat once you consider that this has been
done to many non-google organizations too.

~~~
kopo
You only get to understand what a massive role Google plays in the
like/click/view generating ecosystem when you spend time in a modern digital
publishing/advertising/marketing firm. It's like watching a huge cattle
auction where peoples views/clicks etc are being traded 24*7.

------
SamReidHughes
I've never seen a contract contain the clause, "We don't have to pay you what
we owe you, simply by having one of our employees make an accusation of sexual
harassment against you." I would never sign one.

~~~
ixtli
Do you think that termination clauses given by google to employees have zero
conditions attached to them? Even if you're an executive there are
_absolutely_ things you can do that would forfeit the contract. If you were
fired for stealing secrets, do you think they'd pay you out? Certainly the
same clauses could be written to avoid paying if you have to be let go because
something you did caused some other sort of harm to the company. We can talk
about whether or not the contract included such a clause and whether or not
thats a failure on Google's part, but I have a feeling that's not why you
posted this comment.

And btw I think it's clear that if I offered you the sort of money this dude
had you probably wouldn't pass it up based on what the conditions for
termination payout clauses were.

~~~
SamReidHughes
Why don't you say why you think I posted this comment?

~~~
ixtli
Because I didn’t think it was relevant at all: I don’t believe you want to
talk about whether or not google is representing its own interests
contractually.

But now that you bring it up I imagine my intuition is correct.

------
kopo
We seem to have moved from one person (Snowden type) dissent of institutional
bullshit to groups standing up.

The current bunch of leaders are great at keeping the ship on course to well
known destinations (scale at all costs/maximize profits/wage war to keep
peace).

If the destination has to change, a new crop of leaders will have to take this
bunch on. And it won't happen without employees making their voice heard.

~~~
cyberluddite
>If the destination has to change, a new crop of leaders will have to take
this bunch on. And it won't happen without employees making their voice heard.

I think some form of labor organization, enforcing principles like the ACM
Code of Ethics, is the only sane way forward. We in tech have to move beyond
this reactive posture in how we approach what are really structural problems
with how decision-making, power, and resources are distributed.

------
godzillabrennus
Mass resignations threatened like after the James Damore memo?

Doubt it.

Sexual misconduct is more acceptable at Google than writing gender biased
dogma.

~~~
craftyguy
It's also acceptable for our head of state, so expectations for justice are
extremely low.

~~~
zaroth
And has been since just about the dawn of the Republic.

Turns out you don’t have to be a Saint to be leader of the free world. Might
go as far to say that a Saint wouldn’t be particularly well suited for the
job.

~~~
craftyguy
Since we've presumably never had a 'saint', how would we know that they
wouldn't be better for the job? It's hard to imagine that someone who had
integrity and respected other genders would make a worse leader, so I'm
interested in why you'd thing so.

~~~
zaroth
There’s a pretty wide margin between having integrity and respecting other
genders, and Sainthood.

IMO, I think that down on planet Earth two people may get into a sexual
relationship that is anywhere from uncouth to unwise to unacceptable to
illegal. As long as these affairs are consensual my own position is who the
heck am I to judge?

Further, someone who is so abjectly in control of their passion — someone who
is so dispassionate — I think would have a hard time fighting so hard day in
and day out for a grueling 4 or 8 years.

Good leaders tend to have the personality, charisma, confidence, and ambition
that they will go after the things they want even if it means some rules or
social mores will be broken. To even think oneself possible of leading the
Free World does require a certain arrogance. I certainly wouldn’t want a
President feeling imposter syndrome in the Oval Office, even though it is
certain to happen to some extent.

------
RickJWagner
"Don't be evil."

I really believe they believed it, at first. As the old saying goes, power
corrupts.

~~~
T2_t2
I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil, and
Google chose the wrong one.

So think that one through. Rubin was accused of whatever, and Google owes him
money. Which is NOT evil:

A. Not pay any money to Rubin - despite legally owing him some - because the
mob has decided that is best?

B. Pay the full amount he is owed to get rid of him?

C. Negotiate a reduced amount, as he is indeed owed money?

C. Take this to court, and make all parties go through all the hassle, be
forced to keep Rubin, what, employed but suspended? and then hope that by some
miracle you get the outcome you desire?

Again, I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil,
and Google chose the wrong one. They are all TERRIBLE options.

