
At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints - cookscar
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-23/at-google-an-employee-run-email-list-tracks-harassment-and-bias-complaints
======
snomad
> One employee said that during a one-on-one performance review with a
> manager, he was told that his rating dropped from "Exceeds" to "Meets"
> because he didn't get as much done while on paternity leave.

If true, that is quite obviously legally actionable.

~~~
occamrazor
I'd agree that someone who is on leave, and doesn't work, indeed"meets"
expectations. It would be a problem only if everybody is expected to exceed
expectations, but then all the evaluation process becomes, almost by
definition, nonsensical.

~~~
pflats
That's ridiculous. Leave is leave; it's an employee's right that's offered in
law or in their contract, and they should not be punished in any way for
taking advantage of it.

If the employee would otherwise exceed expectations and took paternity leave,
then they still exceed expectations. If they were hired in March and worked
for 40 weeks, they would not be penalized for failing to work in January or
February. Leave should be handled the same way.

If the employee was not professional about taking leave (didn't give any
notice, did not work with colleagues to organize coverage of his tasks, etc.)
then things are different. Similarly, if they promised to do something while
on leave and didn't, then that would be an issue.

~~~
zeveb
> Leave is leave; it's an employee's right that's offered in law or in their
> contract, and they should not be punished in any way for taking advantage of
> it.

Being rated as someone who meets expectations is not a punishment.

Certainly, one has the right to exercise one's rights, but one also has a duty
to acknowledge that they impact others. Someone who takes paternity leave
will, mutatis mutandis, achieve less than someone who does not; someone who is
on leave for an entire review period and does nothing related to work cannot
fairly be said to exceed expectations.

~~~
feedjoelpie
> Being rated as someone who meets expectations is not a punishment.

On a scale of 1, 2, and 3, where each of these confers different privileges,
when I knock you down from a 3 to a 2 specifically because of X, I am
punishing you for X.

The corporate words tied to the ratings are not magical.

------
jlebar
I'm sad to see so many comments here worrying about such a list becoming
"weaponized".

TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the
complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the
CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to
publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent
or effect.

The point of the list, again from TFA, is to raise awareness about bad things
that happen at Google, often outside the view of privileged white men like
myself. With 20% of the company subscribed, it sounds like it's working.

This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly
common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and
harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many
comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly
disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at
places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual
assault go underreported.

I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and
consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits
a company might get from having one.

Disclaimer: I work at Google, and speak here (as always) for myself.

~~~
throwgoog452
I'm also a Googler. Unlike you, I'm forced to comment anonymously, using a
throwaway I just created using Tor. Why? Because I'm a member of one of the
"privileged" groups that many think make up too great a portion of Google's
employee base, and because some people (especially the ones graduating from
college these days) think I'm an oppressor just because of my race and gender.

Nevertheless, I need to pipe up and express that g/yes-at-google makes me feel
terrified. I'm not alone either. Some people have expressed that they plan on
discontinuing all non-work communication. I've done the same, but not
announced it. I've also started scrubbing all my technical communication.
Anything I say might be interpreted in the worst possible light as taken as
evidence of deep-seated bigotry and bias. I've never had to be this paranoid
before in my life.

The scariest thing is that I've seen people "called out" for comments that
would have passed even my paranoid-mode filter, even on purely technical
subjects. At this point, I'm scared of making too much or too little eye
contact. (Either one might be a micro-aggression.) I feel that no matter how
careful I am about what I say and no matter how little bias is in my heart,
it's only a matter of time before I land in front of HR for something I didn't
intend to say.

Programs like YAG sensitize people to these sorts of uncharitable
interpretations of others' speech. They encourage a kind of paranoid bunker
mentality when it comes to social interaction. They teach people that their
experiences are particular to their identity, not universal among their
colleagues. They teach people to punish the wicked, not work together to solve
problems.

Is this the kind of company we want to have? Is this the kind of culture that
_any_ organization should foster?

~~~
jlebar
I'm truly sorry you feel this way.

I'm another white man who works at Google. I don't feel this way. You see me
here commenting using a username that's easily traceable to my real identity.
So we are reacting to a similar situation quite differently. What's the
difference between us? I don't know.

I also think that your having this feeling is not WAI -- Google has been
pretty clear that they want everyone to feel psychologically safe at work.

Ultimately what you have is a feeling -- it's not a fact, or even an opinion.
I can't argue you out of it. But feel free to reach out to me IRL if you want
to talk about it. I am easy to find.

~~~
yYxCskctoN
Another throwaway here. Let me explain why I'm afraid.

Discussion that I've seen around microaggressions seems to land on the idea
that, much like sexual harassment, one can be guilty without intent or
awareness. This is a difficult to balance situation because, on the one hand,
you have the fact that we as white men do not know what it feels like to be
"othered" or harassed every day of your life, thus making our own judgment of
what constitutes fair and unfair treatment somewhat skewed. On the other hand,
this can lead to the infliction of the "perpetrator" status in situations
that, to my honest attempt to calmly and thoughtfully analyze the
circumstances, grant too much power to the accuser.

Prior to the current email list under discussion, there was a web app
internally for tracking microaggressions. I remember reading it and being
horrified at the treatment that non-white people in general, and women in
particular, endured - story after story of degradation, insults and bullying.
Referring to these actions as "micro" aggressions was comically understating
their magnitude. However, I did see one or two stories that I thought were an
_extremely_ uncharitable interpretation of a normal, everyday situation. I
vividly recall one - let me attempt to retell that story here: "One day I was
waiting for the bus to ${SOME_DESTINATION}. The bus stop was unusually busy,
lots of people were around. Somebody said out loud 'Wow, looks like everybody
is going to ${SOME_DESTINATION} today'. This comment was aimed at me because I
was not white."

In the above scenario, I acknowledge the possibility that the speaker was
aiming a negative comment at the reporter...but surely it is also possible
that a non-biased person would make that comment innocently, perhaps even
without knowledge that the non-white person were present? The reason I am
afraid is that I can imagine myself making an innocent comment like that,
bereft of any bias (implicit or otherwise), and I am afraid of what the
consequences might be. Having a discussion about the comment would be fine,
but what if I were to be brought in front of HR and have it formally recorded
in my employee file? What if I received explicit disciplinary action? Could I
be fired in circumstances like this?

As I've said, I recognize the legitimacy of the vast, vast majority of these
grievances as well as the need to share them. What scares me is the absolutes
with which they are spoken about, in that the accusation of having committed a
microaggression or act of bias always means the accused is guilty. Without
acknowledgement that communication is challenging and an innocent comment can
be interpreted uncharitably, I am afraid of the potential consequences.

~~~
jlebar
> What scares me is the absolutes with which they are spoken about, in that
> the accusation of having committed a microaggression or act of bias always
> means the accused is guilty.

Can you handle a little guilt, though? It sounds like you can -- you're
saying, I know I'm not perfect, I know I can be better.

I think that is, to a first approximation, the standard applied to employees
at Google.

> On the other hand, this can lead to the infliction of the "perpetrator"
> status in situations that, to my honest attempt to calmly and thoughtfully
> analyze the circumstances, grant too much power to the accuser.

In the story you relate, does the accuser actually have any real power? They
told their story, and...that's the end, right? I think you're assuming somehow
that every time someone says "someone did this shitty thing to me," they want
HR to fire that person. I know from talking to people who have had shitty
things done to them that that's not true. People -- victims, HR -- have a
sense of proportionality.

And I'm sure someone here can come up with an anecdote that shows someone
acting without proportionality. But the fact that the system isn't perfect
doesn't mean it's wrong as a rule, and consider that for every one accused who
is acted upon disproportionately, there are surely many more victims who never
seek or see justice. So if the system seems more imperfect to you lately,
perhaps what is actually happening is that the imperfections are being felt
more equitably.

If Google fired every white man who referred to a group of people men+women as
"guys", there would be very few of us left. I don't mean to say that stuff
like that isn't important and that we shouldn't change our language, just that
degree of harm and intent _are_ important. I have never heard anyone from HR
suggest otherwise.

If I can make a guess as to where this fear might be coming from: A friend at
another company related a story to me about how she tried to gently correct a
coworker's microaggression. He blew up at her, angry that she was making a big
thing out of a little thing. Which she wasn't, objectively or in intent. But
then she took the blowup to HR.

So that's what happened, but I have to imagine his story is going to be, I
made this innocent comment, and then I got taken to task with HR over it.

I'm sure many people have stories like that, where they completely miss the
point about what they're actually talking to HR about. And then maybe these
stories make their way to you, and you conclude, "gosh, I'm terrified of
stepping out of line, look at the awful thing that happened to person X for
doing basically nothing. And this other thing in YAG, I did that myself
recently. I am terrified." But I suggest there's a different way to look at
the same data that paints a quite different picture.

------
KKKKkkkk1
I feel this might be problematic. The Soviet block countries had something
called a culture of criticism and self-criticism. As part of this culture,
factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party
management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. What's
wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly
reporting them to law enforcement?

~~~
dagenleg
I like how submissions are anonymous. Back in USSR an anonymous tip was a good
way of getting rid of your annoying neighbours or rivals.

Another convenient thing was that with an anonymous complaint the burden of
proof lay solely on the accused, who had to protest his innocence without even
being able to face the accuser. But we are half-way there anyway, aren't we?

~~~
icc97
As has been mentioned elsewhere - names aren't mentioned in the list.

Also even with anonymity although such a system maybe open for abuse, so that
people can implicate innocent people, the potential to allow actual victims to
speak up who wouldn't otherwise seems worth the risk

~~~
dagenleg
This reminds me of the whole metadata collection scandal/argument, because
this is what is being shared - metadata. Just because you don't name a person
directly, does not yet imply anonymity.

Another observation - the article states that people aren't "usually" named. I
don't see anything preventing the peoples names appearing later on, as this
thing develops.

~~~
icc97
As far as I can tell, it's run for employees by employees. If it ever starts
doing more harm than good, it will just stop. People have to want to submit
and want to read it.

So I don't see this as management sponsored spying, just employees wanting
more transparency. To highlight what actually goes on.

I believe the point with the 'usually' was that the only one who had been
named was Eric Schmidt from a open meeting.

------
tyingq
I'm not a big fan of HR departments, but an open company-wide-readable email
list seems like it could have it's own perils.

Hopefully it's carefully moderated/anonymized/edited by somebody who is good
at that sort of thing.

~~~
odiroot
This has really huge potential for abuse.

How do we know the acts happened indeed?

~~~
chipgap98
While there are instances of false accusations, isn't the larger problem in
our society that people are harassed or abused at work on a seemingly regular
basis?

~~~
anothercomment
False accusations are also harassment.

~~~
chipgap98
Agreed. But it seems like the problem we have now is that more people are
being harassed and not being taken seriously with their claims than people
making false claims. Is that a world we are okay with living in? Regardless of
the answer we should be having that conversation

~~~
anothercomment
One problem I have with these list is, as you say, they make it seem as if
there is a huge problem with people being harassed. I am not convinced that is
true, because the context is missing. Like how many people work for Google,
how many incidents are there per month, and how many of these incidents even
warrant a complaint?

There is already a debate about the "princess" incident. Eventually somebody
will make statistics about that list, and the "princess" incident will be
counted as a harassment incident along the lines of grabbing somebodies ass or
blackmailing them for sex over losing their job. That seems very misleading.

Also, I'd argue the existence of such a list is already harassment of a lot of
people. If now you have to watch your back for every comment, it doesn't make
for a very pleasant work day.

I can not judge if "princess" was harassment or not, because we lack context -
and so do the readers of the list. It could be friends who habitually edge
each other on, like calling a vegetarian "princess" to probe their
determination. Or it could be said with disdain, Redneck style (anybody who
doesn't eat meat can't amount to much). We don't know. But everybody now has
to worry about their words being taken out of context and glued to the wall.

------
HarryHirsch
Why is confidential material for public consumption? All this is stuff that
ought to go to the Ombudsman, HR or the police to be dealt with properly. What
good does it do to hear "my supervisor is habitually oversharing and told me
she smokes hashish and is worried about an upcoming drug test"?

~~~
jschwartzi
Because you don't necessarily need to involve the police every time you're
trying to set an interpersonal boundary. Most people are well adjusted enough
to change their behavior when you ask them to, and you don't need the threat
of firing or jail to convince these people. You just need to ask them, nicely
but assertively, to stop.

~~~
HarryHirsch
When you post to the mailing list it's obviously gone past the "assert-
boundaries" point, because you tried that already. Nicely but assertively is a
problem with unreasonable supervisors in an "at will" state and a weak labour
market.

~~~
jschwartzi
The mailing list isn't just for calling out your supervisors, and the article
implies that the managers of the list do give people the chance to respond. It
sounds less like a way to anonymously out inappropriate or offensive behavior
and more like a way to give examples after the behavior has already been dealt
with.

------
1ba9115454
\- A female employee was allegedly called a “princess” for favoring salad over
burgers.

I imagine the guy that delivered that comment would be hard pushed to figure
out what he did wrong. I suppose we all have to really careful what we say.

~~~
sacheendra
Can you explain specifically whats wrong with the comment.

This could be making fun of a friend. How is this harassment?

~~~
arethuza
"Princess" in the UK at least would be pretty offensive in that context - I
wouldn't dream of calling a colleague that.

~~~
Chris2048
No it wouldn't. Try spending some time further up north.

~~~
arethuza
I'm in Scotland :-)

~~~
Chris2048
and find that offensive?!

~~~
arethuza
No - I wouldn't find that offensive (I've been called far far worse things in
a work context) - but I'd be _very_ worried about potentially _causing_
offense, more for the sake of politeness than the HR impact.

------
zeveb
I wonder if the 'curation' might skew folks' view. E.g. if one believes Ted is
a rotten guy, one might mention all the times Ted does rotten things, but if
one believes Tod is a great guy then one might just not mention the rotten
things _he_ does.

Likewise, I wonder how often this list mentions when someone casually makes a
rude remark about Christianity or Judaism, or when someone puts down men, or
whites, or Republicans. Maybe it does — certainly the article didn't mention
any anti-right bias incidents though (unless I missed it after reading twice).

------
pjc50
This is what happens when people have lost faith in the formal process and
instead institutionalized gossip as a necessary system for their own
protection.

------
MichaelGG
> "Subsequently informed by the engineer that she was expected to 'sleep with
> everyone' because that's the culture here."

I'm rather "unenlightened"/regressive/whatever from a SV perspective. But...
If there wasn't a significant power difference here, like an intern vs someone
senior, how does this even happen? I mean, I get it if it was one-on-one, even
a direct boss might pressure someone into that. But "sleep with everyone"?
What's the expected response?

Or was this some poor excuse after a failed attempt? "Hey don't get upset.
Everyone sleeps around on this team."

I'm just having a hard time comprehending this quote, not from an offended
view, just a practical/social/etc. view.

~~~
pjc50
It's a common abuse tactic: establish the behaviour you want as "normal" and
gaslight people who object. Often it works. It's also the sort of thing that
people can very easily explain away as "joke", "hazing", etc.

------
zghst
I can see this getting out of hand quickly. Humans have a tendency to amplify
anxiety of local, improbable events. This is essentially a weapon that can
quickly impact morale and elevate disruptive conversations that will become
far removed from the situation with too many participants. I'd have optin, in-
person support groups where nothing leaves the room and it is limited in size.
Sometimes spreading a problem across more people does not fix it, it only
makes it worse.

~~~
gertef
being constantly disrespected by coworkers can also impact morale.

------
icc97
I think this is excellent, especially seeing as how so often HR's duty is only
to the company and not to the employee making the complaint.

Tangentially I wonder if a similar system could be used to report bullying in
schools. Perhaps the anonymity only works at a certain scale.

------
anon45caurv51
Once this list has enough reach, someone may weaponize it. I've seen it
happen.

------
ocdtrekkie
Is this what got Amit Singhal in the first place, perhaps? (EDIT: I guess not,
he left fifteen months ago, this list is eight months old.) It's briefly
mentioned in this article, but I was shocked less people talked about what the
Amit Singhal story meant for Google.

That one of their most senior executives, who at one point rewrote the entire
Google Search engine, when that was possible for one person to do, and worked
there for sixteen years was fired for sexual harassment.

It's hard to imagine he suddenly started harassing women sixteen years in, so
I have to wonder how long Google may have been trying to protect one of their
most valuable employees.

~~~
xyzzy_plugh
I've worked with my share of jerks and assholes. Rarely have I seen them dealt
with. Mean people often know how to manipulate their messaging you avoid
punative action. Few places have a zero tolerance policy, they'll just move
them somewhere else.

None of the jerks or assholes I've known had anything happen to them, that I
am aware of. I'd like to think they'll be fired eventually.

------
anothercomment
"is facing growing pressure from diversity advocates and the media"

I don't think these entities should have the power to exert pressure.

------
hagakure0c
It's a Bentham construction inside Big Brother, how quaint.

------
jrrrr
What does "employee-run" mean in this context? (isn't everything at Google
employee-run by definition?)

------
yuhong
I am not quite sure about whether sexual harassment laws are a good idea yet.

------
ar15saveslives
So here's the rules of this brave new world: beyond your house you're a
sexless, emotionless creature without family, life outside the office, without
sense of humour, without personal interests and preferences.

Be like this, and you'll get free meals, free shuttle bus and goats at company
campus. And it's good for your resumé.

