Dozens of Google Employees Say They Were Retaliated Against For Reporting Harassment (vox.com) 186
An anonymous reader shares a report: Last November, Google made a promise to do better. More than 20,000 employees around the world had walked out of the company's offices to protest that Google had paid out over $100 million to multiple executives accused of sexual harassment in the workplace. In response, the tech giant apologized and said it would overhaul its sexual misconduct policies and that it would be more supportive of workers who raise concerns about problems at work. But almost a year after the historic walkout, a dozen current and former Google employees told Recode that many employees are still justifiably afraid to report workplace issues because they fear retaliation. They say the company continues to conceal rather than confront issues ranging from sexual harassment to security concerns, especially when the problems involve high-ranking managers or high-stakes projects.
And in a previously unreported internal document obtained by Recode, dozens more employees say that when they filed complaints with Google's human resources department, they were retaliated against by being demoted, pushed out, or placed on less desirable projects. A spokesperson for Google said the company is aware of the document but declined to comment on it or any specific cases of alleged retaliation. In a statement to Recode, Google Vice President of People Operations Eileen Naughton defended how the company handles misconduct claims.
And in a previously unreported internal document obtained by Recode, dozens more employees say that when they filed complaints with Google's human resources department, they were retaliated against by being demoted, pushed out, or placed on less desirable projects. A spokesperson for Google said the company is aware of the document but declined to comment on it or any specific cases of alleged retaliation. In a statement to Recode, Google Vice President of People Operations Eileen Naughton defended how the company handles misconduct claims.
Reporting micro agressions (Score:3, Funny)
-Diversity Hire Employee
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Oddly enough, this is marked +4 Funny. What's funny about it? It's the horrible truth!
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, it's a fantastic send-up of what the "OMG SJW EVERYBODY PANIC" crowd sound like.
Re:Reporting micro agressions (Score:5, Insightful)
The moment someone did that to me, I'd be gunning for them as well.
Not everyone makes complaints with the intent of doing harm though simply going to the wrong person can be problematic.
Chances are rather than just shelve a pointless complaint the employee complained about may instead receive flak simply for having generated a complaint. Merely having a complain on record, even if invalid or pure hot air can damage someone's standing and career. You can expect them to fire back.
A slip in the article exposes part of the problem "reporting workplace issues.". We're talking issues here and when you talk to a lot of these people you'll find these their own personal issues.
You might think strength in numbers is a good idea but I'd recommend caution. For those with a legitimate grievance you can always find ten with chip on their shoulder.
Dealing with complaints is difficult. You have to sort out ones that are legitimate but those that are hostile, the law tends to favour the people that complain to get ahead, most commonly to assert power over their peers and managers by going over their head. This can invoke various uneven legal risks. You might find it a lot harder to dismiss someone that's basically a sociopath for making hostile complaints than to take at least some action to appease the abusive employee.
Good people are less likely to complain easily because they intrinsically are both honourable, like to be sure and are adverse to harming others.
Bad people are more likely to complain easily simply because they can.
It's both sad and ironic that such people, often entitled people, who get upset even at some blokes having a bit of harmless banter between themselves make it very difficult for those with legitimate grievances.
Re:Reporting micro agressions (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but no ... the vast majority of complaints are legitimate; conversely, HR is there to PROTECT MANAGEMENT, not to help the peons under them. No matter what HR might claim.
The vast majority of complaints are never substantiated for two reasons. The first, fairly trivial, is that there is generally insufficient evidence for action. The second, which cannot be emphasized enough, is that for HR to agree a claim is valid opens the company up to legal liability.
I've seen a few other studies that indicate that, after an individual makes a complaint, over 90% have left the company by the one year mark. Getting your claim substantiated is nigh on impossible. Dealing with the near inevitable retaliation is just not worth it.
I have personally seen some incredibly well-documented complaints go to HR ... and exactly one of them led to the person being terminated. The others were all brushed under the rug. Well, in one case, the culprit got a lateral transfer from having a large team under them to a position with no reports. Took that individual about nine months to find employment outside the company. And *that* case included recorded sexual harassment *and* documented felonies (changing financial documents after people had signed them).
Admission that there is a problem means HR wasn't doing their primary job.
Re: (Score:2)
I've conversely seen many issues go to HR that were spurious and be upheld, and also seen lots that hit HR and were valid be correctly investigated, and where they could be independently corroborated to meet a standard of evidence result in people having employment terminated.
HR can be a really mind bogglingly crazy area, but when it's done correctly by seriously minded individuals (and they do exist in HR), then decisions can be reached.
The biggest problem is that it deals with people, who are just flat ou
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, we won't be taking those types of people to Mars with us when we go.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It become
Re: Reporting micro agressions (Score:2)
In CA, you have to give a fired employee their final paycheck when you fire them.
Re: (Score:3)
Same here fellow old-timer. Slashdot always had a kind of white male bias, but these days the politics has gotten worse. I think the issue is that Digg, Reddit and Hacker News superseded it as news aggregators and Twitter and Facebook just became a lot more important for discussions.
I remember when the controversey over the Star Wars prequels was over if Lucas had dumbed down the franchise,and not the kind of culture war people are having over the new movies.
Re: Reporting micro agressions (Score:2)
How is it even possible to ban the vagina monologues?
Maybe... Maybe not (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with an extremist hyper-feminized culture like has set in Google is that everyone cries wolf over nonsense every time you blink. Every brush in the hall is spun as an intentional sideboob grope, everytime a woman acts unprofessionally being chastised is because she is a woman, every time she is acted to help clean up after a meeting or grab the drinks/food it is an issue even though she is the "low man" or the selection is just random. Everytime a group has a casual atmosphere and a co-worker ma
Re:Maybe... Maybe not (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like you're denying this based on your own assumptions Dozens reported a week? Citation please.
Is it just barely possible that bro programmer culture has a strong macho sexist flavor, and that some (if not all) of these complaints are justified? I would think that, just like racism, sexism is often so embedded in our culture that we have a hard time seeing it. So to me, that would justify extra vigilance in finding it and rooting it out.
Lacking Distinction (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it just barely possible that bro programmer culture has a strong macho sexist flavor
The fundamental problem I can see observing from the outside is, that all distinction has been lost from people like you between sexism, and basic masculine behaviors. You intertwine the two so guys being especially masculine are labeled as sexist, when that is not the case.
I know this because I find especially masculine behavior annoying but I tolerate it for professional needs. It's something that happens regardless of anyone else around being male or female, which is why it is not sexism, just inherent behavior - which I do not believe people should be punished for unless it is very extreme. It's a managers job to tell people to tone down if it gets out of hand.
If we continue to suppress people's inherent traits all kind of bad long term effects will occur, including men being much more reluctant to hire women.
Re:Lacking Distinction (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep the basic masculine behavior at home, if that behavior is the sort that involves swaggering, calling coworkers 'bitches', or telling crude jokes. "Stop being a pussy" is not acceptable manager-worker dialogue and yet this is still common. Please, we're mostly nerds here and most of us were sick of the testorone poisoned behavior of jocks in high school, so we shouldn't have to put up with this in the workplace as well.
Re:Lacking Distinction (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't agree more. Though I find my friends in fire, police, first response etc. have a fair bit of banter and it's enjoyed by both male and female.
Most of the places I've worked in (and I contracted through a lot of fairly high profile places when I was younger) didn't have much of that brogrammer culture, if any. Most people were just trying to get on with the job and be productive, chasing that gratification of something well crafted at the end.
I've seen more people on the not-so-mature side coming i
Re: (Score:2)
I know this because I find especially masculine behavior annoying but I tolerate it for professional needs.
I used to not like the idea of keeping slaves, but I tolerated it for my professional needs. My wife thought it was poor form so I slapped her around until she changed her mind.
Now did this statement come from the 1860s or did I just not get with the times because "masculinity"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say that was inherent, for example most men in various Asian cultures don't behave that way. In fact I wouldn't say it's even that common in the UK and Ireland. Maybe it's an American thing, but the point is that I don't think it's inherent to masculine behaviour.
I'm not even convinced that competitiveness is a masculine trait in general. Historically men have been forced to compete more directly, but actually women are competitive too, just over different things and in different ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Testosterone is primarily aggression, which isn't related to competitiveness. Women with very low testosterone levels (yes, women produce testosterone too!) can also be competitive, though tend to lack aggression behind it. That doesn't stop the coldly clinical competition which is entirely rational.
Hell, you can be highly agreeable, and highly competitive, you just compete in a different way (often by building teams around you that focus on what you're aiming at).
In my eyes, that's what 'diversity' is al
Re: (Score:2)
Testosterone is primarily aggression, which isn't related to competitiveness./quote>
Don't be an idiot, that's the reason it exists
Re: (Score:2)
So to me, that would justify extra vigilance in finding it and rooting it out.
In every case, you can replace the word "racism" or "sexism" with some variation of the phrase "ignorance with low self-esteem." To continuously address "racism" or "sexism", or to try to "root it out"... all you're doing is stoking the fire.
Re: Maybe... Maybe not (Score:2)
I would think that, just like racism, sexism is often so embedded in our culture that we have a hard time seeing it.
Yes, this is what they call "micro aggressions". So hard to see that you have to hold them sideways up to the light and squint really really hard to try and catch the shadow on the wall.
We used to say that people who objected to such things were just assholes looking to be offended, but that's no longer PC ....
Re: (Score:2)
bro programmer culture has a strong macho sexist flavo
Haha! I don't know where you program.
If you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. The lie is that women aren't in programming in the same numbers as men, because men hate women
The reality is that women are fawned over in IT.
The discrepancy exists because... see the original google memo.
The reason why all this harrassment talk exists, is because it gives money and power to moral entrepreneurs. Grifters.
Re: (Score:3)
The many women I've worked with across every team I've been on have all been treated well.
Collectively they've also been given opportunities just not available to their male colleagues - and no, I don't (just) mean maternity benefits.
The word 'fawn' may not appropriately describe your experience but there are far too many 'Women in Technology' groups, break-outs at conferences, conferences and training courses, there are too many studies showing that making choosing who to interview or the interviews themse
Re: Maybe... Maybe not (Score:2)
In my 30+ years in software development I have not met a single woman who was as good as an average man at the same job. I've worked with at least 20 women directly over the years and have been constantly amazed at how poor their skill level was. They were slower, sloppier, and whinier in every aspect of the work.
But, they still kept their jobs when their male equivalent was let go.
Why would that be if it wasn't that they were "fawned" over.
Re: (Score:2)
I have not met a single woman who was as good as an average man at the same job
I find that remarkable. I've worked with many superb people, each bringing a high level of intelligence, technical skill and soft skills to their roles.
I've also worked with multiple muppets, incapable of thinking or working with others.
Men and women have been heavily represented in both groups, as well as making up the bulk of people fitting somewhere in-between.
Re: Maybe... Maybe not (Score:2)
Why is it when a sales guy sexually harasses someone, he's an asshole, but when a techie does it, it's indicative of toxic bro culture?
Check your bias.
Re: Maybe... Maybe not (Score:2)
"bro programmer culture"
You know that "brogrammer" culture doesn't actually exist, anywhere, at all - right?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Google has over 100,000 employees (mostly young and male). Lots of sexual harassment isn't unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Detroit has over 100,000 citizens (mostly young and black). Lots of crime isn't unlikely.
If you believe that the revision is unfair or even objectionable to put forward, you really ought to ask yourself why your original claim is any more fair to make.
Re: (Score:3)
Because in our society statistics and pattern recognition have a culturally mandated blind spot in that department.
You will be crucified for pointing out what everyone is already thinking, but isn't allowed to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But black people don't have a problem with the statement that you put a lot of poor, young black males in a city and you are going to have a lot of crime. They experience it and suffer from it the most. And yeah, if you put a lot of young men in with women you are going to have harassment. Men have been harassing women for millenia. Ask any woman. Oh and add in egos, because the Google guys invariably think they are the smartest guys on the planet just because they get paid a lot of money because can
Re: (Score:2)
How have you been "bullied" by women? Christ, grow up and be a man. What is a women going to do, beat you up?
Re: Maybe... Maybe not (Score:2)
Internet tough guy rides again!
Re: (Score:2)
Because correlation is not causation, and this is a well understood mistake. Repeating it just causes others to make the same mistake and is deeply unhelpful.
Crime is linked to poverty. Black people with money, like white people with money, are far less likely to be involved in crime. At least until you get to the billionaire level.
It also happens that black people are more likely to be poor, and live in areas with few opportunities not to be poor, and tend to get less assistance in terms of quality educati
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we can hem and haw about the causes (personally i think it's population density + poverty that leads to crime. There are areas of Appalachia that are just as poor, if not worse than any inner city. Yet there isn't nearly as much violence, despite almost universal gun ownership).
But the original statement was:
Detroit has over 100,000 citizens (mostly young and black). Lots of crime isn't unlikely.
I'd still maintain that
a) it's factually correct
b) you would get crucified for saying it
c) white liberals will go to any lengths of mental gymnastics to explain away statistics, or play the what
Re: (Score:2)
t's not their fault, they are a product of their environment" Implying that have no agency?
That's a bullshit false dhicotomy on your part. All humans are a product of their environment and yet have agency.
Re: (Score:2)
Implying that have no agency?
I never really understood this argument. Were all the people who failed to climb Everest a century ago berated for just not trying hard enough, or was it acknowledged that climbing Everest is really hard?
Obviously if you are born with a silver spoon up your arse it's going to be that much easier to succeed in life than if you are born into poverty. Furthermore it's kind of weird to argue that children, babies even have enough agency to control their upbringing and create opportunities to move up the social
Re: Maybe... Maybe not (Score:2)
The family breakdown has happened across all demographics. Poverty is a much better explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that when it's other demographics it's seen in a more positive light. Not getting stuck in broken relationships, being able to admit when two people just don't love each other any more, or recognizing stable and long term relationships that are not marriages.
Re:Maybe... Maybe not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the point. The pendulum may be swinging too far in the other direction. It becomes difficult to disentangle objective reasons for an employer's action from an employee's alleged victim status. HR is caught in the middle but they're still less likely to bite the hand that feeds them. Public opinion on the other hand, and maybe even the legal system if you've got the resources, pull in the other direction.
Re: (Score:2)
When difficult changes like this happen, such as the end of apathied or when the USSR collapsed, it's often helpful to have some truth and reconciliation. A lot of the stuff we are seeing now would be so much easier if we just talked about it without getting so angry.
Re: (Score:2)
What's really going on is a metric assload of resentment built up over decade upon decade of status-quo and double standards being released all at once
I know. Women are struggling terribly to meet the expectations that have always been put upon men to sacrifice personal and family life, put a career first and work themselves to an early death.
Feminists tell me though that women are the equals of men so I'm sure they'll get through this and learn how to cope.
Google Employee here - lots of sexual harassment. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone has legitimate grievences, men have been used as cannon fodder in wars, trained to be violent to be protectors, excluded from child care, ...
Getting some sort revenge for some past wrong, is in itself wrong. You have a grievance you have been wronged in a significant manner, not if someone in the past did not have the vote. Each newborn boy bears exactly the same responsibility for those past wrongs as each newborn girl. Very few men alive today have been taking advantage of women for thousands of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one gets punished for a single reported incident when there's no evidence, but if you're got seven different people coming forward saying that Joe has been offfensive to them then they'll take it seriously. It's supposed to be a professional workplace staffed by mature adults, not a locker room.
That's the biggest part about rules with retaliation - it doesn't matter if the reported behavior was or was not harrassment, or even if it was entirely fictional, retaliation is never allowed. Retaliation will g
Re: (Score:2)
What is a "Mexican hat"?
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a Sombrero
When I was a kid, my parents sent me to Ukelele lessons, which changed into Guitar lessons, and then the instructor formed a kids guitar group, called the 'Strumming Amigos'
He had us dress up like Mariachis (Sombrero, Red shirts, White pants and, for a short time, fake mustaches), and perform at city parks, mall events, etc...
They eventually got more attention, produced an album, etc, the one thing that NEVER happened were claims of racism or cultural appropriation.
Maybe it was becau
Re: (Score:2)
"the one thing that NEVER happened were claims of racism or cultural appropriation"
Maybe because people were too polite and didn't want to call you an asshole.
Unfortunately for you this ain't the 1970s.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing, there are still mariachis in Phoenix, [gigsalad.com] maybe you can be a HERO and try and start trying to ban them... chingale bobo
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the difference is those are actual, you know, Mexicans. Not some non-Mexican dude with a fake mustache. I don't have a problem with it, but you have to get with the times. It ain't the 70s.
Re:Maybe... Maybe not (Score:4, Informative)
They are called Mariachis and you can hire them for any festival or event throughout Mexico
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and those guys are actually Mexican. I really don't understand why people don't understand the "cultural appropriation" complaint. It doesn't matter to me, but I get where people are coming from when they complain about it. Personally I think people who dress up as a parody of a "Mexican" are jerks. Admit it, it isn't a homage, or a emulation - it is just a comical joke.
Re: (Score:2)
What is a "Mexican hat"?
Def
Mexican Hat
1) A hat that originally hails from Mexico.
2) A hat that was made in Mexico.
3) A large hat worn by the country of Mexico.
Slang - A threesome involving a a Mexican national resting his "member" about the head or face of one of the other two participants.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I could see where some people would object to seeing a Mexican national resting his "member" about the head or face of one of the other two participants. Especially at a non-profit.
Re: (Score:2)
A sombrero, obviously.
The same thing happened at a place where I once worked. A large group of people had a Cinco De Mayo lunch where they brought in stereotypical American "Mexican" food, played mariachi music, wore sombreros and ponchos, and wore fake mustaches.
This went on for years until everyone was shocked when a contractor pointed out that the costumes and tropes being employed were entirely inappropriate for a workplace. The event ended because of HR intervention, and everyone started grumbling abou
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind the fact that *it was actually offensive*.
How was it offensive? Which idiotic cunt gets offended by people celebrating a battle that the Mexicans don't even give a shit about?
The offensive person in your story is the one that reported this all to HR. While retaliation against people raising grievances is illegal in the UK I absolutely would seek to minimise my further engagement with that person, purely for my own protection. Yes, that would hurt their career prospects but interacting with them is far more likely to hurt mine so fuck them, they sho
Re: (Score:2)
Actually as an Irish guy I would be happy if they did away with the whole St Patricks Day thing. It is pretty offensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was in Walmart recently and saw a kid wearing a sombrero. Was that racist? Spare me.
are you simple?
Re: Maybe... Maybe not (Score:2)
Most of us have met Googlenazis at meetups etc.
Simple math here (Score:2)
Not pleased with outcome of harassment inquiry Being retaliated against
Considering that these are 'dozens' of employees out of 20k (about 0.25% of employees), then this ranks right up there between 'statistical anomaly' and 'acceptable percentage', because at this point you really cannot tell if there is some slight misbehavior going on, or if you have a small percentage of habitual slackers who will gripe about anything as a defense of poor work habits
Re: (Score:2)
great not slashdot ate my GT LT symbols for NE, or !=
I am filing a discrimination lawsuit against Slashdot for keeping me from using my desired annotation for not equal, OH THE HORROR!!!
Re: (Score:2)
In a place like Google, they're only hiring what they perceive to be the best workers.
Out of this highly-selected population of workers, maybe about a tenth of a percent is so sexually aggressive that they can't keep their impulses in check. They misbehave in the office and yes, this tiny sub-population is overwhelmingly male. Yes, they should be flushed out of the workforce. Unless they're some sort of genius computer scientist or the single best salesman/manage
Re: (Score:2)
>>The vast majority of harassment accusations are spot-on.
Do yo have anything to back this up?
Re: (Score:2)
There are some reasons, why harassment claims could be filed:
(1) there is actual harassment
(2) "victim" expects advantages from frivolous claim
(3) honest mistake: "perpetrator" had best intentions but was misunderstood by the "victim"
We do have some study/research data on (1) and (3): The #MeToo Backlash [hbr.org]. Conclusions from this set of studies: actual harassment is happening, and if there are differences in perception between men and women, then women would rather not label something as harassment which men w
Re: (Score:2)
Let me offer another bucket for you
(4) Abuse of system: many people who are abusers (or share gender, class, etc with other actual abusers), claim to have been abused. This is done in hopes of muddying the water to obscure actual reports of abuse. These claims would be thrown out, and like any good flopper, they claimant with report some element of abuse in the denial...
Re: (Score:2)
So, let me rephrase it this way: once someone puts in an accusation of workplace harrassment, everyone and their mother knows that there's going
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers for sexual assault accusations range from 2% to 40% being invalid/inaccurate/false, depending on who looks at it and how they define things.
The upper bound is nearer 85-90%, and that's just the false claims, and that's just for rape.
On top of that, the impact of accusations that aren't valid (for whatever reason) is significant and companies need to demand very strong evidence before taking action.
I know that I've been falsely accused of sexual assault on 100% of the times such accusations have been made. I've been sexually assaulted (even just by women) more often than I've been correctly accused of sexual assault.
Re: (Score:2)
"Dozens of employees out of 20k" is not the issue here. "Dozens out of N employees who report harassment" is the issue, where N is a number vastly smaller than 20k.
Vice President of People Operations (Score:2)
"Tell these people to head over to the cyborg project immediately!"
And please delete all their data, mail, and phones before lunch.
Google's an employer like any other (Score:3)
This is just an extension of what happens in the rest of the corporate world. Google may be Willy Wonka's chocolate factory with half the planet's CS Ph.Ds working there, but in the end it's still an organization of people...but also with a twist.
The fact is, unfortunately, there are certain groups that are exempt from harassment rules. Not on paper of course, but unofficially. In most traditional organizations, this is limited to well-connected executives and total rockstar rainmaker salespeople. The penalties just aren't enough to push companies to enforce the rules. If you have some sleazy salesperson bringing in $100 million every year, the average settlement would be way less than that. Now, you have to be worth this for the company to ignore complaints or settle things for you...and there are a lot of people who don't get away with it. But it's real life, and it happens. See Mark Hurd -- he got slapped on the wrist and jumped into a job at Oracle after HP got rid of him due in part to harassment.
Google has the added twist of (a) being an extension of college for a large chunk of its young workforce, and (b) employing very smart people who may not have a whole lot of social control. It's the same problem as the sales guy...does an executive risk losing the creepy dude who also happens to be the world's foremost expert on some obscure business-critical topic? It's bad that it happens, but I can see why employees wouldn't feel comfortable reporting inappropriate behavior, especially if their boss gives indications that the person involved is untouchable. First, it wouldn't do any good, and second, you would be radioactive to your current and any future employers and they'd find a way to kick you out before you cause more trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, this was brought up in a recent harassment training class. It's difficult to complain about the director because of all the connections, and it gets progressively harder as you go up the chain of command. Ie, Steve Jobs got away with a lot of stuff a vice president would have been fired for. But even at mid levels there's often someone who's untouchable because they've got a single digit employee ID number, or they're leading the special high revenue project.
But the answer is still, report it to HR an
Re: (Score:2)
There are also ways in which to raise a complaint. Going through the management chain, expressing concern about the impact on others and morale across the organisation, demanding only that the matter is appropriately investigated and handled by the company isn't going to cause many ripples.
Screaming on an internal message board and holding canteen meetings with placards is likely to reduce career prospects.
The public behaviour of some Google employees demonstrate that they do not understand this.
So wait, what you're saying is... (Score:2)
I am, of course, being sarcastic.
There are actually three problems here, and all of them are inextricably bound to the human condition:
The first is that some people simply do not have a natural default of treating other people with respect. The second is that people lie, not only to
Re: (Score:2)
The only way you are going to permanently solve these problems in the workplace is, I'm afraid, to not have any employees at all.
Robots for the win, baby!
Re: (Score:2)
A lie is fine, it's not going to be believed, and a single person reporting issues is not enough to get your fired for cause. But HR will keep track and if several people are coming forward with similar allegations then it's taken seriously.
I've seen a case in the past where someone just kept coming up with more and more allegations of misconduct (untrue in my view) and no one was fired or disciplined over it. There were warnings not to retaliate of course (which means things like putting the person onto
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it's enough to get the person who was reporting the issue to face some not-so pleasant repercussions, even if their accusation was true.
You can end up with a situation where a person who may have been legitimately accused remains exactly where they were within the company, while the accuser is hastily removed from their position so as to not have interactions with the person
Re: (Score:2)
Except that those repercussions are illegal in many places, including the US. A decent HR department is going to remember that the issue was reported and keep a close eye on both people involved to ensure that the company follows the law and doesn't end up being sued by either party. The reason for the laws are because of what you say, to allow people to report harassment without being discouraged through fear of losing their job or being nudged out.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the claims of "constructive dismissal" can be a big worry of HR departments. Evidence is key to moving things along.
Re: (Score:2)
Those 'repercussions' can be very hard to avoid.
"He attacked me, it's not safe for me to work with him. You must sack him as I refuse to work with him."
With no evidence beyond the complaint the company is obliged to believe the accused as much as the accuser, and it would be unfair to sack the accused or remove him from his position based on an accusation for which there is no evidence.
The company can however respond to "I refuse to work with him" by offering an alternative position to the accuser, who can
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, but the company can't go treating every accusation as if it were true without any evidence... the fairest thing they could *possibly* do once such an accusation is made is attempt to separate the two involved parties within the company, but depending on company dynamics, this may be logistically impossible without moving one of them into an area of the company that they are not really suited for, negatively impacting their
No mention of political bias or harrasesment (Score:2)
FTA (Score:2)
>>high-stakes projects
I'm sorry, this is nonsense, google has no "high stakes projects", they keep canceling them!
Re: (Score:2)
Not one of these people.... (Score:2)
Re:The USA needs EU worker rights! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, the hallmark of American grit is how willing we are to be fucked over by people and groups with more power than us.
Not possible (Score:5, Insightful)
Females could be as strong as men.
Not as a general proposition they cannot. They are on average significantly weaker and smaller, particularly in upper body strength. This isn't debatable. Some women can match most men in specific athletic feats. Pretty much no women can match all men. And on average there is a substantial difference in both size and strength.
There are women who are capable to run faster or beat-up 99.% of men in the boxing ring. It is just of matter of training.
I'm a wrestling coach of a college women's wrestling team and I've participated in and coached combat sports for close to 40 years (wrestling, kempo, boxing, taekwondo, judo, MMA, plus some others). The number of women who fit your description is a tiny minority and their physical superiority in those specific endeavors seldom translates far outside of those specific activities. Being a fast runner or a good boxer is not merely a matter of training - there is a strong genetic component. Being a fast runner doesn't mean you have the upper body strength to win a fist fight. Being a good wrestler or boxer requires much more than merely lots of time in the gym - size and strength matter greatly. That's why those sports have weight classes. Size and strength make a HUGE difference. Olympic level women athletes can and have been overpowered by comparatively average men of sufficient size. No amount of training will equalize this. Men have a genetic advantage in strength and size that is generally insurmountable.
And even if none of that were true it still doesn't excuse harassing someone in the workplace.
This is /. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a eleven years old girl making 110 complete turns on the horizontal bar: https://youtu.be/L9BhYgTpLsI [youtu.be] . It would be a bad day for an average man who tries to harass her. It would be no less like encountering
Re: (Score:2)
Females could be as strong as men.
Exceptionally strong women could be stronger than your average man, but they would stand no chance against exceptionally strong men. Likewise, your average woman stands no chance against your average man, when it comes to strength.
Biology can be a bitch, but it won't change any time soon, no matter what you, or anybody else, believes.
Re: (Score:2)
if by 'train' you mean inject themselves with huge amounts of male hormones, then yes absolutely.