Google Engineers Are Organizing A Walk Out To Protest The Company's Protection Of An Alleged Sexual Harasser (buzzfeednews.com) 400
In response to a story about Google paying and protecting former executive Andy Rubin following an investigation into sexual misconduct, a group of 200 Google employees are organizing a "women's walk." From a report: A group of more than two hundred engineers at Google are organizing a company-wide "women's walk" walkout for later this week to protest recent revelations about the search giant's protection of employees that had allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct, according to four people familiar with the situation inside Google. The protest, which is expected to happen on Thursday, comes in light of a story by the New York Times last week into the misbehavior of Android creator Andy Rubin and other executives at the company, some of whom still have positions of prominence at Google. Google gave Rubin a reported $90 million exit package in 2014, following an investigation into an allegation that he had coerced another employee to perform oral sex on him. That investigation reportedly found that allegation to be credible.
Fire them all (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be happy to take a position at Google. And I won't spend more time on SJW virtue signaling than I do on my job.
Re:Fire them all (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on, they paid somebody $90m to receive a bj. Call me a SJW if you want, but that's just plain stupidity on Google's part in my book. It encourages more BS.
Re: (Score:2)
"Come on, they paid somebody $90m to receive a bj. Call me a SJW if you want, but that's just plain stupidity on Google's part in my book. It encourages more BJ."
FTFY
Re:Fire them all (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not like they had a choice.
Andy Rubin sold Android to Google for 50 million dollars initially.
But it's only with his continued leadership that Android became what it is today.
And that continued leadership didn't come for free.
Re:Fire them all (Score:5, Informative)
Come on, they paid somebody $90m to receive a bj. Call me a SJW if you want, but that's just plain stupidity on Google's part in my book. It encourages more BS.
That's a deep mischaracterization. Google had already given Rubin $150M in stock that vested over time. By firing him, they effectively took that stock away, opening themselves up to a lawsuit in which they'd have had to prove that they had cause for firing Rubin. It would have been a circus. So instead they gave him $90M (effectively taking back $60M) in exchange for which he agreed to go quietly.
I think they could and should have fired him with no parachute and dealt with the PR storm. But saying they paid him $90M to receive a BJ is ridiculous. It would be more accurate (though still not very) to say that they fined him $60M for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I had outrage at that. I also had outrage at Gingrich divorcing his wife while she was dying of cancer so that he could marry his assistant, making him the bigger twat of the two.
Favoritism is implied, defacto hostile workplace (Score:4, Insightful)
There was no evidence of job favoritism or threats; merely two adults mutually playing around.
That is not how sexual harassment works, even back then it was understood to create a hostile workplace. When a boss and a subordinate have a consensual affair the other subordinates fear there will be favoritism. This fear is real. It negatively effects retention, productivity, etc; it makes employees hate the workplace, their boss, their fellow employees, etc; it creates a risk of lawsuits for the company.
Again, this is not some new radical SJW interpretation. This is what has been taught in sexual harassment training since the 1990s.
Re: (Score:3)
My memory is different: "hostile work environment" that didn't involve favoritism or threats didn't become commonplace until a bit after.
Either way, I would agree to some degree of punishment for such as long as it's enforced consistently between parties so that it's not used as a political weapon.
I recall the corporation I worked for when I learned that a consensual affair creates a hostile workplace, it was an unintuitive concept to me at the time. I left that company in the early 90s. Perhaps our HR department was cutting edge.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This walk-out is great. I don't like the part where they come back, though.
Still, this will make things much easier for the next round of layoffs. [dilbert.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do their skills matter if they never have time to do their jobs because they have to wave a flag every waking moment of every day?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The guy named, "Angel", that you gives you the fentanyl pills to sell at the Waffle House can hardly be called a Big Pharma employer.
Re: (Score:3)
The data tells a different story.
That's the definition of a diversity hire (Score:4)
Before you interview your applicants, you can either:
A) Decide you will hire the most skilled / qualified person
or
B) Decide you will hire the person with the favored genitals or complexion
Choice B is called a "diversity hire".
If you set out to hire the most qualified person, it's not a diversity hire, by definition.
Re:Fire them all (Score:5, Insightful)
Standards are not being lowered for diversity hires.
They are because 'equal opportunity' is being replaced by 'equal outcome.' When this kind of thinking becomes law, industries with unequal representation in race and sex now have to hire people based on these supposedly irrelevant attributes to hit the minimum quotas. To further the irony, the current trend is to make racial and sexual 'diversity' some form of automatic productivity boost when, again, the stated goal was to reenforce the idea that these 'diverse' attributes don't affect merit.
I still count as a diversity hire though and guess what, I always run into some asshole like you who thinks that I'm there just because I fill some Affirmative Action quota.
..and why do think people assume this? You're right. It's racism, just on the part of those who assumed you needed such preferential treatment in the first place. No one likes working with the boss' incompetent son who's there because of his bloodline and little else. Same thing here. No one wants to work with someone who was hired because of his race or sex. If you were hiring for a company, wouldn't you pick the interviewee you thought had the highest chance of having had to bust his ass to get where he is..or would you hire a less capable person who met some racist or sexist 'diversity' quota? This is no less bigoted than a company only hiring women or only men, or only whites, etc. You call it a cherry, but it is in fact the very kind of systemic bigotry 'social justice' claims to fight. If your race was merely 'secondary' to your hiring, then you were still given a buff for it. Would you tolerate it if a white was hired in this manner? Somehow, I doubt it.
Re:Fire them all (Score:5, Insightful)
Standards are not being lowered for diversity hires. Stop perpetuating this bullshit.
They absolutely are. Even when your life is on the line. Female soldiers, firefighters, etc. have to pass easier qualification tests than their male counterparts. That's absolute and utter bullshit that:
1: Lets under-qualified people in to critical roles.
2: Is unfair to one half of the population.
3: Perpetuates the sexist idea that the other half of the population isn't as good and needs a handicap. (Even when this is true on average, those who beat the bell curve and can make it on their own still get treated as if they only got where they were because of the handicap.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, he literally did not claim that. You have in your head that "diversity hire" means unqualified, and he's literally explaining that's not what it means. You need to step out of your own head for one moment to at least understand the argument presented to you.
The whole point of the diversity initiatives is the theory that ethnicity should not count in and of itself, but it empirically does, so it tries to set up an equal and opposite force so that ethnicity doesn't count again.
You may argue that this is
Re: Fire them all (Score:4, Insightful)
That's both racist and sexist of you.
Re: (Score:3)
So at the end of the day, it's still jumping through a bunch of hoops to avoid hiring more ____ due to nothing more than the color of their skin and/or genitalia?
Sounds totally legit!
Re: (Score:3)
It stands to reason that if they were hired for their abilities they'd just be plain old hires.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have evidence that hiring based on skills would tend to overwhelmingly hire white males?
Re: Fire them all (Score:2)
This is the point. Diversity for the sake of diversity is counter-productive. Skills based hiring results naturally in diversity if bias is emliniated from the hiring process. Doing so is the real challenge.
CA is "at will employment" (Score:2)
I'd be happy to take a position at Google. And I won't spend more time on SJW virtue signaling than I do on my job.
Same here. Pity California is not a 'right to work' state. They would be canned as soon as they walked out the door....
CA is an "at will employment" state. An employer "may terminate an employee for any reason at any time" unless there is a law or contract preventing the "reason" from being used. So unless their employment contracts allows them to abandon their work duties during assigned work hours Google should have no problem firing them, in theory, political correctness aside.
Virtue signaling helps them profile you ... (Score:2)
They don't hire your kind. SJW virtue signalling and advertising are their priorities. Search hasn't improved in over 10 years - they're done with building software.
Google (and Facebook) wants to encourage virtue signaling and advertising, it lets them create a better profile on you, so that they can sell more targeted advertising tailored to your preferences.
What protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
The previous story made it sound as though the money was actually through stock options or some other benefits package that he'd previously negotiated in order to stay with the company. Unless Google had some kind of morals clause as a part of that, they wouldn't have any good reason to deprive him of what they had already negotiated.
So the company investigated a report (i.e., they didn't just brush it off), removed Rubin after finding the allegation credible (i.e., merely likely enough to have happened), and paid him what he was owed based on previous negotiations. I'm not sure what Google did wrong in any of this to warrant a protest by anyone. Normally this is the type of shit that just gets covered up, so Google should be getting praised by the people protesting this if anything.
Re:What protection? (Score:5, Funny)
He was publicly decried to have committed a disapproved act by the moral outrage police. The fact that he hasn't been murdered in the street, and his family humiliated with public rapings and beatings is grounds enough for the protest.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not sure what Google did wrong
Pander to irrational SJWs. They created this shit show. They can suffer it.
Re:What protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the NYT, the Google wasn't obligated to pay him that money. It chose to do that and treat the whole thing as a normal amicable parting. They had the option to do the whole you come in to work and find your desk and a security guard out on the lawn.
But, of course, that treatment is for peons.
Is everyone supposed to act with no formal charges (Score:2)
They had the option to do the whole you come in to work and find your desk and a security guard out on the lawn.
But did they really have that option when no formal charges were ever fired, and Rubin himself disputes the whole thing (claiming it was something his Ex-Wife made up to improve her position in divorce proceedings).
I'd say Google did what it reasonably could, got rid of him while at the same time allowing for the possibility the charges were false.
Re: (Score:3)
Such contracts typically do not require a criminal conviction to fire someone for cause. And typically it's firing for cause that stops golden parachutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Many professionals get that treatment without even an allegation of wrong doing.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the NYT, the Google wasn't obligated to pay him that money. It chose to do that and treat the whole thing as a normal amicable parting. They had the option to do the whole you come in to work and find your desk and a security guard out on the lawn.
But, of course, that treatment is for peons.
I'm sure they had other options as well. The most important thing was to remove the person in a reasonable amount of time (once they established the charge was credible) to prevent recurrence. Any option that did not include paying the contracted obligation would naturally result in a lengthy, costly, and ugly legal battle, possibly even bringing the victim back into the mix. So they cut bait and ran.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if the DA thinks I might have robbed the liquor store but isn't sure, the best approach is to give me 10 years pay and moving expenses if I agree to go live somewhere else?
Maybe you missed the obvious.........The DA is not your employer.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called an analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What protection? (Score:4)
According to the NYT, the Google wasn't obligated to pay him that money.
Sort of. By firing him they took away $150M in unvested stock that they'd given him just weeks before. Without an agreement he could have sued for that money, unless they could prove the termination was justified. I have no idea if he'd have gotten it, but he might have... and created a PR firestorm in the process. It's possible that the $90M payout saved Google money.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the NYT, the Google wasn't obligated to pay him that money.
The NYT is retarded; nobody gives that kind of money away for free.
Re: (Score:2)
I make it a policy to never sh** where I eat.
You would think that anyone successful enough to have negotiated such a large pay out would know better. It doesn't matter who started what in the end it's he said she said and no one wins. Unless they where recording it and that's an entirely different problem if it ever reaches the public.
Re: (Score:3)
This protest is quite literally because they don't feel Google punished him enough by not breaking the law to do so.
Re:What protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it is, at least that's what it's become today. The real lesson to learn from the social justice pantheon is that bigotry is perfectly ok as long as you target the right group at the right time. There's plenty of infighting among the different subgenres to prove this.
I strongly suspect you would not tolerate typical feminist behavior and attitudes if they were coming from men directed at women.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
'Toxic masculinity' is anti-male propaganda from feminists..It's no different than a nazi espousing on "The Anatomy of the Jew." It's designed to deconstruct and thus dehumanize the target. Much easier to gas people when they don't qualify as human in your mind or the minds of the public.
Human rights revolve around individual liberty, not collectivist honeytraps for the insecure.
Re: (Score:3)
What law was broken? What crime was committed? When's the trial? Is he in custody? Did he post bail?
What's going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably gonna be downvoted to hell but I don't care.
What's with all this witch-hunting nowadays? Notice how many things in this story are nothing but a pure speculation: "allegedly engaged", "a reported $90 million exit package", "an allegation", "reportedly found that allegation to be credible".
Nothing in this story has been proven. There's never been a lawsuit. Nothing has officially been revealed.
First, it was Hollywood actors and even directors. Now, CEOs or high ranking officers. Can anyone name a single instance of relatively recent sexual harassment allegation to be conclusively proven in the court of law?
I'm not trying to downplay this story or say that women are never oppressed/sexually harassed at work. I just want such stories to become a tad more factual than they've been so far. Someone said something to someone and now the whole Internet is buzzing about it. What the hell?
I'm not a woman, of course, but why on Earth at least a number of rape victims seek legal counsel, press charges and somehow act on the harassment in a provable manner while this recent witch-hunting has been fueled by pure speculations and seemingly nothing else?
Re:What's going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
The wing-nuts specifically want equity over equality [github.com]. That is, they don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome. That post is also a perfect example of the Motte and Bailey strategy [paul-m-jones.com]. The first part is the actual goal, the bailey. Inequal treatment in their favor. The second part is what they defend, the motte, which looks entirely reasonable. They are also against meritocracy. [postmeritocracy.org] It is horrific. I can't believe that this got into the linux kernel and that people are standing by this sort of drivel.
But people get swept up in movements. It becomes a tribalism thing of us vs them. You know it's a bad witch-hunt when any call for moderation gets you labeled as a witch. Democrats need to self-police and protest the protection and acceptance of these sort of hate-filled racist and sexist bigots. Otherwise our party is going to get as crazy as the TEA-partiers.
(But Cosby is black. You too also need to tone down the racist rhetoric)
Re: (Score:3)
Anything that affects merit is factored into a (well run) meritocracy and that includes human factors. You've set up a false dichotomy and you're on the war-path for no reason. There are plenty of places striving and failing at being meritocratic, but I don't think that's enough reason to simply give up on rewarding people who do a good job.
Linux was held as the last bastion of the assholeocracy
Most of corporate America, Sous chefs, Stock brokers, Most of the middle east, Marines, Construction sites, African warlords, Pretty much any work environment that foste
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps people in positions of power are the ones most likely to manipulate them for nefarious purposes, and that's why straight white males seem to be caught doing this kind of stuff more so than others?
Re: (Score:3)
They came after Bill Cosby (black), Kevin Spacey (gay), and John "Cap'n Crunch" Draper (gay). They're all men, but not all white and straight.
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone name a single instance of relatively recent sexual harassment allegation to be conclusively proven in the court of law?
If your definition of "recent" includes "anything within the statute of limitations period, I guess you could point to the recent conviction of Bill Cosby. We'll have to wait and see with Harvey Weinstein, where despite things getting murky lately, he's still facing criminal charges for rape and "performing a forcible sex act".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a white male, and I fully understand that women rule the universe. However, women in the US have traded in their own sense of worth, for whateve
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone name a single instance of relatively recent sexual harassment allegation to be conclusively proven in the court of law?
Cosby has been mentioned. Others (e.g. Kevin Spacey, Morgan Spurlock, Louis CK) have admitted it.
US courts only work fast when poor people are involved. For rich people, justice is slow.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nothing in this story has been proven. There's never been a lawsuit. Nothing has officially been revealed.
See the smoking crater that used to be known as Gawker? That's what happened. So now coverage has to be mealy-mouthed.
Including referring to someone as a "convicted " instead of just using the common name for that crime. That way the publication can claim it is just deferring to the courts.
So no, this is not a new creeping SJW witch hunt on totally innocent men. This is a shift in news coverage to add more butt-covering. If this was 10 years ago, "alleged" would not be so liberally used in the article
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
nah, just mandatory sensitivity training for all employees as a group punishment.
eventually the people causing the problem will get driven out by people sick of having to take the training over and over.
Re: (Score:2)
That creates a vindictive and destructive environment for everyone. that is bad for productivity and therefore profits.
Re:What's going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost of upholding "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is always worth it, since the alternative is the collapse of the rule of law. Of course, there are some extremists who seek exactly that, and we should ignore those guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Law? What?!?
Re:What's going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you seriously just say that it's better for innocent people to lose their jobs and be ostracized from society than for society to pay for a fair trial?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How about if you're wronged by someone criminally, you file a police report instead and let them do the work they're supposed to? Then, if there's sufficient evidence, they get a warrant and arrest the suspect. Finally, if he's convicted, fire him. If not, he should return to work unscathed.
I know, what a concept in today's age of idiocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
The trials really aren't that expensive. It costs you $0 to file a complaint, especially if it's credible. You are not REQUIRED to have a lawyer present and if you are going after some big guy with credible evidence, you can get a lawyer or victim group to pro-bono or work on a percentage of the restitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Cosby is a convicted rapist, not just 'Sexual Harassment'.
Victims of seual harrasment usully don't want to be in the news, and healthy news organizations respect that.
Re: (Score:2)
After dealings with the news organisations, they honestly don't give a rat's ass if you want to be on their pages or not. If they can make a story out of you and twist it to be sensational and sell adverts, they'll do it.
I've not found one I trust yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For every white supremacist there are thousands of "black lives matter" and feminist sorts who routinely generalize, stereotype, and deconstruct in the same manner as the former. The only difference is in the targets. They've become (or always were) what they claim to fight. It's an ideological power grab, nothing more. They lack any moral high ground over the neo-nazi sorts.
No, it empowers witchhunts and dogpiling. It's the modern day lynch mob, using public shaming in place of sticks.
Re: (Score:2)
For every white supremacist there are thousands of "black lives matter" and feminist sorts who routinely generalize, stereotype, and deconstruct in the same manner as the former.
Hmmm. Yeah, probably. But this is also true:
For every "black lives matter" and feminist sorts, there are.... maybe 1 or 2.... ish... conservatives who routinely generalize, stereotype, and deconstruct in the same manner as the former.
Like.... wing-nuts exist. They're nuts. They exist on both sides. Comparing the number of white supremacists to feminists isn't exactly a fair scale. If you're just looking at anyone who generalizes or runs on stereotypes... hooooboy. I think you'd have a harder time fi
Re: (Score:2)
Like.... wing-nuts exist. They're nuts. They exist on both sides.
You don't know much about fasteners, do you?
Re: (Score:3)
And here I thought slashdotters had a reputation for being bright. Is this really not obvious to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Mob justice (Score:5, Insightful)
No innocent until proven guilty, no jury of equals, no rule of law, only mob justice. And that's supposed to hold the moral high ground? Why don't they just walk to his house and lynch him, if it's so bad...
Re:Mob justice (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mob justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing new. Been going on for centuries. Its either shit like Salem or the Red Scare or the 24 hour news cycle going after OJ or Scott Peterson for weeks/months/years.
Our system of justice was specifically designed to move slowly to reduce the chances of mistakes and failures. That is in direct contrast to the instant gratification society we've become and the needs/desires of the media to get instant ratings. It's one outrage/tragedy after another.
Re: (Score:2)
Our system of justice was specifically designed to move slowly to reduce the chances of mistakes and failures.
Yes, but the problem is that this careful approach has been subverted with those able to afford large legal teams. That in no way makes the current mob-justice in any way acceptable but if the outcome of a trial depends significantly on the size of your bank account that is in no sense justice.
What we need to do is fix the justice system to maintain the care but remove the bias towards wealth before people get so angry with it that it gets torn down and replaced by something a lot less careful.
Re:Mob justice (Score:4, Interesting)
An HR department is not a criminal court. They don't have to presume innocence.
If the HR department were to lynch the guy, they would be in criminal court PDQ. In this case, they fired the guy, and people don't like that Google had to abide by his employment agreement and give him his termination compensation.
Guess what, folks? They do, therefore, given a contract and a legal obligation to honor that contract, he gets the money.
He was fired. That's all you're gettin'. March all you want. It's stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
An HR department is not a criminal court. They don't have to presume innocence.
If the HR department were to lynch the guy, they would be in criminal court PDQ. In this case, they fired the guy, and people don't like that Google had to abide by his employment agreement and give him his termination compensation.
Guess what, folks? They do, therefore, given a contract and a legal obligation to honor that contract, he gets the money.
He was fired. That's all you're gettin'. March all you want. It's stupid.
Exactly this... If he had been found guilty in a court of law they might have a clause in the contract that would allow them to terminate his employment without having to pay a dime. But since it was only an allegation, it has no bearing on the contract and their only option is to fire him and pay the termination amount.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the part where he was incarcerated for this. Could you point it out to me?
Oh wait...he wasn't.
Well, then perhaps you could point out the part where he was forced to pay restitution.
Oh wait...he wasn't.
Huh....it turns out this isn't a trial at all, and it also turns out there is no Constitutional right to a job at Google.
I, For One, Welcome Our New Chinese Tech Overlords (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely no one should be surprised when China quickly takes over the United States as world tech leader.
To quote/paraphrase a vile and toxic SJW:
"you made your SJW bed. Now get fucked in it" Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Things were looking really good over there for a while. But then they got a communist dictator for life, the social credit score turned out to be as horrific as the fear-mongers said, and they've had decades of explosive growth that's come to an end. They have a new middle class that wants to get paid for their labor. They've made strides in air pollution at least, but it was straight-up killing people at crazy-bad levels.
Oppression comes in a lot of different forms. Moving to china would not improve your
Two hundred engineers? Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's got over 85,000 employees. Probably half of them in the various south bay campuses. Two hundred being gone for a day isn't going to be noticed. Though I imagine eng-misc@ and industryinfo@ and memegen might be a little quieter.
Re: (Score:3)
Productivity might even go UP (Score:2, Funny)
Depending on who decides to walk out, productivity might even go UP. I know I get more done when I'm not being constantly bugged by engineers who are more concerned about talking politics.
Allegations (Score:4, Insightful)
These modern hippies (Score:2)
Sheesh! We old hippies would have held a sit-in instead of a walk-out.
At least there's a cafeteria with free stuff inside.
What's the point? I don't get it. (Score:2)
Other than putting their employer in bad light this makes no sense to me. How about writing an internal letter to Sundar Pitchai or the board, if there are reasons to be upset? Or just quit citing the problem. That would gain some effective PR. This just seems silly and childish as many hashtag (pseudo) feminist actions these days. I honestly don't get it.
Our is it just some teenie service personnel looking for attention?
Time to lose my karma (Score:2)
Many comments here only prove one thing, people have double standards, and when someone of a group people here believe they belong to get accused they call the accuser SWJ and lair. Then state the person being accused should continue in his position of power.
But when a Priest is accused of the same thing, the very same people who are defending these other abusers are out there with pitch forks and torches looking for him.
It is time we start taking the accuser seriously instead of defending the accused, may
Re:Time to lose my karma (Score:4, Insightful)
Many comments here only prove one thing,
That slashdot has been overrun by Anonymous Coward Snowflakes who can't stand for something to happen without labelling it a conspiracy of the SJWs?
I mean, don't get me wrong, slashdot has not been a go-to place for intelligent discussion for a very long time, but now it's becoming #gamergate enough that I'm kind of thinking I should go elsewhere for news. I don't even care if they're trolls or if they really believe this, because it's like debating whether you'd rather swim in a pool of vomit or a pool of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll find most of the comments, if a priest is convicted of something, they'll come out with the torches. If they're accused, you'll see a lot of "show us what you got".
And to me the "Show us what evidence you have" is a good way to start anything. If you don't have evidence, you only have conjecture. Or an assertion or accusation.
The reason we have courts of law are so that people who have really bad things happen have recourse, and people accused of something also have a chance of being cleared of th
Great! And now walk out on the vote (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd fire them.
Why?
It's not like Google engineers have a 9 to 5 schedule.
If their work performance doesn't suffer, I don't see what the problem is.
Re:That's their choice to walk out. (Score:5, Insightful)
IE
Ever here of a Poison Pete? This is that on a grand scale. If you can not separate your personal from professional life... GTFO.
Want to be a drama-lama? Do it on your own time and dime. Not your employers. This is not college where you are paying for the privlege of acting like a child throwing a tantrum.
Plus its not like Google wont have ten for everyone they fire lining up for just the chance to work there. Why keep anyone that is not a team player? Why keep anyone who will make the workplace (more) toxic?
Fire them all. Send a message that SJW'ing is for your personal time only... and get back to work... or dont work for Google.
Re: (Score:2)
If their protest was blocking the entrance to Google so people couldn't get to work, then it would be effective. Not saying that's right, but it would work.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to express their extreme displeasure that Google decided to cover this up and pay out his golden parachute.
They would have preferred what would have been done to rank-and-file employees who were found to have done the same thing: Being fired for cause, which would not come with a $90M payday.
So it's about pressuring management to do better the next time this happens.
Protest is a TERRIBLE form of change, and never accomplishes much of anything.
You apparently have never spent much time in the vicinity of a history department. Every single civil right we currently enjoy came
Re: (Score:2)
According to the NYT who has access to his employment contract, Google's on-retainer legal department, and everything relating to the issue at hand? Or just according to the NYT?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are pointedly not "innocent until proven guilty." You are presumed innocent. And that is a protection against a kangaroo court, not a viable life philosopy. All criminal trials start with the baseline that the defendant is innocent of the charge until the prosecution proves otherwise. The defendant also is never found to be "innocent." The determination is "not guilty." There's a big difference.
Like it or not, HR departments have no such standard by which they need to abide.
IRL, nobody presumes anyone i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They killed Kavin Spacey's career over an allegation.
Over 30 allegations, three historic police reports and six open police investigations in the UK alone, and a statement by Spacey that he was seeking "evaluation and treatment".
Re: (Score:2)
4chan and similar shitholes spilling over with clueless fucktards. You did mean the idiots that think everything is a "SJW" conspiracy right?
Re: (Score:2)
So I look at this again in Wikipedia.
Re:#MeTooHonestToGod mega clawback (Score:5, Insightful)
Actual outcome: Instantly demoted from a Stanford golden child, to a lifelong felon, having served a big chunk of actual jail time (six months in the slammer in the pink petticoat for a socially maladapted Stanford nerd is not small change), whose given name is now synonymous with "dumpster rape" on the Internet for all time, and is barely employable, anywhere, ever (except on false pretenses where he dishonestly conceals his sordid history) because the social media wrath of the Sorority Sisters against any "clean slate" employer who ever associates with this person for all time would be too vituperative to even contemplate. All this for an act committed as a socially mindless young male not yet brutally familiar with neither alcohol nor women.
And if he had been a regular guy instead of that "golden child", he would have gotten 3+ years in prison and everything you list.
Are we equal under the law or not? Because right here, you are arguing that we are not.
have no freaking clue about the brain-cramping rampage of peak TSB in a young man's late teenage years.
Hey look! Incel bullshit. How surprising.