Alphabet's Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation (nytimes.com) 75
The New York Times is reporting that Alphabet's chief legal officer, David Drummond, is leaving the internet giant amid an investigation into his relationships with women who worked at the company. From the report: In an email sent to employees at Google and Alphabet, Mr. Drummond, who joined Google in 2002, said he planned to leave Alphabet at the end of the month. He said that it was the "right time for me to make way for the next generation of leaders" in light of Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google's founders, stepping back from day-to-day roles at the company. His resignation comes more than a year after 20,000 Google employees protested the company's handling of sexual harassment and inappropriate workplace relationships. The protests were a public reckoning for a permissive work culture that had existed since the company's early days -- exemplified by generous exit packages for senior executives even after they were accused of sexual misconduct.
In recent months, Mr. Drummond had come to symbolize how -- despite the company's assertions that it would no longer tolerate such actions -- some powerful men in the technology world accused of inappropriate behavior often weathered the storm, landing new jobs or keeping their old ones. Some employees inside Google were dismayed that Mr. Drummond was not forced to leave after the details of an extramarital relationship he had with a woman who worked for him became public. The concerns about Mr. Drummond's workplace romances took on new life when he recently married another woman from Google's legal department.
In recent months, Mr. Drummond had come to symbolize how -- despite the company's assertions that it would no longer tolerate such actions -- some powerful men in the technology world accused of inappropriate behavior often weathered the storm, landing new jobs or keeping their old ones. Some employees inside Google were dismayed that Mr. Drummond was not forced to leave after the details of an extramarital relationship he had with a woman who worked for him became public. The concerns about Mr. Drummond's workplace romances took on new life when he recently married another woman from Google's legal department.
Don't mix work and fun (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The key thing that allowed a relationship between me and a co-worker is that we agreed it wouldn't affect our output at work, and that we wouldn't sue the company over it. It didn't lead to marriage, but gave the company "something to talk about" and made them realize how few attractive females were there.
You got lucky she liked her ex (Score:2)
People very often are quite angry at their ex. There can be a lot of drama if they are forced to see each other often.
Sure in the beginning when you LIKED each other it was easy to say "this will never be a problem". It didn't turn into a problem when you became her ex, or when she thought you were cheating on her, or whatever only because you got lucky. Well and perhaps if you're both mature, level-headed adults that might help your odds. Still that's no guarantee - very successful, smart people often
Re: (Score:2)
How about colour me surprised, the specialist marketing company was able to establish a reputation via virtue signalling and memes, that had nothing what so ever to do with who they really are. As Google employees realise they are not that well treated and the illusion of Google is entirely marketing, well, aren't the wheels just falling off that marketing machine.
Did he try the Costanza defense? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Did he try the Costanza defense? (Score:2)
"who worked for him"
That's THE problem. Provided he wasn't harassing anyone, and what I read didn't mention that. It's probably safe to say the company doesn't care about the moral choices he made, or even ... with a coworker, but ... with a subordinate is an easy red line to have because it compromises so much, in any kind of institution. I think besides the ethical problems it is bad on a strategic level, it destroys trust in the organization's decision making or power structure. Sure other personal i
Re:Don't mix work and fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, "would you go out on a date with me?" , "oh, but please quit your job first"?
People spend the majority of their lives at work, it's natural that they meet people there they become friends with, or want to date, or more. Even if you are wealthy and volunteer your time for free to charity organizations, again you are likely to run into someone you might want to date there. This will always be a problem as it is human nature, and no amount of activism is going to change it.
Re:Don't mix work and fun (Score:5, Insightful)
People spend the majority of their lives at work
Particularly for anyone at "chief" level. Unless they're a nepotism hire, the kinds of people that get to that point are workaholics. Most of us have hobbies or other parts of our lives that expose us to different people, but some people don't.
I won't confess to knowing any of the details behind this story. Maybe he's an asshole that got better than he deserved, or maybe he was just a miserable human being trying to find a little happiness that got burned for it. Either way, now he's just a pawn for everyone's ideological posturing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's usually not a problem until there is a situation where one person's career is under the control of the other. If there is any influence then one person needs to maybe move to another department or in the case of a C level just quit.
Peers in a relationship is generally not an issue as long as they behave professionally at work.
Re: (Score:2)
And the vast majority of the time in that situation, one or the other moves on, or it ends amicably and ways part. You just hear far more of the bad because of sensationalism.
As long as people can behave professionally, all's good. When they can't, there's always HR.
It's natural, and a bad idea (Score:2)
> it's natural that they meet people there they become friends with, or want to date, or more.
Absolutely. It's not surprising at all.
Also, if you think your girlfriend is hot, that's natural. It's natural for her sister to look a lot like her, and generally be a lot like her, so it's not surprising if you find your girlfriend's sister attractive. Totally natural to think your GF's sister is attractive - she's lot like your GF. Also, a really bad idea to bone her sister.
We aren't dogs - we can notice
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have a single ex that I wouldn't want to work with. I purposely do still work with a couple of them on occasion. Maybe you have an unusually dramatic personality?
Also, firing someone who can't even muster the self control to work at the same company as someone they dislike sounds like a good idea to me.
That's interesting (Score:2)
> I don't have a single ex that I wouldn't want to work with. I purposely do still work with a couple of them on occasion.
That's interesting. The way I hear people talk about exes, I thought I was the only one who was totally friendly with everyone I ever dated.* But then, I don't really get mad. I'm hardly more emotional than Spock. I started a side business with my ex-wife's brother, and chatted with him every day at another place he got me a job.
* Of those I remember going out with. I went through a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Standard employee training since the 1980s has been: if you and a coworker mutually agree to date, we can't stop you, but if you are in the same chain of command and in particular if one of you reports directly or indirectly to the other than one of you - preferably the higher ranking - must request a transfer to a different area so there is no business relationship between you. This goes quadruple for executives who are assumed by definition to have coercive power over every person below them in the orga
Re: (Score:2)
Penis vetoes.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Because sometimes two consenting adults will have good jobs that neither of them wants to leave, and they want to have a mutually satisfactory relationship.
For example, it used to be common in small law firms for a lawyer to start dating and marry his secretary. There are lots of happy marriages like that. What is the lawyer supposed to do -- fire his secretary once they feel a mutual attraction for each other?
Or sometimes may not be possible for one worker to find a new job as good as the one they left, or
Dating is a minefield for the bystanders (Score:5, Interesting)
Long ago, a consultant sexually harassed me at my job writing bank software. She was a cool gal and I loved talking with her, but she crossed a line in sexually harassing me in front of my coworkers. I didn't mind it. I thought it was a funny joke...but we were both marched into HR. I stood up for her and told her I didn't mind, we're just friends and it's just her sense of humor. The HR lady told me to shut my mouth before I got in trouble and that they would be firing the lady...she patiently explained to me that while I found her making sexual jokes about me funny, it made everyone else in the office uncomfortable.
Some thought we were having an affair (we weren't), but it made them uncomfortable since we were both married. Others didn't like that I was part of the team evaluating her performance...they were unsure if she was trading sexual favors to keep her company's contract going...plus other considerations I had not thought of. Finally...some people just don't want to hear jokes about their coworker's anatomy. So while I didn't mind nor did I think of myself as harassed, I now know I should have put a stop to it immediately for the sake of the bystanders...I was only 25 and didn't realize how unprofessional I was being at the time.
Re: (Score:3)
I work for an American company in Europe.
Everytime I interact with someone on the US side, there is drama and people being offended.
Meanwhile in Europe we have no bullshit, are not afraid to say whatever we think and disrupt established beliefs, resulting in higher productivity and innovation.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many reasons not to date at work. I'd say a major one is for the rest of us. Ever work with a couple? It's scary! ...
I understand you only too well. I worked with a boss who had a hidden girlfriend in the team. It was a nightmare. She got the job while being his girlfriend already.
Nobody could understand why he is always on her and her cronies side, whom she, certainly with his help, also brought into the company.
But we did not know it at the time. We learned it many years later, when they finally got married.
Re: Don't mix work and fun (Score:1)
"It sounds like alpha males and alpha females controlling reproduction in a chimpanzee troupe."
The reactionary Progressives who support these laws are nothing if not brutal elitists.
Re: (Score:2)
'What is the lawyer supposed to do -- fire his secretary once they feel a mutual attraction for each other?'
Absofuckinlutly. Or transfer her, or yourself, or quit and open your own practice with your secretary/mate where you're able to establish your own expectations. Better yet, save face and have your superior transfer one of you, otherwise you're both fucked. Suspect to allegations by others that is hard to defend against. Especially when there's an easy remedy. Not worth the hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dating at work is usually fine, but if you're in a managerial position you *do not* date your subordinates.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
'Why is this so complicated for some people to understand?'
Because their mothers and fathers didn't teach them how not to shit where you eat. Or, a hard cock has no conscience, probably 50/50 bet on either.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this so complicated for some people to understand?
Because it makes no sense as a generic bland statement.
You could be working in completely different departments, rarely ever meeting at work. Or you could already be working together closely and being married wouldn't make much of a difference. Or you could be actual adults who manage to be professional when required and loving when needed.
Sure, if you're boss and secretary that is a tricky thing. But if you're factory worker A and cafeteria cook B - please explain to me why one of them has to quit their jo
Re: (Score:2)
They don't. Standard training since the 1980s has been that if coworkers who mutually consent to date are in the same chain of command, and particularly if they have a reporting relationship, one of them - preferably the higher ranking - must request a transfer to a different reporting chain. But an executive, as in this case, is assumed to have coercive power over _everyone_ in her chain of command and simply should not seek or accept romantic relationships from among that group.
Re: (Score:2)
"But an executive, as in this case, is assumed to have coercive power over _everyone_ in her chain of command and simply should not seek or accept romantic relationships from among that group."
Why are only female executives assumed to have coercive power over _everyone_ in her chain of command?
Re: (Score:2)
Very droll.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes much more sense. Like I said: The generic blanket statement is nonsense. More nuanced, that makes sense.
Deluded bullshit. (Score:2)
A quarter of all relationships start at work.
Why? Because we find people we like at the places where there are people with common interests. Surprise surprise!
"No relationships at work" is somethig spread by employers, who dream of a perfect industrialization "utopia", like in China, where people aren't even allowed to talk while behaving like what is essentially advanced robots.; not humans.
Maybe it's because I see my work as an actual profession. Something that I do out of passion. That I stand behind.
Ins
Re: (Score:2)
The potential for (1) coercive relationships (2) relationships which are satisfactory to the two parties but damage other coworkers is very high in the workplace, as is the potential for lawsuits from both the involved parties and the collaterally damaged third parties. That is why there are guidelines for such actions in the workplace.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to hook up with somebody at work, one of you needs to quit your job, first. 100%. Always. Why is this so complicated for some people to understand?
Because it's not really true. A friend of mine met and ultimately married someone who works at the same place. They were in different sub departments of the department that they worked at which employed thousands of people. Its super skeezy to date someone who's career you control. And it's inviting trouble to date someone you work with regularly.
Why? That sounds rather prejudiced.. (Score:2)
So, i assume also a married couple cannot both work in the same company?How about similar companies? Could be all sorts of issues there..
From what I can tell, around 30% of all the couples I know met while working... so thats a pretty big impact you are going to have..
Or perhaps you just think that dating, relationships, sex, etc are all just bad, and should not be allowed?
Or perhaps you are from the 'the only reason people would 'hook up' is for one to take advantage of another' camp?
My suggestion? get a f
Re: (Score:2)
Every company I have worked at over the past 25 years has required all employees to go through training that goes over this topic explicitly. You are not allowed to have a romantic relationship with someone who is subordinate to you. Period. What if that relationship turns sour. What if the subordinate gets a promotion over someone else on the team who is considered more qualified (did they get the promotion because they sleep with the boss)? What if its perceived the superior is playing favoritism wit
Re: (Score:2)
Every company I have worked at over the past 25 years has required all employees to go through training that goes over this topic explicitly. You are not allowed to have a romantic relationship with someone who is subordinate to you. Period.
I think you're overstating it. Every company I've worked at over the past 30 years has required all employees to go through training that goes over this topic explicitly. You must notify HR of any romantic relationship with another coworker, and HR will decide whether there's a problem, and what to do about it. If one of you is subordinate to the other, they will probably decide that some sort of action needs to be taken... whether that's a transfer or just increased scrutiny, probably including regular
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"one of you needs to quit your job"
No, you need to disclose the relationship so that any change in reporting structure to maintain the minimum org structure distance can be maintained. In any company large enough to have actual HR policies this mostly entails changing the manager that one or both of the parties reports to.
While you seem to be supportive of a policy to eliminate conflicts of interest, your hysterical "someone much quit" description isn't going to convince anyone and is also factually wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, our role models in music seem to be dating each other...
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Informative)
So only married employees can fuck each other? Do they have to be married to each other?
You Americans are all batshit crazy. Please stay in your own cesspool. The rest of the world wants you not.
Re: Simple solution (Score:2)
The real problem in the US is due to acceptance of diversity and inclusiveness of such extremist views, our legal system tends to incorrectly show such people tolerance where it does not belong.
Worse still, those radicalized nut jobs have greater interest in public policy, and as such persue policy positions more than reasonable people. End result because we fail to auto-fail such people
Re: Simple solution (Score:1)
"to auto-fail such people from public office"
I, for one, would NEVER vote for a candidate who identified as a feminist - or any other flavors of goddamned Nazi - regardless of that candidate's position on other issues.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So only married employees can fuck each other? Do they have to be married to each other?
You Americans are all batshit crazy. Please stay in your own cesspool. The rest of the world wants you not.
I'm an American and I find no fault with your assessment of us.
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Interesting)
You Americans are all batshit crazy.
True statement.
Now the thing is that sex is a way to control people. If I have managed to convince you that I decide who you can fuck and how you can fuck them, I can basically tell you anything. That's why every religion has a lot to say about sex and why lawmakers have such trouble advancing to adulthood, or the 21st century or whatever you want to call not being a primitive. It's control. We see it here - once people have decided that they don't like your sex life, it doesn't matter if you're good at your job or not, that question won't even come up.
Not defending the guy. Just saying that "does it impact your job performance?" should be the more important question about relationships than "are you married?".
Re: (Score:2)
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Jan 26th 1998.
Kinda started there.. and it's not gone uphill...
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck you racist scum.
Re: Simple solution (Score:1)
Stomp 'em with the iron boot! If that don't work, toss 'em all in the gulag!!
Sounds all-American to me. (Score:2)
Of course, they're actually called "black sites" over here. Like Guantanamo bay. One of many.
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Institute a zero tolerance policy of non-married employees having sex with each other,
Why?
Again, imagine factory worker A and cafeteria cook B have met at the company party and decided they like each other enough to screw their brains out every now and then. For whatever reason, they don't get married. Maybe they will, but not yet. Or maybe they just don't want. Or maybe they're already married to someone else. Or maybe because it's illegal for them to marry because the laws don't give that right to gays and lesbians.
Doesn't matter. Explain your zero tolerance policy to me in context of these two people who never meet during a normal work day, have no power over each other's jobs, and just happen to work in the same company.
If that ain't enough to prove your idea is completely insane, imagine your company is pretty big, maybe 15,000 people working on campus. Two people meet on a holiday in Europe and have a fling. They're on holiday, so they don't talk much about work. By pure chance, they happen to both be working for your company. By your zero tolerance policy, they just both lost their job. Explain to me why that makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
> Explain your zero tolerance policy to me in context of these two people
Easy. Zero-tolerance policies exist:
1. To take authority away from managers.
2. So they can hire idiot managers with no judgment.
3. To protect the pensions of said idiot managers.
4. Uniformity at all costs.
5. To deny the humanity of their workers so they know who's in charge.
6. To remove the costs of people complaining about being treated differently.
7. To chase our the free thinkers who are hard to manage anyway.
So many corporate b
Re: (Score:2)
Institute a zero tolerance policy of non-married employees having sex with each other
Look, I'm a Christian who believes extra-marital sex is a sin, and a generally bad idea, but I think you're nuts. Not only is your solution excessively harsh, it doesn't do anything at all to solve the problem. If a boss marries his/her subordinate, you still have all the problems of favoritism that are the core problem that you'd have if they were having extra-marital sex. Marriage is completely beside the point here. The point is that romantic relationships -- whether committed or temporary -- create
wondering if google could have ... (Score:2)
Bullshit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Jeez, you can't even bang your secretary without everybody freaking out anymore... what's this world coming to?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
If we can't manage to work together professionally then we are screwed, because it's not just men and women. It's not just gay men. I had an old boss who acted like he was married to another boss, with lover's quarrels and all the rest, and both were straight. Just putting people together for long periods of time does that occasionally.
Well, duh. (Score:3)
We are literally the offspring of a billion years of ancensors where only the ones survived that had sex. It is literally more essential than even eating. (Photosynthetic species can be sexual but never eat.)
What is sick, is industrialization. Especially the treating of humans as worker robots, like Rockefeller or e.g. Foxconn.
What is even more sick, is making sexuality or nudity, of all things, a taboo. And if you add the rule that you need approval (aka marriage) to breed, and need to put kids in that sam
Re:Celibacy... (Score:5, Interesting)
..... You can't shut it off. You can't flip it on and off like a lightswitch.....
While I agree, celibacy is not a viable option, neither is a laissez-faire approach. It's the workplace,not a playground or a hook-up bar. Behaviour standards must be higher than those accepted for casual social interaction. Further, I do not accept the "it cannot be controlled" argument. Sexual drive is a natural appetite, and, like every other appetite, should and can be controlled.
There is no denying workplace romances will happen. Given the myriad of potential downsides, and few positives (from a workplace perspective), a company would be negligent not to have policies and guidelines regarding what is acceptable, and what is not, when it comes to romance in the workplace.
Each and every employee needs to know the potential career and employment consequences of entering into a workplace sexual relationship.
Re: (Score:2)
-1, offtopic
Why do people think these policies mandate celibacy, or even attempt any control over personal lives?
The actual polices seek to remove the conflicts of interest when business and personal relationships overlap *by changing the business relationship*. Typically this comes in the form of a minimum distance in the org chart, e.g if you are dating someone who would report to you they get assigned a different manager. I've never seen a policy actually state the personal relationship itself is expecte
And what colour is the ... (Score:2)
... parachute?
Since the company's early days... (Score:2)
A British colleague is recently binging Mad Men and impressed with its depictions of workplace challenges and conflicts surrounding ambition and power and sex. To depict the tropes and stereotypes of two and three generations removed is not un-useful, but as the show was affirming how far "we" have come, Silicon Valley was busily repeating (or as Twain noted, rhyming) the patterns.
What world is that? (Score:2)
I don't know if this is psychos harassing those people (let's be honest, it's both sexes), or if it's psychos harassing people by saying they were harassed.
All I know is: I do 't want ANY of that world among my peers!
Seriously, what fucked-up climate do they have, where this is even a thing?
I mean hiring such psychos in the first place. No matter from what role they do the harassing. and hiring spineless people who don't open their damn mouths *right away*, or don't freaking listen to their employees *right
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know if this is psychos harassing those people (let's be honest, it's both sexes), or if it's psychos harassing people by saying they were harassed.
All I know is: I do 't want ANY of that world among my peers!
Seriously, what fucked-up climate do they have, where this is even a thing?
The problem of course is that sexual harassment is being redefined over time to some basic male/female interactions.
It is also being interpreted as causing irreparable harm to women.
By today's definition, I was unmercifully harassed by women at work. I was really buff at the time, with a hockey players butt, and many of the ladies really enjoyed "goosing" me. Got lots of hugs I didn't give verbal consent to, and was called "hon" and "sweetie" a lot. I never touched any woman other than a hug, and she h
Re: (Score:2)
The MeToo movement was best explained to me by a senior female colleague " Its a bunch of women who slept their way tot the top who do not want the competition from the next generation of women sleeping their way to the top"
Re: (Score:1)
The MeToo movement was best explained to me by a senior female colleague " Its a bunch of women who slept their way tot the top who do not want the competition from the next generation of women sleeping their way to the top"
It was certainly voluntary until it wasn't any more. I think that is called regret rape, which means consent can be withdrawn at any time including up to 25 years post coitus.
Don't shit where you eat (Score:2)
Don't fuck where you work.
I don't quite see the correlation (Score:2)
I'm having trouble drawing a direct line between the accusations (rom over a year ago and his resignation now. They don't seem to be connected in any clear way.
So, obviously it's Trump's fault.