191–200 of 534 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on what claim you want to dispute, but insisting that women would be offended by what he said certainly isn't sufficient.
I didn't insist that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what the parent is implying is that it would be career suicide for anyone to make such serious accusations unless they have considerable evidence to back them up. I mean let's face it: Susan doesn't stand to gain much from publicly accusing her former employer of harboring and shielding sexual harassers, but she has a lot to lose. Heck, she probably has hurt her employment prospects quite a bit, since many fu…
>I think what the parent is implying is that it would be career suicide for anyone to make such serious accusations unless they have considerable evidence to back them up. I dunno, remember Ellen Pao? Sued Kleiner Perkins for sex discrimination several times, lost over and over, but still managed to land in a position as "an investment partner at Kapor Capital,[2] the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer at the Kapo…
I was trying to put you down with a joke, but I seem to momentarily be as unimaginative as a woman who hasn't yet gotten a 6-figure settlement.
– It's false to claim that Pao's complaints were "shown to be bullshit". She simply failed to convince a jury – possibly made up of people like you.
– I'm dumbfounded how any decent person could have watched the deluge of sewage that was the Pao case and not come away with sympathy for her. There were literally millions of people posting the vilest, meanest stuff about her – everywhere.
– The current Reddit leadership has clearly expressed that Pao had to leave not because of anything she had actually done, but because of the insane hostility of users.
- It's insane to believe that people would, in any meaningful number, systematically make up such claim, enjoy the process, and repeat it. From anything I've seen (possibly including this case), victims take extraordinary measure to avoid a lawsuit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What?? Everywhere I worked a screenshot like what she's describing would get you fired. Over office chat even?? It's not even hearsay. Someone can bring up the exact chat history.
Ok, how many people have you seen get fired for this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should be able to go Yes, in theory. But most HRs "protect the org" in the most short sighted way possible
That's a sweeping statement that I utterly disagree with. We do HR software, I've interacted with many HR people at many companies and I've never even heard of anything as outrageous as the behavior described in this case. In no way is it the way"most HRs" behave.
It is not like this reaches 50% of their time. (I would hope.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She's staked her reputation (and, at this point, probably her career as well) on not lying about the harassment. She says she has both documentary evidence and other female Uber employees to back up her claims. "Guilty until proven innocent" is how our courts work, and rightly so. But, as a layperson, there's nothing wrong in assessing the evidence and saying: "the chance these claims are false is vanishingly small,…
I think you accidentally a word (or you don't understand how courts work in the US). :)
It's a civil case and the standard of evidence is "preponderance of the evidence".
These are allegations by one party against another with zero data either way, why is everyone on the anti-uber bandwagon.
Sooner or later, the truth is going to come out. Fowler knows this. There's no room for ambiguity here: either Uber has broken the law extravagantly , or she's lying. If the latter is true, she will be crucified for it. The defamation suit alone would be monumental. And again, there's no ambiguity. She says she has extensive records of this behavior. That's not something she can really walk back. In a situation where…
Otherwise we'll get her side of the story as written and a statement from Uber that's been rubber stamped by lawyers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't insist that.
You implied it very strongly, and in the absence of that implication, your comment has essentially no meaning.
> If they will discipline and fire people and put processes in place to keep the problem fixed You're assuming that that allegations are true. They have been neither proven nor corroborated, and the author advertises her book in her post. Edit: This comment has gone strongly negative in the matter of minutes. I offered no opinion and only stated fact; either there is vote manipulation on HN, or at least some portion…
There is no stated policy for when down votes are appropriate.
There is, however, one about whining about down votes.
Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
I have a hard time believing HR really behaved the way they are portrayed in that article. They really claimed that if she elected to stay in her current department she should expect to receive a negative review from the boss she rejected for a sexual relationship? This is just too much. And for someone as savvy and with as large an internet presence as the author, I can't imagine she would accept this resolution. Th…
Thank you. The swiftness with which the hammer has fallen on Uber, is disturbing. Yes, at face value, this looks bad for Uber. But, the claims here are serious enough that we really should be holding our judgement before an investigation, or some other evidence surfaces. This does not mean I think her claims are false. In fact, I BELIEVE them to be true, but I withhold my judgment and public criticism until I can be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the dictionary definition of sexual harassment is quite clear cut. If you make unwanted sexual advances towards someone, you're sexually harassing them. I don't know about you, but most people are quite capable of understanding when an interaction is a) sexual in context and meaning and b) unwanted.
It's not clear cut - that is what i'm saying - ask any employment law lawyer. There is a morass of uncertainty when it comes to this topic. That is partly why this is such a hotly debated issue.
What is difficult is proving that what is alleged to have happened actually transpired (or if cases are not properly investigated).
But this is why we have a justice system. If there is a paper trail, and evidence of repeat activity, as in this case, there is little ambiguity.
[1]: https://employment.govt.nz/resolving-problems/types-of-probl...