Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 234 posts

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#51

Post by ue_ »

Bartweiss wrote: post #34
ue_ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. I think this is a very wrong-headed way to go about self-criticism. It shouldn't be about loyalty to a party, it should be about recognition of faults and how to improve them. This is how I envisage worker control of production should be like, anyway. We should have a c…

It's actually a pretty widely-recognized cult tactic. People are grouped together for shaming sessions where they confess failings and are berated for them. It's nominally about bonding and seeing that everyone has failings, but as you point out that doesn't get problems solved. In practice, it creates social pressure to confess errors (you don't want to act superior to those around you), plus top down pressure ("con…

I don't think such meetings ought to aim at individuals, in fact this is what I wanted to avoid, rather it would be good to talk about processes in general, and to admit faults like that; I think this would be a much clearer way of making progress than to start a blame game or criticise people covertly, which usually ends up festering and turning into hate. I think people should be open about themselves, and constructively criticise. And again, I don't see why that ought to necessitate meanness.

Criticising in abstract I think leads to a passive-aggressive culture, which I don't think it's right at all. The point of the meetings would be that everyone is involved, there's no secrecy, and that the meetings are perhaps optional, or at least participation in them is optional. I think a social pressure to confess errors may be a good thing at times, though I admit there's a lot of variation in how it could go.

It's strange that I've been downvoted three times on my comment, but only have one reply. Such is the way of HN.

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#52

Post by BeetleB »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #5

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

>Why is confidential material for public consumption?

If a person voluntarily and freely posts to the mailing list, (s)he is deciding that this is not confidential. Of course, if it identifies other people who did not consent, then you have a problem.

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#53

Post by Chris2048 »

jmngomes wrote: post #36
1ba9115454 wrote: post #3

- A female employee was allegedly called a “princess” for favoring salad over burgers. I imagine the guy that delivered that comment would be hard pushed to figure out what he did wrong. I suppose we all have to really careful what we say.

It looks simple to me: that remark was not professional, it's something you'd say to a friend, ideally one with whom you share a relationship close enough to allow for remarks like that one. If you stick to professional interactions, you'll hardly create such a problem at a workplace. The hardship begins when personal and professional relationships mix, but if a personal relationship is established it's reasonable to…

Some companies purposely have a laid-back culture. Not a 'bro' culture, but a friendly, social one - that includes jabbing and jiving.

I love those beanbag-chair, not corp environments. Not everything that isn't corporate is 'unprofessional'. Wearing trainers to work was unprofessional, until it became established; now tech CEOs compete on who has the most expensive sneakers.

> If HR was involved, it's because someone was out of line or just doesn't understand how adults manage boundaries, in which case he should be warned and, if the case merits, punished.

I assume you mean the person who said it? It's also possible the person who reported it doesn't know how to manage relationships, or had some other motive in reporting this to HR - you can speculate either way.

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#54

Post by sidlls »

refurb wrote: post #23
snomad wrote: post #8

> One employee said that during a one-on-one performance review with a manager, he was told that his rating dropped from "Exceeds" to "Meets" because he didn't get as much done while on paternity leave. If true, that is quite obviously legally actionable.

Is it? As long as the performance review was done based on the employee's performance over the entire year, it's fair game no? I'm not sure I agree with the logic that someone who takes time off during the year is given credit for the good work they would have done had they not taken time off.

Consider it as a ratio WQ:T where "WQ" is the Work x Quality product and T is the Time of employment. You're saying that T should be a constant and include time an employee isn't expected to be working, but WQ is fair to vary. Essentially you're adding to T even when the employee is expected explicitly to not add to WQ.

So in my opinion it's not fair game.

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#55

Post by zeveb »

pflats wrote: post #47
occamrazor wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's ridiculous. Leave is leave; it's an employee's right that's offered in law or in their contract, and they should not be punished in any way for taking advantage of it. If the employee would otherwise exceed expectations and took paternity leave, then they still exceed expectations. If they were hired in March and worked for 40 weeks, they would not be penalized for failing to work in January or February. Leave…

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

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

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

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#56

Post by dagenleg »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #7

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

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

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

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#57

Post by Chris2048 »

nerdponx wrote: post #11
1ba9115454 wrote: post #3

- A female employee was allegedly called a “princess” for favoring salad over burgers. I imagine the guy that delivered that comment would be hard pushed to figure out what he did wrong. I suppose we all have to really careful what we say.

It all depends on the context. But yes, we all have to be really careful what we say. Not for fear of being shamed -- for fear of offending someone! Calling someone a "princess" for liking salads could easily be taken as an offense, gender aside. It's the same reason you don't just go around talking politics in the officf. Keep that kind of dialogue out of the workplace.

> Keep that kind of dialogue out of the workplace.

Or freely leave until you find a place that's cool.

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#58

Post by shidoshi »

nxc18 wrote: post #26
snomad wrote: post #8

> One employee said that during a one-on-one performance review with a manager, he was told that his rating dropped from "Exceeds" to "Meets" because he didn't get as much done while on paternity leave. If true, that is quite obviously legally actionable.

I get why there should be protection for people on paternity leave. At the same time, if you're using an 'expectations' system appropriately and honestly (as opposed to just a renaming of some other scale) it may be dishonest to not change his rating. If there is an expectation about performance and it wasn't exceeded (how could you exceed your typical performance while on paternity leave?) then the employee shouldn'…

Yeah, no. You manage to expectations while the person is capable of performing their duties. Using your logic is exactly why women suffer the indignation of being paid $0.77 to every man's dollar of equal functional qualification level. We all assume Google is a very wise and smart corporation, so let's assume that bonus, RSUs, and all discretionary income is proportional to time worked. That's how you solve the "you weren't here for the entire period" problem.

Re: At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

#59

Post by MichaelGG »

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

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

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

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

Post reply on HN