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

Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#31

Post by tptacek »

cabaalis wrote: post #23
tptacek wrote: post #2

The first thing everyone needs to know about this is what the case was about, because it implicates one of the most powerful and least known rights tech company employees have. According to Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, employees can't generally be disciplined for exercising the rights provided under Section 7 of the NLRA. These rights are commonly understood to be about unionizing (ie, you can't be fired for trying r…

> and who believes strongly in the absolute innate equivalence in aptitude for our profession between men and women I believe in it also, but shouldn't this idea be quantifiable in order to be a legit basis of a firing? I.E. where is the line between "promoting stereotypes" and "promoting science?"

I think? the answer is that it probably doesn't much matter. The Advice Memo states explicitly that the NLRB gives deference to employers on this matter, because they're required by state and federal EEO laws to suppress discrimination of protected classes.

So where this might become a material question is if you were an employer who was receptive to the "scientific" arguments for superior male aptitude, and you had employees that shared that view, and your employees organized to promote that view organically. Like, maybe you couldn't discipline them at the insistence of some other employee?

But in general it sounds like if the workplace issue you're organizing around is "does our employer go too far in trying to comply with EEO laws", the NLRB is not going to have your back.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#32

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #18
quaunaut wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for that explanation, it was both thorough and frankly, illuminating in a way that I wasn't expecting. Do you think if he had kept his original memo to those acceptable points(the hostile attitude toward conservative views), that they might have gone forward with it? Or would it have still been too difficult to prove with the case?

Yes. I'm summarizing not the Bloomberg article but the Advice Memo itself, which is on NLRB's case website (you can just go read it). It's a little fuzzy because the Advice Memo asserts up front that it's assuming arguendo that the memo, in both its protected and unprotected components, constituted protected concerted action. So it's possible that NLRB never really reached the question of whether this kind of organiz…

[deleted]

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#33

Post by VectorLock »

tptacek wrote: post #4
orionblastar wrote: post #3

Political views and opinions are not protected from discrimination. Sad but true, you can be fired for your beliefs.

No, that is the opposite of what the NLRB found. It's not quite as simple as political affiliation being protected (although in California it might be), but rather that under the NLRA, you can't be fired for the act of organizing to improve workplace conditions. The Advice Memo explicitly states in several places that had the Damore memo not advocated in favor of stereotypes against women --- something that is itself…

Under the NLRA he can't be fired for his act of organizing, but according to Bloomberg 'Sophir went on to find that Google discharged Damore only for his "discriminatory statements," which aren’t shielded by labor law.'

So yes, you can be fired for your shitty opinions.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#34

Post by pavlov »

guyzero wrote: post #19
tptacek wrote: post #2

The first thing everyone needs to know about this is what the case was about, because it implicates one of the most powerful and least known rights tech company employees have. According to Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, employees can't generally be disciplined for exercising the rights provided under Section 7 of the NLRA. These rights are commonly understood to be about unionizing (ie, you can't be fired for trying r…

"Damore's memo was about organizing against discrimination of conservative viewpoints --- a phenomenon that is almost certainly real in SFBA tech!" Only if you equate sexism and racism with conservatism.

Wow. This is what tptacek actually wrote:

"To the extent that Damore's memo was about organizing against discrimination of conservative viewpoints --- a phenomenon that is almost certainly real in SFBA tech! --- it was protected."

You removed the first four and last three words of a sentence to twist it into something completely else. That's just malicious editing. His point was that the protection didn't extend to the full document because most of it was trying to achieve other aims which are not protected.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#35

Post by [deleted] »

bjourne wrote: post #27

I don't agree with Damore's message. But Google cultivated an environment were open discussion were encouraged. So firing him for stating his opinion is truly, hypocritical bullshit. People should get fired for not doing their jobs -- not for writing what they think. And I also want to say that before you blame "the Left" for Google's behavior... Had he been fired in "Socialist Europe," the firing would have been dec…

[deleted]

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#36

Post by notconservative »

tptacek wrote: post #18
quaunaut wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for that explanation, it was both thorough and frankly, illuminating in a way that I wasn't expecting. Do you think if he had kept his original memo to those acceptable points(the hostile attitude toward conservative views), that they might have gone forward with it? Or would it have still been too difficult to prove with the case?

Yes. I'm summarizing not the Bloomberg article but the Advice Memo itself, which is on NLRB's case website (you can just go read it). It's a little fuzzy because the Advice Memo asserts up front that it's assuming arguendo that the memo, in both its protected and unprotected components, constituted protected concerted action. So it's possible that NLRB never really reached the question of whether this kind of organiz…

Does the Advice Memo go into detail on exactly which parts of Damore's memo are discriminatory and which parts aren't?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#38

Post by didgeoridoo »

avs733 wrote: post #15
tptacek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is the opposite of what the NLRB found. It's not quite as simple as political affiliation being protected (although in California it might be), but rather that under the NLRA, you can't be fired for the act of organizing to improve workplace conditions. The Advice Memo explicitly states in several places that had the Damore memo not advocated in favor of stereotypes against women --- something that is itself…

Simplified: He actively advocated for discrimination against a protected class (women). There was no way the NLRB was going to find that to be protected action. The ramifications if they had would be that if someone creates a discriminatory workplace a company could be sued by both the victim and the violator. Under such a rule, both people's rights would be 'violated'. The point of rights is to protect you, its not…

> He actively advocated for discrimination against a protected class (women).

Can you pull out a specific line from the memo that "actively advocates for discrimination"? I've read it a few times, and I just see him presenting an alternate explanation for the gender gap in tech beyond "sexism". He then goes on to argue that, in light of this alternate explanation, current approaches to narrow the gap may be ineffective. He finally presents some alternative approaches that he thinks might do a better job of closing the gap.

He was fired because his premise (gender gap might not be caused by sexism) is not a thought you're allowed to have.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#39

Post by majormajor »

tptacek wrote: post #25
guyzero wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Damore's memo was about organizing against discrimination of conservative viewpoints --- a phenomenon that is almost certainly real in SFBA tech!" Only if you equate sexism and racism with conservatism.

I disagree and further again should say that though I am myself (I think pretty obviously?) a liberal, the argument that conservative politics --- not "racism" and "sexism" but rather "how should we organize, fund, and manage society" type stuff --- are suppressed in SFBA has, like, a lot of validity.

Is this a do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do thing?

Not living in the Bay Area, the tech industry there seems like a hotbed of privatized funding, privatized infrastructure (e.g. employee provided busses for commutes), and privatized communities (on-campus lunch, recreation, etc). Often with a strong opinion on the proper function of government: that it shouldn't restrict the actions of their companies.

That all sounds just as conservative as their social (but not gov't organizational or managerial) principles sound liberal.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#40

Post by point_of_fact »

avs733 wrote: post #15
tptacek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is the opposite of what the NLRB found. It's not quite as simple as political affiliation being protected (although in California it might be), but rather that under the NLRA, you can't be fired for the act of organizing to improve workplace conditions. The Advice Memo explicitly states in several places that had the Damore memo not advocated in favor of stereotypes against women --- something that is itself…

Simplified: He actively advocated for discrimination against a protected class (women). There was no way the NLRB was going to find that to be protected action. The ramifications if they had would be that if someone creates a discriminatory workplace a company could be sued by both the victim and the violator. Under such a rule, both people's rights would be 'violated'. The point of rights is to protect you, its not…

when did he advocate for discrimination?
Post reply on HN