41–50 of 863 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but of course that is not what memo said...
>he said, "What separates this is its derisiveness and stereotypical characterization of one gender." Maybe not exactly, but the above quote pretty clearly outlines that the NLRB agrees that the memo was supporting a sexist viewpoint.
> “Much of" Damore’s memo was probably protected under the law. ... But ... Google discharged Damore only for his "discriminatory statements," which aren’t shielded by labor law. Given how significantly many people have misunderstood Damore's claims, this seems to open up a hole for companies to mischaracterize someone as a racist/sexist/etc and then fire them over it.
Isn't employment in places where these companies operate at-will? Meaning they can fire you because you waved your hair funny in the morning?
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…
Is hacker aptitude some kind of conserved quantity that is conserved over sexes based on some natural symmetry ?
Why not just say, absolutely pretended equivalence.
> “Much of" Damore’s memo was probably protected under the law. ... But ... Google discharged Damore only for his "discriminatory statements," which aren’t shielded by labor law. Given how significantly many people have misunderstood Damore's claims, this seems to open up a hole for companies to mischaracterize someone as a racist/sexist/etc and then fire them over it.
Isn't employment in places where these companies operate at-will? Meaning they can fire you because you waved your hair funny in the morning?
Like, sure, a manager could wake up and just fire you because they were grumpy. But if it is discovered that there was internal communications about their political opinions leading up to it, then there would be a case.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
I've never talked to a bigco developer who felt like they'd have career problems expressing liberal political views. But I have several friends, and have talked to a lot of other people, who have shared concerns about expressing conservative views.
It's anecdata, but there's a lot of anecdotes to be found about it.
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…
Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class.
In California, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of their political beliefs [1], so to that extent particular political ideologies (including conservatism) can be viewed as protected classes.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... and https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
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…
Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class.
Not saying this is necessarily the same as "conservative viewpoints," but it could be interpreted that way.
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…
> if the memo had been exclusively about how SFBA tech discriminates against conservatives and could in a number of ways be made more accommodating to them, Damore would had been protected from retaliation Probably, but the entire conversation would have been different then, likely not even leading to his termination and the lawsuit in the first place