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

51–60 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#51

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

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…

Please let me clarify.

Women are not a protected class. Sex is a protected class.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#52

Post by d1zzy »

orblivion wrote: post #13
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…

I suppose he could have ignored the question of the distribution of men and the distribution of women, and just focused on his suggestions on how to make a more productive and enjoyable situation for more "agreeable" (that's a technical term) personality types. But this is all in context of Google's focus on trying to improve the gender disparity, and his memo is directly in reference to that, if one would only accep…

Context matters. The workplace is a place where certain discussions are simply not allowed. For example discussing an ongoing lawsuit against the employer. It's not about intention, your intention may be in the right place, it's about potential outcome, when things are taken out of context or simply interpreted by others in ways that result in creating a hostile work environment (or in the lawsuit case, taken out of context in a court of law).

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#53

Post by notconservative »

izacus wrote: post #22
notconservative wrote: post #21

> “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?

Yes, but not if you're trying to organize to improve working conditions, because this is protected by the NRLA.

If the NRLA believes only parts of Damore's memo were working towards improving working conditions and other parts were working to discriminate against women, which part is which.

To someone that agrees with Damore, it looks like everyone mischaracterized his effort to improve working conditions as sexism. Then Google was able to use that as cover to fire him for protected organizing.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#54

Post by oceanghost »

ionforce wrote: post #30
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…

> So firing him for stating his opinion Do you think it's possible for his stating of his opinion to have side effects like creating a toxic work environment, which would be the antithesis of doing his job well?

Google is a toxic work environment. He was fired for pointing that out.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#55

Post by d1zzy »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #38
avs733 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ineffecti…

You can have the thought, you just can't discuss it with your coworkers in your workplace, for obvious reasons I would say.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#56

Post by TheCoelacanth »

sidlls wrote: post #20
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…

Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class.

People organizing with other employees who share conservative views to engage in concerted action to improve their working conditions is a protected class, though, because people organizing with other employees to engage in concerted action to improve their working conditions is a protected class no matter what other descriptors you add.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#57

Post by notconservative »

andrewprock wrote: post #28
notconservative wrote: post #21

> “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.

Allow me to suggest that both Google and the NLRB understood Damore's claim, and that any misunderstanding falls on the side of those who disagree with what they found.

That's possible of course.

But, I haven't read exactly what the NRLA found to be discriminatory. This would help anyone that is legitimately trying to improve working conditions and trying not to promote discrimination.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#58

Post by ng12 »

tj-teej wrote: post #45
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…

You should not be put in prison for writing what you think - I think any company should be able to fire people for publicly making statements which are antithetical to the company's values.

This was _not_ public. It was internal for Google employees. It was made public by someone who disagreed and resorted to publicly sharing the memo.

The fact that Google has not addressed this is a more damning condemnation of their culture than anything else.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#59

Post by Melk »

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…

My God this discussion reminds me of high school. I'm so happy I never got involved with this part of the industry.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#60

Post by guyzero »

pavlov wrote: post #34
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.

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 t…

My point is that discrimination against conservative viewpoints is not a significant phenomenon in SFBA tech, unless by "conservative" you mean sexist or racist.

I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for.

Also his comment is right there so I'm hardly revising history here, I'm just being specific about the part that I'm responding to.

Post reply on HN