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

81–90 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#81

Post by gaius »

ditonal wrote: post #72
oceanghost wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Downvoted but true, look at direct physical threats to Damore in the lawsuit by people Google still employs. Yet he got fired for violating code of conduct...are threats not violations? It's a double standard, if you threaten people deemed conservative there are no repercussions, even though I consider that far more hostile than a doc.

And the “blacklists” maintained by Google managers and spread to other employers - that practice was found to be illegal in the U.K. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36242312

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#82

Post by rbanffy »

skissane wrote: post #48
sidlls wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class.

> 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_dis…

Fair question: if one identifies as conservative to the extent as regarding women as less capable than men, is that still protected?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#84

Post by tptacek »

notconservative wrote: post #67
tptacek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you have a link to the Advice Memo? I'm having trouble finding it on nlrb.gov's site or Google w/ `site:www.nrlb.gov`. It looks like it may be this [0][1]. But, that case doesn't mention Damore as a participant, though it does list his lawyer: Dhillon Law Group, Inc. [0] NRLB Case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351 [1] Advice Memo (PDF): http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391

No, this is 32-CA-205351. (I have a local copy I downloaded but not the link).

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#85

Post by tntn »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #73
guyzero wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for. I think this is a far more useful inquiry (i.e. what specific points) than generalized ideologies. What viewpoints, indeed? Many of the ones I hear from my self-described conservative friends and the public personalities they follow fall into these categories (my word choice, not them, I'm paraphras…

Is #3 an example of fear or "thinly-veiled contempt"?

Seems to express something more like "I believe in moral absolutes" and "some things are sacred."

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#86

Post by notconservative »

tptacek wrote: post #84
notconservative wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a link to the Advice Memo? I'm having trouble finding it on nlrb.gov's site or Google w/ `site:www.nrlb.gov`. It looks like it may be this [0][1]. But, that case doesn't mention Damore as a participant, though it does list his lawyer: Dhillon Law Group, Inc. [0] NRLB Case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351 [1] Advice Memo (PDF): http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391

No, this is 32-CA-205351. (I have a local copy I downloaded but not the link).

Didn't I link 32-CA-205351 (both the case page and the PDF)?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#87

Post by tptacek »

notconservative wrote: post #36
tptacek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes. Despite "limiting language" like "studies show" or "on average", the NLRB found that the Damore memo's claims that women are susceptible to "neuroticism" and that they have lower variance in IQ constituted valid cause for Google to terminate.

It's important I think to understand that the NLRB isn't saying that it's unlawful to write the Damore memo. They're not even saying that Damore's IQ and psychology claims violate EEO law. Instead, what they're saying is that they're close enough to the underlying issue of anti-discrimination compliance that the NLRB isn't going to second-guess Google's decision to terminate.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#88

Post by scaryclam »

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…

No, here in "socialist Europe" he'd have been fired as well. He broke clear company rules and made the working environment hostile for others. That's not acceptable over here the same was as it's not in the US. However, had he written this out on a personal blog, or just has an adult conversation with HR I believe he'd had been safe on both sides of the pond.

People don't just get fired for not doing their jobs. If I bully a co-worker or start stating at work that I think someone is less capable for any reason linked to their biology, religion, sexuality or age I will be putting my job at risk. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's worked in a professional environment for any amount of time (or heck, even a fresh graduate who bothered to read the company handbook!).

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#89

Post by Veelox »

rbanffy wrote: post #82
skissane wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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_dis…

Fair question: if one identifies as conservative to the extent as regarding women as less capable than men, is that still protected?

Fair question: if one identifies as liberal to the extent as regarding Trump voters as less capable than Hilary voters, is that still protected?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#90

Post by tptacek »

notconservative wrote: post #86
tptacek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is 32-CA-205351. (I have a local copy I downloaded but not the link).

Didn't I link 32-CA-205351 (both the case page and the PDF)?

Oh, wait, you totally did. The document list page you had was different than the one I saw, but that's the Advice Memo.
Post reply on HN