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

191–200 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#191

Post by tptacek »

T2_t2 wrote: post #93
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…

You seem to understand this better than me, so can you explain a few things to me I find (as a non-American) confusing? > The NLRB turned down Damore's complaint Can you explain where you got this idea from? Not this article, because it states several contradictory or non-commital things such as: > Damore withdrew his complaint in January And > "a federal agency lawyer concluded." And > an associate general counsel f…

If you reread my comment, I spend a couple paragraphs explaining the procedural background to this. If the NLRB had found Damore's complaint valid, they would have intervened on his behalf. They did not, so they will not.

Apparently, there's no private right to action under the NLRA. Enforcement is public, and goes through the NLRB. If the NLRB decides against pursuing a case, that's probably the end for you (maybe short of suing the NLRB itself).

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#192

Post by zimablue »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #168
manfredo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He cited multiple academic sources to back up the claims made about gender. He also belabored the point that averages and general trends of a demographic should not be used to make judgements about individual members of the demographic.

Not all of them. He also misinterpreted several, and stretched the conclusions beyond what was reasonable.

Good of you to point then out for us then, thanks.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#193

Post by tptacek »

bradleyjg wrote: post #159
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…

> The NLRB turned down Damore's complaint. I think he could theoretically still sue in civil court? I don't think that's commonly done? Either way, his complaint was denied. Technically the NLRB didn't act on Damore's charge because he withdrew it. The Advice Memo was requested by and directed to a Regional Director at the NLRB. If the charge had not been withdrawn the Regional Director likely would have refused to i…

Thanks! This is good stuff.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#194

Post by pfarnsworth »

georgemcbay wrote: post #125
darawk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But to the extent that it attempted to organize around changes to Google management that might (might) themselves violate EEO laws (for instance, any kind of official recognition that men are better suited to software development at Google than women), they were not. Was he trying to do that, though? As I understand it, he was protesting policies that sought to actively promote diversity. EEO laws require no such a…

> Curious, why do you believe in that? Have you evaluated the evidence and come to that conclusion, or is it a priori for you? Curious why you question his belief? All of the half-way reputable studies I've ever heard of have either concluded that there is no difference in male/female intelligence or that there are small differences in certain silos, with men scoring slightly higher on average in visuospatial while w…

Damore NEVER said that women had lower IQ than men. That wasn't the point of his manifesto, it was saying that the reason why you can't get 50/50 representation the way that Google wants to, because the nature of software development as it's done today makes it less attractive, on average, to women. He even suggested ways to change how software development jobs are done to make it more attractive to women in general.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#195

Post by gowld »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #185
IWeldMelons wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is still unclear though, why a belief in lower or higher aptitude of a particular group (as a whole) for a some specific type of activity should lead to any kind of discrimination. I realize, it often does, but attempt to silence the research and potentially, the truth, for some political reason does not sound good.

Nobody is silencing any research, unless you think broadly circulating a memo at a tech company constitutes "research". It is legal to research pornography, but try to view it at a lot of companies in the office. Context is important. He sent it out at work, not to arxiv.org.

It's not silencing research, but silencing talking about research is a chilling effect. This research isn't off-topic pornography, it was research specifically on the topic of who works in the office.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#196

Post by ThomPete »

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 was terminated by Google for authoring his anti-diversity memo."

The fact that you can even write that as if that's what it was is a good example of how much bias there is in this discussion.

> But to the extent that it attempted to organize around changes to Google management that might (might) themselves violate EEO laws (for instance, any kind of official recognition that men are better suited to software development at Google than women), they were not.

He didn't say that anywhere either. Again you are showing extreme bias here.

Whoever downvoted me are welcome to prove that it's anti-diversity. It's raising some issues with googles hiring practices not against diversity.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#197

Post by gowld »

Analemma_ wrote: post #92
naveen99 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> absolute innate equivalence 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.

The null hypothesis is to assume there is innate equivalence; the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise and the attempts I've seen so far are lacking.

"null hypothesis" simply means "a claim that might be falsified by a certain experiment".

Both "P" and "not P" can be null hypotheses, depending on the design of experiment.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#198

Post by gowld »

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…

In context, that appears to be referring to voting or supporting a candidate in elections, not for discussing platforms or issues.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#199

Post by debt »

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…

“But Google cultivated an environment were open discussion were encouraged.”

“People should get fired for not doing their jobs”

When you’re hired to write code all day and instead are writing a long sexist rambling memo at work during work hours and posting it to a work forum, you’re not doing your job.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#200

Post by ABCLAW »

awesomepantsm wrote: post #178
ABCLAW wrote: post #165

Would it be possible to rename the thread "Fired Google Engineer Who Authored Diversity Memo Withdraws NLRA Challenge."? I think that's quite a bit more accurate.

It's not though, because it wasn't withdrawn it was rejected.

I think the official case record is not in agreement with your understanding:

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351

Post reply on HN