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

231–240 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#231

Post by oh_sigh »

awesomepantsm wrote: post #219
dejawu wrote: post #210

The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared. Then he s…

I got the feeling there was more stuff he said that never leaked but who knows

There wasn't. There are extensive leakers in google on both sides of the fence who would have leaked the fuller doc if one existed.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#232

Post by conanbatt »

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.

I think google is responsible for encouraging an employee to voice opinions and then fire the employee for saying 'the wrong thing'.

I also believe all the google employees that physically threatened damore should receive jail time, and those that verbally did so to get the can.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#233

Post by darawk »

tptacek wrote: post #130
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…

He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair. He sought relief under an exception to at-will, the NLRA, which protects concerted action to improve working conditions. The NLRB determined that because the substance of his action involved requests that Google might reasonably determine would be problematic under E…

> He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair. He sought relief under an exception to at-will, the NLRA, which protects concerted action to improve working conditions. The NLRB determined that because the substance of his action involved requests that Google might reasonably determine would be problematic under EEO law, that whether or not Damore's actions were unlawful, Google was within its rights as a US employer to terminate him.

Ya, I understand that. I was objecting to the notion that his protests would have violated EEO law were they realized. That seems to me to be an uncareful reading of his opinions on the part of the NLRA board.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#234

Post by oh_sigh »

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.

This is exactly what happens in academia all of the time, when you have factions who believe in competing ideas. Side A thinks that logic and rationality and the data is on their side, and that side B stretches the facts and don't have support for their claims, and vice versa for side B.

Are all of these issues in academia settled which you refer to? Or is it that, maybe, Damore accepted side Bs views, whereas you accept side As views, but this isn't settle in academia?

Could you point out, perhaps, the most offensive, non-supported statement that Damore had in his memo?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#235

Post by marnett »

iamdave wrote: post #201
marnett wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the thought exercise from GP is to imagine what would have happened if he was in an ethnic minority as opposed to being caucasian.

That's precisely the thought exercise I am tired of seeing.

Agreed. I was just add some clarification.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#236

Post by tptacek »

darawk wrote: post #233
tptacek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair. He sought relief under an exception to at-will, the NLRA, which protects concerted action to improve working conditions. The NLRB determined that because the substance of his action involved requests that Google might reasonably determine would be problematic under E…

> He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair. He sought relief under an exception to at-will, the NLRA, which protects concerted action to improve working conditions. The NLRB determined that because the substance of his action involved requests that Google might reasonably determine would be problematic under…

Wait, hold on, because the point still isn't clear. The NLRB is not saying that Damore's statements violate any EEO laws (they might, they might not; that argument isn't reached).

Rather, what they found was that Damore's efforts intersected with Google's anti-harassment policies. EEO law aside, NLRB gives deference to anti-harassment policies --- presumably for the same reason they'd give deference to ISO 27001 procedures done for regulatory reasons. Google gets to decide what the rules are for that specific set of issues. All Google has to show is that they have anti-harassment policies that Damore ran aground of. The NLRB generally isn't going to dig into the policies; that's what "deference" means.

It's important that people not come away from this with the idea that the NLRB is telling Damore what is and isn't OK for him to say in the workplace. Absent the organizing protections the NLRA provides, almost nothing Damore says in the workplace has any legal protection. It's not NLRB who fired Damore; it's Google. Reversing that decision is an extraordinary move; not doing the extraordinary is what NLRB decided.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#237

Post by leereeves »

tptacek wrote: post #225
leereeves wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more accurate analogy might be a memo claiming that southerners are poorer than northerners because they lost the Civil War. Would you consider such a memo harassment?

Maybe? Most of the challenges on this thread seem to be premised on the idea that Google needs ironclad justification to terminate an employee. The opposite is true. We have, as conservatives vigorously argued for, at-will employment in pretty much the whole country. The NLRA will protect your right to improve workplace conditions. The NLRB will not enforce that right if what you're doing isn't really about workplace…

My challenge to the NLRB's opinion is premised on the idea that Google employees have a right to discuss Google's diversity policy. The NLRB seems to agree, repeatedly saying that Damore's memo contained protected speech.

But when that discussion brings up unpleasant scientific findings, the NLRB and I diverge; IMO a scientific explanation should not render otherwise protected speech unprotected.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#238

Post by bduerst »

gowld wrote: post #198
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…

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

i.e. Promoting political viewpoints at work is not protected speech, especially when it's disruptive.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#239

Post by happyguy43 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #209
happyguy43 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is well argued but some of the assumptions are false. 1) Damore never argued men were better suited to software engineering than women. 2) Damore never argued for google to violate EEO laws, and in fact it’s the opposite. It’s very sad to me that there is such widespread misinterpretation of Damore’s nuance in his memo. In every possible factual way it’s a pro-diversity memo, but because it cites research on the…

> Damore never argued for google to violate EEO laws, and in fact it’s the opposite. While this may not have been his intent, this ruling appears to imply that the EEOC thinks that the content of his words do amount to that. You can disagree, but my expectation is, being that they are EEOC lawyers and you are not, their understanding of what does or does not violate EEO law is better than yours.

I do disagree. This is on multiple thorough readings of his memo and a sound mind. He never advocates for Google to discriminate against anyone in his memo, nor does he advocate for Google to not prioritize diversity. There is no quote in his original memo to prove otherwise, legal opinion notwithstanding.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#240

Post by T2_t2 »

tptacek wrote: post #191
T2_t2 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Just to clarify:

1. You believe that Damore's lawyers withdrew the claim because the NLRB said they wouldn't pursue it. Is that a correct assessment? That's the timeline AFAICT anyway. Does that make the memo a public statement of what they informed Damore of? Is that common, for the NLRB - or similar institutions - to release a memo about a withdrawn action? I'm not American so this all seems very odd to me. I just can't imagine a government body commenting on a withdrawn complaint here.

2. You have not read the memo itself. Is that true? Do you know where it is or where I can read it? How would I even start?

I'm not being critical, I just have no idea how the US's state and federal laws combine, and it all seems very complicated, procedurally odd and very overlapp-y.

Post reply on HN