Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#311

Post by berberous » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:56 AM UTC

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…

You are looking at the wrong case, this is the correct one and contains a link to the Advice Memo, which is dated January 16: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351

This is what an Advice Memo is: "The NLRB analyses referred to are NLRB Advice Memos, which are prepared by the Office of the General Counsel (GC), a division within the NLRB, to respond to requests for advice from various NLRB Regions across the country about the proper response to some specific fact pattern under the Act. In answering these requests, the General Counsel considers the facts of the specific question posed and analyzes Board precedent relating to the situation.

The GC then reaches a conclusion whether the particular fact pattern violates the Act or not. If the fact pattern does not violate the Act, the Office of General Counsel indicates the unfair labor practice charge should be dismissed. If it finds a violation, it will direct the Region to issue a complaint if the matter is not settled in accordance with its analysis of the law.

All this analysis, and the conclusions, are incorporated into a document known as an Advice Memorandum. These Advice Memos are distributed for the information of all NLRB Regions so that they will all have the same guidance and can address similar questions in a coordinated and consistent manner throughout the United States. The Advice Memorandum does not have the same authoritative force as a published decision of the Board, but it does set out the agency's enforcement position on the questions covered and provides guidelines that will be followed by all Regions when faced with a similar situation.”

So what happened was Damore filed a complaint under the National Labor Relations Act with the National Labor Relations Board. The regional office turned it over to the central office for advice, given the novel issues. The central office decided to decline the case, viewing it as not a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. I don't know whether Damore could still privately sue Google for violating the National Labor Relations Act in court or appeal this decision somehow; perhaps he had some rights, since from the link it looks like he withdrew his case on January 23, a week after the date of the advice memo. He does, however, still have a pending lawsuit against Google, which at the very least, could allege violations of numerous other laws other than (and perhaps also including) the National Labor Relations Act (e.g., California state law).

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#312

Post by joshuamorton » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:56 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #301

joshuamorton wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I may be reading a bit too much into the "ruling", but I expect that their decision would have held even if employees did have a right to engage in "science based discussion" as GP posits. That's why they cite the Honda ruling. Essentially even if the content is not a-priori problematic, the way it is presented was.

Once again I'm not positing a right to "science-based discussion". I'm saying the right to discuss workplace issues, granted by the NLRA, should include science-based discussion of these issues.

It does. So far, about 4 people have explained this across many threads, and you still don't seem to acknowledge it.

Edit because rate limited:

The problem is not what was said, necessarily, but the way in which it was said. Hence citing the Honda ruling.

This is at least my, not-a-lawyer interpretation. That is, just because you are saying something to discuss workplace issues does not give you the right to say literally anything. Sufficiently disruptive discussion of workplace issues is still disruptive enough to merit a response, not because of the content, but because it is disruptive.

Apparently the NLRB draws the line for sufficiently disruptive somewhere before "results in the demonstrated loss of multiple perspective candidates".

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#313

Post by Consultant32452 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:56 AM UTC

tclancy wrote: post #276

Consultant32452 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the progressive left THRUST Damore and anyone who might have similar thoughts/questions into the welcoming arms of the alt-right. I'm disappointed with the "Goolag" t-shirts, but he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed, and only a limited time to cash out. So this socially awkward nerd did what any sensible person would do, rode the wave that was sent his way the best he coul…

He has no agency? He chose to speak up and then he chose to go down the path he did. It is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to both kinda sorta acknowledge the alt-right might not be a great group of guys but then also claim Damore had no choice but to pull into that port in a storm of his own making. Allow me to pour out a beaker of Soylent for the poor, downtrodden white man.

He has just as much agency and culpability for his actions as the people who were all too happy to dehumanize him publicly for a cheap political win.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#314

Post by InclinedPlane » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:57 AM UTC

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…

We're not talking about children, we're talking about adults. Literate, tech savvy, affluent, college graduates.

How would you imagine those folks educate themselves? Easily, by relying on the abundant resources available to them. The internet, books, youtube, etc. There's a ton of material out there, if you actually care, if you think it's important to educate yourself the resources are available. He did not do that, because he wasn't seeking to inform himself, he was seeking to advance an agenda, to encourage others to adopt a prejudice that he held.

Also, I'm getting really sick and tired of these comments that bemoan the fates that have befallen these individuals who have substantially brought it upon themselves and give short shrift to the impact they've had on others. Damore was "merely asking questions" but the questions he was asking were things like "do women deserve to be the equals of men in this field?" and so forth. As both google management and the judge here have correctly pointed out, communicating in that way is incredibly damaging. It's unprofessional, it's discriminatory on its face, and it has no place in a modern work environment. The man is a grown-up, he should be smart enough to know how to broach a difficult subject of conversation if he is seeking to learn more about it or to explore controversial topics. Similarly, you can't just blunder into a discussion about race relations in the 21st century by leading off with questions like "are people of color equal to whites?" or "was slavery really wrong?" Because, again, those are on their face discriminatory, exclusionary, and harmful.

And to claim that Damore was in any way trying to advance the cause of diversity is just plain counter-factual. It is clear, especially after the end of his google employment, that he has a much different agenda.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#315

Post by _dps » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:57 AM UTC

Could a lawyer educate me on a technical matter here?

They say that "discriminatory statements are not protected". Is "discriminatory statement" a matter of law or a matter of fact? Naively I'd expect a jury to decide if a statement is discriminatory.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#316

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:57 AM UTC

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…

Why is his credibility thrown out the window just because he retweets Breitbart articles?

This sounds like a really lazy way fo reasoning.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#317

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:59 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #212

ubernostrum wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this chilling? There are many much-less-disputed things which are obviously factually true but which, nonetheless, could put you on the hook for harassment depending on how, why, and how often you say them. For example, suppose I have a co-worker who is an ardent believer in the cause of the southern states during the US Civil War. It is factually and indisputably true that the southern states lost that war, a…

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?

None of the groups involved being a protected class under Title VII, and harassment being a means of discrimination against such a class, no, it wouldn't be harassment in the relevant legal sense, and would probably not be within the scope of an anti-harassment policy.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#318

Post by shadowmint » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:59 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #282

jxdxbx wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such “legal right” to discuss things in the workplace. Where do you get that from? Maybe there should be one, but there isn’t.

According to the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the legal right to discuss work-related issues with each other. https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights This comes from Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: "Employees shall have the right to...engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." In this specific…

Have you considered the reason you keep getting the same response to all of your posts in this thread is perhaps because you keep making the same assertions in slightly different ways?

Calm down dude; we get it. You don't have to post the same comment over and over again to make your point.

You'll have a make more meaningful conversation if you stick to one thread and actually engage rather than just copy/paste your reply.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#319

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:59 AM UTC

refulgentis wrote: post #303

ikeyany wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a company supposedly full of smart people, you'd think they'd be able to gracefully handle so called "problematic" views like Damore's.

His views _as stated_ necessarily meant _some_ women he worked with weren't qualified to be his coworkers because of their gender. You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers.

He never stated that anywhere.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#320

Post by ewjordan » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:00 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #297

tptacek wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in the course of making point 3, he violated Google's anti-harassment policies, and the NLRB defers to companies as to the reasonableness of their anti-harassment policies, because a different federal law that NLRB does not manage requires companies to have anti-harassment policies. If he'd been arguing for better office furniture and Google claimed to fire him over violations of an anti-harassment policy, th…

he violated Google's anti-harassment policies For just asking a question? If even entertaining a thought with regards to science, if it doesn't "seem nice" through some narrow ideological lens, has become a crime, then we're already at the level of Lysenkoism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism he was arguing about biological differences between men and women and how they might impact the distribution of male a…

Keep in mind that this ruling doesn't say it's a crime. It merely says, it's not covered by an exemption to the at-will employment rules that let a company fire you for any reason.

If my boss doesn't like the fact that I put horseradish on my nachos, they can fire me for that. It's only exceptional cases where I'm protected from arbitrary and nasty and capricious actions.

Also, put horseradish on your nachos, it's a good thing.