61–70 of 464 posts
Plausible deniabilty. Google will claim the illegal activity was due to the management of the recruitment company and not direct orders. And ARS puts illegal in scare quotes. Shameful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have recently left tenure at a large telecoms company in the UK. They definitely had a practice of encouraging female hires. Even if they weren't the best fit for the role. Don't get me wrong, I am not approaching this in a sexist way - on the contrary I have worked with excellent and poor colleagues of both sexes. I think it diminishes the accomplishments of genuinely great minority/female employees to have this p…
Except that’s not what we get right now. We have qualified women driven away from the profession because of all the unwanted attention and hurdles that come along wit being a minority at work. In my profession (corporate law) we get a balanced gender distribution of applicants at the entry level. But that’s because of aggressive efforts to recruit women, as well as lawsuits, in the 1980s and 1990s, to counteract the…
> In a statement, Google said that it would “vigorously defend this lawsuit,” adding that it has a “clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity. At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products.” This sounds contradictory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, if it's the same memo in thinking of, it wasn't a "diversity memo" he was fired over, it was a manifesto that has been reviewed and agreed on as sufficient cause for his dismissal several times now. In it, he argued that women were essentially worse at logical tasks than men, and further that this made them poor engineers. That's not a diversity memo, that's a sexist screed.
That is not what the memo said. did you not read it or is this what you think the writer meant even if he did not actually write that but you have some kind of mind reading abilities?
One thing I never understand is how people claim to support both equality and pro-minority/anti-majority actions at the same time. It's like saying you support democracy and kim jong un.
If you believe that the status quo is systematically biased, you cannot meanignfully support equality without supporting action to correct the bias.
> In April of 2017, Google’s Technology Staffing Management team was instructed by Alogna to immediately cancel all Level 3 (0-5 years experience) software engineering interviews with every single applicant who was not either female, Black, or Hispanic and to purge entirely any applications by non-diverse employees from the hiring pipeline. Plaintiff refused to comply with this request. Good for him. Google is now exc…
Do you seriously think that Google is going to stop hiring white men? What is claimed sounds like a completely crass method. Whether you like Google or not they typically do things in a fairly data driven method even with their hiring. It is also blatant discrimination that as others claim would be fairly easy to prove in court. This would be stupid. For Google to be both crass and stupid seems unlikely.
> In April of 2017, Google’s Technology Staffing Management team was instructed by Alogna to immediately cancel all Level 3 (0-5 years experience) software engineering interviews with every single applicant who was not either female, Black, or Hispanic and to purge entirely any applications by non-diverse employees from the hiring pipeline. If this were remotely true, we wouldn't see any white men hired in a junior le…
> the manager of YouTube's Tech Staffing Management Team, Allison Alogna So not all of Google, just junior engineers who came in via this manager. Also > Google had a policy that recruiters were not to hire Level 3 ad Level 4 Software Engineers. However, YouTube recruiters were given permission to hire Level 3 and Level 4 Software Engineers, if they were diversity hires. and I've been told the general way to get hire…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt this single incident alone is the reason, but maybe the catalyst. Google and its unhealthy lust for diversity has been an increasingly frequent topic. Hell, someone got fired for posting an anti diversity rant last year. While his arguments were weak or flat out wrong, it's clear that Google is making a point to single out underrepresented minorities to the detriment of others who may actually be better candi…
I mean, if it's the same memo in thinking of, it wasn't a "diversity memo" he was fired over, it was a manifesto that has been reviewed and agreed on as sufficient cause for his dismissal several times now. In it, he argued that women were essentially worse at logical tasks than men, and further that this made them poor engineers. That's not a diversity memo, that's a sexist screed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hold all organizations responsible for their own actions, reguardless of size. Too big to fail is a poor concept, logically, ethically.
This isn't too big to fail, it's "a bad egg doesn't ruin the bunch." Whether that's the case here is arguable, but no one is saying they aren't responsible for their actions.