Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#51

Post by csdreamer7 » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 10:54 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #21

rayvy wrote: post #3

Someone with more info please correct me: But from what I read it sounds as if Google had to pay him the $90MM+, else be sued by him right? Because if they didn't pay him, he'd sue, then they [Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever), which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser said they were coerced (not forced). So it seems as if Google's hands were…

At my company the employment contract limits the company's liability if you're fired for harassment (this was standard at past places too). Executives probably have different contracts than mere rank-and-file employees though, in which case I hope we get a law that forbids companies from paying out "golden parachutes" if they conduct an investigation and find proof of sexual misconduct.

Yikes... now is a good time to look for a new job.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#52

Post by leereeves » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 10:58 PM UTC

inetknght wrote: post #43

nostrademons wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the popular unrest facing both corporations & governments today is people learning that conflict gets results . The logic goes that "Well, Andy Rubin managed to exercise his threat to sue to get a $90M severance package, and he doesn't even work for the company anymore. We do work for the company, so we are going to exercise our power as employees to put pressure on the company to not do this again , so that…

> The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally The end does not justify the means. So what good is a society built on prejudice, harassment, and corruption? If you can sweep controversy under the rug until such time that it's convenient then good luck ever getting change to occur for the better. > by getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it ano…

What good is a society without due process or presumption of innocence, where a disputed allegation would be punished without proof?

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#53

Post by dvtrn » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 11:01 PM UTC

crwalker wrote: post #42

nostrademons wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the popular unrest facing both corporations & governments today is people learning that conflict gets results . The logic goes that "Well, Andy Rubin managed to exercise his threat to sue to get a $90M severance package, and he doesn't even work for the company anymore. We do work for the company, so we are going to exercise our power as employees to put pressure on the company to not do this again , so that…

Yes. Crypto is a compelling simulacrum of classical liberalism (free individuals engaging in trade and limited governments using precise laws to protect the commons). This time we are trusting machines and mathematics to preserve individual rights rather than culture.

>Crypto is a compelling simulacrum of classical liberalism

hard nod

points to last sentence in profile

I'm one of those "get off my yard types" when someone comes along and (seemingly) blindly proposes blockchain in a discussion because blockchain is very good at what it does but what it doesn't do is 'everything'...

...but I'd take it a step further and say it's simulacra, the dollar became classical liberal econ simulacrum the minute we decided to start printing the things at will and standing well back[1].

---

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AvU2cfXRk

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#54

Post by manfredo » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 11:03 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #46

manfredo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To sweep something under the rug means to ignore it and not deal with it. Google did deal with it, so it's incorrect to say that the accusation was swept under the rug. Sure, you may be displeased at how they handled it but there's no denial of the fact that they did take the accusations seriously and fired a high level exec. You're ignoring the damage cause by the optics of such a lawsuit. Google being known as the…

GP isn't ignoring the optics of the situation, they're just asserting that being perceived as a company that paid a sexual predator almost one hundred million dollars to avoid dealing with a sexual assault claim is worse than the scenario you described.

I dispute that. Google going to trial, exposing the victim to the public eye, and risking the possibility that the public remembers this episode as an example of harassment claims being weaponized by corporations is a worse scenario. I think people are really underestimating the last one of those. Would the metoo movent have even spread to tech if an there existed a public (or at least, what the public percieves to be) instance of a company using allegations of harassment to cheat employees out of compensation? Would it have even existed at all?

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#55

Post by filmgirlcw » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #40

filmgirlcw wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it was swept under the rug. He got a splashy send-off and a thanks for his service. At the very least, that seems over the top. The reasons for his ouster weren't disclosed. I would be curious if Essential's investors (Redpoint, Altimeter, Amazon Alexa Fund) were aware of why Rubin left Google. Moreover, this is a pattern at Google. Amit Singhal[1] was fired (also with a send-off and goodbye party and settled out…

To sweep something under the rug means to ignore it and not deal with it. Google did deal with it, so it's incorrect to say that the accusation was swept under the rug. Sure, you may be displeased at how they handled it but there's no denial of the fact that they did take the accusations seriously and fired a high level exec. You're ignoring the damage cause by the optics of such a lawsuit. Google being known as the…

>You're ignoring the damage cause by the optics of such a lawsuit. Google being known as the company that used an allegation of harassment to try and cheat an exec out of his outstanding compensation would be atrocious for the company's image

That's not the case with Matt Lauer at NBC. Lauer sued and NBC has continued to fight back. It's also not the case with Les Moonves at CBS (the CBS situation is much more complicated because of the broader disputes between CBS, Viacom, and the infighting on the board of directors) -- in fact, CBS has been roundly criticized for potentially paying out $100m to Moonves (even if they withheld $80m in stock). CBS' business reputation is in the shitter b/c they have paid out.

>- and not to mention attach huge negative stigma around people who come forward with harassment campaigns against powerful people. It's easy to be idealistic when you're not the person or group who is at stake.

This stigma already exists. Refusing to settle doesn't make it go away or make it any better. Any person who goes forward against a powerful executive -- no matter how much proof they have -- is almost always fucked over. Going forward doesn't lead to someone winning. Financial settlements mostly exist b/c it's understood that the complainant will have an incredibly difficult time finding future employment.

And you're also forgetting that the person who is the alleged victim in this case could and would be protected in filings by shield laws (it's possible that someone on the other side would leak the identity, but that's legally not supposed to happen). This would be a civil complaint, not criminal. Moreover, I feel certain that there was already a settlement with a very strict NDA in place (and if either party were to violate the NDA, there would be substantial consequences).

The person who brought the claims against Rubin already has a stigma around her neck. Her life was already torn apart in an investigation by HR and presumably in whatever settlement was achieved. Please don't use the fact that those that come forward are often re-victimized as an excuse to PAY PEOPLE WITH CREDIBLE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THEM $90 MILLION AND GIVE A HERO'S SENDOFF.

People who come forward almost always lose in very tangible ways -- even if they win. That's why coming forward is so difficult and why those that do are so incredibly brave.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#56

Post by crwalker » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

Jedi72 wrote: post #49

crwalker wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Crypto is a compelling simulacrum of classical liberalism (free individuals engaging in trade and limited governments using precise laws to protect the commons). This time we are trusting machines and mathematics to preserve individual rights rather than culture.

When you put it that way it actually seems like a good idea.

There are big potential downsides. Blockchains are chains. They don't forgive. They don't forget.

But I still think it's a worthwhile endeavor.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#57

Post by trhway » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

rayvy wrote: post #3

Someone with more info please correct me: But from what I read it sounds as if Google had to pay him the $90MM+, else be sued by him right? Because if they didn't pay him, he'd sue, then they [Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever), which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser said they were coerced (not forced). So it seems as if Google's hands were…

>[Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever), which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser said they were coerced (not forced).

my understanding (IANAL) is that sexual coercion is illegal under CA labor laws. And it would definitely be a clear violation of a policy in any corp i've worked at and i suppose Google has a similar policy as well.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#58

Post by sumedh » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

kerng wrote: post #18

Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out his behavior. But what happened was that Google only said how awesome everything is and hence in fact protected and worse, basically endorsed, his behavior. I find it good that Google employees stand up here. I'm already wondering what will Google do about that other guy who gives back rubs in interviews? He got similar support and is stil…

> that other guy who gives back rubs in interviews

Can you post some more details, a simple google search does not return anything meaningful.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#59

Post by ben_w » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 11:08 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #52

inetknght wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally The end does not justify the means. So what good is a society built on prejudice, harassment, and corruption? If you can sweep controversy under the rug until such time that it's convenient then good luck ever getting change to occur for the better. > by getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it ano…

What good is a society without due process or presumption of innocence, where a disputed allegation would be punished without proof?

I suspect that at a certain level, corporations must have accountability similar to nations. Right now corporations don’t need to be democratic, they don’t need to allow any type of “freedom of speech” and indeed have strong incentives/prohibitions against it in the case of no-disparagement clauses.

I think people may need to be allowed a vote in the companies they work for/monopolies that service them, and that freedom-of-speech rules for corporations, employees, and customers is likely to follow that of their host nations — not equally free everywhere, but that no-disparagement clauses would be legal in the UK and illegal in the USA, for example.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#60

Post by danso » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 11:11 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #25

This article is missing a fairly important detail - the demands of the protesters. It is one thing to be unhappy with a situation, but given that the situation is now in the past - what exactly do they want to change going forward? The article is almost scrupulous in painting the walkout as out-of-control employees rather than the precursors of organised labour.

It seems that the protesters believe that Google erred too much in favor of Andy Rubin (and other protected execs). A protest makes these concerns known to Google -- and just as importantly, to the public -- and ostensibly reduces the chances that Google will have a different mindset when a similar situation arises in the future.

In any case, the article describes this particular walkout as part of an ongoing/emerging movement:

> Employees participating in this movement for increased transparency and ethics within Google have presented management with petitions, made demands for greater employee oversight into product decisions made by management, and even quit their jobs in protest of Google’s decisions. Increasingly, employees have been signing their names to a spreadsheet, refusing to participate in screening interviews for potential new hires at Google as a form of protest.