Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 183 posts

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

#91

Post by thaumaturgy »

asianthrowaway wrote: post #37
olliej wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he coerced them into it - if you have a position of power, and you say "have sex with me", effectively in exchange for your treatment/employment in the company - I can't recall if Rubin was the burning man "sex or no job" guy, or that was another - that is sex discrimination and/or harassment. I doubt Rubin would have had the same behaviour with male subordinates, so that's a difference in treatment based on gend…

The burning man guy is another guy (who still works at Google afaik). This Rubin guy was no doubt a creep. From the NYT article: "The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”" Yikes!

There are totally fine sexual and romantic relationships involving consenting "ownership". That part shouldn't necessarily make him sound creepy. The part where he managed to make it all the way up to the executive level at a company like Google and still be dumb enough to have those kinds of relationships with employees is the part that deserves attention.

As others have already pointed out, any relationship with an employee in that kind of environment is exploitative by nature.

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

#92

Post by dragonwriter »

gowld wrote: post #69
dragonwriter wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out his behavior. Probably not; mutual non-disparagement clauses are extremely common in executive contracts. Breaking that would have been the same, in terms of kind of litigation risk, as not paying the $90 million.

Is it disparagement to report facts without attaching an opinion?

> Is it disparagement to report facts without attaching an opinion?

If the facts can reasonably be expected to damage the reputation of the other party to the agreement, yes, generally (subject to any specific exception in the agreement, such as the common one for accurate testimony in court proceedings when legally mandated.)

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

#94

Post by jancsika »

nostrademons wrote: post #22
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…

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…

> A lot of the popular unrest facing both corporations & governments today is people learning that conflict gets results.

Conflict likes workers peaceful protests, union negotiations, and various acts of civil disobedience against the government are in a broad category of "conflict."

Corruption, violence, harassment, threats of violence, libel, literally burning parts of the world to the ground, incitements to violence, swatting, disinformation campaigns, and genocide are in another very broad category of conflict.

If your use of the word "conflicts" mixes anything freely from both two categories then the sentence I quoted is meaningless.

> The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally, but that's where game theory is taking us.

If you are talking mainly about any of the things I mentioned in my first category of "conflict," then this sentence isn't persuasive.

If you are talking about the second category only, I don't understand the relationship to the article.

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

#95

Post by leereeves »

dcre wrote: post #82
sfcguyus wrote: post #71

Would be more meaningful if they quit in protest to a lower paying job. This type of protest is merely exercise or a routine jog.

If they quit they don't have leverage at Google anymore. This is why unions exist: they can threaten to quit, extract concessions, and not quit.

When negotiation fails, unions extract concessions by trying to prevent anyone (members or not) from doing the work.

Unions are rather weak when they can't prevent employers from hiring strikebreakers.

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

#96

Post by tw04 »

asianthrowaway wrote: post #37
olliej wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he coerced them into it - if you have a position of power, and you say "have sex with me", effectively in exchange for your treatment/employment in the company - I can't recall if Rubin was the burning man "sex or no job" guy, or that was another - that is sex discrimination and/or harassment. I doubt Rubin would have had the same behaviour with male subordinates, so that's a difference in treatment based on gend…

The burning man guy is another guy (who still works at Google afaik). This Rubin guy was no doubt a creep. From the NYT article: "The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”" Yikes!

>"The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”"

I don't understand why Americans are so concerned with what happens in somebody else's bedroom. I don't give a single flying f about what two consenting adults decide to do in a bedroom. There are all sorts of sexual kinks that I find disgusting and sometimes disturbing - but it turns out it's not really any of my business. The second you introduce a non-consenting adult, or someone not old enough to consent, then we've got a problem.

Otherwise - why do you care? It's none of your business.

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

#97

Post by gumby »

smokeyj wrote: post #85
dcre wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they quit they don't have leverage at Google anymore. This is why unions exist: they can threaten to quit, extract concessions, and not quit.

Can you imagine a search engine developed by union labor? It’s actually funny if you think about it. Side note: Do you think police officers act with more accountability or less considering their unions status? As if anyone else can shoot innocent people and take paid leave.

Why?

I built my house with union labor. I think I got a much better result.

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

#98

Post by notacoward »

leereeves wrote: post #95
dcre wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they quit they don't have leverage at Google anymore. This is why unions exist: they can threaten to quit, extract concessions, and not quit.

When negotiation fails, unions extract concessions by trying to prevent anyone (members or not) from doing the work. Unions are rather weak when they can't prevent employers from hiring strikebreakers.

Yes, because there's an infinite supply of completely interchangeable workers, and no costs associated with hiring or training.

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

#99

Post by FireBeyond »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #15
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…

As bdcravens says, what upsets some is that THIS executive and THIS situation was deemed worthy of sweeping under the rug, paying out the $90m and giving a hero's send-off of sorts (yes, anyone with eyes knew Andy was forced out, but there wasn't any chatter that I was aware of that he was forced out for personnel reasons. Instead, it was assumed to be a power struggle that he lost.), when many others are often let-g…

> In retrospect, that was a bad call -- because in 2018, the optics of sweeping credible harassment allegations by a senior executive under the rug and then guiding them out the door with a $90m settlement is something that sickens and angers many individuals.

And then, not three months later, investing substantially in his next venture...

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

#100

Post by roenxi »

danso wrote: post #60
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/emergin…

That paragraph you quote from the article is extremely vague though, is that what the protesters have actually said?

'Greater employee oversight into product decisions' is particularly .. what is that? The employees have veto power by majority vote? An individual employee can delay the project for a 3 month review? The project team chooses their own manager?

If they want a measurable change they need an articulation of what that change is that a corporate structure can handle. The boys and girls of Google are usually pretty clever, they 'll have figured that out.

I don't like their chances either way, management will persist in making management decisions even if they need to fire people to do so, but having a walk out to raise awareness would be silly. Google has internal message boards and isn't that big a company - they can talk to people directly.

Post reply on HN