Google staff walk out over women's treatment • Hacker News Board

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#181

Post by VBprogrammer » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 1:52 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #162

VBprogrammer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short; yes. I think it's fair to say that google aren't going to run out of engineers if they implemented a completely rigid payment structure. Firstly, their pay is very high compared to the industry and secondly they attract the best engineers by reputation more than anything else.

What happens in a few years when the best engineers start leaving because they can negotiate higher pay elsewhere? If they start to get a reputation as merely good, but not the best, not where the exciting work happens?

That is one possible outcome. I'm not convinced it's the most likely outcome though. I guess it depends on how well correlated engineering talent is with negotiation skills.

Personally I wouldn't imagine those things are well correlated at all. In my experience the best engineers have stayed around long after it was obvious that they could get considerably more by changing jobs (and sometimes changing back again).

That aside, I think it would be entirely possible to set this up transparently enough that an engineer can see their future compensation and thus see how many years ahead they are jumping and can make their own judgement about whether it's worth moving to a company where their future compensation will likely change in the usual haphazard way.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#182

Post by kamaal » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 2:00 PM UTC

smacktoward wrote: post #175

kamaal wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most under rated comment in this thread. Don't know what the Google management is thinking at this point in time. But I'm damn sure, unless you are making it rain hundreds of millions in dollars, and you are a part of these pre-unionizing exercises- You are very likely getting marked up as a trouble maker, and may be already a part of purge lists. This is also a small industry. You don't want your name to…

> This is also a small industry. You don't want your name to smeared as a person who comes with a high trouble/contribution ratio. What you are suggesting is called "blacklisting." You may be interested to learn that in many states it is illegal behavior itself. See https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-... . > Nobody wants to hire people to do their jobs, and get employees running their part ti…

Nobody ever gets interview feedbacks in this industry.

What you are saying is true, but its always impossible to establish intentions. And either way you have to sue. All the best ever getting a job if you are known to do legal fights against prospective employers.

>>Union organizing is not a "part time political project," it is a legally protected right.

One believes in these things only until they become managers themselves. And every one aspires to be one in this industry.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#183

Post by danharaj » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 2:02 PM UTC

gedy wrote: post #166

majewsky wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's odd how on one hand, the consensus here is that the quality of the work environment is very important to the productivity and the wellbeing of employees. And on the other hand, people argue that this type of misconduct should not be punished unless it's literally illegal.

I think a lot of the hesitation is people fear kangaroo courts and termination without due process due to false accusations or exaggerations. Much as the extra legal stuff that goes on in college.

In other words, people here are more concerned with a phenomenon that is measurably rare relative to the downright epidemic that people are seeking to counteract. I think that says a lot about one's values.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#184

Post by EthanHeilman » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 2:03 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #121

victoriasun wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not interested in the internal workings of Google, then why bother? There are people who are, and they are the ones driving this conversation. Let them spend their energy and effort figuring it out while you enjoy the result of their work.

> why bother? Because I'm a bit annoyed by what seems to me a growing push towards confusing the judgement of someone's work with their moral qualities. I see it as fundamentally anti-intellectual, as it strives to bring extraneous criteria in the evaluation of what should stand and be judged on its own. A scientific theory or a work of art aren't less valuable because their authors or proponents are or aren't commun…

>I see it as fundamentally anti-intellectual, as it strives to bring extraneous criteria in the evaluation of what should stand and be judged on its own. A scientific theory or a work of art aren't less valuable because their authors or proponents are or aren't communists

The ethics of science does exactly this. A common question which has been asked for much of the 20th Century is: should we use scientific results that are the product of non-consensual human experimentation. an extreme but often used example experiments that were carried out by the Nazis at concentration camps. Outside of science consider the debate over the works of Wagner [0], Knut Hamson [1], or Heidegger [2]. Ethics matters when judging intellectual output. For

These are fundamental questions of ethics which have a long intellectual history of debate and discussion. You are welcome to hold your own opinions on them, but I don't think the way in which you are framing the debate is helpful, e.g. "a growing push", "confusing the judgement", "fundamentally anti-intellectual", etc... Ethical questions which have received this much thoughtful discussion and examination should be treated with respect.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_controversies

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/books/28hams.html

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger_and_Nazism#Th...

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#185

Post by kiliantics » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 2:06 PM UTC

shados wrote: post #179

Something Ive never understood (not in the sense of I dont agree. What I really mean is I'm uneducated on the topic and would like to find out more, but my searches returned little, since it's a pretty heated topic), is why the company should be the primary responsible entity for this. Maybe for light cases where someone just need a stern talking to, but a lot of the cases are downright criminal acts. Having a privat…

As you point out, the cops are often useless too. Now imagine you call the cops on your boss and they show up to talk with him/her. How might your boss be treating you after this?

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#186

Post by notyourwork » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 2:07 PM UTC

shados wrote: post #179

Something Ive never understood (not in the sense of I dont agree. What I really mean is I'm uneducated on the topic and would like to find out more, but my searches returned little, since it's a pretty heated topic), is why the company should be the primary responsible entity for this. Maybe for light cases where someone just need a stern talking to, but a lot of the cases are downright criminal acts. Having a privat…

Sadly the police don’t have the resources to go “investigate” every time someone said let’s settle this outside. Where do you drawn the line for stern talking and police investigation. Your idea sounds good in theory but in practice doesn’t work.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#187

Post by smacktoward » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 2:08 PM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #182

smacktoward wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is also a small industry. You don't want your name to smeared as a person who comes with a high trouble/contribution ratio. What you are suggesting is called "blacklisting." You may be interested to learn that in many states it is illegal behavior itself. See https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-... . > Nobody wants to hire people to do their jobs, and get employees running their part ti…

Nobody ever gets interview feedbacks in this industry. What you are saying is true, but its always impossible to establish intentions. And either way you have to sue. All the best ever getting a job if you are known to do legal fights against prospective employers. >>Union organizing is not a "part time political project," it is a legally protected right. One believes in these things only until they become managers t…

> One believes in these things only until they become managers themselves.

The law isn't Tinker Bell, it doesn't require you to believe in it to exist.

> And every one aspires to be one in this industry.

It's difficult to think of anything sadder than a person who assents to his own exploitation in the hopes that maybe, someday, he will get to exploit someone else.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#188

Post by cjslep » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 2:10 PM UTC

sunir wrote: post #160

anon1252 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's no real process in place for situations of misconduct in the office. There shouldn't be a "process" set by Google when it comes to sexual harassment, employees should be able to sue, that's the process,sexual harassment is a crime, they can't sue because Google force them into arbitration, which should be illegal for an employer to do that to an employee IMHO. this is a denial of justice.

Prosecution is one method of deterring thieves from robbing my store blind. I have also tried locked doors, security cameras and not leaving the store unattended. I like your argument that it is cheaper to just let people rob me blind and then burn time and energy catching them, prosecuting time, and hoping for a conviction as a deterrent. With any luck using your system crime will magically disappear on it’s own. I…

Comparing sexual assault to a store robbery in a tone of sarcasm is at best a poor judgement call.

I agree that assaulters need to take responsibility for their actions. However, when they don't, the law needs to be there to protect the victims.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#189

Post by belorn » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 2:14 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #63

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK Office for National Statistics publish good data for the UK. My impression (based on 2016 stats [0]) is that as most C-suiters are men, and they can get 100s or 1000s of times the money that ordinary employees get, that in the UK this likely accounts for most of the effect that's not accounted for by career breaks (childcare, for example). To reiterate, this is my _impression_ when looking at the data. Men who wor…

Here's one example of the ONS data: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...

Not only is the data missing variance, but the small print also say that it excludes overtime.

Could I please see the variance in the data which is a very simple, important and often missing aspect when presenting data? I would also like to see the average amount of work hours (and overtime) per industry and gender, the average amount of flex time and other non-income benefits, and common known sources for wage differences such as how often a person changes job. All this is missing, but again the lowest hanging fruit is the variance which make any dataset completely useless (and I stand by this statement) for any complex dataset.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#190

Post by gnode » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 2:17 PM UTC

shados wrote: post #179

Something Ive never understood (not in the sense of I dont agree. What I really mean is I'm uneducated on the topic and would like to find out more, but my searches returned little, since it's a pretty heated topic), is why the company should be the primary responsible entity for this. Maybe for light cases where someone just need a stern talking to, but a lot of the cases are downright criminal acts. Having a privat…

In these situations, companies aren't sued for harassment, but for having a hostile work environment; allowing harassment to persist (e.g. by retaining harassing employees). If an employer has effective mechanisms to deal with cases of harassment, then it shouldn't be liable.

Even if a harasser was prosecuted or sued successfully, if the company retained them, that would create a hostile work environment for the harassee, and make the employer liable.

There's also the case of quid pro quo harassment, where a superior makes someone's career progression tied to the harassment, in which case it may be harder to distinguish the company's liability from the harasser. But even in such cases, an effective system to report such behaviour can mitigate the company's liability. In such cases, claims often surround retaliation for reporting harassment (e.g. employee transferred, demoted or fired in response to a harassment report.)