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

Google staff walk out over women's treatment

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 471 posts

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#251

Post by dragonwriter »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #249
dragonwriter wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, Except that, under the law, the company’s response (including the absence or inadequacy of any process) to certain situations is part of what determines if they are sexual harassment. > sexual harassment is a crime No, it's not, and if it were the process would not be for employees t…

it's a different country, but ... in India in 2013 some types of sexual harassment were deemed criminal and punishable by time in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_(Amendment)_Act,_...

In the US, many types of sexual harassment are also crimes, but sexual harassment, per se, is a particular civil wrong, not a crime.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#252

Post by wombatpm »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #226
geofft wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is more than that: there is a will from upper management to actively prevent such issues from being handled appropriately. > Larry and Sergey had like this gaggle of girls who were hot, and all become like their little harem of admins, I call them the L&S Harem, yes. All those girls are now different heads of departments in that company, years later. > Sergey’s the Google playboy. He was known for getting…

holy shit. i hadn't seen that before. HR seems to have been completely captured by the forces it was supposed to resist.

HR is never there for the employee. They exist to protect the Company. They give lip service to protecting and nurturing the employees and our people are our most precious asset BS. The only time HR will go after any of the big boys is when they are on the outs with the board. Example: Mark Hurd when he was forced out at HP.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#253

Post by CydeWeys »

kamaal wrote: post #140
rurban wrote: post #131

Sounds like pre-unionizing to me. Wonder where this will lead to...

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…

You're underestimating how many people are involved in these walkouts. Well over a thousand participated in the NYC office one, for example.

And even if this were true, some things are worth taking risks over.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#254

Post by sumeno »

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

Oh god no, not even close to everyone in this industry aspires to be a manager.

Personally, even if I end up becoming a manager I don't think my opinion on unions will change. Ten years ago people told me that my opinion on taxes would change once I made more money too and if anything I support higher taxes even more now.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#255

Post by cecilgol »

ryanmercer wrote: post #144
devwastaken wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>corporate terrorism Unless they're bombing buildings the word you're looking for is extortion, not terrorism. Striking has changed a good amount of business's in the history of the U.S . public outcry and worker cooperation is the halmark of workers rights. The reason protest is required is because the company will not change without a better force. 'asking nicely' doesn't go anywhere when the bottom line is money a…

>Unless they're bombing buildings the word you're looking for is extortion, not terrorism. You don't have to blow up a building to be a terrorist. You don't have to carry out an act of violence, or even suggest one, to be a terrorist. Organizing a walk out is intimidation, ter·ror·ism /ˈterəˌrizəm/ noun the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

>You don't have to carry out an act of violence, or even suggest one, to be a terrorist

>ter·ror·ism /ˈterəˌrizəm/ noun the unlawful use of violence and intimidation

u srs bruh?

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#256

Post by ergothus »

malvosenior wrote: post #214
ergothus wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is true that you wont change most people's minds. (When I discovered the psychological concept of schema, I was literally horrified) But some of us are discovering that what we thought of as "normal" (and thus forms the basis of many of of our value judgements) is quite narrow, so we have to adjust our expectations and that changes a lot of things... getting perspectives from others is a necessary and tedi…

> A good point, but irreconciable with pay gap data > For people who are tired of rehashing the same old arguments with data and answers that are out there for anyone serious to find... It's funny that you say that since there is no data supporting the pay gap. In fact there are people posting data in this thread contradicting the pay gap. If you say data is available to support your argument, you should link to it.

> It's funny that you say that

I think you misunderstood my point in the "answers that are out there for anyone serious to find" - I'm saying it's worth restating your arguments even if you think people "should" know the "obvious" and "proven". Nothing in that position makes it ironic that I also stated my understanding of things (Be that understanding right or wrong).

> If you say data is available to support your argument, you should link to it.

I've chased this rabbit hole before - assuming you are sincere, I'll point to Wikipedia and let you follow their citations, but there's lots out there:

> In the US the average woman's unadjusted annual salary has been cited as 78% to 82% of that of the average man's. However, after adjusting for choices made by male and female workers in college major, occupation, working hours, and parental leave, multiple studies find that pay rates between males and females varied by 5–6.6% or, females earning 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts. The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from gender discrimination and a difference in ability and/or willingness to negotiate salaries.

I'll be conservative and take the lowest difference and assume that college major, occupation, working hours, and parental leave are 100% by un-pressured choice: 95 cents to the dollar doesn't sound like a lot, until you ask yourself if a 5% raise is significant, particularly since the amount of money in question takes effect every single year. My anecdotal experience suggests the conservative assumptions for that are not reasonable, but YMMV.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#257

Post by cjslep »

sunir wrote: post #229
cjslep wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it is poor judgment to create an organization that does nothing to secure its people from sexual harassment. Not sure why you would disagree but if that is what you intended I do not want to work for you.

Youre being incredibly unfair: That's not at all what I said, and your post I responded to also made no claim along these lines. You're misrepresenting my and your past statements.

What we were talking about is ending forced arbitration (the "process" referred to by the person you responded to) so that the law can be used to protect victims. That doesn't mean protections at work suddenly go away. It also doesn't mean suddenly employers will let sexual harassment run rampant either. It's not a binary either-or choice at all. So why not all protections.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#258

Post by dragonwriter »

ryanmercer wrote: post #144
devwastaken wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>corporate terrorism Unless they're bombing buildings the word you're looking for is extortion, not terrorism. Striking has changed a good amount of business's in the history of the U.S . public outcry and worker cooperation is the halmark of workers rights. The reason protest is required is because the company will not change without a better force. 'asking nicely' doesn't go anywhere when the bottom line is money a…

>Unless they're bombing buildings the word you're looking for is extortion, not terrorism. You don't have to blow up a building to be a terrorist. You don't have to carry out an act of violence, or even suggest one, to be a terrorist. Organizing a walk out is intimidation, ter·ror·ism /ˈterəˌrizəm/ noun the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

You are misreading the “violence and intimidation” in that definition as if it were “violence or intimidation”; it actually contradicts rather than supports your claim.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#259

Post by bunderbunder »

jib wrote: post #238
bunderbunder wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going through the civil courts is very time-consuming and expensive for all parties involved. Focusing specifically on the company's perspective, it's also a terrible option from a risk management perspective. It leaves them exposed to the possibility of a very expensive judgment. (Especially if it's a big well-known company that the courts might want to make an example of.) If they can resolve the dispute internally…

I mean, Id argue that is exactly the way the system is designed, and it mostly does the job it is designed to do, not just a side effect. Defining what makes a non-hostile workplace is hard, enforcing it on individuals is harder, so instead delegate that responsibility to each individual company and take action on the company if it does not do that. In no way is it a perfect system (cue tons of excessively formalized…

Yeah, 100% agreed. Sorry - I was responding specifically to the question of whether HR should be in the loop, and didn't intend to suggest that the civil courts shouldn't also be part of it.

I wouldn't shed a tear if forced arbitration were banned. I can't really see it as not being at least partially an attempt to wiggle out from under the rule of law.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#260

Post by Animats »

tylerl wrote: post #245

This entire protest would have generally been a non-event if the company hadn't sent out a memo telling managers to accommodate people who want to participate, ensure there is no retaliation or penalty, be flexible with schedules, etc., effectively advertising the event to everyone in the process. So then it looks like employees are being unsupportive of their co-workers if they don't participate. Which sort of shuff…

Oh. So they're not all going to be fired.
Post reply on HN