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

391–400 of 471 posts

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#391

Post by jshevek »

XorNot wrote: post #387
jshevek wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have trouble imagining truly complete anonymity being helpful. This is an invitation to abuse the system. Abuse could result from personal conflicts and office politics, or even people who wish to undermine the system itself by entering bad data.

The point of an anonymous system is to encourage people to speak up without a first-mover problem, because in every case of ongoing sexual harassment there is never just 1 victim - it's always a pattern of behavior. Someone receiving exactly 1 report is probably not a problem. Someone who accumulates reports continuously as team members change probably is .

> Someone who accumulates reports continuously as team members change probably is.

No. If the system is truly anonymous, then people outside the team can submit reports. Continuous accumulation would not indicate there is probably a problem with the accused, given the motive and opportunities for abuse of the reporting system.

Elsewhere in this thread the difference between anonymous and private is discussed, along with semi-anonymizing strategies for achieving privacy protection, which I believe would be helpful for the outcome you describe.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#392

Post by empath75 »

billylindeman wrote: post #339
gingerbread-man wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Total anonymity for accusers is indeed a concerning policy, but partial anonymity (i.e. from one's own team) isn't unreasonable. It ought to be possible to properly investigate misconduct allegations while minimizing the potential for gossip and recriminations.

I think that due process should include the right to face your accuser.

It’s not a criminal trial.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#393

Post by belorn »

danso wrote: post #332
belorn wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that the average HR department would do a better job at it, and if so why? What would the optimal system be when we want punishment for crimes when the police drops it because there isn't enough proof.

Companies have their own internal regulations, code of conduct, and cultural norms, and HR is ostensibly knowledgeable of these factors, as well as being trained specifically in employment law. Besides that, there are jurisdiction issues that HR aren't bound to -- e.g. if the alleged violation happened during a work trip to Kentucky or overseas, the complainant isn't required to travel to that court (or deal with the…

I don't live in the US so maybe this is cultural, but do you really want the legal outcome of crime to be based on local policy and norms? When I hear about sexual assault give jail time in one town and only a slap on the wrist on an other then that sound like injustice. I have always believed that a sign of a healthy legal system in any nation is when common laws are being enforced equally regardless of local provincial customs, norms or policy. If we apply this to internal process of a company it looks odd that one company should have completely different outcome to an other when an employee commits a crime.

And we don't need to use the police. We could invent a new group called peace keepers with different training, but the key point is that crime is defined in a democratic process that is uniformed applied to every citizen and thus the outcome of crime should be equally uniformed.

Private guards has a very clear line between the domain of the police and what they can do, just like the clear line between the military and the police. Private guards do not investigate crime, do not handle evidence, and is not considered part of the legal system. Similarly it seems natural to me that cases which society defines as crime should not be handled internally by any company. Having overlaps where private guards and the military stepping in as police sounds as a terrible outcome and a sign that something is broken in the legal system. Better to then discuss what is broken and fix it so we can return to equal outcomes for all citizens.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#394

Post by dragonwriter »

belorn wrote: post #393
danso wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies have their own internal regulations, code of conduct, and cultural norms, and HR is ostensibly knowledgeable of these factors, as well as being trained specifically in employment law. Besides that, there are jurisdiction issues that HR aren't bound to -- e.g. if the alleged violation happened during a work trip to Kentucky or overseas, the complainant isn't required to travel to that court (or deal with the…

I don't live in the US so maybe this is cultural, but do you really want the legal outcome of crime to be based on local policy and norms? When I hear about sexual assault give jail time in one town and only a slap on the wrist on an other then that sound like injustice. I have always believed that a sign of a healthy legal system in any nation is when common laws are being enforced equally regardless of local provin…

> I don't live in the US so maybe this is cultural, but do you really want the legal outcome of crime to be based on local policy and norms?

This isn't about legal outcomes or crimes.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#395

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #386
bradenb wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the courts, yes, but in an office? EDIT: I should add that I am 100% for eliminating sexual harassment from the workplace (and in life), but unfortunately there's nothing that forces a company to give employees due process. I would guess that in most cases, even the appearance of inpropriety is enough to warrant termination for at-will employees.

[re: claim that due process includes the right to confront accuser] > In the courts, yes In the US, this is only true in criminal courts. Even when it reaches beyond company process to the courts, sexual harassment is a civil matter.

[deleted]

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#396

Post by cjslep »

sunir wrote: post #293
cjslep wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The post I replied to implied that the criminal justice system is the only solution to these problems: "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," Notwithstanding the unbelievable confusion of law in that post is a whole other conversation. I argued that companies should also have a plan in place to prevent sexual haras…

Re-read his post: people should be able to sue in lieu of forced arbitration, they're never advocating for "create an environment for sexual assaults". Nowhere and no one is arguing for creating an environment for sexual assaults in this thread. The reason it seems like an absurdity is because you're setting it up to be one when no one is advocating it, which is the definition of a strawman.

Sorry, but if you're still going to stick on this point then this'll be the last thing I say on the matter.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#397

Post by nekmekbrek »

stale2002 wrote: post #363
DisruptiveDave wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if they are innocent? That investigation will come with an impact to the accused. A serious one.

If they are innocent then nothing will happen to them as the investigation won't find anything. That's how it should work. If someone gets accused of something, there should be an investigation. And if they did something wrong it will be outstanding obvious. If they didn't, then they won't find anything. It is ridiculous to complain about an investigation, which should be the entire goal. To investigate and figure ou…

> If someone gets accused of something, there should be an investigation. And if they did something wrong it will be outstanding obvious. If they didn't, then they won't find anything.

Reading this genuinely frightens me.

Our legal system, with due process and "beyond reasonable doubt" and all the rest, regularly convicts people who are later found to be innocent. And, of course, regularly acquits people who are later found to have been clearly guilty. Even in countries with fewer complaints of bias and bad faith than the US, miscarriages of justice are not exceptional.

And here's this reply, suggesting that HR departments will simply get it right all the time. We're talking about people not trained in investigating anything, operating with minimal oversight under rules that have probably never been scrutinized, who in almost every case will face biases and incentives that would recuse any judge and strike any juror.

Discovering the truth is genuinely hard. If someone did something wrong, it will be "outstanding obvious"? What guarantees us a world so convenient and just that no one ever harasses in private and leaves only "he said, she said"? If someone did nothing wrong, investigations will find nothing? How have we gotten free from DARVO and coordinated dishonesty and all the other things that produce wrongful convictions (quite often of victims, on their attacker's word) in actual courts?

The certainty that every investigation will react a decisive conclusion, that official decisions are automatically trustworthy, that people who are found innocent are never harmed by public knowledge that they've been investigated. It's a display of faith in authority (any authority) that I truly don't understand - are people extending this same sort of blind confidence when police forces, churches, and politicians investigate themselves?

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#398

Post by sheepmullet »

cimmanom wrote: post #133
sheepmullet wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you think all claims should be dismissed as false Why would you think that? I think the majority of claims need to go into the “not really sure” bucket where they belong. Acknowledging this basic truth does not mean you have to then do nothing.

Which is why they merit investigation . For which there should be a process . Without an investigation process, what alternatives would you suggest for avoiding treating all claims as true or all claims as false?

> what alternatives would you suggest

There are many well tested solutions but they all carry different trade offs.

E.g.

- Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies.

Or,

- When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.

Etc.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#399

Post by RodericDay »

danharaj wrote: post #183
gedy wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's very much a "sexual harassment sucks for them, but that solution could affect me, a guy!" mentality

Fuck you got mine transposed

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#400

Post by dragonwriter »

sheepmullet wrote: post #398
cimmanom wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why they merit investigation . For which there should be a process . Without an investigation process, what alternatives would you suggest for avoiding treating all claims as true or all claims as false?

> what alternatives would you suggest There are many well tested solutions but they all carry different trade offs. E.g. - Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies. Or, - When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams. Etc.

> When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.

That's a very good way to be found liable for both later harassment by the accused and, if you move the accuser, for retaliation; and also a PR nightmare when it is discovered to have been your policy or even a common practice to move accused wrongdoers without follow-up (just ask the Catholic Church.)

Post reply on HN