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

401–410 of 471 posts

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#401

Post by RodericDay »

ummonk wrote: post #368
jerf wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of replies to ChrisRR's comment go out to the global level, but Google can't fix that. The interesting question is "what kind of difference there is between the sexes when comparing like-for-like jobs" at Google . That's what they can address. Does it exist? If it does exist, that's a very serious problem, because if Google can't and/or hasn't attained pay parity that would satisfy the people writing this, then…

One of the issues is that Google is rather reactive in its compensation - e.g. it only provides high-compensation offers to those who obtain competing offers. This essentially ensures that the highest offers go to those who prioritize being able to get high compensation. In my experience, a lot of software engineers tend to prioritize things other than compensation, and don't really care to try to extract higher comp…

They could just make salaries transparent. That would fix the issue really quickly, people usually don't like being underpaid.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#402

Post by rongenre »

sizzle wrote: post #314

"A clear, uniform, globally inclusive process for reporting sexual misconduct safely and anonymously " Can anyone help me understand the rationale behind the anonymous part, with respect to due process and how the framework for anonymous accusations can be abused by bad actors? Edit - I have a question about the anonymous nature of reporting to HR, with respect to due process for the accuser and accused, maybe some o…

"What about the men?" is a bingo square not an argument.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#403

Post by xenihn »

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…

>What you are suggesting is called "blacklisting." You may be interested to learn that in many states it is illegal behavior itself.

If only the fact that it's illegal actually stopped it from happening.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#404

Post by steeef »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #299

I don't understand this at all. Google chief executive Sundar Pichai has told staff he supports their right to take the action. "I understand the anger and disappointment that many of you feel," he said in an all-staff email. "I feel it as well, and I am fully committed to making progress on an issue that has persisted for far too long in our society… and, yes, here at Google, too." If someone at the top is sincerely…

Yes. He can put actions behind his words, or his reply is just hot air.

Plus, by endorsing it as a Google-sanctioned event, he's effectively taking power away from those walking out from disrupting normal business as usual (e.g., allowing managers to reschedule meetings).

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#405

Post by [deleted] »

cjslep wrote: post #396
sunir wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sti…

[deleted]

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#406

Post by sunir »

cjslep wrote: post #396
sunir wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sti…

This is a frustrating thread. Everyone is trying to outdo themselves. Feels like the Peoples front of Judea

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#407

Post by negativez »

dev_dull wrote: post #234
shareometry wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never understood why employees accept the restrictive clauses which assign ownership for any side projects to the employer. I am not a lawyer, but this has always struck me as amounting to a type of serfdom. If you are seen as a 24/7 unit of the company, and anything at all that you creatively produce can be claimed by the company, then your working capacity and creative capacity is essentially owned entirely…

They tolerate it because it’s largely unenforceable.

I had one success simply not signing a non-compete I was handed on orientation day. I returned the packet of docs without that one and never heard a thing about it.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#408

Post by cimmanom »

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.

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

This addresses only the tiniest subset of issues, and mostly the ones toward the consensual end of the spectrum. Groping; quid pro quo suggestions (subtle or explicit); coercive threats (subtle or explicit); lewd remarks; invitations to strip clubs; etc ad nauseum (and yes, they're nauseating) have nothing to do with actual romantic relationships.

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

Due to the nature of company hierarchies, this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain much more than it does the one higher - both in terms of short term impacts and long term career advancement. Which often means punishing the victim, due to how the power dynamics of harassment interactions tend to work out.

It's also a pretty damn weak reaction. If your Director of X insinuates that they'll fire an engineer if the engineer won't sleep with the director, you think the only consequence for the director should be that that engineer no longer reports to them?

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#410

Post by [deleted] »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #240
justaguyhere wrote: post #174

How is this handled at other biggies in the valley - Apple, Microsoft etc? Do they also have the arbitration thing? There was an awesome site on the front page yesterday, that compared career levels in the companies. Someone should make one comparing these companies on things like - treatment of women/minorities, age discrimination, side project policies, access to upper management etc

a recent change in California law: Governor Brown recently signed Senate Bill 820 which prohibits secret settlements and non-disclosure agreements in sexual harassment cases. in other words, if a private settlement is agreed to, the victim's name may be kept confidential, but not the perpetrator’s.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN