How do these protestors know the facts of the matter better than the people who investigated?
The facts are not in dispute by the people who investigated. They found the allegation credible.
Google staff walk out over women's treatment
421–430 of 471 posts
Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if one gender has a higher variance than another gender? Just don't say that to Google or you may get fired.
The measured difference in distributions is very small. And if we believed that this was the cause, you'd need to think that Googlers were wildly off the norm in terms of ability. They've got like 90000 employees. They aren't exclusively hiring mega geniuses.
90k out of a population of 7 billion. There's plenty of room for differences in distribution to take effect.
Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment
#423How do these protestors know the facts of the matter better than the people who investigated?
The facts are not in dispute by the people who investigated. They found the allegation credible.
> The facts are not in dispute by the people who investigated
That is not established.
> They found the allegation credible.
“Credible” is not “true”; it is quite possible to find both a claim and it's negation to be credible.
Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.)
> just ask the Catholic Church
If priests had been moved around for simply leering at a woman or making a suggestive sexual comment I don’t think there would have been any outrage.
I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes - or any crimes for that matter.
Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment
#425Earlier 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 they are innocent then nothing will happen to them as the investigation won't find anything
This is just willfully ignorant. Look at Steven Galloway, or Ahmed Fekry Ibrahim at McGill. Investigation revealed that neither had credible claims of harassment against them. Both of them had irreparable damage done to their careers - the former pushed to the brink of suicide.
Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment
#426Earlier 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 .
This is a good point. What about a person who has a pattern of accusing multiple people over time? If each of the accused individuals are all not accused by others, would this undermine the accusers credibility?
I wish this was hypothetical, but I once worked with a person that had 3 individuals over 2 years fired for this. Eventually they went too far and HR had to come to grips with an obvious mental illness being the root cause. This person was a great engineer and a good friend, which made it even harder for me and others to admit to ourselves the delusional nature of the claims.
Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
How am I arguing in bad faith? He responded to my comment with link to a far left think tank that uses an alternate definition of wage gap than what were talking about. > "Women earn less than men at every wage level" It's utterly useless to compare wage levels across different roles. I read the article, I strongly disagree with it. Do you really think comparing the pay of people in different roles is useful? It's ap…
No, he responded with a 12,000 word article with over 60 references. Your reply was nitpicking a single thing that you feel is something important. Its not, the discussion is wider and deeper than that. By the way your point is dealt with in the article itself. The one you definitely read
What about citing some arguments from the article, so not everyone has to read 12000 words and wade throuh 60 references. It would be easier for everyone to check the validity of the argument then.
There has not been any counterpoint to original disputing of the citation.
Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should spending your time and effort arguing for higher salary entitle you to a higher salary? Surely, just the opposite.
So I've come to develop a nuanced opinion on this. I used to fully believe what you said, on the grounds that willingness and ability to negotiate have no bearing on how valuable the employee will be (at least for engineering jobs - it could be different for something like sales where dealmaking ability actually matters). However, one counterpoint I've come to realize is that if an employee doesn't value higher salar…
It is, of course, reasonable to make a "waste of money" argument if you are a pure capitalist.
In any case, this does not constitute an excuse for paying women less.
Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.)
> just ask the Catholic Church If priests had been moved around for simply leering at a woman or making a suggestive sexual comment I don’t think there would have been any outrage. I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes - or any crimes for that matter.
> I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes
You are suggesting that they should shuffle people around without investigation to quiet complaints of situations against which are obligated by law to protect their employees, including potentially involuntary reassignment of the reporting party (again, without investigation of the facts) despite the legal prohibition on retaliation.
Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
The facts are not in dispute by the people who investigated. They found the allegation credible.
> The facts are not in dispute by the people who investigated That is not established. > They found the allegation credible. “Credible” is not “true”; it is quite possible to find both a claim and it's negation to be credible.
Yes, but even if the specic allegation was not true, his whole relationship with someone he had power over was highly inappropriate. Unfortunately though, given that the senior leadership had a history of engaging in such inappropriate relationships, Google’s action here is to be expected.