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

441–450 of 471 posts

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#441

Post by speedplane »

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…

Due process would certainly be nice when it comes to letting people go, but introducing it makes it much more difficult for a company to move quickly and adjust to market conditions. If a company faces lawsuits every time it makes any decison, it’ll be far more difficult to make any decison and will make that company far less dynamic. Sometimes that’s worth it, but there are cons to introducing due process too.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#442

Post by joshuamorton »

nekmekbrek wrote: post #397
stale2002 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 late…

Part of this is due to incentives. Police and elected officials have an incentive to appear tough on crime.

Theres no particular reason a priori, to assume that HR has the same incentives. In fact if anything, the current state of affairs may imply the opposite.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#443

Post by qbaqbaqba »

gingerbread-man wrote: post #321
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…

Maybe they're referencing something like Callisto (YC Nonprofit W18): "Founders will be able to use Callisto to securely store the identities of perpetrators of sexual coercion and assault. These identities will be encrypted in a way that not even the Callisto team can view. If multiple founders name the same perpetrator, they will be referred to an attorney who can then decrypt the founder’s contact info and reach o…

It's hard to imagine something more illegal than this when it comes to personal data protection.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#444

Post by vsl »

empath75 wrote: post #392
billylindeman wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It’s not a criminal trial.

Meaning that people shouldn’t be treated fairly if prison time is not on the table?

There are principles that are only binding to the government, but worth following outside of the courtroom in a civilized society. Innocent until proven guilty is one of them.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#445

Post by vsl »

joshuamorton wrote: post #442
nekmekbrek wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 late…

Part of this is due to incentives. Police and elected officials have an incentive to appear tough on crime. Theres no particular reason a priori, to assume that HR has the same incentives. In fact if anything, the current state of affairs may imply the opposite.

They do: risk of lawsuit. Risk of the PR hit of a Twitter mob descending on the company.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#446

Post by throwawaywhynot »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #98
ChrisRR wrote: post #10

So the first demand is "A commitment to end pay and opportunity inequality" I'd like to see the actual data behind this constant inequality claim. I would be genuinely interested to see what kind of difference there is between the sexes when comparing like-for-like jobs. I've heard speculation that women don't argue for higher salaries as much as men, I've also heard that the data is never accurate because it doesn't…

>I've heard speculation that women don't argue for higher salaries as much as men,... It's not just arguing for higher salaries but being trusted to follow through when "the going gets tough" . Display of confidence is hard to distinguish from actual capability. Confidence is often mistaken for "can-do-spirit" or "positive attitude" and therefore always favored. Women are more honest than man about their abilities in…

you mean more honest people who don't fake it should be paid more? What about meek men then

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#447

Post by hhjinks »

zimpenfish wrote: post #115
brobdingnagians wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time magazine, which doesn't exactly seem to be a bastion of conservatism, had an article about this http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/ , which had more hard-facts than anyone else I've seen, but the conclusion was that most of the claims made by the wage gap supporters are cherrypicked and false. Although, if Google specifically has a problem with it, I'd definitely be willing to listen. If they are…

> Time magazine, which doesn't exactly seem to be a bastion of conservatism Although Christina Hoff Sommers does have a noticeable bias/axe to grind since she's pretty anti-feminism and considers there to be a "war against boys". Also she works for the AEI which is a conservative think tank.

>considers there to be a "war against boys"

How is there not? Literally every modern school system favors activities that disproportionally disadvantage young boys. Boys and young men are dropping out of school at a far larger rate than women, and literally nobody cares. It's a travesty.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#448

Post by YorkshireSeason »

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.
Here is an interesting though experiment: Remove all humans from this planet who are the direct or indirect descendent of a couple whose relationship started at work.

Conjecture: the planet would be depopulated.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#449

Post by YorkshireSeason »

astura wrote: post #301
YorkshireSeason wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can have an educated guess from just a brief glance -- especially if the other person doesn't actively tries to mislead me on such an important issue.

And why the fuck do you care about other people's chromosomes?

I don't care directly about chromosomes, they are put an extremely good proxy for one's reproductive abilities, hence an extremely good biological correlate for sex (i.e. reproductive role).

I care about fertility, because reproduction is more-or-less the single most important duty every human has. It is also difficult a space to navigage, therefore all indicators and heuristics that help me appreciate his/her sex efficiently, makes navigating this difficult space much easier, hence is a friendly gesture.

Here is an interesting question for you to ponder: Why do basic facts about human biology upset you so much, so much so in fact, that you use the act of procreation as an expletive?

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#450

Post by YorkshireSeason »

lukev wrote: post #81
YorkshireSeason wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The salient difference is that outages are measurable. In contrast, "harassment" is an extremely controversial subject that nobody agrees upon, for example, in some legislations, calling a person with XY chromosomes "him" rather than "her" is considered a hate crime, a dramatic change from labelling conventions of just a few years ago. Indeed what constitutes harassment is a major point of contention between differen…

And only a few short decades ago I could fire someone for being gay, or forbid my wife from opening a bank account. And it was a mere century ago that women literally couldn't vote. I don't see why the fact that social mores change invalidates the social standard we have today. Furthermore, why do you folk always jump straight to the "b..b..but false harassment!" argument? All it does is demonstrate that you actually…

   invalidates the social standard we have today.
The social standards we have today include that false accusations of harassment largely have no repercussions, and amount to a destruction of standards of justice. I don't want to live in a totalitarian society where hate-mobs replace argument, why do you promote one?

   don't care at all about the original problem.
I care about the original problem, but believe it to be marginal in comparison with the false accusation problem, and the decline of standards of justice.

   Experts place false sexual 
   misconduct allegations at 2-10%
The article you cite does not provide any evidence of this claim whatsoever, did you even read it?

    throw 90-98% of harassed women to the 
    sharks, in order to protect 2-10%
You seem to think that marginal inconveniences of women (let's not forget that the Google mob was protesting because some guy hit on some woman at a party!), is more important that human rights of men?
Post reply on HN