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

451–460 of 471 posts

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#451

Post by belorn »

dragonwriter wrote: post #394
belorn wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is about crime. Threating someone with violence is a offense that society in a democratic process has define as illegal with an legal outcome. Sexual assault is a offense that society in a democratic process has define as illegal with an legal outcome.

There is a very clear line between crime and non-crime.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#452

Post by cimmanom »

sheepmullet wrote: post #420
cimmanom wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 no…

> This addresses only the tiniest subset of issues, and mostly the ones toward the consensual end of the spectrum. Not at all - in practice it removes ambiguity which is where most of the issues stem. > this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain At a large company that is not true - it’s actually the opposite. For those below director level it’s usually a privilege to be able to shift tea…

Your much more likely to have somewhere to reassign the lower level employee to than the higher level employee simply because there are fewer roles total at the higher level. Unless both must be reassigned, you end up punishing only the lower level employee.

It doesn’t ensure abuse is stopped. It may just expose a different set of employees to abuse. It doesn’t send a message that abuse is unacceptable or will meet with meaningful consequences. It’s only a solution to anything if the only problematic interactions are between two specific employees. If you have an employee with a boundary problem or who enjoys abusing their position or who “just can’t help themselves”, it does nothing to prevent or deter them from subjecting another report to the same unacceptable behavior. Like the molesting priests mentioned in another thread - moving them to another parish accomplishes nothing except to make it clear that they can get away with misbehavior and to expose a new set of victims to abuse.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#453

Post by ryanmercer »

drdeadringer wrote: post #326
ryanmercer wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'd like to know how you envision this happening Botnets of fake social media accounts for starters. You think if they are currently manipulating political elections they won't ever try and use similar tactics to tank a company? China: "Google give us user data!" Google: "No way!" China: "PLA Unit 61398, hurt the Google! Make accusations! Lots of accusations! Many many many accusations!" ---- China: "State media, ru…

... but some of these examples happen already. How is a CDO reporting to the CEO going to amplify any already magnified negative PR and force action?

>How is a CDO

By existing. If you make a 'chief diversity officer' then you make an ideal candidate to compromise access to their accounts. Any policy discussion, any reports, any internal discussion of incidents become excellent ammunition for a campaign.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#454

Post by sheepmullet »

cimmanom wrote: post #452
sheepmullet wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This addresses only the tiniest subset of issues, and mostly the ones toward the consensual end of the spectrum. Not at all - in practice it removes ambiguity which is where most of the issues stem. > this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain At a large company that is not true - it’s actually the opposite. For those below director level it’s usually a privilege to be able to shift tea…

Your much more likely to have somewhere to reassign the lower level employee to than the higher level employee simply because there are fewer roles total at the higher level. Unless both must be reassigned, you end up punishing only the lower level employee. It doesn’t ensure abuse is stopped. It may just expose a different set of employees to abuse. It doesn’t send a message that abuse is unacceptable or will meet w…

> than the higher level employee simply because there are fewer roles total at the higher level.

Maybe at the very top - not for the majority of cases though.

> It doesn’t send a message that abuse is unacceptable or will meet with meaningful consequences.

Does sending a message that abuse is unacceptable stop abuse?

It seems to me that the only people it scares are the people who aren’t a problem in the first place.

In truth such a message seems to enable abusers although I couldn’t explain to you why.

> moving them to another parish accomplishes nothing

That might be the case when children are involved.

In a workplace context though such an approach empowers potential victims.

It empowers victims in four key ways:

1) It stops women from threatening innocent men - saying “I can make you move teams to an equivalent position” is not particularly threatening - more of a pain in the ass.

2) It limits the ability of a male manager to sexually pressure his female subordinates. Saying “you will never advance in this company unless you ...” carries a lot less weight when you can easily switch managers.

3) It empowers women to be able to voice concerns without having to worry about getting people fired.

You’d be surprised at the number of women who keep quiet about real problems because they don’t want an overzealous HR to come in and ruin people’s livelihoods.

4) It limits abuse without requiring strong evidence of abuse in a way that doesn’t result in strong backlash.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#455

Post by danso »

belorn wrote: post #451
dragonwriter wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is about crime. Threating someone with violence is a offense that society in a democratic process has define as illegal with an legal outcome. Sexual assault is a offense that society in a democratic process has define as illegal with an legal outcome. There is a very clear line between crime and non-crime.

I'll apologize for my confusion. I was working from the context of u/jlb's comment [0]. and from the context of the posted article, in which none of the Google execs have been accused of a clear-cut crime. But the comment from u/shados that started this thread, and to which you are referring to, was talking about "downright criminal acts" [1].

So when we're talking about a "downright criminal act" -- violent assault, robbery, rape, threats to safety, fraud, etc. -- yes, the police should be brought in, for their powers of investigation and arrest, among other things. But then we're basically arguing a tautology -- "Should the police, whose job is to deal with criminal acts, be called in when a criminal act has occurred?"

What I read in u/shados's question, and subsequent comments, was: if an accusation isn't good enough for police standards, why should a company/HR use it as the basis of firing someone? So my line of argument is mostly irrelevant if you believe that companies have the right to fire people for non-criminal accusations. But I guess the bigger discussion is about the line between what constitutes a criminal act, vs. a civil dispute.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18355200

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18353824

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#456

Post by jki275 »

brokenmachine wrote: post #411
XorNot wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

> in every case of ongoing sexual harassment there is never just 1 victim - it's always a pattern of behavior. citation please

That's straight up hyperbole, and probably is totally false. But it's unprovable anyway.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#457

Post by belorn »

danso wrote: post #455
belorn wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about crime. Threating someone with violence is a offense that society in a democratic process has define as illegal with an legal outcome. Sexual assault is a offense that society in a democratic process has define as illegal with an legal outcome. There is a very clear line between crime and non-crime.

I'll apologize for my confusion. I was working from the context of u/jlb's comment [0]. and from the context of the posted article, in which none of the Google execs have been accused of a clear-cut crime. But the comment from u/shados that started this thread, and to which you are referring to, was talking about "downright criminal acts" [1]. So when we're talking about a "downright criminal act" -- violent assault,…

> If you believe that companies have the right to fire people for non-criminal accusations.

I agree with that. Let the legal system deal with criminal acts, the HR department deal with the policy violations by employees, the unions/department for workers deal with regulative violations by employers, and teacher/medical/ectra boards deal with professional violations. It is when one of those start to overrule the factual findings of each other that we need to discuss if something is broken and need to be fixed.

To connect back to the article and Google execs, here in Sweden we have an additional rule for public positions. A person can be fired from such position if they simply loose enough public trust regardless of factual events. In return for such weak employment protection they usually get payouts if they get fired without evidence of fault. This has the benefit that you don't need to debate if the accusation is true, but rather if the public trust (from media and so on) has been lost. In those cases where the legal system do find someone guilty they simply don't get the payout. I wonder if such system would work nicely to deal with execs in large corporations.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#458

Post by stallmanite »

scotty79 wrote: post #415
zaccus wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How rare false accusations are is completely irrelevant. If the goal is justice, then due process is non-negotiable. Period.

The goal is not justice. The goal is to limit the damage done by misbehaving employees, as cheap as possible.

No justice, no peace

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#459

Post by danmg »

jshevek wrote: post #437
danmg wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you call it then?

For me personally, I would try to talk about the specific issues and describe them, as you did in the second part of your comment. I understand there is a definitely place for using a simple phrase to characterize a larger pattern of inequality. Even using dramatic, colorful phrases which capture the imagination also have their place in the world. Edit: I'm not trying to change your approach, I'm just being blunt abo…

But the problem is systemic and it needs to be named directly. Skirting around the edges of the problem, trying to be indirect, will not be effective.

Re: Google staff walk out over women's treatment

#460

Post by Mangalor »

PopsiclePete wrote: post #388
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…

>What you are suggesting is called "blacklisting." You may be interested to learn that in many states it is illegal behavior itself. Sadly, impossible to prove. I can choose to not hire for you a plethora of reasons. I can just give you a few bullshit questions that you can't answer correctly and use that as an excuse.

This is the reason protests like this are needed. Free exercise of bias is a feature built right into the current hiring process, and managers openly admit it.
Post reply on HN