A note to our employees
blog.google
A note to our employees
1–10 of 421 posts
Re: A note to our employees
#2Looks like Google has tried to dodge directly acquiescing to most of the walkout's demands.
The chief diversity officer will "continue" to report to the leadership team, rather than being promoted. No mention of the employee representative on the board, either. Pichai states they'll add detail to their sexual harassment report, but doesn't commit to release it publicly, as demanded. Google also didn't address pay inequality, likely because doing so would require admitting they've been lying to the Department of Labor by claiming there is none.
But there's an end to forced arbitration, we'll see if that's enough for the walkout crowd. I kinda doubt it.
Re: A note to our employees
#3Looks like Google has tried to dodge directly acquiescing to most of the walkout's demands. The chief diversity officer will "continue" to report to the leadership team, rather than being promoted. No mention of the employee representative on the board, either. Pichai states they'll add detail to their sexual harassment report, but doesn't commit to release it publicly, as demanded. Google also didn't address pay ine…
The nice thing about ending forced arbitration is that it opens the lever to fix the other problems you mentioned. If they're smart they really will get ahead of the other core issues, instead of working them out in (real) courts!
Re: A note to our employees
#4Serious question: Does the Chief Diversity Officer include diversity of ideas and experience? Or is it just skin deep like it sounds?
Edit: Lots of up and down votes. Why is this question so controversial? I'd like to see an argument as to why it's an invalid or flawed question.
Re: A note to our employees
#5statements like
>Going forward, we will provide more transparency on how we handle concerns. We’ll give better support and care to the people who raise them
and
>We’re overhauling our reporting channels by bringing them together on one dedicated site and including live support. We will enhance the processes we use to handle concerns—including the ability for Googlers to be accompanied by a support person. And we will offer extra care and resources for Googlers during and after the process.
immediately set off my BS detector. whenever someone talks about meta-issues surrounding another issue without ever directly touching on the main issue itself, they're being evasive. the arbitration clause change is a good one. but the entire statement lacks any genuine taking of responsibility regarding the prior anti-employee practices. nor is there any "we're gonna try to stamp out sexual harassment".
notably, there is also no acknowledgement of other recent internal concerns, namely aiding governments in the oppression of their people (china and arguably others) and aiding governments in warfare (the US). while googlers have been shamefully complacent about getting their employers to drop these collaborations, the fact that it isn't even mentioned by pichai in a "please shut up and go back to work" letter is a bit sad.
in conclusion: googlers need to step on the gas WRT sexual harassment changes if they want anything beyond the modest changes announced in this letter and other social issues regarding the company must also be brought to the point of conflict internally.
Re: A note to our employees
#6That really said nothing. They actually previously had a policy that if you were required to take sexual harassment training and didn't you got docked 1 point? Wouldn't getting fired be a more appropriate penalty?
However they take this "seriously" so I'm sure everything will be fine for Google employees.
Re: A note to our employees
#7Serious question: Does the Chief Diversity Officer include diversity of ideas and experience? Or is it just skin deep like it sounds? Edit: Lots of up and down votes. Why is this question so controversial? I'd like to see an argument as to why it's an invalid or flawed question.
i would say that at google there's a chance they're including diversity of ideas and experience.
at most companies, we all know that the skin-deep diversity is the only thing the HR department cares about because it's all they're terrified about getting sued over. however, given google's unique corporate culture, i think that they might be forward thinking enough to seek out different perspectives, but probably not in a quota-driven fashion.
Re: A note to our employees
#8The linked PDF contains a lot more substance than this PR-ey blogpost: https://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/november_announce...
Re: A note to our employees
#9Serious question: Does the Chief Diversity Officer include diversity of ideas and experience? Or is it just skin deep like it sounds? Edit: Lots of up and down votes. Why is this question so controversial? I'd like to see an argument as to why it's an invalid or flawed question.
What's more important is if those values spread from the CDO down to teams, whether he holds them or not. From everything I hear as an outsider, that's definitely not the case.
Re: A note to our employees
#10Serious question: Does the Chief Diversity Officer include diversity of ideas and experience? Or is it just skin deep like it sounds? Edit: Lots of up and down votes. Why is this question so controversial? I'd like to see an argument as to why it's an invalid or flawed question.
Serious response: Framing it as an 'Or' implies the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. Diversity is fact. The world is diverse in a variety of ways (skin, eyes, experiences, gender, language, nationality, etc.). Inclusion is the action. Equity is the goal.
In the OKR framework, being able to measure your progress towards the goal is important. The real question is, which aspects of people who work for your company do you measure to ensure proper decisions around inclusion to achieve the equity goal?
It's easiest to measure by 'skin deep' factors b/c that is what human beings most easily make poor decisions on (fear, bias, stereotype, self-segregation, NIMBY-ism, etc). It is also required for companies to report to the US government on these factors because of our history of poor decisions (to put it lightly). It is therefore easiest to use that as a metric.
Serious question: If implied in your question that the goal should be equity in 'thought', how do you propose that is measured?