A note to our employees • Hacker News Board

Re: A note to our employees

#51

Post by cryoshon » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 6:55 PM UTC

georgeburdell wrote: post #36

cryoshon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

You’re getting downvoted because Google and many other well known tech companies are known not to be comfortable places to work if you’re a conservative. Political ideology, like skin color, should not itself be a diversity goal, but the former often reflects differences in mindsets that may be better suited for certain projects or job roles.

there's a lot more to a person's perspective than their political ideology. i imagine at google it'd be advantageous to have people who approached problems with a plethora of cognitive approaches, however. it's difficult to measure such things, of course.

political ideology can't be a meaningful diversity goal anyway, nor should it be. there may not be a "best" ideology but promoting political ideology alone would be a terrible idea because in the current way that diversity is practiced it would require treating ideologies like nazism as on the same table as others.

Re: A note to our employees

#52

Post by philip1209 » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 6:56 PM UTC

ericabiz wrote: post #48

One of the more interesting pieces is buried in the linked PDF: "Excessive alcohol: Harassment is never acceptable and alcohol is never an excuse. But one of the most common factors among the harassment complaints made today at Google is that the perpetrator had been drinking (~20% of cases). Our policy is clear: Excessive consumption of alcohol is not permitted when you are at work, performing Google business, or at…

Why not just ban alcohol at work? Why can't work be work, and social stuff can happen outside of it?

I know it sounds a bit extreme. But, after reading "It doesn't have to be crazy it work," I feel like companies use alcohol to bribe employees to stay at the office after-hours.

A midground would be drinking only with sit-down food. Nobody is doing shots while having dinner. Another idea could be making company social functions a lunch activity, rather than a dinner one.

Re: A note to our employees

#53

Post by jey » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 6:57 PM UTC

HarryHirsch wrote: post #30

Look at the overspecific promises going forward! - We will make arbitration optional for individual sexual harassment and sexual assault claims Ordinary harassment and assault is still covered by forced arbitration, as is systemic sexual harassment. Good to know. - We will update and expand our mandatory sexual harassment training Everyone knows already that mandatory XY training serves to deflect liability from the…

Just putting it in the employee handbook is more of a liability deflecting move than actively training people and explicitly creating common knowledge.

Re: A note to our employees

#54

Post by michaelt » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 6:58 PM UTC

bauerd wrote: post #31

shmel wrote: post #16

Mandatory sexual harassment training sounds quite disturbing. Anybody can comment in detail how it is conducted? Is it really mandatory for everyone or only for men?

I'm from Germany and I find it sounds disturbing as well, never heard of such thing before. However according to some this apparently is common industry practice. So I wonder, what exactly happens at a sexual harassment training?

  I find it sounds disturbing as well, never
  heard of such thing before.

Here in the UK, you go to an independent mechanic, maybe somewhere in the workshop they have a calendar with pictures of topless women.

On the other hand, you go to a national chain, the calendar has a message about the importance of embracing teamwork.

Sexual harassment training purports to transform organisations that behave like the first one into organisations that behave like the second one. How much of the difference in behaviour is a consequence of the training and how much from other factors is obviously difficult to measure.

Re: A note to our employees

#55

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 6:58 PM UTC

HarryHirsch wrote: post #30

Look at the overspecific promises going forward! - We will make arbitration optional for individual sexual harassment and sexual assault claims Ordinary harassment and assault is still covered by forced arbitration, as is systemic sexual harassment. Good to know. - We will update and expand our mandatory sexual harassment training Everyone knows already that mandatory XY training serves to deflect liability from the…

Sexual harassment prevention training is an area where HR and employee incentives are well-aligned today, because the risk of a sexual harassment incident has a large reputational component.

Gone are the days when a company just needed a box to tell a court that they checked. The public doesn't care about those boxes. The only way to manage the reputational risk of sexual harassment is to really try to prevent incidents. Good training can do that.

Good training does not just tell you what you cannot do, it explores hypotheticals and addresses headline topics that people are thinking about. It is educational not just proscriptive.

Re: A note to our employees

#56

Post by commandlinefan » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 6:58 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #14

thoughtexplorer wrote: post #4

Serious 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 don't have any experience with Google in this regard (beyond looking into the Damore case, which is a bit muddy because of the amount of public pressure Google was facing [0]). However, in my experience, diversity programs and officers tend to be about liability and checkboxes; and there is no legal checkbox for diversity of ideas. Plus, surface diversity is much easier to measure; and you optimize for your metrics…

Ideally a diversity officer would BE Damore.

Re: A note to our employees

#57

Post by jerf » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 7:01 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #24

gizmo686 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have any experience with Google in this regard (beyond looking into the Damore case, which is a bit muddy because of the amount of public pressure Google was facing [0]). However, in my experience, diversity programs and officers tend to be about liability and checkboxes; and there is no legal checkbox for diversity of ideas. Plus, surface diversity is much easier to measure; and you optimize for your metrics…

> [0] Ideally a diversity officer would stand up for Damore. That claim depends entirely on how you interpret Damore's behavior. Tolerance does not and must not require tolerating intolerance [0]. I'm not stating a claim as to whether or not Damore's behavior should be considered intolerance. I don't have a take on that. But without having some opinion on that, you can't claim a priori that a diversity officer is obl…

"Tolerance does not and must not require tolerating intolerance"

On the other hand, it's rather convenient how much intolerance can itself be justified by simply quoting that and just a bit of rules lawyering.

Re: A note to our employees

#58

Post by commandlinefan » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

shmel wrote: post #16

Mandatory sexual harassment training sounds quite disturbing. Anybody can comment in detail how it is conducted? Is it really mandatory for everyone or only for men?

> or only for men

If it's anything like everywhere I've ever worked, it's mandatory for everybody, and they go out of their way to pretend their not just talking to the men about the women, but it's actually twice as uncomfortable because all of the women - for whom this training is actually for - are sitting next to the men, for whom the training is actually targeted. So you sit through an hour of uncomfortable filterspeak that would make the 80's Soviet Kremlin cringe.

Re: A note to our employees

#59

Post by hmahncke » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 7:03 PM UTC

01100011 wrote: post #38

craftyguy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to explain why you think not?

Have you ever been through sexual harassment training? Did you feel like it was helpful? I've been through several and found that no one really takes it seriously. If the things they tell you in sexual harassment training are new to you, you probably aren't going to learn your lesson. Problem employees aren't going to change their behavior. Enforcement of standards is much more critical. Sexual harassment training is…

I went through sexual harassment training, and it was helpful because in two later situations where I had to manage situations related to sexual harassment, I knew what to do.

Re: A note to our employees

#60

Post by savanaly » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 7:03 PM UTC

philip1209 wrote: post #52

ericabiz wrote: post #48

One of the more interesting pieces is buried in the linked PDF: "Excessive alcohol: Harassment is never acceptable and alcohol is never an excuse. But one of the most common factors among the harassment complaints made today at Google is that the perpetrator had been drinking (~20% of cases). Our policy is clear: Excessive consumption of alcohol is not permitted when you are at work, performing Google business, or at…

Why not just ban alcohol at work? Why can't work be work, and social stuff can happen outside of it? I know it sounds a bit extreme. But, after reading "It doesn't have to be crazy it work," I feel like companies use alcohol to bribe employees to stay at the office after-hours. A midground would be drinking only with sit-down food. Nobody is doing shots while having dinner. Another idea could be making company social…

>Why not just ban alcohol at work? Why can't work be work, and social stuff can happen outside of it?

I see this sentiment a lot (especially on HN!) and I share it. I usually skip team dinners when I can. But there's no accounting for taste, and humans in general seem to have a taste for mixing work and "social stuff", so why shouldn't companies encourage it in that capacity?