Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A note to our employees

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 421 posts

Re: A note to our employees

#111

Post by ryanianian »

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…

A "two drink limit" fails to account for (1) how alcohol affects people differently since two drinks can make some people sloppy while others will hardly feel it and (2) the fact that alcohol usually only lasts about an hour per drink and many social events last a few hours.

A couple drinks helps get me out of my own head enough to relax with co-workers. After a couple hours, the two beers have worn off and I usually want another one or two to keep my sociability going.

I'd much prefer a policy where everyone gets to decide in advance how many drink tickets they want and perhaps say "these tickets aren't good until X time." This would help everyone to regulate their own intake, and it treats employees like adults capable of managing their own bodies while still addressing the issue of people over-consuming by accident or in an unaccountable manner.

Re: A note to our employees

#112

Post by Aqua »

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.

To me the notion of a need for diversity in a workplace is absurd. Seriously, whats the point? There are and always have been professions dominated by men and those dominated by women. From the perspective of an employer, gender, skin colour or political views should be completely irrelevant when it comes to making a hire/no hire decision. By introducing rules that aim to achieve a 50/50 distribution of e.g. each gender in any field, you're forming up an artificial construct that ultimately results in poorer overall performance (since you had to reject a number of candidates that likely were more qualified for the position in order to reach your equal distribution goals).

Re: A note to our employees

#113

Post by ocdtrekkie »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #79
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

Looks 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…

Do you believe they are lying to the Department of Labor? Do you have any evidence for that claim? I'd love to see it.

Google claims they have "no pay gap". And have resisted turning over their HR data as much as possible to avoid allowing the Department of Labor to investigate it, including claiming it was to protect employee privacy, and hilariously, that it was too hard/costly for Google to gather the data.

Meanwhile, the Department of Labor says there is "systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce" and that "received compelling evidence of very significant discrimination against women in the most common positions at Google headquarters".

A fifth of Google's entire workforce (20,000 people!) walked out, in part, because of that systemic mistreatment of women, and demanded Google fix the pay gap.

The Department of Labor and 20,000 employees who say there's a pay gap. I believe them. Google says there isn't one. I do not believe Google is run by people too incompetent to notice a "systemic" pay gap. Therefore, yes, I believe they are lying.

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/8/15229688/department-of-lab...

Re: A note to our employees

#114

Post by stickfigure »

philipodonnell wrote: post #78
savanaly wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

We already single out certain social things as just not a good idea in the workplace/events even though its common socially: public displays of affection, having lots of kids around, single-sex activities... Its isolating/disruptive if you can't/won't take part. Its unfair when based on things not in the job description (relationships/kids/gender respectively). I don't see why alcohol (excludes non-drinkers) or team-…

By the time you've excluded all the possible activities that someone could find isolating, you've got a pretty boring work environment.

Here's the box you will be working in. Don't forget to turn off the light when you leave Friday.

Re: A note to our employees

#115

Post by gautamdivgi »

tdb7893 wrote: post #73
philip1209 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Having a beer is I engrained in American work culture. Also I've worked at multiple companies where they had work functions at dinnertime and no one got that drunk (generally there were 2 drink maximums, which probably helped) so it's definitely possible to fix the issue without just banning it

It's not. I think there is more acceptance in European culture for that. I learnt the somewhat hard way when I came to the US after a couple of stints in Europe. I used to think nothing of having a beer or a glass of wine at lunch with colleagues. But it did earn me a few frowns in the US. This is almost 18 years ago - so pretty sure things have changed significantly.

Re: A note to our employees

#116

Post by dagasgasgasg »

xyzzyz wrote: post #71
kyberias wrote: post #69

It looks to me like US is like an alien planet. What does arbitration even mean in this context? It's crazy that employees need to know these things.

Arbitration means that you don't get to sue in real court, but instead you are forced to go through "arbitration", which is a private company hired by your employer that's supposed to make fair decisions in disputes between the party that brings them continued business, and the random person that will never talk to them if they weren't forced to.

This is not correct. You are not obligated to agree to the arbitrator your company selects. More on this:

http://help.legalnature.com/arbitration-agreement-faqs/how-a...

Re: A note to our employees

#117

Post by atom-morgan »

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.

It's controversial because it's selectively applied and advocates for D&I know it.

There are plenty of Asians in tech (men and women) and yet we're always hearing about a "diversity" problem. This is why tech no longer uses the term minority - they use "underrepresented minority" instead.

Re: A note to our employees

#118

Post by [deleted] »

Aqua wrote: post #112
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.

To me the notion of a need for diversity in a workplace is absurd. Seriously, whats the point? There are and always have been professions dominated by men and those dominated by women. From the perspective of an employer, gender, skin colour or political views should be completely irrelevant when it comes to making a hire/no hire decision. By introducing rules that aim to achieve a 50/50 distribution of e.g. each gen…

[deleted]

Re: A note to our employees

#119

Post by seth__ »

ryanianian wrote: post #111
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…

A "two drink limit" fails to account for (1) how alcohol affects people differently since two drinks can make some people sloppy while others will hardly feel it and (2) the fact that alcohol usually only lasts about an hour per drink and many social events last a few hours. A couple drinks helps get me out of my own head enough to relax with co-workers. After a couple hours, the two beers have worn off and I usually…

>I'd much prefer a policy where everyone gets to decide in advance how many drink tickets they want

Then you would get people like me, asking for lots of tickets as you can just discard those when you are done but you would not be able to ask for extra ones. At that point, you could just remove the ticket system as it doesn't work anymore

Re: A note to our employees

#120

Post by HarryHirsch »

grandmczeb wrote: post #61
snowwrestler wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 incide…

Is there any research on the effect of training on sexual assault in the workplace?

Many universities offer scientific ethics training for incoming research students. (The NSF actually demands it for projects they sponsor.) The purpose isn't to make them walk the narrow path of goodness, it's to enable them to spot temptation when it comes, as it inevitably will.

With sexual harassment the line is much sharper drawn. If someone hasn't learned how to behave civilly and not to exploit a power differential in their early 20s, no amount of training is going to help.

Post reply on HN