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

131–140 of 421 posts

Re: A note to our employees

#131

Post by reaperducer »

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…

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.

If you need alcohol to socialize, then you have a problem and should get help.

That's seriously one of the signs of a problem. Ironically, I'll tell you to "Google it."

Re: A note to our employees

#132

Post by Kiro »

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…

Social stuff should be banned.

Re: A note to our employees

#133

Post by misiti3780 »

gautamdivgi wrote: post #115
tdb7893 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i know people that work in banking and insurance in london and they claim its pretty common to have more than one drink at lunch.

Re: A note to our employees

#134

Post by reaperducer »

RankingMember wrote: post #122
ryanianian wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 would argue that creating a whole drink ticketing bureaucracy including a pre-scheduled drink ticket release procedure does the opposite of treating employees like adults. It sounds a lot like kids in a school lunch line. It drives me nuts when companies let a few bad actors ruin a loose policy rather than addressing the issue with the bad actors, but I know, legally, having a strict, spelled-out policy is safer (e…

It drives me nuts when companies let a few bad actors ruin a loose policy

At a small or mid-sized company, ½% of bad actors can be one or two or three.

At a company the size of Google, ½% of bad actors can be hundreds or thousands of human liabilities.

Re: A note to our employees

#135

Post by hkon »

unethical_ban wrote: post #47
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?

My Fortune 100 company has us watch a video where a white IT guy stalks a minority female in the parking garage and leaves a CD on her car with a mixtape, or something, I forget. It is pretty bad. I follow a simple rule, and so far, I haven't done anything stupid: "If you think it would make someone personally uncomfortable when you say it, consider not saying it".

ok, is that scene your describing romantic or harassment, I can't really tell.

Re: A note to our employees

#136

Post by slededit »

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.

The Federal Arbitration act was specifically setup to provide a lower cost avenue to settle disputes as it is widely agreed that the current court system is too expensive for the average person.

There is valid criticism that it prevents class action suits, but aside from that arbitration is better for everyone involved. Most people won't even bother to litigate a lawsuit due to the costs exceeding the relief sought, but arbitration is far more approachable.

Re: A note to our employees

#137

Post by 98codes »

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 you're conflating diversity in who people are (that they didn't choose, and can't change), vs. what they choose (actions and ideas that can be changed if the individual so chooses).

Re: A note to our employees

#138

Post by dec0dedab0de »

reaperducer wrote: post #90
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…

I know it sounds a bit extreme. Not extreme at all. Except for salespeople having business lunches, in the United States, drinking on company time is pretty much verboten outside of the tech bubble.

in the United States, drinking on company time is pretty much verboten outside of the tech bubble.

I don't think this is true, especially for company parties. I have also heard of people in other industries drinking in the office, usually these were smaller companies, or the people doing the drinking were upper management.

Re: A note to our employees

#139

Post by jklinger410 »

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…

Kind of a step backwards in terms of accountability, no?

Scapegoating alcohol seems like an excuse and really is like babysitting your adult employees.

My view - Drink as much alcohol as you like! And if you imbibe too much, and do stupid things, that shows deficient decision making abilities, and you aren't fit to work here.

Re: A note to our employees

#140

Post by jklinger410 »

misiti3780 wrote: post #104
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…

Why not NOT ban alcohol at work, and when an employee fucks up, just fire him ? Is that really not a solution here ? at the end of the day, people should be accountable for their own actions, and i should not be punished if i want to have a beer after working hours with colleagues because a tiny minority of people at my company cant drinking responsibly

So many easy solutions are to just ban the thing, and not investigate/legislate the actual reason for doing the thing.

But quick change is often more desirable than real change.

Post reply on HN