181–190 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apologies for my ignorance but what does “45/45/10” mean?
From context I'd guess he means 45% male, 45% female, 10% non-binary.
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
Having a beer is I engrained in American work culture Ummm... no, it's not. Having had dozens of jobs in five industries over the decades, I've never worked for one where drinking on company time isn't a fireable offense. The only exceptions were at the company Christmas parties, and overnight DJ's who were tolerated doing lines of coke off of CD cases. But that's another problem altogether.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His suggestion wasn't about consistent failure. He said that employees should be fired if they don't take it, which is absurdly heavy handed.
Why? Your boss tells you to do something. You either do it, or she fires you. If you expect anything different, you are deluded.
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…
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
Not for the victim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Equity is the goal.” I don’t think this is a good goal. Unless you mean equity of opportunity. Equity of outcome is a ridiculously foolish goal in that outcomes will vary substantially and trying to have equity at the end on arbitrary human factors with easy to measure biases (gender, race, etc). So the goal is not 45/45/10 for gender distribution for all roles. As that is obviously impossible as roles change and th…
With a high enough sample size, shouldn't equity of outcome reflect equity of opportunity?
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.
Or does the US justice system work differently?
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…
I honestly hate how often this is trotted out. Does no one realize that this claim is not based on any evidence whatsoever? Why prefer Popper's claim over Rawls' or Jefferson's?
This is typically used to justify yet more intolerance, and around and around we go.
eg in his Oct memo Sundar carefully pointed out that people at google on his watch have been fired for sexual harassment, and none of them got a package [1].
[1] https://deadline.com/2018/10/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-fired-...
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…
Diversity of race or gender is not really important when it comes to working by itself.
Diversity of experience and thought is very important when it comes to working.
What I mean is a very middle-class white family and a very middle-class black family producing offspring in a house next to each other and sending their kids to the same school(s): are not going to be functionally diverse enough for what I'm about to say.
Why?: because people who are thinking differently to you are approaching problems from other sides than you are, if you can be civil then you can build your product in ways you could never do alone.
Now; people who were raised in a different kind of culture or social class than you are basically by default: thinking differently.
It doesn't have to be colour, but in the US (from a brit perspective) your class system looks like black people are sandwiched between middle-class white folk and very low-class white folk. So some people might see that 'hiring black folk would increase our diversity of thought'
or.. more likely, they're being judged on metrics and skin colour/gender is an easy metric to game for.
Giving people an equal shot is noble and we should aspire for it. The business incentives come in because your product will be better with divergent opinions and by increasing the talent pool the supply of coders will meet the demand.. (and then they can pay coders less in the longer term)