Sexual harassment training... what a joke
Anyone want to bet whether or not Andy Rubin has actually attended sexual harassment training?
A note to our employees
231–240 of 421 posts
Re: A note to our employees
#232Serious 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 remember where I saw it first (reddit, likely), but: have you seen a msle diversity officer?
Re: A note to our employees
#233Serious 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 not an invalid question. It just tramples on a lot of peoples toes.
It is as, unlike people, not all ideas and experience deserve equality.
Re: A note to our employees
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
The positive aspect of banning alcohol consumption is that it's an objective measure. If somebody is a drunken lout pawing his employees, save the victim more exposure by drumming him out for the alcohol. With the possible exception of salespeople entertaining clients, there's no need to drink on duty, and if you do, there is a consequence.
You don't need to ban alcohol in order to punish someone for being visibly drunken or pawing at employees.
If you allow drinking at work, what BAC is ok?
What exactly is the justification for endorsing drinking at work?
Re: A note to our employees
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
What % of incidents were first offenses? Unless it's a really low number, firing after first offense won't reduce the total number of incidents enough.
Isn't that backwards? If most offenses are first offenses, then firing after a first offense won't help much. But if most offense are repeat, firing after the first offense would have prevented the repeat, right?
What you're saying and what I said are consistent, not backwards.
"If most offenses are first offenses" satisfies the predicate "Unless [% of first offenses] is a really low number"
The consequent "firing after a first offense won't help much" is consistent with "firing after first offense won't reduce the total number of incidents enough."
Re: A note to our employees
#236I don't understand why the "mandatory" training has a penalty for skipping it. If it's mandatory, it's mandatory. This isn't rocket surgery; there are all sorts of mandatory training things big companies do, and they are often actually mandatory. For instance, we've worked with HIPAA-encumbered clients where you'll lose access to their network and applications if you don't complete annual security awareness training.…
and what if they still do not take the training, fire them ?
Yeah, why wouldn't you? Either you believe it necessary or you don't.
Re: A note to our employees
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [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 [0] 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.
Especially since in the full context it's a bit more measured. This portion follows what is typically quoted:
"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;"
Seems Popper would not have much issue with tolerating Damore, but tolerating things like Neo-nazi marches probably crosses his line.
Re: A note to our employees
#238I cant help but laugh a little at the sites layout- showing a message from the CEO of Google- and then, the site is going into full knights helmet mode, shoving a add-bar up, reducing the readability further.
Whoever designed this, to silently mock his superior- i draw my hat.
Re: A note to our employees
#239I don't understand why the "mandatory" training has a penalty for skipping it. If it's mandatory, it's mandatory. This isn't rocket surgery; there are all sorts of mandatory training things big companies do, and they are often actually mandatory. For instance, we've worked with HIPAA-encumbered clients where you'll lose access to their network and applications if you don't complete annual security awareness training.…
and what if they still do not take the training, fire them ?
Obviously, yes.
Re: A note to our employees
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 differen…
> no amount of training is going to help.
That might be true, but what's your evidence? I'm not trying to argue one way or another, I'd legitimately like to know if there's research on the effectiveness of sexual assault training in the workplace.