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

251–260 of 421 posts

Re: A note to our employees

#251

Post by edikit »

danans wrote: post #199
atom-morgan wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why should the representation of Asians in tech reduce the concerns about the under-representations of Blacks and Latinos in tech?

Because factoring Asians (and Indians, for that matter) in to the equation changes the framing of the argument.

Asians are a minority group, but are vastly over-represented in tech, to the point that even white people are under-represented by comparison.

The concern about racial diversity tends to focus on the idea that white hiring managers are subconsciously selective against non-white applicants. This doesn't make sense though when you factor in the minority groups that are actually over-represented.

So what has happened is that the argument has shifted to ignore Asian representation and only focus on black and Latino representation, while still coming to the same conclusion that white hiring managers are subconsciously racist and that the company needs to take corrective action.

The representation of Asians and Indians in tech should not necessarily reduce concerns for other minorities that are under-represented, but should definitely change the way those concerns are framed. The fact that it hasn't suggests that some sort of tomfoolery is afoot.

Re: A note to our employees

#252

Post by tdb7893 »

reaperducer wrote: post #93
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

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.

I'll concede that maybe America is too broad to generalize here but the point still stands that you don't need to completely disallow alcohol to have people not really drunk at basic work functions

Re: A note to our employees

#253

Post by i6mi6 »

Benjammer wrote: post #92
thoughtexplorer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. That's what was embedded in the question. It doesn't matter what color people are. It's not meaningful diversity on its own. What they seem to be doing is judging people based on surface traits, not the content of character. Their approach to diversity is a regression and not good for progress.

I would caution you on taking such an absolute, "zero sum" stance here. >It doesn't matter what color people are. I hope you realize the absurdity of this statement in isolation...

What’s absurd about his statement? Seems very obvious to me, or does it matter what color people are, in your opinion?

Re: A note to our employees

#254

Post by yarrel »

dc_gregory wrote: post #216
cik2e wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absurd. I'd never work at such a company, in part due to the type of people that kind of policy would attract. If this rule was enacted and I was already an employee, I'd spend the money to bring large meat spreads to all of the events.

Why would that be a reasonable response to this policy? It largely seems childish, and reactionary, in the face of a policy that is (clearly!) intended to improve the world.

It's a response that will improve the world. Opposing it is childish and reactionary.

Re: A note to our employees

#255

Post by piptastic »

Spooky23 wrote: post #234
eridius wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The amount of alcohol you consume doesn't really matter.

It's the behavior that is punishable regardless of whether you were drinking or not.

Re: A note to our employees

#256

Post by [deleted] »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #108
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…

Most employers don't allow drinking at work. Some allow it at company events, provided it doesn't become a problem. The funny thing is about a lot of Silicon Valley companies, I think, is that they decided in their attempt to reinvent work that they'd throw out a couple hundred years of learned experience on what does and doesn't work in a corporate setting. The "fun places to work" eventually figure out that fun for…

[deleted]

Re: A note to our employees

#257

Post by paulie_a »

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.

It isn't in the Midwest, although vary by company but It tends to be a "don't abuse it, use your judgement". Sometimes that can be a beer in the middle of the day. Sometimes it's happy hour on the clock on Fridays.

Re: A note to our employees

#258

Post by spurgu »

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…

20 percent.... it's hardly the main issue.

Re: A note to our employees

#259

Post by claudiawerner »

naasking wrote: post #188
munificent wrote: post #24

Earlier 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.

>Does no one realize that this claim is not based on any evidence whatsoever?

And yet it remains an interesting thought experiment, doesn't it? Didn't it work on Reddit, in which they found that driving hateful communities out raised the level of discourse? And a possible way to structure society. Hitler himself admitted that had the Nazis not been tolerated, they wouldn't have gained the foothold they did. Not only do I prefer Popper's claim, but I prefer the Frankfurt School's claim too[0]. Which, in my view, stands firmly in line with the democratic functions of society envisioned by such liberals as J.S. Mill for instance.

But it comes down to ideology; it is not a crime nor an intellectual failing to dismiss liberalism on ideological grounds.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18368318

Post reply on HN