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

311–320 of 421 posts

Re: A note to our employees

#311

Post by mikekchar »

adamrezich wrote: post #160
lallysingh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's helpful if you come from a different culture where some of those things would be considered acceptable.

Can you give a concrete example of this? I'm having a hard time imagining it.

If someone is constantly touching my shoulder and I'm not sure what it means, how should I react? Should I say something directly to the person? Should I tell my manager? If it is my manager, who could I talk to? If I complain about something that my boss is doing and it turns out to be an innocent misunderstanding, will it affect my performance review? What things are in place in the organisation to ensure that I won't be targeted for complaining about something? What happens if a really senior executive or something does something inappropriate? Does the organisation have enough power to deal with the situation? What should I do about things that only indirectly affect me? For example, my neighbour has a picture of their scantily clad boyfriend on their desk. It makes me uncomfortable. Should I ignore it? Should I say something? Is the fact that nobody has done anything about it before an indication that this is OK as far as the company policy is concerned? If I notice that a group of people are harassing someone else, how should I respond? What if it's always been this way and is part of the current culture? Should I ignore it? What if the seemingly harassed individual doesn't object?

I literally could go on for an hour or so. If your sexual harassment training doesn't answer questions like this, then I highly recommend that you be proactive and get the training fixed. If you think the answers to these questions are obvious, then I think you will be surprised that a lot of people will have different opinions. What's important is know what opinion your company has!

Edit: I should point out, having worked in several different countries before, that these kinds of questions are very culturally charged.

Re: A note to our employees

#312

Post by geodel »

throwawaymath wrote: post #110
philip1209 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WeWork banned meat at company events or on company expense accounts [1]. Would it be that hard to do something similar for alcohol? Then, bringing it back to Google, if people misbehave after having alcohol - then they bought the drinks, and came to a company event while intoxicated. When I was at OpenDNS, @davidu used to say something along the lines of, "When you try to host a big company party with over 100 people…

Wow, WeWork won't even allow employees to expense meals that have meat in them?! That's ridiculous. The environmental situation with beef is a little more complex than "less beef eaten -> fewer cows -> less methane -> less climate change." What's even more ridiculous is that beef is the costly meat from an environmental perspective, but they've also banned poultry and all other types of meat. I can understand not ser…

Welcome to world of political correctness. Also is minority of employees claim anyone eating meat hurt their feelings companies could reasonably ban meat in office meals claiming it is creating non-welcoming workplace.

Re: A note to our employees

#313

Post by Aloha »

mcguire wrote: post #275
RankingMember wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, though I think a warning for a first offense is more reasonable. It seems like every company would rather set policy based on the worst possible interpretation rather than leaving things a little looser and dealing with problems/oversteppers directly.

I don't know. It seems like either you're responsible for your behavior, or you are not. Having a first-offense warning just shows that the company isn't really serious about dealing with the problem.

Zero Tolerance Policies, generally also mean Zero Thinking Policies.

The punishment should fit the crime, and most situations are warrant only a warning or a minor punishment - and if behavior improves, all is well.

Re: A note to our employees

#314

Post by SeanAppleby »

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?

Not endorsing, but allowing is aimed at letting people feel like they aren't being handled like children by their employer, and, as alcohol is a very common component of social interaction in western culture, is meant to make it easier for workers to socialize and make friends with their colleagues. I'd imagine the reason for wanting that is something like that employees who are more connected with each other are more likely:

a) to want to stay at the company with their friends, less turnover

b) to be happier at work which is good for performance, recruiting, and makes them less likely to feel the need to rush out of the office whenever they can.

c) to efficiently organize themselves and find the right people to get things done if they know each other well

d) to be transparent to each other and reduce friction in communications

You might not ever have some beer or wine when you socialize with people, but for a huge number of people that's viewed as an integral part of socializing.

Re: A note to our employees

#315

Post by tapanjk »

zaroth wrote: post #146
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…

Feel free to ban anything you want at work. And the people who work there will select for if they want to be a part of it by becoming or remaining employees. (There are, of course, things that are illegal to ban) I personally want to work somewhere who values me as a responsible human being, and expects me to behave like one. The more a workplace feels like they have to micromanage their employees like children, the…

> The more a workplace feels like they have to micromanage their employees like children, the more I would expect their workplace to be filled with people who act like children.

This is exactly what I always thought until I ended up working at a place that did not ban anything. I had no idea how far some will take this freedom, until I saw it, and then I thought: Wish this place banned a few things.

Re: A note to our employees

#316

Post by sgarman »

mcguire wrote: post #269
zaroth wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to ban anything you want at work. And the people who work there will select for if they want to be a part of it by becoming or remaining employees. (There are, of course, things that are illegal to ban) I personally want to work somewhere who values me as a responsible human being, and expects me to behave like one. The more a workplace feels like they have to micromanage their employees like children, the…

" (~20% of cases) " Apparently, many of the people Google is hiring are not intelligent, respectful, ethical, empathetic, or mature. The problem is, once you've hired them, firing them requires investigations, proofs, lawsuits, internet drama, and so forth. I'd imagine going after managers would be even more problematic. I'd just as soon work for a place that bans alcohol, including at the unofficial, optional-mandat…

Is that true in california? I thought it was always at-will and that employers do not need to provide any reasoning.

Re: A note to our employees

#317

Post by ThrustVectoring »

ummonk wrote: post #80

>We will recommit to our company-wide OKR around diversity, equity and inclusion again in 2019, focused on improving representation—through hiring, progression and retention—and creating a more inclusive culture for everyone. What meaningful difference is there between representation OKRs and quotas?

A quota would be a documented mandate to engage in illegal behavior, while the OKRs will just encourage lower-level employees into doing illegal behavior without the documentation and the corporate liability.

Remember Wells Fargo and how their sales mandates lead to retail bankers opening up fraudulent accounts? Same concept. Don't demand anything specific, just demand that something be done and apply rewards and punishments appropriately.

Re: A note to our employees

#318

Post by toomuchtodo »

sgarman wrote: post #316
mcguire wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" (~20% of cases) " Apparently, many of the people Google is hiring are not intelligent, respectful, ethical, empathetic, or mature. The problem is, once you've hired them, firing them requires investigations, proofs, lawsuits, internet drama, and so forth. I'd imagine going after managers would be even more problematic. I'd just as soon work for a place that bans alcohol, including at the unofficial, optional-mandat…

Is that true in california? I thought it was always at-will and that employers do not need to provide any reasoning.

There are exceptions to at-will employment public policy.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf (BLS PDF, The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions)

Re: A note to our employees

#319

Post by delhanty »

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…

It definitely sounds like a step in the right direction.

This is from Stephanie Hurlburt's Twitter a while back.

  Ah, game industry culture and drinking.

  I don’t drink. I also feel unsafe being in a mostly-male group when they’re all drinking.
  
  ...
https://twitter.com/sehurlburt/status/999707171381100544

Re: A note to our employees

#320

Post by roenxi »

afandian wrote: post #229
roenxi wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally want to work somewhere who values me as a responsible human being, and expects me to behave like one. Responsible human beings don't drink alcohol in the workplace. If a person is drawing a salary, they should be presenting to work fit & as prepared as possible to do it. There is no good reason for employees to be drinking at or prior to work. Unless, I suppose, there is some well-replicated study show…

You have a very narrow view of "the workplace". I used to work for a large well respected software company. On Fridays, after work, there was a subsidized bar where we could have a beer or two and discuss work or non-work things in a more relaxed atmosphere. Would you ban that? If I go to a conference and we have an official conference social meet-up should I be prohibited from consuming alcohol? I have my own straw…

> You have a very narrow view of "the workplace".

On the contrary, I have a very broad view of the workplace. Yes to all your questions. I don't work in tech, and there are no subsidised bars or alcohol at conferences. We got subsidised gym memberships and tea at the conferences I'm used to. If you want to drink, your money, your time, after work. If you want to get tipsy with colleagues in your own time, it is not in any way endorsed by the company.

My personal guess is the tech industry _will_ eventually ban alcohol at all such things as the link between drinking, uninhibited men and sexual harassment is bought up again and again. The bad apples will spoil the whole barrel.

> I propose that we ban coffee in the workplace because we should all be at 100% all the time and coffee obviously shows you aren't turning up ready to work.

Well, I don't agree with you. But if you have evidence, sure. My understanding is coffee is a mild stimulant, so it should be linked to a very mild improvement in work performance - so I doubt you have evidence.

People do turn up to work unprepared. We can't really stop that - maybe they just get a bad nights sleep. But alcohol is going to have a pretty strictly negative effect, so employees shouldn't be drinking it in company hours or before work.

Post reply on HN