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

321–330 of 421 posts

Re: A note to our employees

#321

Post by danans »

edikit wrote: post #251
danans wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The concern about racial diversity tends to focus on the idea that white hiring managers are subconsciously selective against non-white applicants.

The concern is far more nuanced than that. It includes concerns about the the rates of representation all through the pipeline, from hiring back through University CS programs to differences in access to high quality primary and secondary education.

The problems are largely understood as being systemic, arising from unequal opportunity and different social signaling to different groups, not solely from the decisions of hiring managers.

Re: A note to our employees

#322

Post by thenanyu »

sjg007 wrote: post #302
Spooky23 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you allow drinking at work, what BAC is ok? What exactly is the justification for endorsing drinking at work?

Marijuana is now legal in California too. What standards apply there?

Don't be stoned out of your mind

Re: A note to our employees

#323

Post by thoughtexplorer »

stale2002 wrote: post #271
edikit wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Of course it makes sense. It means that instead of subconsciously being biased against the non white category, they are instead biased against non white non Asians.…

Not really, you can continue down that rabbit hole forever with groups and subgroups. What of the under represented people of [skin color][origin][gender] in [profession]?

Maybe it has less to do with bias and more do to with preference and culture and upbringing and other factors. Consider how much asian parents, for example, push their kids in education and toward certain careers. Or the over representation of black people in sports and music. Or the dominance of women in teaching and healthcare. Etc.

Re: A note to our employees

#324

Post by briandear »

Spooky23 wrote: post #172
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…

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.

Can we ban nerf guns and adult slides? Good grief, much of Silicon Valley feels like a kindergarten.

Re: A note to our employees

#325

Post by Spooky23 »

Benjammer wrote: post #191
Spooky23 wrote: post #172

Earlier 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.

I don't think the parent comment is at all disagreeing with the existence of any utility in "banning alcohol" here. The gist of what the parent comment is saying, is that, if you have a policy in place to "compensate" for a certain "negative trait," what you are actually doing is inviting _more_ of that trait, because you are signaling that your company will put effort in to help deal with that, which means that some…

Mature adults also don’t sexually harass their colleagues.

My priority is to have swift, clear consequences for harassment. If you are drinking at work and in your buzz behave inappropriately, I want you walked out of the building for the alcohol and spare the victim from the more harm.

You don’t need to infantalize folks. It’s really simple: if you want to go get drinks, there’s a bar down the road.

Re: A note to our employees

#326

Post by grandmczeb »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #267
grandmczeb wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Still anecdotal, but a few months ago this account of a woman writing for the NY Times and her Tinder date made the rounds: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/style/modern-love-he-aske... It gives you reason to be very pessimistic about consent training and society.

I'm confused as to how that article is relevant.

Re: A note to our employees

#327

Post by Spooky23 »

piptastic wrote: post #255
Spooky23 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So when your high functioning alcoholic blows a .22 after taking out a telephone pole and hurting another driver, what do you do then?

What portion of responsibility will the victims attorney pin on you?

Re: A note to our employees

#328

Post by reaperducer »

michaelt wrote: post #178
reaperducer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because not attending the class makes them a million-dollar liability and a hazard to the company.

If you think sending people on a training course eliminates the company's liability, I've got bad news for you.

I said nothing about eliminates. But not having the training makes the employee a five million dollar liability.

Re: A note to our employees

#329

Post by leetcrew »

ryanianian wrote: post #123
seth__ wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'd much prefer a policy where everyone gets to decide in advance how many drink tickets they want Then you would get people like me, asking for lots of tickets as you can just discard those when you are done but you would not be able to ask for extra ones. At that point, you could just remove the ticket system as it doesn't work anymore

Sure but then if you over-indulge you're on record as someone who (1) requested way too many tickets and (2) wasn't capable of managing their own intake effectively or knowing their limits ahead of time. The goal is to help responsible adults remain responsible adults after a couple drinks when parts of your brain tell you to drink more than you know you should. The default of two drinks per night is a good starting…

honestly if you have a hard time sticking to two drinks at an event that could affect your livelihood, you probably just shouldn't drink.

we don't need some rube goldberg system of drink metering. we need people to handle their own shit. if they actually behave badly you can always fire them.

Re: A note to our employees

#330

Post by leetcrew »

briandear wrote: post #324
Spooky23 wrote: post #172

Earlier 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.

Can we ban nerf guns and adult slides? Good grief, much of Silicon Valley feels like a kindergarten.

why does it have to be a ban? isn't it satisfying enough just to look down at your inferiors and bask in how mature you are?
Post reply on HN