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

361–370 of 421 posts

Re: A note to our employees

#361

Post by rdtsc »

01100011 wrote: post #38
craftyguy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to explain why you think not?

Have you ever been through sexual harassment training? Did you feel like it was helpful? I've been through several and found that no one really takes it seriously. If the things they tell you in sexual harassment training are new to you, you probably aren't going to learn your lesson. Problem employees aren't going to change their behavior. Enforcement of standards is much more critical. Sexual harassment training is…

> Problem employees aren't going to change their behavior. Enforcement of standards is much more critical.

That's not the goal. If people don't know that slapping their colleagues' butt when drunk is wrong, online training is not going to help there.

Training is there so that when it comes time to arbitrate, they can point and say "Aha, we see you took the training, passed the quiz and you still did it, you can't claim you didn't know, you're gone buddy! buhbye" and they kick him out.

> Sexual harassment training is a CYA move by companies.

That is the right answer!

Re: A note to our employees

#362

Post by lawnchair_larry »

chasing wrote: post #145
thoughtexplorer wrote: post #4

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.

I suspect it's controversial because HNers think you're referencing people like James Damore and/or people who wrap themselves in the mantle of "diversity of ideas" when they start making racist or sexist comments. Is that the kind of "diversity of ideas and experience" you're talking about?

Calm down, nobody said anything racist or sexist. How do you expect to have a discussion about this when you attack people for words that you put in their mouth before they had a chance to even engage?

Damore didn't do that, by the way.

Re: A note to our employees

#363

Post by lawnchair_larry »

lallysingh wrote: post #179
adamrezich wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Repeatedly asking a woman out. I recall a friend upsetting a love interest because he didn't repeatedly ask her out, as was customary where she was from. She didn't think he was serious because he wasn't trying hard enough. Not ok here, but different in other places.

In which country is it customary to repeatedly ask someone out?

Re: A note to our employees

#364

Post by lawnchair_larry »

vkou wrote: post #33
rifung wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No mention of the employee representative on the board, either. Can someone who knows better than me explain whether this is actually a reasonable request? It sounded ridiculous to me but I admit I am not knowledgeable in these matters.

It's a reasonable request, if you consider it from this perspective: > Why do shareholders get board seats? Because they don't trust company leadership to do the right thing, without any oversight. Leadership is currently asking employees to trust that leadership will do the right thing, without any oversight. This is, obviously, an unreasonable expectation. Even if employees trust current leadership, what assurances…

That's pretty backwards entitled thinking. Shareholders elect a board because they own the company and have rights to manage their assets. Employees are a resource. They have no such rights.

Re: A note to our employees

#365

Post by lawnchair_larry »

shmel wrote: post #242
svachalek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's common in the U.S., and the second question is the sort of thing that would get you sent back to take the class again. Generally I've seen they use the "stoplight" model, in that some behaviors are "green", near universally accepted as non-harassing, some are "red", near universally rejected as harassing, and some are "yellow" meaning individuals vary. "Red" behaviors should get you fired immediately, while "yel…

>>It's common in the U.S., and the second question is the sort of thing that would get you sent back to take the class again. I have to admit I have never been in the US. So, what is the right answer for the second question? I suppose it should be mandatory for all, but in the same time I have read too many stories about "classes to teach men to not rape" that I am in doubts.

It's intended for men, but actually saying this would be politically incorrect, so it's assigned to everyone. Nobody thinks there is some kind of epidemic of women abusing men in the workplace.

It's usually just some slides or a video you click through, and most people try to fast forward or skip as much as the software allows. That's actually how all corporate training works.

Re: A note to our employees

#366

Post by lawnchair_larry »

unethical_ban wrote: post #47
shmel wrote: post #16

Mandatory sexual harassment training sounds quite disturbing. Anybody can comment in detail how it is conducted? Is it really mandatory for everyone or only for men?

My Fortune 100 company has us watch a video where a white IT guy stalks a minority female in the parking garage and leaves a CD on her car with a mixtape, or something, I forget. It is pretty bad. I follow a simple rule, and so far, I haven't done anything stupid: "If you think it would make someone personally uncomfortable when you say it, consider not saying it".

That's roughly what Bill Gates did, except he actually confronted her in the parking garage. And when Melinda said no, he looked up her number in the HR database and called her at home. Oh, and he was a little more than just an IT guy.

That poor woman, still being victimized by that creepy sexual predator to this day. We should try to save her.

Re: A note to our employees

#367

Post by [deleted] »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #81
commandlinefan wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or only for men If it's anything like everywhere I've ever worked, it's mandatory for everybody, and they go out of their way to pretend their not just talking to the men about the women, but it's actually twice as uncomfortable because all of the women - for whom this training is actually for - are sitting next to the men, for whom the training is actually targeted. So you sit through an hour of uncomfortable filt…

There may be more men harassing women but you are writing off every male who has been sexually harassed at their workplace with your comment. Additionally you are spreading the idea that sexual harassment is only done by males to females which is incredibly harmful and short sighted.

[deleted]

Re: A note to our employees

#368

Post by zkomp »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #364
vkou wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a reasonable request, if you consider it from this perspective: > Why do shareholders get board seats? Because they don't trust company leadership to do the right thing, without any oversight. Leadership is currently asking employees to trust that leadership will do the right thing, without any oversight. This is, obviously, an unreasonable expectation. Even if employees trust current leadership, what assurances…

That's pretty backwards entitled thinking. Shareholders elect a board because they own the company and have rights to manage their assets. Employees are a resource. They have no such rights.

Not necessary. It is narrow minded to only see employees as a resource to exploit.

Actually giving people a voice and representation is good and won't hurt

Re: A note to our employees

#369

Post by shaklee3 »

gnulinux wrote: post #86
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…

I never drank at work, I don't understand why people do...

Because it's fun, and it's a good way to lighten the mood.

Re: A note to our employees

#370

Post by [deleted] »

mebreuer wrote: post #125
prepend wrote: post #91

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN