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

401–410 of 421 posts

Re: A note to our employees

#401

Post by travellingbuyer »

dionian wrote: post #128

> 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. How does more diversity solve anything?

If anything, diversity potentially makes it worse, because you'd have people from more distinct cultures, some of which have customs diametrically opposed to the company's policies. Unless, of course, they are talking about superficial diversity: skin colour, sex, etc. Still, wouldn't solve anything.

Re: A note to our employees

#402

Post by travellingbuyer »

nrook wrote: post #49
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.

This is required in some European countries. For example, in Germany, workers have a right to 50% of the board for companies with more than 2,000 employees. (Ties break for shareholders, due to the way the chair position works.) https://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Rela... Obviously, this hasn't destroyed Germany's economy, so it's doubtful it would hurt Google's profits much either.

Sounds like half-communism to me. It's messing with the reward/punishment mechanism of profits/losses. They have 50% of control, but no skin in the game. If their policies hurt dividends, it doesn't matter, because they didn't invest their own money in the first place and the salary is stable. If the company goes broke, they can just find another job.

> Obviously, this hasn't destroyed Germany's economy, so it's doubtful it would hurt Google's profits much either.

You can't say the Germany economy wouldn't be better off without this regulation.

Re: A note to our employees

#403

Post by travellingbuyer »

hkon wrote: post #135
unethical_ban wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

ok, is that scene your describing romantic or harassment, I can't really tell.

Depends on your desirability.

Re: A note to our employees

#404

Post by lawnchair_larry »

zkomp wrote: post #368
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A voice is fine. But a board seat is not a voice, it’s extraordinary power. You are not entitled to that.

Re: A note to our employees

#405

Post by vkou »

woolvalley wrote: post #274
vkou wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mandatory sexual harassment training is performed by every employer in California who doesn't want to get sued for someone getting sexually harassed at work. The purpose of it is usually not educating people, but providing a liability shield. Juries don't look kindly when Billy was harassed by his manager, and Billy's employer couldn't even be arsed to put Billy through a two-hour course, that spells out why harassme…

Something I don't understand is why not for every other law then? Why does this segment of the law get a mandatory training session every year?

Because in sexual harassment, a manager is responsible for the behaviour of their reports.

Because it is the most common way for an idiot to open up the company to hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability.

Because it is the only concern that is a constant, regardless of which industry you work with.

When you're in the medical industry, managers have to take medical compliance training. When you're in the financial industry, managers have to take financial compliance training. When you're in the automotive industry, managers have to take OSHA compliance training.

But in all of those industries, there is one common element. Managers have reports. Reports that can sue the company, if their manager engages in harassment, or allows another employee, customer, or contractor to harass them.

Re: A note to our employees

#406

Post by vkou »

travellingbuyer wrote: post #399
woolvalley wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I don't understand is why not for every other law then? Why does this segment of the law get a mandatory training session every year?

Widespread feminism amongst courts, HR, employees and consumers. HR matters are almost fully handled by feminists who believe in rape culture. The courts, specially in California, are ideologically biased to believe the accuser and punish everyone involved. Merely a sexual harassment accusation is sufficient to provide a catastrophic blown to the reputation of the accused and the company. In other words, Google has s…

Apparently, the expectation that your boss shouldn't proposition you for sex = feminism.

Also, recognizing that a quid pro quo relationship is inappropriate at work = also feminism.

Have you considered that work is for people to go to, so that they can do their ing jobs?

Re: A note to our employees

#407

Post by vkou »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #404
zkomp wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A voice is fine. But a board seat is not a voice, it’s extraordinary power. You are not entitled to that.

Without employees, there would be no company, and all conversation about what shareholders want would be moot.

Employees have extraordinary power - especially if they work together to use it.

Re: A note to our employees

#408

Post by SpikeDad »

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…

>Sexual harassment training is a CYA move by companies.

And so it should be abolished? I don't get your logic here. Shouldn't we be on the side of better training and more penalties for both employees and companies?

Perhaps you are comparing standard policy instruction with remedial instruction. I assume your statement "I've been through several" is only referring to the former.

Re: A note to our employees

#410

Post by Aloha »

mcguire wrote: post #398
Aloha wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We seem to be backing off of the whole "personal responsibility" thing. If you start off with the policy that "we trust all of our employees to behave like mature adults" and they don't , they've demonstrated that you can't trust them, no? If you have that policy and then start down the road of first-offense warnings, or trying to match the punishment to the crime, you end up in exactly the place where a lot of compa…

Firing everyone who has any sort of policy infraction fails to note their humanity, and fails to account for the money the company has invested in them.
Post reply on HN