Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
1–10 of 93 posts
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#2I suspect it boils down to one of the following?
1) Lawyers advised them to do this, and they did (Very likely)
2) Lawyers advised them otherwise, but they did this instead (Unlikely)
3) Lawyers not involved in this decision at all (Highly unlikely)
So essentially, Google follows the advice of their lawyers?
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#3I suspect it boils down to one of the following? 1) Lawyers advised them to do this, and they did (Very likely) 2) Lawyers advised them otherwise, but they did this instead (Unlikely) 3) Lawyers not involved in this decision at all (Highly unlikely) So essentially, Google follows the advice of their lawyers?
This is a shockingly unhelpful discussion point when applied to corporate behavior in general. As a significant amount of bad action could be justified as "their lawyer probably advised them to do this".
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#4I suspect it boils down to one of the following? 1) Lawyers advised them to do this, and they did (Very likely) 2) Lawyers advised them otherwise, but they did this instead (Unlikely) 3) Lawyers not involved in this decision at all (Highly unlikely) So essentially, Google follows the advice of their lawyers?
Yeah, this isn’t all that surprising. Chances are they had to get everyone to sign off on the new rules because of how many jurisdictions Google operates in.
Doesn’t really seem noteworthy to me.
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#5>“Google announced a prospective policy change that applies going forward to individual sex harassment and sex assault claims. This policy change does not apply retroactively to claims already compelled to arbitration.”
Given the context, the phrase "already compelled to arbitration" sounds pretty fucking disgusting. It gave me nausea just reading it.
Perhaps Google's lawyers should take slightly more care over these legal missives and maybe wonder, given the wider situation, if it makes them or their employers look like complete and utter scumbags before hitting send.
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#6I suspect it boils down to one of the following? 1) Lawyers advised them to do this, and they did (Very likely) 2) Lawyers advised them otherwise, but they did this instead (Unlikely) 3) Lawyers not involved in this decision at all (Highly unlikely) So essentially, Google follows the advice of their lawyers?
Outsourcing your moral agency to lawyers might be an explanation but it’s not an excuse.
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#7I suspect it boils down to one of the following? 1) Lawyers advised them to do this, and they did (Very likely) 2) Lawyers advised them otherwise, but they did this instead (Unlikely) 3) Lawyers not involved in this decision at all (Highly unlikely) So essentially, Google follows the advice of their lawyers?
This is a shockingly unhelpful discussion point when applied to corporate behavior in general. As a significant amount of bad action could be justified as "their lawyer probably advised them to do this".
I don't think it ought to be assumed that one would always apply this same line of thinking to other corporate behaviour.
In this specific case the context is about the few specific instances where this policy will not apply. Given that nearly all these instances seem to involve ongoing litigation, I applied this reasoning.
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#8>“Google announced a prospective policy change that applies going forward to individual sex harassment and sex assault claims. This policy change does not apply retroactively to claims already compelled to arbitration.” Given the context, the phrase "already compelled to arbitration" sounds pretty fucking disgusting. It gave me nausea just reading it. Perhaps Google's lawyers should take slightly more care over these…
Forced arbitration should simply be illegal. As long as it's legal, you can't expect individual companies to not make use of it, that would be a competitive disadvantage.
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#9[deleted]
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#10I suspect it boils down to one of the following? 1) Lawyers advised them to do this, and they did (Very likely) 2) Lawyers advised them otherwise, but they did this instead (Unlikely) 3) Lawyers not involved in this decision at all (Highly unlikely) So essentially, Google follows the advice of their lawyers?
Doesn't matter, listening to their lawyers doesn't make it right. Lawyers exist to protect their clients from legal exposure, not to provide a moral compass.
If Google's goal is truly to create a safer work environment for everyone, then this is a no-brainer. They had zero problems giving a known-harasser millions to walk away quietly but now they're fighting to avoid responsibility for cases already in the system. Reeks of hypocrisy.