Well, of course. It’s only fair. You can’t change a rule then go back and hold prior behaviors accountable according to the new rule. It’s just common decency.
Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
11–20 of 93 posts
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#12Well, of course. It’s only fair. You can’t change a rule then go back and hold prior behaviors accountable according to the new rule. It’s just common decency.
I suspect your view on this matter will be ill taken.
But beyond that. It probably is not legally possible.
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#13> If Google's goal is truly to create a safer work environment for everyone...
Google's directors' goal is to fulfil their fiduciary obligations of maximising net returns on invested capital, the same as 100% of every other corporate entity that has ever existed.
edit: LOL so many brigading white knights posting that've never had a corporate job or signed a contract :-D
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#14I 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. R…
My assumption was that lawyers would have factored in the public relations aspect of the decision too, and are confident they can win both in the proceedings as well as in the court of public opinion.
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#15> If Google's goal is truly to create a safer work environment for everyone... Google's directors' goal is to fulfil their fiduciary obligations of maximising net returns on invested capital, the same as 100% of every other corporate entity that has ever existed. edit: LOL so many brigading white knights posting that've never had a corporate job or signed a contract :-D
And what are the long-term effects on returns of good employees leaving, or never coming to Google over shit like this?
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#16>“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.
I agree that forced arbitration should be illegal. But just because something is legal doesn't mean we can't criticize a company for doing it!
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#17[deleted]
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#18Well, of course. It’s only fair. You can’t change a rule then go back and hold prior behaviors accountable according to the new rule. It’s just common decency.
It's less of a rule, and more of a change of venue. They 100% should be holding people accountable for this kind of behavior in a public setting to make damn sure the guilty do not victimize anyone else.
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#19> If Google's goal is truly to create a safer work environment for everyone... Google's directors' goal is to fulfil their fiduciary obligations of maximising net returns on invested capital, the same as 100% of every other corporate entity that has ever existed. edit: LOL so many brigading white knights posting that've never had a corporate job or signed a contract :-D
And what are the long-term effects on returns of good employees leaving, or never coming to Google over shit like this?
Google/Alphabet get fucked sideways.
Seems you & all the fellow downvoters've mistaken my statement of fact for a statement of moral obligation...
Company agents are employed by shareholders to maximise returns on invested capital. It's literally in their contracts: "you get paid X for improving metric Y by Z".
Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress
#20> If Google's goal is truly to create a safer work environment for everyone... Google's directors' goal is to fulfil their fiduciary obligations of maximising net returns on invested capital, the same as 100% of every other corporate entity that has ever existed. edit: LOL so many brigading white knights posting that've never had a corporate job or signed a contract :-D
> fiduciary obligations of maximising net returns on invested capital
There is no such obligation. Please stop spreading bullshit.
Edit:
To those who don't believe me, see another post in the thread[1] or other sources on corporate law[2][3]. Note that the duty of loyalty says nothing about maximizing anything, and such a legal standard is preposterous.
[1] https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/myth-maximizing-shar...
[2] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/corporate-fid...
[3] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fiduciary-responsibi...