Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 93 posts

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#21

Post by Devils_Avocado »

vonmoltke wrote: post #20
Devils_Avocado wrote: post #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

> 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…

What do their contracts say? Agnostic of your own judgement of the morality of their actions, company agents are employed by shareholders to maximise returns on invested capital. It's literally the only reason the company pays them a salary from net profits.

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#22

Post by jakelazaroff »

fareesh wrote: post #7
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is that "Google just followed their lawyers' advice" is never a valid excuse. Google's lawyers are still part of Google! Lawyers can give unethical advice, and the CEO/HR/whoever makes these decisions is perfectly capable of ignoring it.

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#23

Post by malka »

starbeast wrote: post #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…

> if it makes them or their employers look like complete and utter scumbags before hitting send.

Given Google reputation, they do not have much to lose.

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#25

Post by vonmoltke »

Devils_Avocado wrote: post #21
vonmoltke wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What do their contracts say? Agnostic of your own judgement of the morality of their actions, company agents are employed by shareholders to maximise returns on invested capital. It's literally the only reason the company pays them a salary from net profits.

Company agents are not employed by shareholders and have no contracts with them. Company agents are employed by the corporate entity.

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#26

Post by hummingurban »

kryptiskt wrote: post #6
fareesh wrote: post #2

I 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.

what can Google do? Train their engineers to start taking the LSAT so by the time they get to trial, they will have the skill and experience to take on professional lawyers?

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#27

Post by CydeWeys »

werber wrote: post #18
rustcharm wrote: post #11

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.

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.

> They 100% should be holding people accountable for this kind of behavior in a public setting

Can you unpack who the "they" and the "people" are here a little bit?

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#28

Post by [deleted] »

Devils_Avocado wrote: post #19
lallysingh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

[deleted]

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#29

Post by josefx »

Devils_Avocado wrote: post #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

How did their support of sexual misconduct in the past further the goal of maximizing profit? Is there a known metric that shows how profitability increases after a given percentage of harassed workers?

I think it has less to do with "fiduciary obligations" and more with self serving policies that the people in charge will put in place as long as they can get away with them. Letting one of the accused walk out with a golden parachute instead of firing him without any compensation for acting in a way that openly harmed the company certainly does not play well with "fiduciary obligations".

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#30

Post by save_ferris »

Devils_Avocado wrote: post #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

So you're saying that they voluntarily chose to modify their arbitration policy for sexual harassment complaints to fulfill their fiduciary obligations and not to create a safer work environment?

How do shareholders benefit from the increased legal exposure of this new policy? And why, if everything Google does is to benefit the bottom line, are they choosing not employ this new policy retroactively? They didn't have to do any of this.

Post reply on HN