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

51–60 of 93 posts

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

#51

Post by elliekelly »

josefx wrote: post #29
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…

It absolutely furthers the goal of maximizing profit. Arbitration is faster, cheaper, and typically benefits the company. It benefits the company by:

- Giving opposing counsel less time to request information/dig through the requested information to find evidence against you because the timeline is expedited compared to a typical court trial.

- The company selects the arbitrator. How often does a company need to select an arbitrator? Not infrequently. How often does the employee seeking damages need to select an arbitrator? Almost never. If the arbitrator wants more future work who do you think they're more likely to side with? Do you think they're more likely to award damages against the company at the high end of the spectrum or the low end of the spectrum?

- Limited PR costs. How many "big" arbitration cases have you ever heard of in the press? Not many I would guess. How many "big" court cases have you heard of in the press? Bad PR can cost the company a lot in terms of the bottom line but also opportunity costs. It's difficult to measure but there are certainly some talented people who will think twice about joining the company after recent PR.

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

#52

Post by Devils_Avocado »

pytester wrote: post #44
Devils_Avocado wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

>Company agents are employed by shareholders to maximise returns on invested capital. Myth: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/myth-maximizing-shar...

LOL

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

#53

Post by dvtrn »

eugeniub wrote: post #45
swsieber wrote: post #24

So... are people more angry at hearing this than if Google had never announced an end to forced arbitration in the first place?

FOH with that tone policing

A snarky implication delivered as a sidecar for a (very poor, IMO) "whatabout" does not make for tone policing.

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

#54

Post by theproblem223 »

My brief analysis:

There are lawyers specialized in advising non-victims what to say for a payout. At times this greatly weighs on the conscience of the non-victim, leading to transcripts such as "I, uhn, uh, like, uh, uh, uh" (not in transcript: looks at her lawyer who is nodding and mouthing PRE-SURRED) " uh, like, uh, uh, uh " (shakes her head, but looks at her lawyer who is nodding vigorously, rubbing his finger and thumb together and mouthing something) "uh, like, uh." (Looks down, sighs, says the word "pressured" with resignation and while shaking her head and furrowing her brow, at which her lawyer leaps up triumphantly and says "No further questions!!"

This is an actual transcript I reviewed (except the non visual stuff I added.)

People respond to incentives.

Forced arbitration removes payoff incentives. So in theory it's better for everyone. (Except greedy lawyers telling their clients to lie.)

If done right.

Just my $0.02. By the way I reviewed the Kavanauh/Ford case in detail with feminists, and it is clear Kavanaugh has never once touched her. (The incentive structure in that case was political and possibly also monetary.) I can share that research if you like.

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

#55

Post by slashink »

theproblem223 wrote: post #54

My brief analysis: There are lawyers specialized in advising non-victims what to say for a payout. At times this greatly weighs on the conscience of the non-victim, leading to transcripts such as "I, uhn, uh, like, uh, uh, uh" (not in transcript: looks at her lawyer who is nodding and mouthing PRE-SURRED) " uh, like, uh, uh, uh " (shakes her head, but looks at her lawyer who is nodding vigorously, rubbing his finger…

Account created 10 minutes ago. No comment history. Straight onto a political subject.

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

#56

Post by save_ferris »

dfxm12 wrote: post #47
save_ferris wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Free publicity about having a safe work place, gaining a competitive advantage with regards to attracting talent based on this new policy, being seen as a pioneer as many other large firms inevitably adopt a similar policy, which leads to further publicity, which leads to attracting more talent, etc. Sometimes fulfilling fiduciary obligations and creating a safer work environment aren't mutually exclusive...

I agree that they aren't mutually exclusive, but there's a lot of aggressive degenerative arguing about how Google only cares about profits and nothing else in this thread. Absolutely no nuance to the argument.

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

#58

Post by vonmoltke »

Devils_Avocado wrote: post #38
save_ferris wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

_

> So you're saying Google doesn't give a shit about its net profits?

Google obviously gives a shit about its net profits.

> So you're saying that Google's board weren't all hired with the express instruction to maximise earnings per share?

Board members aren't "hired", they're elected by the shareholders. They are not employees of the corporation (usually) and they do not have contracts with shareholders. Shareholders will, obviously, vote them out if company performance suffers.

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

#59

Post by zorpner »

theproblem223 wrote: post #54

My brief analysis: There are lawyers specialized in advising non-victims what to say for a payout. At times this greatly weighs on the conscience of the non-victim, leading to transcripts such as "I, uhn, uh, like, uh, uh, uh" (not in transcript: looks at her lawyer who is nodding and mouthing PRE-SURRED) " uh, like, uh, uh, uh " (shakes her head, but looks at her lawyer who is nodding vigorously, rubbing his finger…

You pretty clearly neither reviewed an actual transcript like that, nor "reviewed the Kavanauh/Ford case in detail with feminists", which would be a hilarious statement if there weren't people out there who took this crap seriously.

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

#60

Post by Devils_Avocado »

mikestew wrote: post #33
Devils_Avocado wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Seems you & all the fellow downvoters've mistaken my statement of fact for a statement of moral obligation... Nope, it's the calling of statements "facts" when they are quite arguable nothing of the sort. Moral obligation was not at issue here.

Read a S&P500/FTSE100's Directors' contract, then get back to me...
Post reply on HN