Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by EthanHeilman » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

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…

This comment seems really low effort. Adds no real content. Extraordinary claims with no citations.

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

#62

Post by Devils_Avocado » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #58

Devils_Avocado wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

_

> 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. Shareholder…

Who pays the salary & bonuses? Who owns the entity that pays the salary & bonuses?

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

#63

Post by vonmoltke » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

Devils_Avocado wrote: post #49

Nasrudith wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an open secret that it is about self service instead of actual fiscal obligations. It is essentially the exact same thing as government corruption. It happens in every large and powerful organization essentially. Which brings to mind the irony of how very stereotypically corporate the USSR acted with things like attributing the entire output of a coal mine to one miner to boost their productivity figures and ci…

Yes... their contracts are written such that they align the self-serving motivations of the employees with the fiscal obligations to shareholders. Internet points be-damned, i find it pretty hilarious that ppl took my initial comment as being supportive of what Google did rather than a condemnation of their coporate structure!

Whose contracts? The board of directors don't have contracts; they aren't employed by the corporation. The shareholders don't have contracts; they just own an instrument of corporate ownership. Anyone employed by the corporation has contracts with the corporation, not with the board and the shareholders.

Other than your repeated assertions and slandering of anyone who disagrees with you as "SJWs", do you have anything to back you up?

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

#64

Post by mikestew » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 4:39 PM UTC

Devils_Avocado wrote: post #60

mikestew wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Assigning me homework rarely wins the argument, and it's an argument I have no interest in winning in the first place. I was merely pointing out the error of your analysis.

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

#65

Post by Bartweiss » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 4:39 PM UTC

fareesh wrote: post #14

save_ferris wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think this falls somewhere between "moral hazard" and "lawyers aren't assigned to do that".

If an open case saw a change of venue and then produced large damages, that's easily interpreted as a failure of the legal team to protect Google. If Google's retention rate or recruiting efficiency drop by some percentage, it might well cost more in lost expertise and recruiting work than a bad lawsuit would. But it wouldn't necessarily be discernible as a result of this decision, or even the sexual misconduct issue in general. I wouldn't expect the lawyers involved to be able to predict the size of that second impact and decide accordingly.

Certainly corporate lawyers sometimes enforce counterproductive decisions, but it's almost always down around the project level. For an issue Pichai is personally engaging with, it'd be pretty strange for a lawyer to go beyond saying "This is the safest legal option, but it may have other consequences. If you don't take it, here's the level of legal risk." Somebody else ought to be weighing the costs, and in an ideal world ethics, of making that decision.

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

#66

Post by vonmoltke » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

Devils_Avocado wrote: post #62

vonmoltke wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Shareholder…

Who pays the salary & bonuses? Who owns the entity that pays the salary & bonuses?

> Who pays the salary & bonuses?

Salary and bonuses for who? The board doesn't get salary and bonuses.

> Who owns the entity that pays the salary & bonuses?

Corporate ownership is a complex topic. The oversimplification that shareholders "own" a fractional portion of the corporation is not entirely accurate and breaks down in complex cases like this. You get into share classes, the status of the corporate entity as an independent legal entity (which, in turn, goes down a rabbit hole that leads to corporations as non-natural people), and what power shareholders have over the guidance of the corporate entity.

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

#67

Post by pluma » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 4:48 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #39

fareesh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesnt match the training, approach, nor skillset of the lawyers I know. They advise on legal matters, the client decides based on the sum total. Lawyers would explicitly avoid confusing legal opinions and business ones. Then again, my lawyer friends aren't google lawyers.

Seconded. Most general advice ("IANYL/TINLA") I've heard from lawyers in Germany about e.g. GDPR boiled down to "1. Don't. 2. If in doubt, see 1." -- it's their job to recommend against taking any risks even if the risks are sometimes necessary. It's your job as a business to assess whether that risk is still worth it.

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

#68

Post by 013a » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

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…

> Is there a known metric that shows how profitability increases after a given percentage of harassed workers?

Oh my goodness yes. Getting sued? Public relations? Decreased productivity from a hostile work environment? These all affect the bottom line.

Seriously, for the love of all that matters in this universe: Take this notion that any company operates on a moral compass and throw it in the garbage. None of them do. Period. End of story. Some companies are better than others. Some leaders (read: HUMANS) do have a genuine sense of good that they make every attempt to instill into the culture of their organizations. That's amazing. I love to see that.

But this only happens when (1) the organization is already financially solvent and (2) the acts of good will won't cause the company to become financially insolvent. Which means the best companies are MOTIVATED by a moral compass, but they operate on a financial one.

This Google case is especially fucking hilarious, to watch some people in these comments (not you, but others) try to justify Google's actions under the banner of a desire to create a safe workplace. Bullshit. They only enacted these policies after a massive number of their employees walked out on their jobs, the public pressure was mounting, and they let known assholes leave on their own accord with, as you say, a golden parachute. Google is easily the most morally dubious company out there.

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

#69

Post by zeroname » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 4:50 PM UTC

0x262d wrote: post #34

zeroname wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

actually, this sort of criticism and shaming is exactly what causes things to become illegal. meanwhile, market veneration is both economically illiterate and used as ideological cover for massive crimes.

> actually, this sort of criticism and shaming is exactly what causes things to become illegal.

[citation needed]

> meanwhile, market veneration is both economically illiterate and used as ideological cover for massive crimes.

What's economically illiterate is to expect market participants not to exploit the rules that are in place on moral grounds. You can make a moral case against an indefinite number of things done by private enterprise, but you can't maintain negative publicity for all of them. If you don't change the rules, companies only pay lip service, nothing more. That's not ideology, that's not "veneration", that's common sense.

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

#70

Post by Bartweiss » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 4:55 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #39

fareesh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesnt match the training, approach, nor skillset of the lawyers I know. They advise on legal matters, the client decides based on the sum total. Lawyers would explicitly avoid confusing legal opinions and business ones. Then again, my lawyer friends aren't google lawyers.

The only actual business decisions I've seen corporate lawyers make are "no, that project is too legally risky to do". And even then the decision technically belongs to someone else, it's just that no one involved was both willing and able to contradict them. Anything beyond that pretty much reduces to "here are the legal options available, and their likely legal consequences."

Which is how things should stand - obviously morally, but even from a "ruthlessly maximize shareholder value" perspective. It's at least possible that reputational damage cashes out as a bigger financial risk (e.g. via lost staff, failed recruitment, or new regulations) than increased damages from lawsuits. Corporate counsel is almost certainly not the most qualified to calculate the size and likelihood of those risks. (And morally, of course, it would amount to Pichai et al abdicating responsibility for Google's decisions.)

I suspect counsel does have an outsize effect on these decisions, but not because they have final authority. Rather, the risks they present are generally large, immediate, and quantifiable. People tend to prioritize even unlikely risks of that sort against the slow, ambiguous decay of destroying a reputation or failing to follow a changing industry.