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

#71

Post by 0x262d » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 4:57 PM UTC

zeroname wrote: post #69

0x262d wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don…

ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists.

I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which is what your original comment serves to do.

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

#72

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #66

Devils_Avocado wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Also, it's hardly rare for boards to make self-destructive insanely stupid decisions for what must have seemed like good reasons at the time.

Boards are not infallible, nor are the people on them. They're not even infallible at maximising profit - never mind trying to handle challenging cultural problems without being eaten alive by them.

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

#73

Post by SilasX » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 5:05 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…

>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?

To look at the issue from the amoral, profit-maximizing perspective...

It's not that the harassed workers are a benefit; they are indeed a cost, in terms of lower productivity and legal risk.

Rather, it's that the difficulty of pushing back against the high-paid harassers is a cost, and insta-firing them (or even reprimanding them in a way that makes them want to leave) can hurt profitability because of the difficulty of replacing them.

And, though I shudder to say it, "being able to harass underlings" -- to some executives -- functions as a kind of non-monetary compensation.

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

#74

Post by InTheArena » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

We continue to allow corporations to become governments in and of themselves, and to take actions that protect themselves, or push a set of goals that are synonymous with the CEOs intentions, at the cost of individual liberties. They've stretched this so that things that are clearly legal outside of work hours, and in the privacy of ones own home is cause for termination, while things that are clearly illegal in any context cannot be remedied under due process.

Western civilization literally fought wars to get a set of balances in place around free speech, religion, anti-discrimination, and freedom to pursue "happiness".

We should be very very cautious about letting companies this amount of power, especially Google and Facebook, which have shown no issues terminating people's employment, and taking corporate actions that threaten democracy for their leaderships person benefits.

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

#75

Post by ArrayList » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 5:18 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…

> I can share that research if you like.

I'll bite. Let's see it.

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

#76

Post by zeroname » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 5:36 PM UTC

0x262d wrote: post #71

zeroname wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 don…

ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists. I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which i…

> ok, here's a citation: Google made this change to their rules in the first place because a bunch of their employees got angry and shamed and criticized them publicly, which those employees were encouraged to do by the past 1-2 years of public criticism and shaming of rapists.

No, where's the citation that this all this shaming in criticism causes things to become illegal? Google is always in the media spotlight, they're more likely to pay lip service than others.

> I know companies generally follow market incentives. That doesn't mean those are good or should be excused as acceptable human behavior which is what your original comment serves to do.

I'm not excusing anything, that's a really unfair allegation. I'm saying you are naive if you expect anything else out of the rules that are in place and that the rules need to be changed. Of course big companies yield to PR campaigns, that's a market incentive in and of itself. Yet, these arbitration clauses remain pervasive. Companies can just wait out some harassment suit that may never happen and then apologize and maybe change something.

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

#77

Post by sctb » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

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

> LOL so many brigading white knights posting that've never had a corporate job or signed a contract :-D

This is just trolling and since this isn't a troll site, please don't do it. We detached this post from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18494572.

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

#78

Post by sctb » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 5:43 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…

We've asked you several times over the years to stop doing these throwaway guideline violations, so we've banned the main account like we said we would.

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

#79

Post by cromulo » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 5:46 PM UTC

013a wrote: post #68

josefx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

> Google is easily the most morally dubious company out there.

I mean, I might have put some tobacco, arms, oil, coal, chemical, and surveillance companies up there. Particularly since I don't see them leading the way on harassment, inequity, diversity, or any of the other things Google is being criticized for. It sort of seems as though they have all the same issues plus body counts. But perhaps I've missed the news, are Gazprom and Saudi Aramco famous for how well they handle sexual harassment claims?

Your point about corporate ruthlessness is a solid one, but putting Google at the head of that list seriously undersells the problem. It's worth remembering how bad things are, and how bad they can get.

Hell, now that I'm thinking of it, I'd put Chiquita higher up on the list than Google. They never actually got over the bad old days in Honduras, they were caught funding and directly arming Colombian terrorists in 2004.

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

#80

Post by elliekelly » Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #22

fareesh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lawyers also can't give illegal advice. No lawyer in the history of corporate lawyers has advised management to sexually harass employees yet here we are.