One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions • Hacker News Board

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#421

Post by geodel » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #52

OkGoDoIt wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree. Just like a cashier at Chick-fil-a doesn’t necessarily condone the company’s religious and political beliefs. From personal experience, I work for a big tech company which very publicly says it stands for certain things and the CEO recently has been going around saying a lot of political things. It’s unrelated to the job although it feels like an explicit part of the “company culture”. It doesn’t r…

FWIW this is why job mobility is super important. Both sides of the employee/employer relationship should be relatively unconstrained so that employees can "vote" against bad employer policies. If your employer is out there making political statements or doing political things that you disagree with you should feel empowered to leave and find a new job. If you don't want employers making political statements or takin…

> Unfortunately there are lots of policies and laws in place that prevent this kind of labor mobility and give the employer a huge amount of power.

What are those policies and laws? AFAIK employees can leave with at most 2 week notice and lot of places with just a days' notice.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#422

Post by manfredo » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #282

manfredo wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Politics is a set of activities associated with the governance of a country or an area. It involves making decisions that apply to group of members" - Wikipedia And thus, an office in which this "set of activities" is not permitted is an apolitical office. > An office can never be an apolitical entity, given that it involves the organisation of people and decision making about their activities, AND that office nec…

> And thus, an office in which this "set of activities" is not permitted is an apolitical office. Organization of people involves power dynamics. Maybe you can make an argument that something like holocracy generates an apolitical environment, though I think that doesn't hold up experimentally. Management deciding whether or not to increase vacation days is a political act. Employees deciding whether they want to sta…

> Management deciding whether or not to increase vacation days is a political act.

No, it's a company policy. There is a contingent of people who believe everything is a political act, and perhaps you are among them. But know that this view is not as widely held as you might think.

> Employees deciding whether they want to stand together in negotations with management or handle stuff individually is a political

Interestingly, unions actually try to argue that they are not political. That is the cornerstone of their arguments as to why union dues are not compelled speech.

> Hell, trying to push for more/less meetings in day to day work is a political act.

Again, not for the overwhelming majority of people who consider this an apolitical change.

Yes, if you believe everything is political then everything in the workplace is political. But most people don't subscribe to this view.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#423

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 4:53 PM UTC

geodel wrote: post #421

mason55 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW this is why job mobility is super important. Both sides of the employee/employer relationship should be relatively unconstrained so that employees can "vote" against bad employer policies. If your employer is out there making political statements or doing political things that you disagree with you should feel empowered to leave and find a new job. If you don't want employers making political statements or takin…

> Unfortunately there are lots of policies and laws in place that prevent this kind of labor mobility and give the employer a huge amount of power. What are those policies and laws? AFAIK employees can leave with at most 2 week notice and lot of places with just a days' notice.

In our state, you can leave at any time. In fact its employers that have a hard time firing employees.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#424

Post by flatb » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

el_cujo wrote: post #401

flatb wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch... >Damore said that those differences include women generally having a stronger interest in people rather than things, and tending to be more social, artistic, and prone to neuroticism (a higher-order personality trait) Imagine thinking that you can literally publish and circulate several revisions of an internal company memo telling 50% of your coworkers…

Your characterization of things makes it sound like you only read headlines and never the memo. Which is fine I guess, but it seems silly to have such strong opinions about something without looking into it at all.

Have YOU read it? Jesus Christ.

> Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.

Yes, that does say that women are genetically worse leaders and implies that their lower salaries are at least in part because they are naturally worse negotiators.

The whole section it's written on is focused on explaining how sexism is mostly a exaggeration and that sex differences can instead be explained by genetic factors. Any more questions?

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#425

Post by godshatter » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

helen___keller wrote: post #333

aedron wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With 20 years experience under my belt, it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues. Obviously, this extends even more to the workplace itself bringing these topics up. I'm not aggressive or even obvious about this disposition, I just gently steer clear of violating it. I feel the same should apply to companies, fine if you want to…

> it is my firm belief that the workplace is not a place to discuss politics, religion, or other highly personal and divisive issues From the company's PoV you're correct. From the employee's PoV I'm not convinced.

I must be old or something. To me, it's a simple question. Is my employer paying me to discuss politics or religion? If no, then I don't see why I should be using their time and their resources to do so.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#426

Post by manfredo » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

Faark wrote: post #326

manfredo wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Politics is a set of activities associated with the governance of a country or an area. It involves making decisions that apply to group of members" - Wikipedia And thus, an office in which this "set of activities" is not permitted is an apolitical office. > An office can never be an apolitical entity, given that it involves the organisation of people and decision making about their activities, AND that office nec…

> but also prevents those people who want to defend the status quo. You don't have to defend the status quo, if no one is allowed to challenge it. In other words your ideal office is set in favor of the status quo. And a century ago, would likely not have hired women or blacks. Since that would have been "political". Thing is, I'm actually in favor of this. Most companies should probably stick to avoiding politics as…

You are erroneous in your belief that bringing politics into the workplace is a means to work against division. Quite the opposite. When politics are brought into the workplace, political discussion is monopolized by people with power (be it explicit authority, or social influence) and exclude people whose politics are opposed to them. Politics, by nature, tends to divide people which is precisely why companies that want to avoid a divided workforce don't allow politics in their workplace.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#427

Post by flatb » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

dekken_ wrote: post #403

akavi wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I see any part of that quote even suggesting "50% of your coworkers... should be paid less because they're genetically inferior to you". And regardless of the correctness of firing him, him getting fired is a little stronger than "people tell[ing him] that [he's] kind of a dick".

You don't see it because it's not there. People make these leaps of fiction on their own from usually well meaning but confused stances.

No, it's not there, it's on the memo itself, in his own words, in a section literally titled "Non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech" if you'd like a more reliable source than Wikipedia.

>Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.

Do you see it? The part where he says women are genetically worse leaders, and have worse salaries because they're genetically worse negotiators? Remember, the section is titled "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech", implying that women are paid less because it's natural, not because of sexist bias.

At any rate, I appreciate the patronizing "making well meaning but confused leaps of logic" pat in the head.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#428

Post by manfredo » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

TheMightyLlama wrote: post #268

manfredo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps in an non-standard understanding of what is and isn't political. An apolitical office is political in the same sense that secularism is a religious stance. It's not catering to any specific religion: it is equally exclusive of all religions. Similarly, an apolitical office doesn't prevent or directly influence the political activity of workers - it just relegates that political activity to spaces outside the…

Perhaps in an non-standard understanding of what is and isn't sexual. An asexual office is sexual in the same sense that secularism is a religious stance. It's not catering to any specific religion: it is equally exclusive of all religions. Similarly, an asexual office doesn't prevent or directly influence the sexual activity of workers - it just relegates that sexual activity to spaces outside the office. > Saying "…

I'm not sure what you're talking about. An asexual office is indeed one where sex is kept out of the office. Nobody really bothers to call their office "asexual" because almost all offices are asexual.

If an office instituted a policy where sex was allowed in the office, and now you have co workers having sex in the cubicle next door and making sexual advances towards you, then that absolutely is intervening in employees' sexual lives.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#429

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #419

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the essay shows is that your representation of his beliefs is obviously false.

Damore's essay seems to be a kind of Rorschach test. People sympathetic to Damore's views (or at least, to his approach to debate) seem to trust that he's arguing in good faith. People strongly opposed to his views seem to think he's being disingenuous.

If those are my choices, I'd place myself in the "sympathetic with his approach to debate" bucket.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#430

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

helen___keller wrote: post #420

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too work in one of these "progressive" workplaces. On political / social matters, I sometimes have an opinion that differs from the one that the company (very vocally) advertises. People holding the majority view are publicly cheered by the company, but people holding minority views are (at best) tolerated. This frustrates me on several levels: - There's no room for debate on these topics. The official company posi…

> People holding the majority view are publicly cheered by the company, but people holding minority views are (at best) tolerated May I have a specific example? There appears to be a lot of negative opinions about this kind of workplace based on the comments (and my downvotes on some of my comments haha). I'm just trying to understand it. If you're curious, you can see a specific example from my workplace in the edit…

Thanks for the substantive discussion!

> May I have a specific example?

I can't without giving out too much detail. I shouldn't have stated that without being able to provide substance, sorry.

> It is not disrespectful for the employer to celebrate other employees who are homosexual. Am I misunderstanding?

I think we're getting close to the fundamental issue here. Let me unpack my logic a bit:

1) Celebrating behavior X implies that X is in some way virtuous.

2) To claim that X is virtuous, is to claim that any belief system S which states X is not virtuous is in error.

So I see the current discussion as having the structure shown above, with:

X = partaking in a homosexual relationship, and

S = the theologies of various Christian, Muslim, and Jewish sects.

So in short, it seems to me that employers are logically implying that certain employees have false religious beliefs, but the employers are hiding behind the fact that the their implication isn't clearly stated.

I think that's inconsistent with the employers' claims to respect employees' religious views.