561–570 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absolutely bonkers wrong. The US has shifted dramatically rightwards since 2014, and the right has shifted even more dramatically so.
Do you have research you can cite?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is again conflating politics with office policies. A workplace is not the state. You don't have carte blanche to act how you want, especially when it will clearly create chaos at the company's expense. And it's not specific views but entire topics. Since you want it explicit: 1) Contracts are not office policy. Objecting because of politics is political. 2) Hiring is about getting the best people for the job. Di…
> 1) Contracts are not office policy. Objecting because of politics is political. You're the one claiming the objection is political. I claim the objections are ethical. Again, if you are the arbiter of what is or is not political (which it seems you are trying to be), all this ends up is "objections to things I dislike are political and forbidden". > Hiring is about getting the best people for the job. Discussing th…
By the way, Google is undergoing lawsuits about race and gender discrimination with explicit documentation, as are many other companies and universities in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The media constantly misconstrues or completely invents whole stories based on small pieces of information that are presented without context. I don’t see how that is helpful to society. I’m not against whistleblowing but I completely understand why someone would choose not to engage in that, since they are basically volunteering information knowing it may very well be taken very seriously when it was done throw away…
Don't throw the baby of internal memos out with the bathwater of biased commentary on them. It sounds like you're against whistleblowing.
Nothing wrong with leaders preferring more controlled medium where they can careful and clearly state what they are saying, or preferring such meetings with smaller groups of people in a smaller company. Especially because we're working with the assumption it will be leaked in a raw form otherwise.
Workers should be whistleblowing based on negative events, company projects, or misbehaviour which they have knowledge of and see in the workplace (which can be through other people at work). Which is quite different from rehashing some comment made during TGIF to reporters.
If we're going to villianize people for comments made in open-ended forums then it will defeat the purpose of the forum and make people extra cautious. Which makes them no different than PR-speak-riddled internal memos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> shout down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you Isn't this what you're doing now: shouting down others for as little as not vehemently agreeing with you about the place of political discussion in the workplace? Edit: To rephrase since you missed what I was getting at: you are advocating for institutional support in silencing people who express views with which you disagree in the workplace. That…
No, I'm discussing. This isn't a workplace, it's a public internet forum. Nobody is prevented from participating here by my posts. You're free to discuss whatever you want as well. Replying to your edit => A workplace is different than the state. You do not have complete freedom within a corporation, and expression is very different from beliefs. Nobody cares about your beliefs, but your expression will be limited to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1) Contracts are not office policy. Objecting because of politics is political. You're the one claiming the objection is political. I claim the objections are ethical. Again, if you are the arbiter of what is or is not political (which it seems you are trying to be), all this ends up is "objections to things I dislike are political and forbidden". > Hiring is about getting the best people for the job. Discussing th…
You asked and I told you exactly what is political or not, and none of those things are about me disagreeing. Again you're confusing views with topics. If you disagree with every definition because you think everything is political then there's no rational discussion to be had. This is what the activists do. Make everything political without boundaries. By the way, Google is undergoing lawsuits about race and gender…
Your continued inability to provide a consistent definition of politics and banned discussion only reinforces my initial claim: you're using politics as a catch-all to justify banning discussion you have personal ideological objections to, even when those topics are related to day to day working conditions. I'm not picking a definition of political, I'm saying you've been inconsistent with yours.
Google, at any given time, is sued for discrimination against men and women and against conservatives and liberals. What's important is the merit, which most don't have. On the other hand, banning people from discussing it requesting changes to employee bathroom policy probably falls under broad protections of PCA, and would be illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more about the 22 y.o hire who decides he and his 5 mates should all get dinner at the new office
This is generally fine, at least in Google Cambridge. It's just for tax purposes, as has been made abundantly clear in this thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an engineer at google and this bit about hiring someone because of their genes is false. All candidates must past the same hiring bar, no one gets extra points for "diversity". So no, I never wonder why a coworker was hired.
I hate to break it to you, but that's not true. Yes, the company tells you that's how it works. But I was also a Google engineer, I did hundreds of interviews during a time when it was way less into diversity than it is today. And absolutely Google bent its policies to try and hire more women. Constantly. Some tricks I saw used: 1. Assigning the best/most reliable interviewers to women. Recruiters confirmed to me tha…
1. Assigning the most reliable interviewers to women ensures that women who do meet the bar don't get inaccurately rejected.
2. The hiring bar is enforced at the on-site, not at the phone screen.
3. Sourcing an all-women group from a hiring event and sending them through the normal interview process is ... sending them through the normal interview process.
If you want to claim that Google is trying harder to hire qualified women than qualified men, sure, I don't think anyone disputed that. The dispute was whether Googlers ever think an unqualified person was hired to meet a diversity goal.
(And how often does Google fire someone for discovering that their interview process emitted a false positive? Given the incredible cost of making that mistake, most hiring processes are tuned to err towards false negatives instead of false positives, and Google's intensive process should be particularly good at that. Unless you're claiming HR is firing qualified men to meet a quota - i.e., textbook wrongful termination at scale - a bias for never getting around to firing women can't have a noticeable effect.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is badging for food even a small issue?
Would you want your employer to know about your exact food habits for years of your life? How about your government? How about your insurance company?
Your government is mandatory, your employer is voluntary.
Your insurance company would likely offer you a discount if you provided them this information. Again, on a voluntary basis. In general when something like this is required by an insurance company it's heavily regulated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook could easily be told to shed Instagram, WhatsApp and everything else they bought up to dominate the social network space. Individually those companies might not survive, but they could spin them off, as a whole, if the FTC tired to step in. Google could be asked to do the same with some of their product lines/companies. It's very unlikely though. These companies have a lot of influence and a lot of power ..…
> It's very unlikely though. These companies have a lot of influence and a lot of power While that's true, just money and influence aren't sufficient for this. Congress passes laws, but its upto the Executive to interpret it. The lack of breaking up of larger corporations has indeed been due to their significant influence, but I'm interested to see how e.g. a left-learning President like Sanders or Warren would use t…
http://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-c...
Or how Bell is now ATT and plenty of other useless oligopoly companies?
