Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 582 posts

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#351

Post by wrycoder »

aerovistae wrote: post #231
jancsika wrote: post #226

Just to clarify-- this article is about a modern religious cult. Modern religious cults are groups that use a whole host of well-known manipulative techniques to trap victims in insular groups which are then difficult to escape after the fact. Leaders of those groups directly abuse those victims physically and/or emotionally (and often drain their bank accounts as well). This isn't, "My parents are worried about my w…

I'm not sure what this comment was meant to clarify - the article already made this clear. If anything, your comment's reference to parents adds confusion rather than clarification.

And yet it’s the top comment, for some reason.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#352

Post by jonas21 »

ineedasername wrote: post #277
abeppu wrote: post #274

So, if the author was fired for the reasons they believe, that's pretty bad behavior. But if he had not been fired, what was management supposed to have done about the cult members working for this department? Yes, the cult's leader sounds like a pretty awful person, but he wasn't working there. What were the cult members doing in their work in the department that was clearly wrong? It's suggested that there was favo…

At minimum Google could have investigated the odd clustering of employees that indicated some sort of nepotistic hiring practice. Of course they might be doing exactly that, but it's not the sort of thing they can really comment on. Edit: also the self-dealing on hundreds of thousands of dollars in wine.

There was also an odd clustering among early Google employees who all came from a place called "Stanford."

It may be difficult to distinguish between these two hiring patterns without asking the sorts of questions that are illegal for employers to ask.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#353

Post by glenstein »

rendall wrote: post #283
LZ_Khan wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? They're funneling company funds into the cult. It's literally embezzlement.

First, questioning whether someone read the article is against the guidelines. Please don't do that. Secondly, according to the article, "everyone" at Google knew, and he was a contractor. Once he raised his concerns, he did his duty. At that point, it's Google's business, and it's up to them to do something about it. Or not, if they'd rather. Maybe management liked their work and so looked past the "embezzlement", b…

>First, questioning whether someone read the article is against the guidelines. Please don't do that.

This thread is an excellent illustration of what's likely an unintended consequence of that guideline, and of all the places to raise it, this is probably the least constructive and least in conformance with any possible intention of the guideline.

If someone doesn't RTFA but contributes really interesting thoughts on, say, AI, or the efficiency of a programming language, such scolding chills valuable discussion. That's understandable. Even responding as a scold to low effort comments is not very readable and the exercise in scolding, however correct, isn't conducive to good discussion. So it's understandable there too.

But here, you're using it in response to a constructive comment expressing a legitimate point over something that's crucial to undestanding and engaging with the article. I can't fathom what purpose you think that rule has if you think this is the right place to invoke it.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#354

Post by zymhan »

wrycoder wrote: post #351
aerovistae wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what this comment was meant to clarify - the article already made this clear. If anything, your comment's reference to parents adds confusion rather than clarification.

And yet it’s the top comment, for some reason.

I think child comments become parent comments if the original parent is removed by mods

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#355

Post by woodruffw »

nitwit005 wrote: post #339
ineedasername wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At minimum Google could have investigated the odd clustering of employees that indicated some sort of nepotistic hiring practice. Of course they might be doing exactly that, but it's not the sort of thing they can really comment on. Edit: also the self-dealing on hundreds of thousands of dollars in wine.

The problem in this case would be they seem to be hiring almost exclusively from a rather obscure religious group. That means they're illegally discriminating against members other religions.

Cults are not “obscure religious groups.” It varies widely by state (and in federal jurisprudence), but most states have a “free association”-style test: if members aren’t free to come and go, it’s a cult and not a religion.

Google would not be exposed to any significant liability here. Particularly not when the cult has a well-documented history of sexual abuse.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#356

Post by thomasahle »

zaphar wrote: post #322
throwaway29303 wrote: post #232

I had recently joined the Alphabet Workers Union, the union of now almost 1,000 workers across all Alphabet companies, including Google. I told them my story and they advised that I get a lawyer. Wait, Unions in the USA don't have a legal office to help workers with this kind of legal problems? Or is this specific to AWU?

The power of a Union is entirely in it's ability to negotiate with the company. Your typical union you hear on the news has the power it has because of the contract their members entered into with the Company. In the case of AWU they have not negotiated a contract with Google and as a result have no legal recourse. They only power they have is PR activity.

> The power of a Union is entirely in it's ability to negotiate with the company.

I often hear this misunderstanding in the US. Of course it's a within the power of a union to hire lawyers who can help defend its members against the cooperation within the rules of the law. In fact, to highly paid employees like tech workers, this kind of legal support is much more valuable than wage negotiation. Having somebody you can reach out to, who know the company well, and don't charge you a lot of money, is super valuable and why I wish more tech companies had unions.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#357

Post by dubswithus »

jonas21 wrote: post #352
ineedasername wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At minimum Google could have investigated the odd clustering of employees that indicated some sort of nepotistic hiring practice. Of course they might be doing exactly that, but it's not the sort of thing they can really comment on. Edit: also the self-dealing on hundreds of thousands of dollars in wine.

There was also an odd clustering among early Google employees who all came from a place called "Stanford." It may be difficult to distinguish between these two hiring patterns without asking the sorts of questions that are illegal for employers to ask.

I don’t understand your point.

The cult we are discussing here is accused of engaging in grooming and pedophilia.

That’s comparable to a bunch of people that went to Stanford?

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#358

Post by jacobsenscott »

blairbeckwith wrote: post #262
rl3 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not really sure what the big deal is. Did the cult hurt this fellow? Abuse him? Discriminate against him? Mob him? No. The article really just talks about his own disapproval of the cult. >It wasn't his business what these people got up to, frankly. Quoting the article: "The group is well-documented: There are allegations of child abuse, human trafficking, forced abortions, and rape within the group, which has some…

Should we forbid Catholics for the same reason?

We should (and do) forbid Catholics from only hiring Catholics. We forbid discrimination based on religion entirely. I've never known the religious beliefs of anyone who has hired me, and they have never known mine. Same for the people I've hired. But in this case the cult members are hiring, firing, and promoting based on cult membership.

Re: A religious sect landed Google in a lawsuit

#360

Post by medler »

blip54321 wrote: post #316

Just to clarify: Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. Google cannot take action against religions (even cults) it disagrees with (even for valid reasons for disagreeing with them), unless it gets over a very high bar of impacting business behavior. The other path leads to far worse outcomes. Morally, we cannot judge what happened here without hearing from both sides. But if action is to be t…

Google cannot favor people in hiring just because they are members of some religious group. Self-dealing in, say, wine contracts, is against Google policy and likely illegal as well
Post reply on HN