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

A note from Keith

keithrabois.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 165 posts

Re: A note from Keith

#101

Post by spuz »

jacalata wrote: post #8

It's interesting that he says Square had no knowledge of the relationship until the lawsuit. I've heard of companies requiring that you tell HR if you are in a relationship with another employee- seems that level of disclosure would be very smart for someone at the top of the company, at least.

It strikes me as odd that a company should be automatically given privilege to the personal relationships of its employees. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situation here but I cannot see any reason for why an employee's relationship with another employee should be of any concern to the company.

Re: A note from Keith

#102

Post by csense »

abraininavat wrote: post #9

To those of you who immediately believe the tumblr and therefore condemn the accuser as a liar: On what basis do you make your judgment? Do you: 1. Know Keith or the accuser personally, and therefore have the capacity to make an educated guess as to the veracity of the claims? 2. Believe that rich people, well known people, or people with blogs don't have the capacity to do what Keith is accused of doing? 3. Believe…

Mr. Rabois's story has the ring of truth.

Consider the following, which are presumably objectively verifiable facts:

A. Mr. Rabois doesn't name his accuser. If he was looking to inflict damage on them, he'd publicize it.

B. The accuser is seeking a payment of "millions of dollars."

C. The relationship began several months before the accuser's employment with Square.

D. The two came into relatively little contact at work.

These facts all show a high probability that the relationship was consensual, and also give a low probability that the accuser will be able to produce conclusive proof of coercion, such as:

. Texts or emails from the accuser saying Mr. Rabois's advances were unwelcome or made him uncomfortable.

. Evidence that Mr. Rabois gave the accuser job-related threats and/or rewards in exchange for the continuing relationship.

This does not conclusively show, of course, that Mr. Rabois is innocent. Nor does it mean the accuser doesn't have a solid case that will stand up in court. But based on the available information, this does seem to be the likelier outcome.

Re: A note from Keith

#103

Post by 255martyn »

jacalata wrote: post #8

It's interesting that he says Square had no knowledge of the relationship until the lawsuit. I've heard of companies requiring that you tell HR if you are in a relationship with another employee- seems that level of disclosure would be very smart for someone at the top of the company, at least.

I don't fully understand why this makes me so angry, but it does. The company you work for has no right to know anything about your personal life. To be expected to disclose things to HR is ridiculous.

Re: A note from Keith

#104

Post by csense »

cookiecaper wrote: post #77
d0m wrote: post #73

Is it considered illegal to have a relationship with someone working at the same company?

No, but it is illegal to use workplace positions of authority to coerce or pressure subordinates or colleagues into sexual activity. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

To this, I would add that it's difficult to determine when this has taken place. Often it's a case of "he-said she-said," unless the harasser manages to leave evidence (or in this particular case, "he-said he-said").

The large potential financial payoff from a successful lawsuit gives the accuser a motive to lie or misremember.

Also, people are notoriously bad about communicating with each other about relationships. So it's possible that the accuser genuinely thought he was being coerced, when this was not actually the case. I.e. if he'd simply broken up with Mr. Rabois instead of filing a lawsuit, there might have been no work-related consequences whatsoever; but he didn't believe this.

Re: A note from Keith

#105

Post by danso »

spuz wrote: post #99
run4yourlives wrote: post #58

Several months after our relationship began, I recommended that he interview at Square. I don't know Keith, anyone at his company, this story or have any opinion on who did or didn't do what to whom. I will just say this: The quote above, regardless of who says it when, is perhaps the worst business decision a person could ever make. Full Stop. Please, don't do this. Especially if you are the boss.

I don't understand. Maybe we have different professional cultures. Why is having an undisclosed relationship with another employee the worst possible business decision? (Certainly in my culture I can think of much worse decisions one person could make).

1. "You want to break up with me? oK, you're fired"

2. "Maybe Bob is the better qualified candidate, but I'm going to promote the guy who's having sex with me"

Re: A note from Keith

#106

Post by rdl »

spuz wrote: post #101
jacalata wrote: post #8

It's interesting that he says Square had no knowledge of the relationship until the lawsuit. I've heard of companies requiring that you tell HR if you are in a relationship with another employee- seems that level of disclosure would be very smart for someone at the top of the company, at least.

It strikes me as odd that a company should be automatically given privilege to the personal relationships of its employees. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situation here but I cannot see any reason for why an employee's relationship with another employee should be of any concern to the company.

COO is not really "an employee".

Re: A note from Keith

#107

Post by arbuge »

abraininavat wrote: post #9

To those of you who immediately believe the tumblr and therefore condemn the accuser as a liar: On what basis do you make your judgment? Do you: 1. Know Keith or the accuser personally, and therefore have the capacity to make an educated guess as to the veracity of the claims? 2. Believe that rich people, well known people, or people with blogs don't have the capacity to do what Keith is accused of doing? 3. Believe…

One factor is Bayes' theorem and prior probabilities. The probability of being accused of sexual harassment changes when you're a wealthy executive working for a successful company like Square.

Re: A note from Keith

#108

Post by josephlord »

Macsenour wrote: post #20
jacalata wrote: post #8

It's interesting that he says Square had no knowledge of the relationship until the lawsuit. I've heard of companies requiring that you tell HR if you are in a relationship with another employee- seems that level of disclosure would be very smart for someone at the top of the company, at least.

That struck me as odd too. When I saw someone I had a single date with was interviewing at the company I worked for, as she left the building I went to HR and told them so that there would be no surprise later. And that was just a single date, not an ongoing relationship.

I'm from the UK and that strikes me as bizarre although I understand there is greater concern about these areas in the US. Unless you have hiring responsibility or they are on your direct reporting line I would see no need to report anything (even an ongoing relationship). That may change in the future if things are reorganized and a more direct business relationship is established.

Even then with a single date I wouldn't feel any need to report a single date unless they were reporting to me fairly directly and I was covering my ass.

A CEO is on everyone's reporting line and is also potentially a target so there is more of a reason for them to be careful and to report things.

None of this matters to me know as I'm married and am currently a one man company with no plans for staff growth.

Re: A note from Keith

#109

Post by brown9-2 »

spuz wrote: post #101
jacalata wrote: post #8

It's interesting that he says Square had no knowledge of the relationship until the lawsuit. I've heard of companies requiring that you tell HR if you are in a relationship with another employee- seems that level of disclosure would be very smart for someone at the top of the company, at least.

It strikes me as odd that a company should be automatically given privilege to the personal relationships of its employees. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situation here but I cannot see any reason for why an employee's relationship with another employee should be of any concern to the company.

A company would want to know of a relationship outside of work in case there are conflicts at work between the two employees in the future.

And because a reporting relationship between sexual partners is a bad idea.

"I think we need to let X go" could take on a whole new context if the speaker was just dumped by X.

Re: A note from Keith

#110

Post by [deleted] »

spuz wrote: post #101
jacalata wrote: post #8

It's interesting that he says Square had no knowledge of the relationship until the lawsuit. I've heard of companies requiring that you tell HR if you are in a relationship with another employee- seems that level of disclosure would be very smart for someone at the top of the company, at least.

It strikes me as odd that a company should be automatically given privilege to the personal relationships of its employees. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situation here but I cannot see any reason for why an employee's relationship with another employee should be of any concern to the company.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN