101–110 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why can't powerful men behave themselves? They can behave themselves equally as well as not-powerful men, but they're just in more of a spotlight.
I think it's more than that, powerful/rich people men are going to have more access to (consensual) sex than poor men.
why you heff to be poor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how business works.
You're correct, that's not how companies usually make their personnel decisions. But one would think more companies would factor in PR-risk as a real financial risk. But Google being Google economically-speaking, this still probably isn't a material event.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This situation is fucked up on multiple levels. You don't punish the subordinate. Given his level, he should have been out. Instead they transferred her from legal to sales and her performance tanked because it was a job she was in no way qualified to do. He got her to quit (and sign a bunch of forms) promising to support her, then bailed. He refused child support and after she sued, he started using threats against…
He did not get her to quit, she made that choice herself because she wanted to protect him. She made that choice. Yes he is a terrible person, yes possibly psycho and this story sucks but no one forced anything. > so I quit Google, signing whatever documents they required because likewise, I wanted to protect him
And then he withdrew / refused support, that he'd agreed to, in writing.
Yes, it's not all black and white, but it's close to willfully obtuse to see a timeline of events and then fall back to a definition of "well, he didn't hold a gun to her head/use physical violence so it wasn't really a forced situation".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I might be wrong, but I don't think there's any law that forbids having consensual sex with employees. It's unethical if they're his direct reports, sure, but I don't think it's illegal. I'm sure if I had _fifty billion dollars_, I'd have to fight off women like zombies in a movie even though I'm already married.
Yes, it's probably not illegal, but it should still cause the exec to be fired.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quote from link above: "HR told me that Sergey's response to it was, 'Why not? They're my employees,'" Ayers said. "But you don't have employees for f---ing! That's not what the job is."
I might be wrong, but I don't think there's any law that forbids having consensual sex with employees. It's unethical if they're his direct reports, sure, but I don't think it's illegal. I'm sure if I had _fifty billion dollars_, I'd have to fight off women like zombies in a movie even though I'm already married.
More generally, there's a tremendous civil liability, both personally to the principles involved and the firm, through such activity. A liability which may be entirely independent of the apparent (or actual) consensuality at the time, and which might be filed by non-participants (e.g., other employees perceiving sexual favouratism or discrimination).
A principle function of a corporation is as a risk-externalising, and limiting, legal structure. (This is literally stated in some forms of organisation, as with an LLC: limited liability corporation.) The principle job of management and oversight is to maximise the reward-to-risk ratio.
Company founders openly and documentedly treating the employee pool as their personal coital resource is a risk in the extreme.
Earlier / dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22013436 This is (for obvious reasons) getting multiple submissions. The CNBC article seems the most comprehensive to date: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22014115
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quote from link above: "HR told me that Sergey's response to it was, 'Why not? They're my employees,'" Ayers said. "But you don't have employees for f---ing! That's not what the job is."
The next line is really illustrative of whose interests an HR department serves. >"'Oh my God, this is a sexual harassment claim waiting to happen!' That was my concern," she recalled
I swear I remember folks publicly noting these relationships.
I really liked Ben Horowitz's new book "What You Do Is Who You Are". However, the only passage that I disliked and stood out to me is when he defended David Drummond for his ability to thrive at Google for a long time despite the corporate culture changing. This was after Drummond was called out publicly for abandoning his kid he had with a subordinate: https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/10/25/report-alphabet-c...…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And David wasn't forced out for violating company policy because...? He's a man? He's Larry and Sergey's friend?
No one was forced out, HR said one of them had to leave. We dont know anything beyond that she was the one to change departments. She wasnt fired.