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

Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 311 posts

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#121

Post by CydeWeys »

seibelj wrote: post #119
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that business cares only about profit is just plain wrong. The law people think of is almost never relevant. Each year, millions of business decisions are made knowing full well that it will cost a bit of money, not bring in any (or even good PR), but is the decent thing to do. As but one example: Google once gave us money for a non-profit event, in no way related to their business, with explicit instruction…

If your anecdote is true then how do you know that?

Because they were involved in it??

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#122

Post by narag »

zepto wrote: post #75

There is nothing toxic about Google’s culture. These are normal events in any organization of this size. They are just as focussed as ever on organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible.

I can't see any visible clues, but my sarcasm-O-meter just exploded.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#123

Post by throwaway17_17 »

zepto wrote: post #75

There is nothing toxic about Google’s culture. These are normal events in any organization of this size. They are just as focussed as ever on organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible.

Curious, are the downvotes on this comment for the comment which I assumed was sarcasm, or for the fact that a non-qualified sarcastic comment is of a type of discussion HN rules discourage?

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#124

Post by KingMachiavelli »

loganfrederick wrote: post #79

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...…

I would assume there is extensive child support that would more then compensate? (Article is paywaled, so I don't know the details).

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#125

Post by minikites »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #117
Aqua wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how business works.

The idea that business cares only about profit is just plain wrong. The law people think of is almost never relevant. Each year, millions of business decisions are made knowing full well that it will cost a bit of money, not bring in any (or even good PR), but is the decent thing to do. As but one example: Google once gave us money for a non-profit event, in no way related to their business, with explicit instruction…

And then the shareholders punish them:

https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/29/15471634/american-ai...

>American Airlines agreed this week to do something nice for its employees and arguably foresighted for its business by giving flight attendants and pilots a preemptive raise, in order to close a gap that had opened up between their compensation and the compensation paid by rival airlines Delta and United.

>Wall Street freaked out, sending American shares plummeting. After all, this is capitalism and the capital owners are supposed to reap the rewards of business success.

>“This is frustrating. Labor is being paid first again,” wrote Citi analyst Kevin Crissey in a widely circulated note. “Shareholders get leftovers.”

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#126

Post by [deleted] »

outside1234 wrote: post #12
lacker wrote: post #11

These sexual misconduct investigations at Google are really finding some critical stuff. At this point my guess is that it is related to the Larry and Sergey resignations, and we will eventually hear information that reflects poorly on them directly.

Haven't we already? Sergey was banging everything that moved at one point. ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-employees...

[deleted]

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#127

Post by throwaway17_17 »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #71
stronglikedan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if it's consensual, then they are behaving themselves.

That's a low bar. Consensual does not mean ethical or palatable to shareholders and the public.

At the rates of return Alphabet experiences, along with such a large share percentage held by a ‘smallish’ group of founders/early supporters, many of whom are apparently credibly stated to have engaged in very similar behavior, I doubt there will much pressure from shareholders. It is doubtful, but if this was the straw that broke the regulation-impasse-camel’s back, Drummond makes a good scapegoat for current leadership.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#128

Post by nostrademons »

m0zg wrote: post #90
nostrademons wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no criminal law against it, but it opens you up to civil suits from aggrieved parties (who can be either participants in the affair or bystanders who feel they were given a raw deal because of the relationship). Hiring, firing, and performance management is supposed to be based on your performance at doing your job, not because your boss dumped you and now dislikes you. Sexual harassment and discrimination su…

You're assuming there are "aggrieved parties". To the best of my knowledge nobody was "aggrieved" by Sergey at least. He probably had them sign something before the "massage" or else I'm sure we'd see some lawsuits. Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying sexual harassment in any way. But it's not "harassment" if it's wanted and consensual, and it's not _automatically_ unethical if the employee is not in his chain of…

The "aggrieved party" doesn't have to be a party within the relationship. Anyone else in the org can make a case that their career opportunities were impeded by the existence of a superior/subordinate relationship within their reporting chain. People in a romantic relationship are assumed to not be impartial when it comes to things that may affect their romantic partners, which means that it's pretty easy to make a case that an executive's decisions were biased by the affair in a way that may harm your career. So if you were Rosenberg's teammate and she got placed on a hot project like Google Glass while you were passed over for the position, you could make the case that your career was harmed because she's sleeping with the head of Google X.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#129

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

seibelj wrote: post #119
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that business cares only about profit is just plain wrong. The law people think of is almost never relevant. Each year, millions of business decisions are made knowing full well that it will cost a bit of money, not bring in any (or even good PR), but is the decent thing to do. As but one example: Google once gave us money for a non-profit event, in no way related to their business, with explicit instruction…

If your anecdote is true then how do you know that?

I called them and asked for money. See my use of the word "us".

So, yes, maybe they did it because they knew I'd be going around using them as an example of altruism in business, 12 years later.

Re: Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

#130

Post by rayiner »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #124
loganfrederick wrote: post #79

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...…

I would assume there is extensive child support that would more then compensate? (Article is paywaled, so I don't know the details).

I’m pretty sure money doesn’t compensate someone for growing up without a father.
Post reply on HN