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

Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#131

Post by IX-103 »

footlose_3815 wrote: post #61
sampton wrote: post #5

Google is guilty of a lot of things but this is a drive-by shakedown by predatory law firms.

The people who are running the diversity stuff at Google when I was there were very "Eye-for-an-eye". Some dumb stuff that happened while I was at Google: * There was a ERG for literally every single race except White people. "Just join one of the others" was what they told me. * During an onboarding learning exercise because I was merely showing initiative before the rest of the group. "Ok everyone here's my idea".…

That's very different from Google when I was there (both before and after the Damore memo).

1. There were ERGs for old people, young people, people who brought dogs to work, Irish people, Jewish people, etc. I can't imagine why they would say you couldn't create one for the group you wanted.

2. One thing hot-shot programmers fresh out of college need to learn is that while their opinion is valued, they need to listen to other people on the team as they may have important points as well. While it's nice to show initiative, that's L3-L4 thinking. To get to L5 or higher, you need to be able to listen, strategize, and drive consensus. All of those fuzzy things that you became a software engineer to avoid. Because at the end of the day, no one is particularly interested in how clever you are, they're interested in what you can get done. And you can get a heck of a lot more done through working with other people, even if they aren't quite as clever as you. After all, quantity has a quality all its own.

3. Every new employee gets assigned a mentor (at least at the office I was at). I'm not sure how this would differ from the "special" mentor you're talking about, but maybe you can inform me. Though with the level of ego reflected in your post, I'm not sure you would have benefited from a mentor, special or otherwise.

4. Some people that are hired are not as good, technically, as others. I'm aware of confirmation bias, so seeing a few less technically capable employees that happen not to be white doesn't surprise me. And when I do the math, assigning scores to previous co-workers and talking it up, I don't actually see a statistically significant difference in the capabilities based on race (though it does lean a bit towards white males being less capable).

But maybe my Google office wasn't representative, as we weren't one of the main ones.

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#132

Post by wijwp »

footlose_3815 wrote: post #107
wijwp wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a white man who used to work for G: > There was a ERG for literally every single race except White people. "Just join one of the others" was what they told me. What would an ERG for white people even do? What would you want from it? > Nonwhite employees in my org also got a special mentor who helped them get a leg-up in the company. There are general mentorship programs, too. Usually focused on career development.…

I would have been happy if it was called "White Allies" and it just focused on being a good sensitive person.

There are plenty of allyship opportunities at big companies. Or at least, there were. I don't really know the status of some companies after the current political environment started changing things.

Focusing on "White Allies" is a bit strange, though. Anyone not directly in a given group can be allies.

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#133

Post by fallingknife »

wijwp wrote: post #118
yieldcrv wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m uninitiated to this concept and not white and I’m scratching my head about why these same questions arent asked for “employee resource groups” of other minority “themes” as well as why the ability to empathise is so apparent for those other themes but not so easily imagined for this person who is white forgot the EEOC, I’m about to go to the SEC Whistleblower bounty program since shareholders might want to know h…

Well, most other groups have had a rough go at it throughout recent history, and often have to approach the workplace differently because it takes a long time to reverse some of our previous mistakes. We considered many black folks property until 1865, and we had segregation of some schools in the 1960s. We didn't let women vote until 1920. We put Japanese people in internment camps until 1946. Gay folks couldn't mar…

> We put Japanese people in internment camps until 1946

And now they are economically ahead of the average American. Universities actually discriminate against them by their malevolent definition of "fairness" where success is a punishable offense. People are where they are because of what they do today, not what happened to their ancestors in the past.

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#134

Post by unclebucknasty »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #123
unclebucknasty wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not surprising. There are different ways to view identity, and none of us are any one thing. Your observation underscores my point that providing support along the lines of identity can be completely benign sans a political context. That said, feel free to substitute a more homogenous country if that helps to clarify my point.

The point is offering development resources based on race, an immutable characteristic, is deeply unsettling to a lot of people. (I’m not white, for what it’s worth.)

>offering development resources based on race, an immutable characteristic, is deeply unsettling to a lot of people.

I understand, but I'm trying to provide a point of view that might make it less unsettling. Otherwise, we're just kind of saying that people find it unsettling, so it must be wrong (BTW, we also can't overlook that there are people who want to make it more unsettling, for reasons).

Anyway, it really comes down to backing up a little to consider why race became a factor. Else, if we simply start the clock at the inception of these groups, then I suppose it should be unsettling.

Interestingly, there are other immutable characteristics that do not trigger that unsettledness. If nothing else, this gives us reason to question why this particular characteristic became so charged.

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#135

Post by JumpCrisscross »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #134
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is offering development resources based on race, an immutable characteristic, is deeply unsettling to a lot of people. (I’m not white, for what it’s worth.)

> offering development resources based on race, an immutable characteristic, is deeply unsettling to a lot of people. I understand, but I'm trying to provide a point of view that might make it less unsettling. Otherwise, we're just kind of saying that people find it unsettling, so it must be wrong (BTW, we also can't overlook that there are people who want to make it more unsettling, for reasons). Anyway, it really c…

> there are other immutable characteristics that do not trigger that unsettledness

Like what?

> this gives us reason to question why this particular characteristic became so charged

Because it's been a tool of social division. As a result, we've been attuned to it culturally from both sides (separation and integration).

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#136

Post by IX-103 »

yieldcrv wrote: post #120
wijwp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, most other groups have had a rough go at it throughout recent history, and often have to approach the workplace differently because it takes a long time to reverse some of our previous mistakes. We considered many black folks property until 1865, and we had segregation of some schools in the 1960s. We didn't let women vote until 1920. We put Japanese people in internment camps until 1946. Gay folks couldn't mar…

That doesn't explain why ERG's exist for that, and it doesn't explain why they are dismissive of what people who are white && and not women encounter in life or as an employee, seeking resources Why are you invalidating their experience, its look like you have let something else leak into the workplace under an amusingly ironic interpretation of empathy Let's write it again in a different way: Nothing about the name…

Look, they had a whiskey drinkers ERG when I was there. For people that like to meet to drink whiskey.

I'm not sure what OP actually proposed, but I'm reasonably sure he's not telling the whole story.

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#137

Post by fallingknife »

qingcharles wrote: post #130
SR2Z wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court did not agree with the plaintiffs - this case was settled outside of court.

I'm guessing the court made no statement either way if there was a settlement? A civil court's job in the USA is to try every possible means to help both sides to reach a settlement (or other disposition) without trial. Trial is an extraordinary remedy.

A court will never make a statement favoring either side in a settlement. A settlement means the case never went to trial, and therefore, the sides never presented their cases in full to the court, so such a statement would be completely out of line.

In my brief experience with litigation the only role the court has in helping both sides achieve a settlement is forcing the litigants to go through endless and expensive procedure until they both realize it's not worth it. Before trial, the court does little to indicate to you that it even knows you exist.

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#138

Post by unclebucknasty »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #135
unclebucknasty wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> offering development resources based on race, an immutable characteristic, is deeply unsettling to a lot of people. I understand, but I'm trying to provide a point of view that might make it less unsettling. Otherwise, we're just kind of saying that people find it unsettling, so it must be wrong (BTW, we also can't overlook that there are people who want to make it more unsettling, for reasons). Anyway, it really c…

> there are other immutable characteristics that do not trigger that unsettledness Like what? > this gives us reason to question why this particular characteristic became so charged Because it's been a tool of social division. As a result, we've been attuned to it culturally from both sides (separation and integration).

>Like what?

The Disability Alliance Network (DA)?

I'm assuming that's a good example, because I've yet to see an outcry around disabled people getting unfair advantages.

But, it's really down to any group that has not been socially or politically charged. So, I'd also say things like women's groups, given their historic underrepresentation in tech. However, that's also become charged recently.

So, what we have is this thing of defining what's OK by how people react to it or, maybe more accurately, how people are encouraged to react. That seems potentially unhealthy and infinitely abusable.

>Because it's been a tool of social division.

Exactly. But, it's not just division in the sense of splitting people in half. There's also a historic inequity that corresponds with one side.

Some make the argument that you can't heal division by "dividing further". But, I think it's a little unfair to simply not acknowledge those who have been negatively impacted. The other part is that the existence of a group doesn't have to be divisive in itself. In fact, seeking to understand and support them can be quite the opposite.

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#139

Post by rqtwteye »

wijwp wrote: post #95
rqtwteye wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ What would an ERG for white people even do? What would you want from it?” What do other groups get? Support, networking, mentorship probably. A lot of white people could use that help too.

> Support, networking, mentorship I get plenty of that elsewhere. Do you have issues finding support, networking events, and mentorship programs? ERGs specifically tend to group those generic, open-to-all programs together and add another layer of `navigating the workplace as [insert ERG demographic]` that doesn't really make sense if you insert "white man".

How about an ERG for people who need support? When I started working I had no idea how things work and nobody told me. I didn't even know that things like mentorship exist. I had been taught by my parents that you go to work and do what you are told to do.

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#140

Post by rqtwteye »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #109
rqtwteye wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ERG groups provide mentorship and support. The assumption that all white people, males or in this case Swiss don’t need support or get it automatically is plain wrong.

> ERG groups provide mentorship and support. Yes, and Google offers a wide range of mentorship/support programs, from those for community college students to upskilling to new hires to tailored programs and more. > The assumption that all white people, males or in this case Swiss don’t need support I don't think anyone assumes that. I certainly don't. I'm sure Google provides other means of support to its employees,…

But again, why call out specific groups by gender or race and not call out others? Do people really think that a white guy from some poor area has more privilege and needs less support than some person from {insert oppressed group here} whose family is highly educated?
Post reply on HN