Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation

Post by unapologetic » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:55 AM UTC

onetimemanytime wrote: post #56

unapologetic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not irrelevant, it's a blatant abuse of power. This guy is clearly a pretty sick sort of predator. > How dare a married, billionaire cheater not settle down with her but continue to sleep with other women? He basically got her fired and then bailed on her and their son. He refused to pay child support despite being a millionaire and is basically in an abusive relationship with her still. It's disgusting. It's th…

>>This guy is clearly a pretty sick sort of predator. Maybe he was the prey. You cannot refuse to pay child support, it's one option you do not have. Play hard ball in response to stuff etc maybe, but you will pay in the end. She should have named her price upfront. All consensual and he is a d*ck and a moron in a sense, as a billionaire, he could have used his pocket change and made her happy $$ wise. Now he gets ba…

Post by booi » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:59 AM UTC

dlp211 wrote: post #140

gumby wrote: post #18

No $50M for him.

Yes, the $150MM in stock he's unloaded over the past quarter will have to suffice.

Post by unapologetic » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 1:08 AM UTC

lanstin wrote: post #97

ProAm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is rape the only thing that companies should fire people for? A pattern of relationships like this is quite likely to be very bad for Google, both in terms of settlements and in terms of lost morale and acceptance of shitty behavior instead of working together on the great common project. The question isn't "forced" it's "why is firing the subordinate done instead of firing the habitual asshole when it's clearly in t…

Post by joncrane » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 1:10 AM UTC

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...…

Post by unapologetic » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 1:11 AM UTC

ProAm wrote: post #136

FireBeyond wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... because he had promised her financial support and if he also lost his job, that would go away. 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".

I agree he's a horrible person, but all those things have nothing to do with Google and his position at Google or her position at Google. Those were relationship decisions they made on their own. They both made horrible personal decisions, but it doesn't involve google.