Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees • Hacker News Board

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#21

Post by dahdum » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:50 PM UTC

dokein wrote: post #5

To what extent should diversity be the responsibility of companies? I would argue the responsibility is in proportion to added-discrimination, so to speak (kind of like your profit should be in proportion to your added value). So, as an example, if 90% of your applicants are male and 10% are female, presuming quality is randomly distributed, the default assumption is that the company ends up with 90% male employees a…

The article quotes Google as shooting for “market supply” representation, instead of artificial targets of the proposal.

I can’t think of any legitimate reason they can’t achieve market representation so that makes sense to me.

Forcing 50/50 at Google would force many, many smaller companies out of balance. They should spend their efforts on the top of funnel imho, with more high school and university programs to support women and minorities.

Edit, here is the proposal:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1394096/000121465918...

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#22

Post by lawnchair_larry » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:50 PM UTC

peteretep wrote: post #13

malvosenior wrote: post #3

I wish the article had more details on why the propositions were rejected. It makes sense though, Alphabet is there to make money not foster an ultra political working environment. After the Damore incident, I wouldn't consider working there, but this does offer some hope to those who aren't far-left leaning.

I wonder how you came to the determination that those who support equality are far left, rather than just left?

He didn’t come to that determination. People pushing these don’t support equality or anything close to it.

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#23

Post by UncleMeat » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:51 PM UTC

adamnemecek wrote: post #2

This is an honest question to people who side with the proposal. At what point would these measures become unnecessary? What are the conditions? Btw what is the name of the ideology that one would use to justify this?

This is a hard question to answer. But I'd consider something like racial bussing in the 60s. This was a positive step and was enacted without explicit exit conditions. Such exit conditions are not necessarily a requirement for these sorts of initiatives.

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#24

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:51 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #9

sz4kerto wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other question is for people who side with the proposal: what would be considered 'too much effort' when it comes to inclusion and equitability?

It’s not about effort. It’s aboit discriminating against people to fill quotas and turning away qualified candidates when they’re not the “correct” gender or race.

[deleted]

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#25

Post by lixtra » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:51 PM UTC

sz4kerto wrote: post #4

adamnemecek wrote: post #2

This is an honest question to people who side with the proposal. At what point would these measures become unnecessary? What are the conditions? Btw what is the name of the ideology that one would use to justify this?

The other question is for people who side with the proposal: what would be considered 'too much effort' when it comes to inclusion and equitability?

The answer to this question I usually get is that you cannot oversteer because a) we are still far away from a fair state and b) even if you oversteer it’s fair to make up for past injustice.

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#26

Post by dokein » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:51 PM UTC

vlovich123 wrote: post #16

dokein wrote: post #5

To what extent should diversity be the responsibility of companies? I would argue the responsibility is in proportion to added-discrimination, so to speak (kind of like your profit should be in proportion to your added value). So, as an example, if 90% of your applicants are male and 10% are female, presuming quality is randomly distributed, the default assumption is that the company ends up with 90% male employees a…

I had this misconception too & Google has not had 50/50 parity as a goal (unsure about specifically what this proposal is but I don't think it establishes quotas either). The discussion has been centered about reaching parity with the available talent pool as you describe. It's even in the article: > Eileen Naughton, who leads Google’s HR operations, said the company remains committed to an internal goal to reach “ma…

Thank you for this--I missed it in my read of the article! Thinking about it further, it's a careful balance between defining market supply correctly (e.g. high performing individuals who would normally be hired at Google) without the definition itself being discriminatory (e.g. high performers look like our current high performers).

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#27

Post by scryfish » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:52 PM UTC

peteretep wrote: post #13

malvosenior wrote: post #3

I wish the article had more details on why the propositions were rejected. It makes sense though, Alphabet is there to make money not foster an ultra political working environment. After the Damore incident, I wouldn't consider working there, but this does offer some hope to those who aren't far-left leaning.

I wonder how you came to the determination that those who support equality are far left, rather than just left?

Forced equal outcome? Reasonable to call that far left

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#28

Post by diminoten » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:52 PM UTC

dokein wrote: post #5

To what extent should diversity be the responsibility of companies? I would argue the responsibility is in proportion to added-discrimination, so to speak (kind of like your profit should be in proportion to your added value). So, as an example, if 90% of your applicants are male and 10% are female, presuming quality is randomly distributed, the default assumption is that the company ends up with 90% male employees a…

I can't think of a way to fix society that doesn't involve companies consciously hiring diverse (and qualified!) candidates.

Companies are part of society too!

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#29

Post by adamnemecek » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:52 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #23

adamnemecek wrote: post #2

This is an honest question to people who side with the proposal. At what point would these measures become unnecessary? What are the conditions? Btw what is the name of the ideology that one would use to justify this?

This is a hard question to answer. But I'd consider something like racial bussing in the 60s. This was a positive step and was enacted without explicit exit conditions. Such exit conditions are not necessarily a requirement for these sorts of initiatives.

The two are very different tho. One is in some sense removing a rule, one is adding it.

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#30

Post by sz4kerto » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:53 PM UTC

vlovich123 wrote: post #16

dokein wrote: post #5

To what extent should diversity be the responsibility of companies? I would argue the responsibility is in proportion to added-discrimination, so to speak (kind of like your profit should be in proportion to your added value). So, as an example, if 90% of your applicants are male and 10% are female, presuming quality is randomly distributed, the default assumption is that the company ends up with 90% male employees a…

I had this misconception too & Google has not had 50/50 parity as a goal (unsure about specifically what this proposal is but I don't think it establishes quotas either). The discussion has been centered about reaching parity with the available talent pool as you describe. It's even in the article: > Eileen Naughton, who leads Google’s HR operations, said the company remains committed to an internal goal to reach “ma…

It is interesting though that if are far from market supply parity now but they want to reach it by 2020 then between now and 2020 they need to apply really strong positive discrimination (over market supply parity) when hiring/firing.