Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#291

Post by jxdxbx » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:45 AM UTC

BookmarkSaver wrote: post #44

izacus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't employment in places where these companies operate at-will? Meaning they can fire you because you waved your hair funny in the morning?

Yes, but (IANAL) if the employee suspects that there was an illegal reason behind it, they can probably sue and subpoena documents revealing management motivations. Like, sure, a manager could wake up and just fire you because they were grumpy. But if it is discovered that there was internal communications about their political opinions leading up to it, then there would be a case.

You can be fired for your political opinions.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#292

Post by moduspol » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:45 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #275

moduspol wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abilities follow from preferences at the level being discussed (potential hiring pool at Google). I am not good at being a nurse because I chose to become a software developer. I chose to become a software developer because I prefer working with computers over people. My preference in adolescence resulted in my being more capable as a software developer for a company like Google. That this one statement keeps getting…

>That this one statement keeps getting taken out of context and misinterpreted Wrong again. When you look at the full context, Damore specifically says that it's not socially constructed like you're describing. Damore isn't arguing that women lack the ability for tech or leadership because they prefer to be nurses, his argument stems from biological differences: >> On average, men and women biologically differ in man…

That's not the full context, though.

The full context is that he's writing this memo in the first place to propose alternatives to a hiring policy. That is: the relevant group is the hiring pool for Google. By the time men and women reach the point where Google's hiring policy is relevant toward their outcomes, the distribution of their abilities is already quite different. That's not even really questionable: It's why there are so many fewer women in the hiring pool.

It's selective interpretation to read this outside the context of the hiring policy.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#293

Post by throwawaymanbot » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:45 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #271

dejawu wrote: post #210

The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared. Then he s…

I feel like the progressive left THRUST Damore and anyone who might have similar thoughts/questions into the welcoming arms of the alt-right. I'm disappointed with the "Goolag" t-shirts, but he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed, and only a limited time to cash out. So this socially awkward nerd did what any sensible person would do, rode the wave that was sent his way the best he coul…

You lot are always blaming others, such as the "Progressive Left", for your own dumb decisions. The "you made me this monster" whinging does not hold water. It's the typical pathetic argument of the pathology.

James Damore chose to speak and do these things. "They" (Whoever they are) did not destroy him, He is not destroyed in anyway, he just made a total fool of himself in a lawsuit, that's all. Any damage caused to him or his reputation he did so with his OWN words and actions, and those who are really at fault are those who got him giddy with victimhood by egging him on and told him he could take on one of the worlds biggest private companies, instead of telling him to wise up and chill out.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#294

Post by manfredo » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:45 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #257

manfredo wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my original comment in this chain: > ...also claimed higher variance, but not overall differences. In other words that there are more men on both sides of the extreme. This is in reference to what the memo says about abilities. The memo does claim higher or lower overall averages, too, but those are in terms of preferences. Let me lay this out point by point if I phrased this poorly before: * The memo claims tha…

Also from your original comment: >This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability. Edit: Rather than reply, you now edited your comment to split hairs on distribution vs averages. That doesn't change the facts about Damore's argument about biological ability to be in tech is unfounded.

Hacker news wasn't letting me reply, so I put the classification in an edit. It didn't change the content of what I wrote, just added a clearer (I hope) phrasing.

I have not once mentioned biology in this comment chain. I made my original comment to dispel the myth that Damore claimed that women have, on average, less intelligence than men.

Whether you agree or disagree with the other claims made about biology is orthogonal to this statement.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#295

Post by bjourne » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:46 AM UTC

janoc wrote: post #229

bjourne wrote: post #27

I don't agree with Damore's message. But Google cultivated an environment were open discussion were encouraged. So firing him for stating his opinion is truly, hypocritical bullshit. People should get fired for not doing their jobs -- not for writing what they think. And I also want to say that before you blame "the Left" for Google's behavior... Had he been fired in "Socialist Europe," the firing would have been dec…

You are very very wrong. In most of Europe (including here in France with their famously rigid labor code) you can be terminated for pretty much anything as well, with a few exceptions. In many cases the employer doesn't even need to justify the firing. The only difference is that in some countries they may have more paperwork with it than in others and that you may get severance or some other benefits in certain sit…

From: http://www.eurojuris.net/en/node/41566

"Employment at will does not exist in France. So, you may only dismiss an employee for specific reasons. The specific reasons must be recognized by French Law or French case law.

Employment at will does not exist in France. So, you may only dismiss an employee for specific reasons. The specific reasons must be recognized by French Law or French case law.

If the dismissal is challenged by an employee, the company will have to prove that dismissal was based on "genuine and substantive grounds".

Also, employers need to be careful about applicable dismissal procedures."

See also the sections POSSIBLE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL and DISMISSAL BASED ON PERSONAL REASONS. Of course, it is still possible for companies to get rid of unwanted employees, they just have to be smart about it. Common methods include assigning only menial tasks to employees or setting up inconvenient work schedules so that they leave voluntarily. Or reorganizing departments so that they become redundant. But outright firing people for no justification is not possible.

Committing, or being indicted of, committing crime is generally not enough for terminating an employee either. For example, speeding is a crime but not grounds for dismissal.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#296

Post by ncallaway » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:46 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #186

georgemcbay wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Curious, why do you believe in that? Have you evaluated the evidence and come to that conclusion, or is it a priori for you? Curious why you question his belief? All of the half-way reputable studies I've ever heard of have either concluded that there is no difference in male/female intelligence or that there are small differences in certain silos, with men scoring slightly higher on average in visuospatial while w…

The memo did not claim that women were less intelligent. It claimed that women _prefer_ to work in fields other than tech. This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability. It also claimed higher variance, but not overall differences. In other words that there are more men on both sides of the extreme.

> This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability

That's simply not true. The memo (as the other comment chain litigates) absolutely makes reference to both preference and ability.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#297

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:47 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #249

leereeves wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you separate 2 and 3? Point 3 is Damore's detailed criticism of point 2. He's arguing (clumsily) that the goals of the policies in point 2 conflict with certain scientific research.

Because in the course of making point 3, he violated Google's anti-harassment policies, and the NLRB defers to companies as to the reasonableness of their anti-harassment policies, because a different federal law that NLRB does not manage requires companies to have anti-harassment policies. If he'd been arguing for better office furniture and Google claimed to fire him over violations of an anti-harassment policy, th…

he violated Google's anti-harassment policies

For just asking a question? If even entertaining a thought with regards to science, if it doesn't "seem nice" through some narrow ideological lens, has become a crime, then we're already at the level of Lysenkoism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

he was arguing about biological differences between men and women and how they might impact the distribution of male and female engineers at Google.

And why in the world should that be a "thought crime?" There are biological differences that make the population of Asian NBA pros much smaller than otherwise, and the population of high level Kenyan marathon competitors higher than otherwise.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#298

Post by leereeves » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:48 AM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #289

tptacek wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have a legal right to engage in science-based discussion of anything at your workplace! Damore's claim is subtly different. He relies on the fact that you do, under the NLRA, have the right to organize to change workplace conditions . But your right to do that is enforceable only through the NLRB, is an exception to at-will employment, and is trumped by federal and state EEO laws. When employee organizing c…

> You don't have a legal right to engage in science-based discussion of anything at your workplace! This is the point that I think most people aren't getting. It seems like people are starting from the position that one should be able to have free and open conversations in the workplace. That a company shouldn't be able to fire an employee for dissent. But this is _absolutely_ not the case with at will employment. If…

This is probably worth repeating:

According to the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the legal right to discuss work-related issues with each other.

https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights

This comes from Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: "Employees shall have the right to...engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."

In this specific case, the Advice Memo refers to protection for "expressing a dissenting view on matters affecting working conditions or offering critical feedback of its policies and programs".

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#299

Post by throwawaymanbot » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:48 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #278

Consultant32452 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the progressive left THRUST Damore and anyone who might have similar thoughts/questions into the welcoming arms of the alt-right. I'm disappointed with the "Goolag" t-shirts, but he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed, and only a limited time to cash out. So this socially awkward nerd did what any sensible person would do, rode the wave that was sent his way the best he coul…

he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed I'm frankly ashamed at the behavior of my classmates, who were so enthusiastically throwing him under the bus, without really knowing anything about him. I found it very odd that people who had no basis of judging his software engineering skills had very strong opinions about them. I'm reminded of a documentary film about North Korea, where during…

He did not commit thought crime. He espoused out of date views in a company that is modern, and trying to harness the future. They did not like it. End of story.. Poor Social Conservative Justice Warriors need to stop whining already. Everyones out of tears for you since trump won.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#300

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:48 AM UTC

jxdxbx wrote: post #279

leereeves wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My challenge to the NLRB's opinion is premised on the idea that Google employees have a right to discuss Google's diversity policy. The NLRB seems to agree, repeatedly saying that Damore's memo contained protected speech. But when that discussion brings up unpleasant scientific findings, the NLRB and I diverge; IMO a scientific explanation should not render otherwise protected speech unprotected.

Google employees do not have a right to discuss Google’s diversity policy. That does not fall within the “improving workplace conditions” exception. Google is within its rights to simply fire all conservatives if it wants to. I think labor law should be different, but it’s not.

> Google employees do not have a right to discuss Google’s diversity policy.

Yes, they do; that right however does not extend to violating Google's anti-harassment policy (which id, itself, a key means by which Google avoids liability under anti-discrimination law.)

This is sensible; the alternative would be the NLRA forcing Google to engage in acts and/or omissions which would result in liability under the Civil Rights Act, which is clearly not a tenable state of affairs.