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

Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#41

Post by Bartweiss »

rustcharm wrote: post #11

Well, of course. It’s only fair. You can’t change a rule then go back and hold prior behaviors accountable according to the new rule. It’s just common decency.

I'm not sure how this applies here? This isn't about a retroactive change to Google's misconduct standards for its employees, so no staff are being held accountable according to a new rule.

It's also not about suits between individuals. It's employees seeking damages from Google, so there's no third party outside Google and the plaintiff who could be harmed by the switch. And the plaintiff shouldn't be harmed, because removing the requirement for arbitration wouldn't deny it to anyone who wanted it.

As far as "holding Google accountable for prior events under a new rule", that's pretty much what people were asking them to agree to in the first place. But even worse, Google's statement says all future claims - even about past events - will operate under the new rule. So Google is already going to be held accountable for past events under this rule, and this is just disadvantaging the people who already opened claims.

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#42

Post by cgriswald »

rustcharm wrote: post #11

Well, of course. It’s only fair. You can’t change a rule then go back and hold prior behaviors accountable according to the new rule. It’s just common decency.

The prohibition against ex post facto law in government makes sense because they are ripe for abuse. But there are already checks against abuse in the private sphere, including potential litigation for wrongful termination and a desire to keep quality employees. Employees should not be able to get away with poor behavior just because it was not techincally against the rules. When my daughter exhibits a lack of judgment, I might make a new rule; but she's still going to be punished because she should have known better. Employees should know better, and if they don't, they should err on the side of not doing the thing.

Of course, that's not really what's happening here with Google. What's happening is Google stated that the would not force people into arbitration, but they're still forcing people into arbitration.

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#43

Post by elliekelly »

fareesh wrote: post #2

I suspect it boils down to one of the following? 1) Lawyers advised them to do this, and they did (Very likely) 2) Lawyers advised them otherwise, but they did this instead (Unlikely) 3) Lawyers not involved in this decision at all (Highly unlikely) So essentially, Google follows the advice of their lawyers?

Lawyers only advise on the risks. In this case, they're advising on the risks management has created.

Removing an arbitration clause only opens you up to the risk of a lawsuit if you've done something to open yourself up to the risk of a lawsuit. Google has fostered a culture that has tolerated inappropriate behavior in the workplace. The legal "risk" is a symptom of poor management.

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#44

Post by pytester »

Devils_Avocado wrote: post #19
lallysingh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what are the long-term effects on returns of good employees leaving, or never coming to Google over shit like this?

Google/Alphabet get fucked sideways. Seems you & all the fellow downvoters've mistaken my statement of fact for a statement of moral obligation... Company agents are employed by shareholders to maximise returns on invested capital. It's literally in their contracts: "you get paid X for improving metric Y by Z".

>Company agents are employed by shareholders to maximise returns on invested capital.

Myth: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/myth-maximizing-shar...

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#47

Post by dfxm12 »

save_ferris wrote: post #30
Devils_Avocado wrote: post #13

> If Google's goal is truly to create a safer work environment for everyone... Google's directors' goal is to fulfil their fiduciary obligations of maximising net returns on invested capital, the same as 100% of every other corporate entity that has ever existed. edit: LOL so many brigading white knights posting that've never had a corporate job or signed a contract :-D

So you're saying that they voluntarily chose to modify their arbitration policy for sexual harassment complaints to fulfill their fiduciary obligations and not to create a safer work environment? How do shareholders benefit from the increased legal exposure of this new policy? And why, if everything Google does is to benefit the bottom line, are they choosing not employ this new policy retroactively? They didn't have…

Free publicity about having a safe work place, gaining a competitive advantage with regards to attracting talent based on this new policy, being seen as a pioneer as many other large firms inevitably adopt a similar policy, which leads to further publicity, which leads to attracting more talent, etc.

Sometimes fulfilling fiduciary obligations and creating a safer work environment aren't mutually exclusive...

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#48

Post by Nasrudith »

Devils_Avocado wrote: post #13

> If Google's goal is truly to create a safer work environment for everyone... Google's directors' goal is to fulfil their fiduciary obligations of maximising net returns on invested capital, the same as 100% of every other corporate entity that has ever existed. edit: LOL so many brigading white knights posting that've never had a corporate job or signed a contract :-D

It is an open secret that it is about self service instead of actual fiscal obligations. It is essentially the exact same thing as government corruption. It happens in every large and powerful organization essentially.

Which brings to mind the irony of how very stereotypically corporate the USSR acted with things like attributing the entire output of a coal mine to one miner to boost their productivity figures and circular shipping coal on trains to boost their transported coal metrics.

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#49

Post by Devils_Avocado »

Nasrudith wrote: post #48
Devils_Avocado wrote: post #13

> If Google's goal is truly to create a safer work environment for everyone... Google's directors' goal is to fulfil their fiduciary obligations of maximising net returns on invested capital, the same as 100% of every other corporate entity that has ever existed. edit: LOL so many brigading white knights posting that've never had a corporate job or signed a contract :-D

It is an open secret that it is about self service instead of actual fiscal obligations. It is essentially the exact same thing as government corruption. It happens in every large and powerful organization essentially. Which brings to mind the irony of how very stereotypically corporate the USSR acted with things like attributing the entire output of a coal mine to one miner to boost their productivity figures and ci…

Yes... their contracts are written such that they align the self-serving motivations of the employees with the fiscal obligations to shareholders. Internet points be-damned, i find it pretty hilarious that ppl took my initial comment as being supportive of what Google did rather than a condemnation of their coporate structure!

Re: Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

#50

Post by docker_up »

If Google is somehow reluctant to allow current claims to relitigate their claims, does that mean that their plan going forward is to somehow restrict the top of the funnel for claims, so that the ones that do get litigated aren't as explosive or damaging as the current claims in progress?

It seems weird to me that they wouldn't retroactively apply the policy unless there's something to hide within whatever currently claims they have. You would think that the exposure would be similar, unless they strategically plan on doing something different with the future claims, like either restricting or dealing with them much faster so that they don't reach this stage, etc.

Post reply on HN