Google Employees Explain How They Were Retaliated Against for Reporting Abuse • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Employees Explain How They Were Retaliated Against for Reporting Abuse

#61

Post by cybersnowflake » Mon, Sep 23, 2019, 8:52 PM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #19

cybersnowflake wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

okay I understand people downvoting me because they don't like what I say but I wish I'd at least get an explanation why I'm constantly being flagged if I'm just stating an unpopular opinion without any trolling, spam, or personal attacks (against other commentators. People here regularly attack article subjects so I assume thats okay).

Reasons why you are getting down voted. 1) A comment talking about being down voted (which is amusing considering your username). This is enough to get a down vote in my book. 2) An immature post. There are numerous signs, including the LOL at the end, that it's immature. 3) Fairly insulting to people who come here. 4) Your original comment is constantly begging the question. The reality is, you aren't interested in…

"1) Reasons why you are getting down voted. A comment talking about being down voted (which is amusing considering your username)."

nah dude you can downvote me a million times. I'm just asking politely why I'm and other people I see just stating unpopular opinions are being flagged, which is a more serious measure I hoped would be reserved for things a bit less subjective than 'immaturity'. But if it isn't nbd, I just hope to clarify things so everybody knows from now on. I mean its not like theres clear completely nonvague objective rules and spelled out consequences carved in stone in the easiest to find places.

"This is enough to get a down vote in my book. 2) An immature post. There are numerous signs, including the LOL at the end, that it's immature. 3) Fairly insulting to people who come here. 4)"

I've never personally insulted anyone here....as far as I remember. If you mean indirectly than well thats so subjective everybody here indirectly insults someone all the time.

"Your original comment is constantly begging the question. The reality is, you aren't interested in a discussion."

Not true, I am happy to engage anyone who wants to debate me. Like now, my history is open book for you to freely browse, show me something in it clearly refutes this, it actually stands as a clear testament to the opposite. If I am wrong on the hard facts I will acquiese. If you think its pointless well isn't all/most discussion on threads like these pointless?

" 5) "I'm just stating an unpopular opinion without any trolling, spam, or personal attacks" No, you aren't "just stating an unpopular opinion" if this keeps happening to you. If this happens to you constantly, it's because you are wrong. Your opinion of your comments is wrong for the community."

speaking of dismissing arguments.

Re: Google Employees Explain How They Were Retaliated Against for Reporting Abuse

#62

Post by jakelazaroff » Mon, Sep 23, 2019, 8:53 PM UTC

wolco wrote: post #37

Many of these sound like they come from junior members disillusioned with how things work. Things like my manager didn't listen to me so I feel belittled. I have the second most experience so he should have. The company then moved me to a different team and I wasn't second in command so I lost my leadership. Doesn't the manager pick the team? If you don't support his vision and want to use a different approach being…

That’s not what the article says:

> “I witnessed first hand (and was told second-hand) of several situations where women were being belittled, insulted and ignored. As the person with the second-longest tenure on the team, I suggested in a few 1:1s that my manager confront some of these issues,” wrote another Googler. “Because of my advocacy I was removed from my tech lead position and moved to another team along with the only woman left under my then-manager.”

Is it a smoking gun? No, but it’s curious that one of the longest tenured members of the team was removed from their leadership position and moved to another team only after speaking up about harassment.

Re: Google Employees Explain How They Were Retaliated Against for Reporting Abuse

#63

Post by rnernento » Mon, Sep 23, 2019, 8:54 PM UTC

For this to be meaningful in any way I'd love to see some statistics as to how many people Google employs (broken down by gender/cultural background/etc.) and then see their complaint rate. I'd then like to see it compared against other companies.

While the anecdotal evidence is salacious it's not really useful in determining whether or not they're "evil".

Re: Google Employees Explain How They Were Retaliated Against for Reporting Abuse

#64

Post by bhk » Mon, Sep 23, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #7

TallGuyShort wrote: post #3

I don't really know what anyone* can do to address some of these, as unacceptable as the occurrence of these stories are. Reading through the document (linked to by SolaceQuantum), there's one case where someone felt unprotected by HR because they asked HR not to investigate and HR did, and claimed to have fired the person for other HR problems. I'm not sure what HR should have done there. Are they supposed to not at…

> someone felt unprotected by HR How can this ever be true. Why would someone possibly expect HR to protect them. Isn't it basic commonsense that HR( or anyone) works for person who pays them. Their job is to protect their employers from you ( not the other way around). I've never worked at a place where this wasn't true. Maybe this should be taught in college or something.

Employee: "HR's priority is protecting me."

Experienced employee: "HR's priority is protecting management."

Manager: "HR's priority is protecting the company."

Experienced manager: "HR's priority is protecting HR."

Re: Google Employees Explain How They Were Retaliated Against for Reporting Abuse

#65

Post by freetime2 » Mon, Sep 23, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

ExtremePopcorn wrote: post #58

dvt wrote: post #20

HR is not your friend and HR will never be your friend. In a post-2008 world, it baffles me that people still think that somewhere, deep-down, multi-billion dollar conglomerates have employees' best interests at heart. How quickly we forgot people losing their lifelong savings and entire pension funds going bust. Only to have the government bail out the exact same charlatans that dropped the ball in the first place.…

Don't be baffled! No one thinks this. Everyone has seen a variation of this comment a million times by now, and everyone knows it, but companies will never be able to admit it. It's all about putting stress on the lie. If a corp won't solve its issues and employees quit because of it, "well duh of course they're gonna protect stakeholders' interest" isn't really helpful or new.

I think it's still good advice. The first thing big corporations do when you join is make you sit through a bunch of mandatory compliance videos that teach you that you're not allowed retaliate against people who report harassment or corruption. Then they make everyone sign an agreement to follow the code of conduct, which everyone does. I can certainly see how anyone who still any faith left in humanity could believe these claims to be true.

Re: Google Employees Explain How They Were Retaliated Against for Reporting Abuse

#66

Post by hardlianotion » Mon, Sep 23, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

dlp211 wrote: post #33

trenning wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ever want to proceed with legal actions against the company then you have to put it into record somewhere which typically means reporting incidents to HR. Which ultimately leads to getting fired. What else are people supposed to do? It's a shitty unwinnable situation for employees, I've been on the shit end of this stick before at a different tech co for complaining and was retaliated against. It's not fun and…

If only there was some way that employees could create their own organization that can act as an alternative resources to the companies HR department that puts the employees interests ahead if the companies.

It was only last week on twitter I read a well known tweeter and company owner saying he didn't see the point of unions in software companies.

Re: Google Employees Explain How They Were Retaliated Against for Reporting Abuse

#67

Post by jm4 » Mon, Sep 23, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #3

I don't really know what anyone* can do to address some of these, as unacceptable as the occurrence of these stories are. Reading through the document (linked to by SolaceQuantum), there's one case where someone felt unprotected by HR because they asked HR not to investigate and HR did, and claimed to have fired the person for other HR problems. I'm not sure what HR should have done there. Are they supposed to not at…

That's a complaint from someone who doesn't understand the function of HR. HR isn't there to protect the employee. They are there to protect the company while giving the impression they are there for the employees. Sometimes that means they protect both at the same time. It always means they operate in the company's interests, sometimes to the detriment of an employee or employees.

A lot of what I hear about google sounds like what you get when you let the inmates run the asylum. For example, allowing political discussions on company forums or letting employees get the impression they have some social responsibility or a responsibility to take a position is just a recipe for disaster. What you end up with is conflict and immaturity in the workplace because politics and career have combined to become part of their identity. That's toxic in the type of organization that has historically been disconnected from politics and social causes. It's no surprise this kind of stuff is going on and people are chalking it up to retaliation for this, that or the other thing. In normal companies, people get moved around, demoted or ignored all the time and they don't always blame it on retaliation for political beliefs or for reporting abuse. They blame it on some asshole manager or decide the company isn't for them and they move on. Sounds like google needs a higher degree of professionalism.

Re: Google Employees Explain How They Were Retaliated Against for Reporting Abuse

#68

Post by nabnob » Mon, Sep 23, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

seph-reed wrote: post #10

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #2

This is covering a full document of 45 google employees' claims of sexually/racially motivated abuse, toxic workplace experiences, and retaliatory behavior upon attempting to report such. Here is the link to the full document: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6427199-Examples-Ret...

I was speaking with some friends about this recently, and how it seems a lot like the uncanny valley effect. Relatively, Google has made a lot of effort to not be racist/sexist. They're working towards not being those things (though still evil for other reasons), but somewhere in between the start and finish is this uncanny valley where scandals are super likely to happen. My friends and I all had different theories…

Google has mostly focused on hiring more diverse candidates, and investing in bootcamp type projects. These initiatives help Google by increasing the pool of workers from which they hire, so they can look progressive while saving money.

Now, actually fighting misogyny and racism within the company has the potential to affect their bottom line, because it involves holding people in power accountable. If they have a staff engineer or VP who's accused of sexual assault, firing him or putting him on leave could impact productivity.

Re: Google Employees Explain How They Were Retaliated Against for Reporting Abuse

#69

Post by drevil-v2 » Mon, Sep 23, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #3

I don't really know what anyone* can do to address some of these, as unacceptable as the occurrence of these stories are. Reading through the document (linked to by SolaceQuantum), there's one case where someone felt unprotected by HR because they asked HR not to investigate and HR did, and claimed to have fired the person for other HR problems. I'm not sure what HR should have done there. Are they supposed to not at…

> There are other stories where someone claims something that can't be proven and that was either not witnessed, or must have been denied by everyone. Yeah it sucks if everyone on your team is protecting a douche, but... is HR supposed to intervene and fire someone because only one person claims something happened?

That's the gist of the #believeallwomen movement. No due process or innocent until proven guilty, just one accusation from a person with an identity that has more "oppression" points than your own identity and it is off to the guillotine with you.

I do not believe this is the correct way for society to function and thrive. It will self-select for sub-optimal or even outright dystopian outcomes. I wonder how SV tech companies that encourage and hire people with these viewpoints will fare once the money hose runs out?

Re: Google Employees Explain How They Were Retaliated Against for Reporting Abuse

#70

Post by staticautomatic » Mon, Sep 23, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

alexis_fr wrote: post #52

trthomps wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. If I ever find myself in the situation of one of these stories, aka the victim, I will be going straight to an employment lawyer before HR to discuss my options. Hopefully meeting with HR with my lawyer present.

I’m curious, how do the pricing compare? Having a lawyer at an HR interview is certainly $800 already (at $300/hr), with what, 2% chances of succeeding a trial, and say 15% chances of getting a settlement, but also months of dragging. lawsuit and difficulty to focus on a new job, assuming you find a new employer. Do people really get settled for dozens of thousands of dollars?

If the suit survives a motion to dismiss, all the time.