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

Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 183 posts

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#81

Post by claydavisss »

asianthrowaway wrote: post #37
olliej wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he coerced them into it - if you have a position of power, and you say "have sex with me", effectively in exchange for your treatment/employment in the company - I can't recall if Rubin was the burning man "sex or no job" guy, or that was another - that is sex discrimination and/or harassment. I doubt Rubin would have had the same behaviour with male subordinates, so that's a difference in treatment based on gend…

The burning man guy is another guy (who still works at Google afaik). This Rubin guy was no doubt a creep. From the NYT article: "The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”" Yikes!

I'm amazed all the women at Essential haven't bolted....I mean...gross....

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#82

Post by dcre »

sfcguyus wrote: post #71

Would be more meaningful if they quit in protest to a lower paying job. This type of protest is merely exercise or a routine jog.

If they quit they don't have leverage at Google anymore. This is why unions exist: they can threaten to quit, extract concessions, and not quit.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#83

Post by vkou »

roenxi wrote: post #25

This article is missing a fairly important detail - the demands of the protesters. It is one thing to be unhappy with a situation, but given that the situation is now in the past - what exactly do they want to change going forward? The article is almost scrupulous in painting the walkout as out-of-control employees rather than the precursors of organised labour.

Employees at tech firms have been asking for clarity and transparency on the HR processes applied to employees for the past couple of years.

Facebook, famously, publishes its HR guidelines, procedures, and the steps that it has pledged to take to deal with reports of misconduct, harassment, as well as how disciplinary actions will be carried out against at-fault employees.

This costs the company nothing, and makes it clear to employees where they stand, what steps will be taken if they bring up an issue/are the subject of disciplinary action. It makes it crystal-clear what behaviour is appropriate, what is inappropriate, what is a dangerous grey area, and how it will be dealt with.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#84

Post by abnry »

nostrademons wrote: post #22
rayvy wrote: post #3

Someone with more info please correct me: But from what I read it sounds as if Google had to pay him the $90MM+, else be sued by him right? Because if they didn't pay him, he'd sue, then they [Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever), which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser said they were coerced (not forced). So it seems as if Google's hands were…

A lot of the popular unrest facing both corporations & governments today is people learning that conflict gets results . The logic goes that "Well, Andy Rubin managed to exercise his threat to sue to get a $90M severance package, and he doesn't even work for the company anymore. We do work for the company, so we are going to exercise our power as employees to put pressure on the company to not do this again , so that…

I don't have an opinion on whether what google did was good or bad. I'm just a point of "outrage fatigue," especially with protests that come off as gimmicky.

Maybe pushback against google is appropriate, maybe it's effective, but I am sure fatigued by this kind of stuff.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#85

Post by smokeyj »

dcre wrote: post #82
sfcguyus wrote: post #71

Would be more meaningful if they quit in protest to a lower paying job. This type of protest is merely exercise or a routine jog.

If they quit they don't have leverage at Google anymore. This is why unions exist: they can threaten to quit, extract concessions, and not quit.

Can you imagine a search engine developed by union labor? It’s actually funny if you think about it.

Side note: Do you think police officers act with more accountability or less considering their unions status? As if anyone else can shoot innocent people and take paid leave.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#86

Post by manfredo »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #63
manfredo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dispute that. Google going to trial, exposing the victim to the public eye, and risking the possibility that the public remembers this episode as an example of harassment claims being weaponized by corporations is a worse scenario. I think people are really underestimating the last one of those. Would the metoo movent have even spread to tech if an there existed a public (or at least, what the public percieves to b…

You keep saying "cheat", but Google found the allegations credible; I'm genuinely confused as to your position here. Are you saying that companies should still pay severance to employees fired for sexual assault?

I'm saying there's a good change Rubin's lawyers could convince a jury that Google wrongfully avoided paying him the compensation that was due. This would almost certainly cause the public to view allegations of sexual assault with greater suspicion.

The point is, while Google itself determined that they had enough evidence to conclude that Rubin harassed someone, they probably didn't think they had enough evidence to convince a jury. All I'm saying is that the company should choose the least harmful option. Sometimes, being inflexible does more harm than good. For all we know, bringing this to trial would have made Google and the victim look like the bad guys, while the harasser looks like a hero standing up to a deceitful corporation. Instead, Google played it safe and chose not to risk it's reputation (which is an act of self interest) but also to avoid risking the reputation of the alleged victim (which is a benefit). Was this the right decision? Ultimately we'll never know short of inventing a time machine, but saying that Google unambiguously chose the worse of two options is short sighted.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#87

Post by akiselev »

dragonwriter wrote: post #35
olliej wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "malicious", its the assumption that he gets to act like that. What they need to do is prove that he behaved in a way that was inappropriate. It sounds like there's plenty of evidence that he did - hell, they had enough evidence to record, in writing, that they found the claims against him credible. The difference between him and the people that they did fire was his position. Which is entirely backwards - t…

> It sounds like there's plenty of evidence that he did - hell, they had enough evidence to record, in writing, that they found the claims against him credible. “Credible” is a far cry from being likely to meet the civil “preponderance of the evidence” standard, it literally is just “not implausible”. > The difference between him and the people that they did fire was his position. Which is entirely backwards - the pe…

Preponderance of the evidence would be the standard if Rubin sued Google for wrongful termination, not the standard for evaluating allegations against executives - the latter is entirely up to Google. Rubin would have to convince the jury that he was terminated wrongfully against Google's argument that a credible allegation against senior management is enough to terminate with cause.

> Google doesn't impose criminal punishment, and I don't think anyone wants that to change.

GP never suggested that Google hand out jail sentences, just that they shouldn't be giving $90 million severance to Rubin when many employees who got fired for a lot less egregious behavior got nothing.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#88

Post by tw04 »

olliej wrote: post #23
tw04 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, correct me if I misread, but what he did wrong was have consensual sexual relations with a subordinate, right? And then he was fired for it (which he should be). And they protected him how? Paying him the severance package he was owed? I'm not following if that's all correct.

No, he coerced them into it - if you have a position of power, and you say "have sex with me", effectively in exchange for your treatment/employment in the company - I can't recall if Rubin was the burning man "sex or no job" guy, or that was another - that is sex discrimination and/or harassment. I doubt Rubin would have had the same behaviour with male subordinates, so that's a difference in treatment based on gend…

>No, he coerced them into it - if you have a position of power, and you say "have sex with me", effectively in exchange for your treatment/employment in the company

Unless you've got info beyond what was in the times report, you're making a TON of assumptions about the nature of the relationship.

As I said, it's wrong and he should be fired for having relations with a subordinate no matter what the circumstances were. But to dive Right into "do this if you want to stay employed" when you don't even know which party initiated the relationship is a bit unfair.

Unless Google or the woman in question come forward with more info, I don't think it's at all fair to just assume the worst about everyone involved.

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#89

Post by Ptyx »

Reminds me that Kierkegaard has written about Google:

"A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. In the present age a rebellion is, of all things, the most unthinkable. Such an expression of strength would seem ridiculous to the calculating intelligence of our times. On the other hand a political virtuoso might bring off a feat almost as remarkable. He might write a manifesto suggesting a general assembly at which people should decide upon a rebellion, and it would be so carefully worded that even the censor would let it pass. At the meeting itself he would be able to create the impression that his audience had rebelled, after which they would all go quietly home – having spent a very pleasant evening."

Re: Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Protection of Andy Rubin

#90

Post by skissane »

gowld wrote: post #69
dragonwriter wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out his behavior. Probably not; mutual non-disparagement clauses are extremely common in executive contracts. Breaking that would have been the same, in terms of kind of litigation risk, as not paying the $90 million.

Is it disparagement to report facts without attaching an opinion?

Non-disparagement clauses are usually worded in such a way to prohibit making disparaging statements even if the statements are true. The disparagement is based in the fact that it will damage the party's reputation, not on whether it is true or substantiated or not. (It all depends on the wording of the contract of course, and also how the courts are likely to interpret or enforce it, which is why professional legal advice is so essential in these matters.)

For some examples of how non-disparagement clauses are commonly worded: https://www.contractstandards.com/public/clauses/non-dispara...

Post reply on HN