 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Overall, do you think your life would be better if you were the opposite gender? |
| Yes |
|
23% |
[ 3 ] |
| No |
|
76% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 13 |
|
| Author |
Message |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
And then the lawsuits:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/technology/google-memo-discrimination-lawsuit.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/technology/google-diversity-lawsuits.html
From the latter article:
Google Is Trying Too Hard (or Not Hard Enough) to Diversify
The internet giant is being sued by former employees who say the company is going too far with diversity. Other lawsuits accuse it of the opposite.
...
Even executives tasked with promoting diversity have had difficulties. In October, Denise Young Smith, who was Apple’s vice president of inclusion and diversity, came under fire when she said that there was diversity even among 12 white, blue-eyed, blond men because they had different backgrounds and experiences. She later apologized, saying she did not intend to play down the importance of a non-homogenous work force. She left Apple in December.
The tension is elevated at Google, at least in part, by its workplace culture. Google has encouraged employees to express themselves and challenge one another. It provides many communication systems for people to discuss work and nonwork related issues. Even topics considered out of bounds at other workplaces — like sharp criticism of its own products — are discussed openly and celebrated.
...
Last month, Tim Chevalier, who had worked at Google as an engineer until November, sued for wrongful termination, claiming that he was fired “because of his political statements in opposition to the discrimination, harassment and white supremacy he saw being expressed on Google’s internal messaging systems.” He said one employee had suggested that there was a shortage of black and Latino employees at Google because they were “not as good.”
Mr. Chevalier said he had been fired shortly after saying that Republicans were “welcome to leave” if they did not feel comfortable with Google’s policies. ... |
|
|
|
 |
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Google's drifted so far away from its core business it's not funny. Their brilliant hiring model is complete bunk! |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | I'm not sure it is a "circulated work memo", David. It sounded to me like their equivalent of Nick's.
Actually, your re-post has made me think about your anti-employer views on the JDG stuff, etc. (http://magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?p=1818382#1818382 onwards.) With your viewpoint, aren't you going too easy on either Google or JDG? |
One of my core concerns regarding these issues has always been employers (like Collingwood or the AFL, for instance) stepping outside their spheres of responsibility and seeking to force employees to abide by broader social standards unrelated to their job performance – I see that as an unacceptable level of control over people’s lives, and an attempt on the part of the employer to act as a supplementary justice system and moral arbiter: roles that, I’ve often argued, they are in any case totally ill-equipped to carry out.
Most simply, then, my view could be summarised as “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. The corollary of that is that issues like workplace misconduct, incompetence or inability to meet targets very much are and should be things within an employer’s realm of responsibility. My inclination is always to support free speech, both inside and outside the office, but I accept that this sometimes needs to be mitigated by concerns such as worplace harassment, conflict or dissemination of content that may interfere with others’ abilities to do their jobs. On the one hand, I do see this as primarily a matter between Google and their former employee (and if his unfair dismissal claim had been upheld, I would have seen that as a positive step forward); on the other, as I pointed out in the quoted post, I do nevertheless see it as part of a broader continuum of draconian internal company policies, and I would like to see that issue as a whole tackled. But that doesn’t mean that an edge case like this is likely to be a useful or effective flag to rally around.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | ...
Most simply, then, my view could be summarised as “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. ...
On the one hand, I do see this as primarily a matter between Google and their former employee (and if his unfair dismissal claim had been upheld, I would have seen that as a positive step forward)... But that doesn’t mean that an edge case like this is likely to be a useful or effective flag to rally around. |
I assume that (and the other cases) are still to be played out. What do you mean by "edge case"?
Avoiding legal details, I think one issue with Google is that they deliberately blur the line between work and play. Of course, this is a problem with sport, too: it's not that a sporting club wants to blur that line ala Google, but pro sport really is a 24/7 occupation if one really wants to be competitive. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
From wired.com, 8/1/18:
Damore’s complaint includes 86 pages of screenshots from internal Google discussion forums, presented as evidence of alleged “anti-conservative” and “anti-Caucasian” bias, or Google’s alleged support for political violence (such as Nazi-punching). Immediately, the images became among the largest troves of internal Google discussions exposed to the public, including some images with the full names and profile pictures of Google employees, some of whom previously have been harassed for their opposition to the memo. Many are written with the earnest, unguarded candor of people who did not expect their words to travel outside of Google.
...
The images from Google’s internal discussion boards add another explosive element to an already charged case. The free-ranging discussions are highly valued inside Google, but until now, the they’ve remained inside the company. Some, including ones related to polyamory, seem unrelated to the case.
...
California is an “at-will” state, which gives Google broad leeway to fire Damore. However, Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board in August before he was fired, which some lawyers say can prevent the suit from getting thrown out of court.
...
According to a report in Recode, the group of executives that Pichai consulted before firing Damore was split until they considered how Damore’s contentions would have been received if they were based on race or religion..
https://www.wired.com/story/james-damores-lawsuit-is-designed-to-embarrass-google/
[Note: I don't really see anything in the mainstream media beyond the March NY Times article above.] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
