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."
If this is aiming to invoke the tired "virtue signalling" cliché, it's rather vacuous.
Kierkegaard's alternative was an armed rebellion. Are you seriously advocating for civil war, and dismissing all peaceful methods of achieving change?
That gets to the heart of what's wrong with the concept as it is used by the 4chan crowd these days: The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change without shouldering grave personal risks. Trying to reframe this accomplishment as ineffective, weak, or lazy runs the danger of provoking exactly the sort of dramatic, self-sacrificing gestures that have been in the news recently.
In the specific case, maybe quitting would be slightly less dramatic but more forceful form of protest. But it's quite obvious that exists a gray area where it's perfectly legitimate to try to change an organisation, while still being convinced of its overall benefit. Recruitment & retainment are also huge factors for Google's future prospect, making a walk-out with the implied threat of quitting, an effective tool.
This in turn reminds me of a Dostoyevski story where a guy thinks he can make an amazing speech of 15 minutes that will convince everybody. I don't think this is how reality works
Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out his behavior.
But what happened was that Google only said how awesome everything is and hence in fact protected and worse, basically endorsed, his behavior.
I find it good that Google employees stand up here. I'm already wondering what will Google do about that other guy who gives back rubs in interviews? He got similar support and is still at Google as far as I understood.
> 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.
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.
It seems that the protesters believe that Google erred too much in favor of Andy Rubin (and other protected execs). A protest makes these concerns known to Google -- and just as importantly, to the public -- and ostensibly reduces the chances that Google will have a different mindset when a similar situation arises in the future.
In any case, the article describes this particular walkout as part of an ongoing/emerging movement:
> Employees participating in this movement for increased transparency and ethics within Google have presented management with petitions, made demands for greater employee oversight into product decisions made by management, and even quit their jobs in protest of Google’s decisions. Increasingly, employees have been signing their names to a spreadsheet, refusing to participate in screening interviews for potential new hires at Google as a form of protest.
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.
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 tied legally on this.
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 our interests as current employees who don't want to work in an environment rife in sexual harassment aren't discounted." The whole point is to make the company uncomfortable so that they realize they're caught between a rock and a hard place, and the next time an executive's caught with his dick in somebody's face the company's like "Well, we really wish we could work out an amiable settlement with you for your past service, but you remember the protests when this happened with Andy Rubin? Our hands are tied here - the whole company almost fell apart, and if we avoid your lawsuit we'll just end up with a bigger one from them."
They aren't really wrong in this - the squeaky wheel gets the grease and always has, and now a much larger portion of the population is willing to squeak.
The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally, but that's where game theory is taking us. I wonder if much of the appeal of the crypto world (where whole organizations are disintermediated in favor of smart contracts) is because people are realizing that an organization is nothing but a target for angry people, and so by getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it anonymous & fungible, you can continue to organize economic activity without painting a target on your face.
> Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. [...]
> When Google fires lower-level employees, it typically marches them out immediately and pays little, if any, severance. But for senior executives, Google weighs other factors, said former executives. A wrongful termination lawsuit could mean unwanted media attention for Google and the victims of a misconduct case, with a loss resulting in significant damages.
It doesn't say explicitly, but it sounds like they didn't have a legal obligation to pay him; rather, they did so to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit or bad press.
What they definitely didn't have to do was this:
> Afterward, Google invested in Playground Global, a venture firm Mr. Rubin started six months after leaving the company.
It's one thing to pay severance if you don't think you can win an unlawful termination lawsuit, but it's another entirely to invest in that person's next venture after you're absolved of any legal obligation to them.
As bdcravens says, what upsets some is that THIS executive and THIS situation was deemed worthy of sweeping under the rug, paying out the $90m and giving a hero's send-off of sorts (yes, anyone with eyes knew Andy was forced out, but there wasn't any chatter that I was aware of that he was forced out for personnel reasons. Instead, it was assumed to be a power struggle that he lost.), when many others are often let-go for far less compelling reasons (there might not be an HR report that finds fault), without their options fully vested.
It isn't clear if Rubin's actions reached a level that would breach his contracts morality clause (assuming one existed -- and one almost always exists), which would allow them to fire him with cause -- but the fact that an internal investigation found that he acted inappropriately, would at least indicate there was a legal way to fire Rubin without paying him $90m.
(I am not a lawyer, FWIW.)
My gut tells me that at the time of his ouster, Alphabet was worried more about the optics of a protracted lawsuit with Rubin, rather than a cover-up for a harassment claim coming to light. Presumably the other individual in the harassment case settled and signed an NDA, which would preclude public discussion and disclosure.
In retrospect, that was a bad call -- because in 2018, the optics of sweeping credible harassment allegations by a senior executive under the rug and then guiding them out the door with a $90m settlement is something that sickens and angers many individuals.
It's the sort of move that is incredibly common in other parts of business (Hollywood and the media business in general), but that doesn't make it OK. And it is particularly offensive when the industry in which it takes place -- and the company it is taking place at -- have a history of trying to be "better" than the status quo.
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 - the penalties for criminal behaviour should be higher for people with more power, not less.
Most issues of social or civil justice typically have at least one conflict of interest. However, individuals are burned at the proverbial stake daily for far less than coercion, and the idea that Google would sweep this under the rug instead of fighting the fight is sickening to some.
Even if they were legally obligated to pay him, they were not obligated to protect him. They had nice parting words for him and invested in his subsequent venture. They could have just kept their mouths shut and cut off all contact. They didn't.
They could've claimed he broke his employment contract (I'm assuming he had a contract - he almost certainly did) which presumably had some "bad boy" clause in it, thus firing him for cause and not paying him anything. But that is messy, and costly, and the outcome is uncertain, and while Rubin sounds like a scumbag here, this also wasn't the most egregious behavior out there. Bottom line, Google was screwed the moment they signed that employment contract...those things are written incredibly favorably for the employee.
I wonder what it would take for google to lose it's star as being such a great career defining place to work? I think it's kind of happening. We need more people out of the motherships and doing new, innovative stuff and defining their own progressive policies in their companies to compete with the motherships.
I get the scale of capital and everything, but the internet is still a changing place and could be so much more if people just said no.
Original title: "Google Engineers Are Organizing A Walk Out To Protest The Company’s Protection Of An Alleged Sexual Harasser" (28 characters too long).
Have the protest organizers communicated any specific set of outcomes they wish to achieve from the walkout? The news article does not go into those details. Perhaps I have missed out something there.
In the previous protests, Google employees had their demands penned in open letters which I believe also contributed to concrete actions taken or responses given by Google. A generic protest is bound to only draw vague assurances such as those given in their all-hands meeting as reported in the article.
Every story needs two sides, I think Google didn't predicted that employees will be against the company policy. Well it's a two way highway and using everything to barricade themselves against an employee isn't the most constructive way of a dialog and change of policies.
Whenever I hear about things like this, I always believe that only a fraction really care about the issue. The other half are saying “Wait... we can skip work and not get in trouble? Count me in!”
As about a dozen people in this thread have already patiently explained, Google investigated the accusations and found them credible. If you have evidence to the contrary, which Google didn’t have at the time of its investigation, kindly present it.
a "walk out"... one in which people are so darn angry they walk out of work.. and then walk right back in and keep doing their job. I wish more people would quit these mega-corps over stuff like this. "Google engineers outraged...", "Facebook employees outraged..."... so quit. Go find work at a place that isn't an evil corporation. If you didn't get the memo, Facebook, Amazon, Google and Microsoft are all pretty evil.
And then, after the walk out, they will return to their desks and continue working for the company. If you want a walk out to matter, you leave... and don't come back for free food in the employee cafeteria right after.
[+] [-] Ptyx|7 years ago|reply
"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."
[+] [-] matt4077|7 years ago|reply
Kierkegaard's alternative was an armed rebellion. Are you seriously advocating for civil war, and dismissing all peaceful methods of achieving change?
That gets to the heart of what's wrong with the concept as it is used by the 4chan crowd these days: The success of democracy is exactly the possibility to effect change without shouldering grave personal risks. Trying to reframe this accomplishment as ineffective, weak, or lazy runs the danger of provoking exactly the sort of dramatic, self-sacrificing gestures that have been in the news recently.
In the specific case, maybe quitting would be slightly less dramatic but more forceful form of protest. But it's quite obvious that exists a gray area where it's perfectly legitimate to try to change an organisation, while still being convinced of its overall benefit. Recruitment & retainment are also huge factors for Google's future prospect, making a walk-out with the implied threat of quitting, an effective tool.
[+] [-] blablabla123|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chewxy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kerng|7 years ago|reply
But what happened was that Google only said how awesome everything is and hence in fact protected and worse, basically endorsed, his behavior.
I find it good that Google employees stand up here. I'm already wondering what will Google do about that other guy who gives back rubs in interviews? He got similar support and is still at Google as far as I understood.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jeffdavis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sumedh|7 years ago|reply
Can you post some more details, a simple google search does not return anything meaningful.
[+] [-] roenxi|7 years ago|reply
The article is almost scrupulous in painting the walkout as out-of-control employees rather than the precursors of organised labour.
[+] [-] danso|7 years ago|reply
In any case, the article describes this particular walkout as part of an ongoing/emerging movement:
> Employees participating in this movement for increased transparency and ethics within Google have presented management with petitions, made demands for greater employee oversight into product decisions made by management, and even quit their jobs in protest of Google’s decisions. Increasingly, employees have been signing their names to a spreadsheet, refusing to participate in screening interviews for potential new hires at Google as a form of protest.
[+] [-] vkou|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] philwelch|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sfcguyus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dcre|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayvy|7 years ago|reply
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 tied legally on this.
[+] [-] nostrademons|7 years ago|reply
They aren't really wrong in this - the squeaky wheel gets the grease and always has, and now a much larger portion of the population is willing to squeak.
The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally, but that's where game theory is taking us. I wonder if much of the appeal of the crypto world (where whole organizations are disintermediated in favor of smart contracts) is because people are realizing that an organization is nothing but a target for angry people, and so by getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it anonymous & fungible, you can continue to organize economic activity without painting a target on your face.
[+] [-] jakelazaroff|7 years ago|reply
> Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. [...]
> When Google fires lower-level employees, it typically marches them out immediately and pays little, if any, severance. But for senior executives, Google weighs other factors, said former executives. A wrongful termination lawsuit could mean unwanted media attention for Google and the victims of a misconduct case, with a loss resulting in significant damages.
It doesn't say explicitly, but it sounds like they didn't have a legal obligation to pay him; rather, they did so to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit or bad press.
What they definitely didn't have to do was this:
> Afterward, Google invested in Playground Global, a venture firm Mr. Rubin started six months after leaving the company.
It's one thing to pay severance if you don't think you can win an unlawful termination lawsuit, but it's another entirely to invest in that person's next venture after you're absolved of any legal obligation to them.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
[+] [-] filmgirlcw|7 years ago|reply
It isn't clear if Rubin's actions reached a level that would breach his contracts morality clause (assuming one existed -- and one almost always exists), which would allow them to fire him with cause -- but the fact that an internal investigation found that he acted inappropriately, would at least indicate there was a legal way to fire Rubin without paying him $90m.
(I am not a lawyer, FWIW.)
My gut tells me that at the time of his ouster, Alphabet was worried more about the optics of a protracted lawsuit with Rubin, rather than a cover-up for a harassment claim coming to light. Presumably the other individual in the harassment case settled and signed an NDA, which would preclude public discussion and disclosure.
In retrospect, that was a bad call -- because in 2018, the optics of sweeping credible harassment allegations by a senior executive under the rug and then guiding them out the door with a $90m settlement is something that sickens and angers many individuals.
It's the sort of move that is incredibly common in other parts of business (Hollywood and the media business in general), but that doesn't make it OK. And it is particularly offensive when the industry in which it takes place -- and the company it is taking place at -- have a history of trying to be "better" than the status quo.
[+] [-] olliej|7 years ago|reply
The difference between him and the people that they did fire was his position. Which is entirely backwards - the penalties for criminal behaviour should be higher for people with more power, not less.
[+] [-] bdcravens|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abalone|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bedhead|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stuntkite|7 years ago|reply
I get the scale of capital and everything, but the internet is still a changing place and could be so much more if people just said no.
[+] [-] amrx431|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffdavis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tareqak|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akswamy|7 years ago|reply
In the previous protests, Google employees had their demands penned in open letters which I believe also contributed to concrete actions taken or responses given by Google. A generic protest is bound to only draw vague assurances such as those given in their all-hands meeting as reported in the article.
[+] [-] tokai|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ironfootnz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] claydavisss|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Para2016|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diddid|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] outside1234|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3stax|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lotgon|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Analemma_|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cityzen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tom_|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dawhizkid|7 years ago|reply