Google Workers Fume Over Executives’ Payouts After Sexual Misconduct Claims

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/technology/sexual-harassment-google.html

by eevilspock • 8 years ago

108 62 8 years ago

nytimes.com

godzillabrennus• 8 years ago

Mass resignations threatened like after the James Damore memo?

Doubt it.

Sexual misconduct is more acceptable at Google than writing gender biased dogma.

craftyguy4• 8 years ago

It's also acceptable for our head of state, so expectations for justice are extremely low.

ISL2• 8 years ago

It is not acceptable for our head of state.

zaroth4• 8 years ago

And has been since just about the dawn of the Republic.

Turns out you don’t have to be a Saint to be leader of the free world. Might go as far to say that a Saint wouldn’t be particularly well suited for the job.

RickJWagner• 8 years ago

"Don't be evil."

I really believe they believed it, at first. As the old saying goes, power corrupts.

T2_t22• 8 years ago

I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil, and Google chose the wrong one.

So think that one through. Rubin was accused of whatever, and Google owes him money. Which is NOT evil:

A. Not pay any money to Rubin - despite legally owing him some - because the mob has decided that is best?

B. Pay the full amount he is owed to get rid of him?

C. Negotiate a reduced amount, as he is indeed owed money?

C. Take this to court, and make all parties go through all the hassle, be forced to keep Rubin, what, employed but suspended? and then hope that by some miracle you get the outcome you desire?

Again, I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil, and Google chose the wrong one. They are all TERRIBLE options.

ve553• 8 years ago

Kind of funny how the NYT publishes the original story to generate outrage, then after successfully doing so to an extent, cherry-picks examples of the outrage in order to generate yet another article that is apparently worth publishing.

Of course some Google employees are upset, there are 85,000 of them. You could have cherry-picked ones who weren't upset as well and written an article the opposite of this if desired. I'm not commenting on the claims themselves but it's just funny how the NYT is able to completely run their own show here.

lsiebert2• 8 years ago

I think they published it because it was news. Many details in the news outrage me, but as long as they are based in fact, I consider that reporting of the news of the day, not an attempt to incite outrage.

Also, "Callous Googlers Don't care about sex harassment payouts" doesn't seem like a particularly good potential news piece, if that's what you are suggesting they could have done.

I mean, I was outraged by the Snowden revelations. Were those stories generating outrage, or just revealing an outrage that others had already perpetrated?

ve553• 8 years ago

but as long as they are based in fact, I consider that reporting of the news of the day

The issue is that they get to pick which facts are reported and which are not. They could publish 100 articles on all the good things Google is doing, or they could publish 100 articles on all the bad things google is doing, and they don't have to lie to do either of these things, but yet they would both give their readers very warped perspectives on reality.

We see this a lot in politics, where we can have far-right and far-left websites that both technically report nothing but 'facts', but due to the extreme sampling biases used, present completely opposing views of reality.

I'm not defending Google, I'm just pointing out who is running the show here, and the answer is the New York Times. They decide what happens next. Their next article could talk about all the positive discussion and improvements Google is making in this area, or it could talk about how many additional employees are upset and don't think things will get better.

fzeroracer2• 8 years ago

So by your definition, no stories about large companies should be published ever? I imagine if a company has a large amount of employees, you can always find a contrary opinion.

ordinaryperson2• 8 years ago

The issue is with how the NYT framed it. The headline says, "Google Workers Fume..." which implies a plurality or majority when we have no idea what a collective of 85,000 think.

A more accurate headline would be something like, "Alphabet CEO Confronted about Sexual Harassment Policy" instead of characterizing "Google Workers" as if they were one, single-minded Borg-like entity.

cyberluddite2• 8 years ago

original story to generate outrage

While a consequence of the story may have been "outrage," it was Rubin's actions and how Google dealt with them that are at issue here. We can play "shoot the messenger" or assume bad faith on the NYT's part, but neither of those things undoes what has happened.

qubax• 8 years ago

Kind of funny how the NYT publishes the original story to generate outrage

The older I get, I realize that more often than not, these companies don't report the news, they create/generate/manufacture the news. Half the time, news is actually a manufactured product for consumption no different than a movie or a song and the other half, it's political advocacy. There isn't much news in the news industry.

then after successfully doing so to an extent, cherry-picks examples of the outrage in order to generate yet another article that is apparently worth publishing.

And voila, they are bumped to the frontpage every single time. It's like watching a world class magician ply their trade.

oh-kumudo• 8 years ago

Exactly. This is opinion engineering. They take an event, look at it, find the angle that is most likely to solicit responses from their readers. With that narrative in mind, they would go on to produce the story, weaved it a way to appear like that their account is what actually happened.

ve553• 8 years ago

Well-said. Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_Me,_I%27m_Lying

skybrian• 8 years ago

I'm not sure the follow-up story is necessary, but one way to look at it is that they were successful at publishing news that some people care about.

It's not always clear when "getting a reaction" is just trolling or what a quality newspaper should set out to do. It depends if you agree with the editors about what's newsworthy.

But if leaks keep happening at this rate, I suspect TGIF isn't going to happen for much longer.

jefftk2• 8 years ago

There is, in fact, a lot of internal outrage. I wouldn't call this cherry picking.

(Source: I work there)

ordinaryperson2• 8 years ago

Let's say you know the feelings of 100 coworkers on this issue. That's still 100/85000 employees, or 0.1%. Not exactly a representative sample size.

Now, it's entirely possible 60% of the employees actually are outraged, but we have no way of knowing outside a survey.

Hence the NYT is cherry-picking an opinion based on anecdotal data (that just so happens to positively reflect on their earlier coverage), when it's also entirely possible that 80% of Googlers don't really care.

The headline and story imply the NYT has a firm handle on how the bulk of 85,000 people think, which is not the case.

alopecoid• 8 years ago

Kind of funny how the NYT publishes the original story to generate outrage [...]

It's not just this; I think there's a clear agenda here by releasing this on the day of Google's earnings announcement.

LanceH2• 8 years ago

Reading the story, it certainly seems like they were aiming for outrage. They say there was an accusation and they could have just not paid him $90million. They don't go into any of the contractual obligations of why they owe him that money. Nor do they explain how a mere accusation is going derail that payment. If outrage and journalism were fighting over ownership of that article, outrage won.

kopo3• 8 years ago

We seem to have moved from one person (Snowden type) dissent of institutional bullshit to groups standing up.

The current bunch of leaders are great at keeping the ship on course to well known destinations (scale at all costs/maximize profits/wage war to keep peace).

If the destination has to change, a new crop of leaders will have to take this bunch on. And it won't happen without employees making their voice heard.

tdb7893• 8 years ago

Like immediately after the original story aired an email was leaked where the CEO of Google basically admitted that it was fucked up and said the policy changed a couple years ago so there isn't going to be a big group dissenting over anything here.

cyberluddite2• 8 years ago

If the destination has to change, a new crop of leaders will have to take this bunch on. And it won't happen without employees making their voice heard.

I think some form of labor organization, enforcing principles like the ACM Code of Ethics, is the only sane way forward. We in tech have to move beyond this reactive posture in how we approach what are really structural problems with how decision-making, power, and resources are distributed.

706f6f70• 8 years ago

I can't remember who made the point, but the friction stems from the current generation of Silicon Valley still thinking they are counterculture rebels from a decade ago. Nobody working at Wallstreet would dispute that Wallstreet is huge, capitalistic, and corporate. Silicon Valley is the same, but it's filled with people wearing metaphorical Che Guevara t-shirts, clutching onto their copies of Marx's Manifesto, dying their hair purple or blue, and smoking weed. They have largely become that which they claim to hate, but have not realized it.

Events like this are what we see and will continue to see as reality and self-image merge. The leadership is fine, but they are probably more cognizant of this fact than the rank and file. Their challenge is helping their employees make the transition without suffering an existential crisis.

SamReidHughes7• 8 years ago

I've never seen a contract contain the clause, "We don't have to pay you what we owe you, simply by having one of our employees make an accusation of sexual harassment against you." I would never sign one.

kevingadd• 8 years ago

"Accusation of sexual harassment" is kind of an understatement given the massive amount of misconduct that occurred, often not even denied by the bad actor, in direct violation of company guidelines. You don't just get to light the employee handbook on fire and keep all your compensation. You can get fired with cause.

Naturally trying to kick someone out and withhold compensation is a lot harder than just quietly ushering them out the door and paying them off, which is what typically happens here because Google does not want bad press and does not want to get dragged into a multi-year court case by someone they're trying to fire.

SamReidHughes7• 8 years ago

In the case mentioned in the article the person accused denies it. According to other articles it was an accusation by somebody he had an affair with. I wouldn't take the situation filtered through journalists too seriously but I don't think he shouldn't get the money he's owed because believe women.

ixtli2• 8 years ago

Do you think that termination clauses given by google to employees have zero conditions attached to them? Even if you're an executive there are absolutely things you can do that would forfeit the contract. If you were fired for stealing secrets, do you think they'd pay you out? Certainly the same clauses could be written to avoid paying if you have to be let go because something you did caused some other sort of harm to the company. We can talk about whether or not the contract included such a clause and whether or not thats a failure on Google's part, but I have a feeling that's not why you posted this comment.

And btw I think it's clear that if I offered you the sort of money this dude had you probably wouldn't pass it up based on what the conditions for termination payout clauses were.

SamReidHughes7• 8 years ago

Why don't you say why you think I posted this comment?

LanceH2• 8 years ago

Getting accused won't stand up as "something he did". There is a much higher bar for that and it would have to play out in court unless he completely rolled over.

enraged_camel2• 8 years ago

>We don't have to pay you what we owe you, simply by having one of our employees make an accusation of sexual harassment against you."

What do you mean by “simply”? Do you believe accusing someone of sexual harassment is a “simple” matter, or that it is easy?

I think the language you are using here speaks volumes about your beliefs.

SamReidHughes7• 8 years ago

What does it speak about my beliefs? You sure like making vague insinuations instead of speaking clearly. It speaks to your character.

cjbprime2• 8 years ago

The money wasn't owed. It was an exit package.

SamReidHughes7• 8 years ago

He had a $150M stock grant that he used to negotiate the exit package. - According to https://www.businessinsider.com/andy-rubin-90-million-exit-p...

Google Workers Fume Over Executives’ Payouts After Sexual Misconduct Claims

Related Stories