Slashdot Mirror

Another point in his favour is that he was saying that there are better ways to make the gender balance more equal than 'illegal discrimination'

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

The harm of Google's biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
* Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race
* A high priority queue and special treatment for "diversity" candidates
* Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
* Reconsidering any set of people if it's not "diverse" enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
* Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We're told by senior leadership that what we're doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google. ...

Suggestions

I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.
* As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the "victims."

Stop alienating conservatives.
* Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
* In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
* Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google's biases.
* I've mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
* I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

* These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

If you say that you agree with what your employer is trying to do but they way they are doing it 'incentivising illegal discrimination' and suggest legal alternatives that makes you a whistleblower. CA has a whistleblower protection law -

https://www.workplacefairness....

Could Damore claim under it? I'm not sure. If I were him I'd try though.

There may very well be laws against firing whistleblowers who were blowing the whistle on illegal discrimination.

Illegal discrimination would be anything that violates the equal protection clause

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And if Google were illegally discriminating and Damore pointed this out, which he did, it would be illegal to fire him

https://www.workplacefairness....

In addition, the California State Legislature has adopted statutory protections for employees. Notably, California has a general whistleblower protection statute that protects employees who disclose illegal activity or refuse to participate in illegal activities. Whistleblowers are thus protected under both this statute and the common law public policy exception. Also, several other California statutes contain anti-retaliation provisions. Employees who engage in protected activities (usually filing a complaint or testifying) under laws in the following subject areas are protected from retaliation: discrimination, hazardous substances, occupational safety and health, and workers' compensation. Also, California protects employees who file a complaint relating to employee rights with Labor Commissioner.

Damore's memo was more subtle than his detractors give him credit for

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

He explains that 'Google has created several discriminatory practice' and suggests 'non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap'. So he could argue Google were breaking the law, he blew the whistle and they fired him.

Google have pots of money of course, so they'll probably pay him off. And go on discriminating.

Are non-smokers going to have to pay for smokers' healthcare too

Not where I work. We don't hire smokers. We ask about tobacco use at the very beginning of the interview process, and reject all users.

This is perfectly legal. Smokers have no rights.

You indicate later in your post that you are in California. What you are doing is not legal.

In most states smokers are protected against hiring discrimination. In particular, the majority of states cannot discriminate against you based on legal activity conducted outside of work hours. However, smokers may be required to pay more for health insurance. Or in some states, they may be denied employment if their smoking is incompatible with the job requirements (e.g., the American Lung Association may be able to decline to employ a smoker.)

https://www.workplacefairness....
https://www.workplacefairness....

I'm no fan of smoking or smokers, but smokers do indeed have rights.

Are non-smokers going to have to pay for smokers' healthcare too

Not where I work. We don't hire smokers. We ask about tobacco use at the very beginning of the interview process, and reject all users.

This is perfectly legal. Smokers have no rights.

You indicate later in your post that you are in California. What you are doing is not legal.

In most states smokers are protected against hiring discrimination. In particular, the majority of states cannot discriminate against you based on legal activity conducted outside of work hours. However, smokers may be required to pay more for health insurance. Or in some states, they may be denied employment if their smoking is incompatible with the job requirements (e.g., the American Lung Association may be able to decline to employ a smoker.)

https://www.workplacefairness....
https://www.workplacefairness....

I'm no fan of smoking or smokers, but smokers do indeed have rights.

Not free speech issue, political speech retaliation issue.

http://www.workplacefairness.o...

In a practical sense, no.

There are many regulations about free speech, but particular political views can be a condition of employment in private enterprises in most states. See breakdowns of worker political rights such as http://www.workplacefairness.o..., and review the history of corporations breaking up union activities by both subtle pressure and physical violence throughout American history.

Even if political support is "voluntary", the absence of a vocal support of leadership's views on politics, race, religion, gender, age, or sexuality have often been subtle workplace hindrances or benefits to salary and promotions.

They're not passing a law, they're making rule of employment. You want a job with us, you don't badmouth us. That's perfectly reasonable, whether a private or public employer. If an employee doesn't like it, they can quit. It's that simple.

No, it isn't. They're a government entity, not a private entity and courts, including the SCotUS, have already ruled that public employers have limits to what rules they can enforce.

http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliationpublic

Banning "anything negative or embarrassing" would include many things that are of "public concern" and be over the legally established lines of what public employers may do.

YMMV based on state and local laws. However - and while the site is definitely not authoritative, it does at least link to the relevant laws - they are not widespread, though they do exist in CA and NY. Link

None of those things apply if your employment is "at will" and/or if you're in a right to work" state. They can let you go for any reason or no reason at all with little or no notice and can do so perfectly legally.

Yes. In only a very few places is political activity a protected category of speech when it comes to employment matters, even when that employer is the government itself (http://www.workplacefairness.org/index.php?page=r etaliationpolitical). On the other hand, you are free to join a cult and your employer can't say boo about it because that would be discriminating on the basis of religion.

Ok. Here's one. I don't know too much about insidehighered.com, but I doubt it's a front for the aryan brotherhood.

In summary (because this is /., so RTFA is right out. ;->), white female candidate was one of the finalists for a job. Employer's EOO ADDED a male african-american candidate to the finalist pool. White female came in second from the top[1], while african-american came in second from the bottom. University gave the job to the african-american "candidate". Here's a link [pdf, you've been warned] to the decision by the seventh circuit to allow the case to proceed. So does she sound like she qualifies as "one good man or woman"?

Then there is the case of University of California Regents v Bakke[2]. Where it was held that the UC system had discriminated against a white applicant by admitting lesser-qualified minority applicants. Yeah, that's academic reverse discrimination as opposed to employment. And it was back in the 70's so it's completely irrelevant... Except that the exact same issue came before SCOTUS again in 1996. Unless you think PBS is an angry blogger. There have been a host of similar decisions handed down over the last few years, btw.

In a more general way, this site [3] points out in #12, that "less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases." Working on the assumption (because I'm too lazy to mine for the actual numbers :-P) that the number is between 1% and 2% (If it were under 1%, I would have expected the site to say so), it appears that there are between 910 and 1819 [less than 2%, after all ;->] reverse discrimination claims working thier way through the EEOC at the moment.

I don't really have a dog in the fight, and to the best of my knowledge have never been passed over for a job based on either my race or my gender. Nor do I know anyone IRL who has claimed to have been so discriminated against. But you asked for proof of "even one" example. While implying that such was a high burden. Btw, google is your friend.

A now await the flames and downmods. /me dons asbestos suit.

[1] I'm personally curious where #1 fits into all this, but that's another issue.
[2] I don't think that Findlaw counts as an angry blogger-especially as it is just the literal SCOTUS decision.
[3] Which appears to be dismissive of the idea of reverse discrimination, btw.

http://www.workplacefairness.org/index.php?page=va cationpay&agree=yes#5

Although in practice it is pretty much the norm in more than just the 23 states listed with laws on the books.

WorkplaceFairness has a few tips along these lines.

Sounds as if you've given sufficient notice. Unless you're violating some employment covenant, your employer has no legal basis by which to hold your final check and is probably attempting to intimidate you in an unlawful way.

Be professional, write or say nothing negative, ask for any employer complaint in writing, work out your notice with as much enthusiasm as you can muster, and seek any remedy after the fact.

This is why we have unions, folks. Or why we *had* unions. The workplace does NOT regulate itself.

Good luck, and enjoy your new job.