Slashdot Mirror
Google's Other Ugly Secret: Some Managers Keep Blacklists (inc.com)
Last week a controversial internal memo written by a concerned Google employee was going viral within the company. The memo, titled "PC Considered Harmful" and since dubbed "the Google manifesto" on social media, argued two points: First, that Google has become an ideological echo chamber where anyone with centrist or right-of-center views fears to speak their mind. Second, that part of the tech industry's gender gap can be attributed to biological differences between men and women. The person who wrote the memo has since been fired, but the internal tussle has revealed one more thing. The Inc reports: The contentious internal discussion revived a concern dating back to 2015: An unknown number of Google managers maintain blacklists of fellow employees, evidently refusing to work with those people. The blacklists are based on personal experiences of others' behavior, including views expressed on politics, social justice issues, and Google's diversity efforts. Inc. reviewed screenshots documenting several managers attesting to this practice, both in the past and currently, explicitly using the term "blacklist." The screenshots were shared by a Google employee who requested anonymity due to having signed an NDA. In additional screenshots, one Google employee declared his intent to quit if Damore were not fired, and another said that he would refuse to work with Damore in any capacity. A Google spokesperson told Inc. that the practice of keeping blacklists is not condoned by upper management, and that Google employees who discriminate against members of protected classes will be terminated. It's not clear whether that principle applies in Damore's case. Although political affiliation is a protected class according to California labor law, the views expressed in the manifesto and echoed by others who oppose political correctness do not seem to merit legal protection.
You may want to research the early days of McCarthyism and the blacklist.
Is this the first firing that was perhaps an overly sensitive reaction concerned with appeasing a very touchy ideological base? Because I can think of a number of other people railroaded out of a job because of online "outrage."
We aren't all that far from an Inquisition (not prongs and tongs type Inquisition, but a "your job depends on agreement" type Inquisition). The most significant thing missing from the equation is that the most vocal social justice voices lack political influence and power. If you see this movement organize politically and get candidates in office, any student of history should recognize that things will get worse for open expression of ideas before things get better.
also girls suck at pooters lol
... Google employees who discriminate against members of protected classes will be terminated.
I am curious: does that include discrimination against those protected classes in the job interview process? Like, say, for example, ageism? I am just saying.
You see, it is easy to visually identify some protected classes and subtly discriminate against them (he is overqualified, or she is not a good fit for the team) in ways that are not obviously discriminatory. But nobody in their right mind talks politics or social justice as part of the interview process. So you hire some people who end being a diversity problem. Don't kid yourself, to Google and similar companies the views expressed which challenge the accepted thinking are not welcomed as part of a healthy and vigorous debate. They are seen as a disease that must be cut out.
We are very tolerant and accepting here. You had better be tolerant and accepting in the same way or we will sack you.
Is there anything wrong with this? I also have a personal list of people I don't want to work with.
it's not as if anyone at Google tries to enforce the list on other companies.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that your employer is obligated to give you a podium. In general, so that everyone can get along I'd rather not know that my co-worker is a bigot or a Trump supporter, etc.
Had this fellow made his posting outside of his employment, things would have been different. But he chose to do it at work, and because of the way Google's merit system works (your co-workers grade you), he marked himself as someone who would not fairly grade women co-workers. This so demoralized a lot of his women co-workers that many stayed home from work on Monday. And the CEO called off a family vacation in order to come back and deal with the fallout.
Bruce Perens.
Google has become an ideological echo chamber where anyone with centrist or right-of-center views fears to speak their mind.
How ironic, because the right has itself become an ideological echo chamber. I used to be a Republican, back before moderates were "RINO's". The GOP of that era knew that climate change was real, and debated carbon tax vs cap-and-trade as a solution. The modern GOP either thinks that climate change isn't real, or that it's caused by gay marriage.
Gender equality is a complex issue, and is full of people talking past each other, so I expect little progress to be made anytime soon. Women should feel completely free to join male-dominated fields like programming and science, just as men should feel free to join female-dominated fields like nursing and teaching.
Yes, there is often enough male misogynists, weirdos, and "those guys" in IT that it would make women uncomfortable, and that needs to be nipped in the bud, both for the sake of women and for the sake of business. There are women like that too. People who are jerks in one way are often jerks in other ways too, and those malignant personalities often have deleterious effects on their co-workers irrespective of gender.
But I don't see people fretting about why women aren't working construction jobs, or hauling garbage. That's because even the men working those jobs largely don't *want* to do them. IT isn't hauling the garbage, but it involves long hours, an often stressful work environment, and a relentless grind. Maybe those characteristics aren't as attractive to women as to men. Having worked in IT for 15+ years, it's not attractive to me as a man either. Or maybe women simply have better options.
Maybe 20% women in programming *is* the natural equilibrium. I don't *think* so, but it's possible. Men and women are different, and desire different things. Men desire income (to attract a wife and support a family), while women often prefer jobs that allow them more free time (again to support their family). If you're a woman who desires income, or a man who wants more free time, that's completely fine (I'd definitely prefer more free time over a pay raise), but it's not the average response.
TL;DR: People are all different. Be kind to one another. Don't be a dick.
"Although political affiliation is a protected class according to California labor law"
Yeah.
In the current political climate this doesn't matter AT ALL. NOT ONE BIT.
California universities have been tolerating violent, physically violent attacks against speakers, visitors, guests to their campuses, violence in reaction to their professed political affiliations, violence justified by student, faculty, and others NOT AFFILIATED WITH THESE UNIVERSITIES by THEIR political affiliations.
This is not limited to California, but to recite that California law declares political affiliation a 'protected class', that is, political association is by law in California protected and claimed to be a right of the people to participate in, express, and speak freely without threat of suppression, is not merely disingenuous, it is an affront and insult to those who have suffered actual physical injury because those with opposing views would not tolerate their speaking.
What? Google fires an employee for speaking their mind. Students and others at Berkeley physically assault people gathering to protest these suppressions of free political speech. In California. Some were arrested. And the attitude that contrary speech should be fought against, literally fought against, seems to be spreading.
The truth is, in California, there is a coalition of political groups agreeing that contrary speech can and SHOULD be suppressed and prevented, by physical violence if they choose to. And this is happening nationwide. Worldwide.
And it is justified by the 'greater good'.
The political philosophy that claims to be tolerant, inclusive, caring, and above all better, is the one that espouses violent response to their opposition. This philosophy is led to this by leaders worldwide, unapologetic in their goals and tactics.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Over my 20+ year career as an IT Support contractor, I've kept a blacklist of recruiters that I refused to deal with. Tek Systems, Robert Half and Microsoft tops my blacklist.
Tek Systems always call you in for an interview, are more interested in who you interviewed with previously than your qualifications, and never offer a job after repeated interviews.
The San Jose office for Robert Half have recruiters who always get a better job for themselves than trying to help you get a job. I went through six recruiters in three month because of the turnover.
Microsoft requires that the hiring manager considers five applicants even though he plans to hire his drinking buddy. During a six week period in 2005, I had five Microsoft recruiters leading me by the nose for jobs that went to drinking buddies.
Having worked at Google, "The Internship" was utter BS. Especially the part where it shows going back and forth between Mountain View and San Francisco as a short Google bike ride without breaking a sweat. Experienced bikers could make that commute in 30 minutes but would require taking a shower.
"In additional screenshots, one Google employee declared his intent to quit if Damore were not fired, and another said that he would refuse to work with Damore in any capacity".
Those are the people who should be fired.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Most places that I've worked has had pretty strict prohibitions on discussing politics or religion in the workplace, no matter what flavor of those things is involved. For good and obvious reasons, I think -- such discussions can only lead to grief and strife among people who would otherwise be able to work productively together. I'm a bit surprised that Google allows it.
Also, I'm not clear on what is meant by "blacklist". Typically, that means a list of people who are ineligible for (whatever) that is distributed within an organization and everyone is expected to adhere to.
But the article makes it sound like something rather different: individuals deciding that they can't work with other individuals. This is pretty normal. I know that in most places that I've worked, there have been people that I would go to great lengths to avoid interacting with, and in a managerial role, there have been people who I would not accept on my team because of personality issues.
Is that a "blacklist"? I don't think so. I think it's more about wanting to have teams that can function well together. Being able to get along well in a team is as important as technical skill.
What in his manifesto is sexist? Please quote the passage.
Waiting....
"His name was James Damore."
What happened, I thought we were all end-of-life curmudgeons, not 15 year olds just entering the workforce.
Every single person ever keeps a "blacklist" of people they will not work with. There are many reasons one could find themselves on said list, many real, many petty. Maybe a person...
- were a client that didn't pay up for work done
- were a subcontractor that didn't do the work
- were constantly going on about their child/dog/cat
- drank too much during office hours
- smelled
- their food smelled
- kept going on about something political, no matter the spectrum
- you just don't like their face
- they stole your lunch money
- have an annoyING valley-girl/boy vocAL afflectiON
If you're freelancing, you just don't deal with them. If you're in a team/corporate environment, you avoid them. Welcome to life. Can't wait till you discover that you get free television channels by using an antenna (in most parts of the US). Get off my lawn and all that.
You are offensive to a decent society. You're post was nothing but whining vitriol, with not even one counter argument to anything the paper contained. Yet, you equate the author with a criminal because his view of the world differs from yours. You're post is worthless and we are all dumber for having read it.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
However "offensive" the man's beliefs may be, he voiced them in an extremely organized, non-confrontational tone that is very open to discussion. Something you have failed to do.
The real reason for my comment, however, is to ask how you can believe he is anti-diversity. Like another response to your comment, I request quotations for you to back up your point. I am surprised you find him anti-diversity because literally almost the entire document is about how to make Google friendlier to more diverse opinions, and as far as sex goes, has a whole section entitled "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap".
I'm so old I remember when tech companies used to hire individuals based on their ability to do the work..
No. You simply remember the times you were hired and your self-belief makes you assume that you were the most qualified applicant. It's not true now and never has been.