Slashdot Mirror
Google May Be In Trouble For Firing James Damore (inc.com)
Google fired engineer James Damore after he wrote a 10-page document about "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." taustin writes from a report via Inc. about the potential legal trouble the company may face from firing the "anti-diversity" engineer: Whether Demore is right or wrong, whether one agrees with him or not, Google may have legal trouble for firing him. Employees are protected by federal law when they discuss working conditions with other employees (and this was an internal memo). His memo could be considered whistleblowing, which is also protected (and it is very clear that he was fired as retribution). And, in California, political opinions are protected in the work place as well. Just because one side is wrong doesn't mean the other side is right.
They won't get in trouble because he is a white male. Second they will simply offer a settlement, and then silence him. This will go away.
Whistleblowing implies that he was disclosing potentially illegal activity that google was engaging in. Having a code of conduct that forbids creating a hostile work environment for women is not illegal, therefore he is not whistleblowing.
We've gotten to the point where Google thinks that asking tough questions and seeking answers is less valuable than ideological conformity. Even without legal repercussions, this is not a good look for Google. It undermines the idea that tech is a bastion of the enlightenment.
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
The only people calling him the "anti-diversity" engineer are those that haven't read a word of his memo.
True, right up to the point your opinion conflicts with the majority. Then you'll be shut down, marginalized, and removed.
California is a Right to Work state, so they don't really need a reason to fire him.
There's a big difference between firing someone without a good reason, vs. firing someone for an illegal reason. There are plenty of examples for the latter: you can't fire someone because they got pregnant, or reached a certain age, etc. Not saying that's the case here, but if someone can show that the reason for their termination was illegal (e.g. an internal management memo or meeting notes discussing "we need to get rid of all these old people!") then yes, they most certainly can sue for wrongful termination.
On the one hand this memo is not the best thing ever to be written... it contains the same moral and intellectual certainty that afflicts programmers generally (and many on this site), and I just generally reject that sort of certainty, especially from someone young and sheltered. Any discussion that tries to lump massive groups of population and assign traits to them is going to fail, and it's also going to harm individuals who are assigned to that group who don't fit the traits assumed. (And you can't get around that by liberally sprinkling the phrase 'on average'.) A policy towards trying to break the human urge to hire copies of yourself should be assumed to be a good idea, in my opinion. You don't know what other sections of society will bring so it's probably a good idea to have representation from them. At the same time diversity of opinion should be encouraged, but a lecture to the entire company about how some groups are generally going to be less good at the job is more than just opinion, it's actively causing other people problems.
On the other had, firing him doesn't feel like the right thing to do at all, atleast not until he's proven that he's such a dick that nobody will work with him anymore (if that was to be the case). He's young and certain, and I think wrong. But that's not enough of a reason, if he's doing the job and open to rational debate then I can't see why he should be pushed out so quickly.
Right to Work means an employee can be terminated without cause. It does not mean an employee can be terminated for a cause that is illegal. Wrongful termination lawsuits are not prohibited in Right To Work states.
I've just read his document. I must say, that was a very rational appeal to Google to bring more harmony and freedom into its culture.
I must also say I see no hostility to anyone whatsoever. All he said was "Let's get away from this cult and be as productive (through enabling each and every Google employee to reach his full potential) as we can be".
And he was fired for it. And THAT is exactly where the hate for SJWs comes from.
For a long time I was kinda miffed that I don't have the background to have a chance to work for Google. Now I'm kinda glad... I don't think I would have liked that environment very much.
Actually sucker this is the pinnacle of capitalism. This guy made trouble in the workplace and they sacked him for not having the right attitude. If you build a multi-billion dollar corporation you too can exterminate lowlife employees for having their own ideas. Instead of which you are lowlife who supports right wing propaganda about freedom - which is the freedom of big dogs to eat little dogs, just like happened to this guy.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Since we are talking in the subjunctive tense...
Google may have found itself in trouble for not firing James Damore. He contributes into the peer performance review system there, and he had openly expressed an opinion that women, as a category, aren't on a par with men with respect to coding. That presents a liability to Google from a different direction.
All along, this was just his retirement plan. Why continue working with people you hate when you can get paid millions just to stfu and go away? He is probably already shopping for boats.
The weirdest thing about all this are the critics who label Damore's firing as Orwellian while overlooking the greatest data aggregation exercise in human history.
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
California has also clear laws regarding unlawful employment discrimination. Writing a memo pushing forward the agenda that diversity policies in the workplace is a bad idea will not fly well in courts.
Since 1996 the State supreme court has repeatedly upheld that affirmative action in the State is illegal in any institution that works for or with the State on any matter.
"His name was James Damore."
The whole screed...
Scientist after scientist are coming forward saying that his paper is well thought out, well researched, well written, and in line with current scientific understanding.
...read like a child who was upset that things weren't the way he thought they were all along
No, thats you guys, who keep lying about whats in the paper, and keep slandering the person that wrote it.
I wonder if Slashdot's poster logs can be subpoenaed to show that all you anonymous people are working for Google on Googles behalf slandering the person you wrongfully terminated. Pretty sure that "I was just following orders" is not a defense against slander.
"His name was James Damore."
California is a Right to Work state
Right-to-work law prohibits compelled employees to join a union. You're thinking of at-will employment.
Every big company just makes these things go away. Google is going to reach into the couch cushions, pull out a few million bucks, and give it to the guy. It's all about risk management; I'm sure they want this whole thing to disappear so that they're not dragged in front of the media every single time a court date comes up.
In my opinion. they were right to get rid of him. Regardless of the content of what was published, you don't start a highly politically-charged fight, drag your employer into it, and expect to keep your job. Especially when the CEO has to cut his vacation short -- I'm sure that was the last straw. I've been nothing but professional in my career, and there have been _plenty_ of times I could have unloaded on this or that in a public forum but chose not to.
And besides, aren't we beyond this "women are inherently different" thing? Being in IT, you do work with a lot of guys and there is a definite gender gap. But, part of me thinks women are just being rational and avoiding what can be a stressful, thankless job if you're in the wrong environment. It's not all, or even the majority of men I've worked with, but I have worked with some very vocal men who border on the MRA level. But when you get down to the root of the problem, most of them are unmarried/unmarryable, or worse, on their second or third wife and paying large amounts of child support. From what I've seen, that's where a lot of the bitter complaining comes from, and if I was getting 50+% of my salary siphoned off each pay period I'd probably be bitter too.
... of his critics at Google...
I have news for you, and you probably don't want to hear it. If we put every one of his critics there who supported his firing into a big room, you could swing a dead cat in any direction and not hit someone who is less than 200% more certain that they are absolutely following the righteous path in burning this little heretic. In fact, the actual Spanish Inquisition was kinder and more compassionate to real heretics than they are; it gave you a chance to be spared punishment by confessing and repenting. These people don't. You could crawl over broken glass while telling them how right they are and most of them would still treat you as less than fully human.
It was not a scientific paper nor was it based on scientific papers and it certainly did not use any scientific methods.
He provided citation after citation to peer reviewed science all the way through his well written (as you admit) document.
Furthermore, scientist after scientist are coming forward saying he is right about the science.
Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?
"His name was James Damore."
Another one that failed basic reading comprehension. Nowhere in the memo he states "...that women were inherently not cut out for those jobs...". The ignorance is strong with this one.
In fact, he states the opposite.
From the memo itself:
I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
And reinforcing:
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).
Don't spread lies. Read the whole thing before spreading lies:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Or can you tolerate someone against diversity and hostile towards women
Nobody should tolerate that.
These arent things Damore did or believe, however, so what are you talking about?
"His name was James Damore."
In general, if you write a '10 page manifesto' about anything, you are probably going to come off as a nutjob and probably won't go well for you professionally.
Solved. It's now called an "essay". So there's no problem.
You should try to come up with something better than things described with negative-sounding words are bad. It's really a poor argument and a poor thought process.
His falsifiable claims were well supported by the science
Even if we concede that to be true (and I do not), that doesn't mean that his conclusions from that evidence are correct and his conclusions are anything but scientific.
By firing him, they've created a hostile work environment for empiricists.
This was not a dispassionate empirical argument. I've read the memo in its entirety. This was a rant against what he perceived as ideology that he did not agree with. He's entitle to that opinion but don't insult my intelligence by claiming it was some masterpiece of empiricism.
If you think that believing the science is sexist, then call me a sexist, but it's also a political statement to want to make decisions based on the science.
This wasn't a scientific paper. It was a political opinion piece which casually referenced some cherry picked "evidence" in an effort to seem more credible.
And the enemy is us (Google ...Remember Don't Be Evil?).
In their effort to encourage inclusiveness and tolerance, they have become intolerant and exclusive. No doubt others have similar misgivings, but are keeping their mouth shut now that Googles intolerance of dissenting views has been exposed. Google has become the very thing the claim to stand against.
Seems to be a common theme in the SJW Universe.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
He made Sundar Pichai cancel his family vacation. Having the CEO cancel a vacation does tend to lead to firings.
can you tolerate someone against diversity and hostile towards women
You, like so many others appear to have based your options on what others have said about what Damore wrote and not by what he actually wrote.
Damore's memo was not anti diversity. Nor was he hostile in it against women.
He _did_ call into question the means being used within Google to promote diversify as being potentially illegal (affirmative action _is_ illegal in the state of California), and that all sexual diversity in the workplace is not automatically because of repression and that the means being used to combat sexism were counter-productive and/or scientifically inconclusive.
Should you disagree, give quotations of the sections of his memo that say explicitly that he is against diversity and hostile to women.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Yes he did:
"We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I've seen it done)."
That is exactly what he did. The people (including a lot of journalists, sadly) saying he claimed women weren't capable of tech work simply haven't read what he wrote. They've been writing their responses based on what others said he wrote - others who also didn't read what he wrote. You know, the echo chamber he complained about?
On the contrary, this was one of the best written commentaries on the topic that I've read, and covered a lot of the logical flaws which have bothered me about political correctness over the years. It's missing a few others I've seen (assumption of a zero base state, assumption that the null hypothesis is true by ignoring contrary evidence, ad hominem through villainization, etc), which the mass media is now shoveling out in droves.
It was amusing/sad how much butt-covering he had to do to ward off ad hominems by people who will assume if you don't support their ideology, you must oppose it. e.g.
"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."
Without having to repeat things like that, it probably would've been a 7-8 page manifesto. But it was for naught - the PC crowd accused him of it anyway.
While California says you can't be fired for HAVING a political opinion, you can be fired for expressing it.
In the rest of the US, your boss can walk in and fire you just for posting a Pro-Trump picture on your personal facebook page. Alternatively, he could just ask every Republican to raise their hand and then tell everyone who didn't raise their hand, "You're fired".
California banned this practice.
However, your boss can still fire you for wearing a Trump hat to work or sending an internal email that advocates for Hillary Clinton.
Whistleblower Protection
You are a pretty weird whistleblower if you complain internally about a public practice. I cannot imagine anyone EVER considering this a case of whistleblowing.
That would be like an Apple engineer sending around an internal memo about the small battery in their new phones, and then people calling that "whistleblowing". You can't blow the whistle on something that everyone knows about!
Right to Discuss Working Conditions
May be viable. Unfortunately, the memo didn't really discuss working conditions. It discussed business practices. Working conditions addresses how the business practices have an impact on the employee. He was discussing how he felt they were wrong-headed and misguided. Those might be fair assessments, but they are not addressing HIS working conditions.
Did he work more hours because of the hiring practices?
Did he get less time off?
Did it impact him in any demonstrable way?
Google made a point of acknowledging that some of the points in the memo discussed working conditions, and specifically said that those parts weren't why he was fired. The bits where he said that women weren't as good at dev work or leadership weren't about working conditions, and those are the bits that got him the sack.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
mentioning PhD studies is not the same as claiming a PhD title.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Nowhere in the paper is he stating that.
(he spends way to many pages on pointing out the difference between males and females, stating the obvious)
his complaint is about google ignoring reality and giving minorities better treatment because google thinks forced diversity is best.
it's like out of 10 job applicants picking the 1 woman because you need a woman for diversity reasons.
thats the discussion
It is not. "PhD studies" does not in any way imply having a PhD. There is an exam at the end, you know and you can fail that. Or never get there.
You statement is just one more attempt to discredit him on a non-factual basis. Dishonest and repulsive. Because the actual facts pretty much support what he said (which is not very close to what gets reported that he allegedly said).
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
They won't get in trouble because he is a white male.
They won't get in trouble because they technically have done nothing wrong. They fired a guy for not having the right political view point which, as I understand it, is not protected in the US like it is elsewhere.
The ironic thing is that they are missing the entire point of diversity which is that a disparate collection of world views leads to finding better ideas and solutions to problems. To put it in terms familiar to Slashdot it's like the Federation and the Borg and Google just showed they are the Borg.
It's illegal in California.
Further, they fired him after he complained about hiring practices, gender bias, etc. within the company. That's retaliatory, and that's illegal everywhere.
The cherry on top is that his claims count as whistleblowing because it's illegal to have hiring, assignment, and overall treatment favor race, gender, age, etc.
Checkmate.
Flat Earther's and Young Earther's can lay out all kinds of "science" behind their nuttery, it doesn't make them true either.
What is this sock puppet shit? I asked you to post an example if it. The posts you complained about had no mods at all, still don't.
You do know you can click on the score to see moderation applied to a post, right?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Score 1 is the default for logged in users, and +1 for high karma.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I did read them during the campaign, pretty scary stuff. He's not currently running, so no point in me reading old news. Simple question: What is a "fair share" which gets repeated in his talking points? I get the anti-corruption stuff, but wonder why it never pertains to Government, or him. Like most positions you can start with a valid premise but not end up with a valid conclusion.
Bernie is fine with corruption as long as it's "his" team. We can validate that by his complete capitulation to the DNC even after all of the corruption was exposed and his silence since. He stands on whatever morals advance his ideology, which means he is without virtue.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You are right. Sorry, I didn't notice...
This is actually kind of annoying as, for example, I don't really want this post appearing above the default threshold and attracting the trolls who systematically mod me down when they see me.
I'll use the feedback link, see if I can get it fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I think the site admins have been trying to deal with the trolls moderating certain users they don't down systematically. It's breaking the site and turning it into an echo chamber.
And this has just made it worse.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC