Slashdot Mirror
Newspaper Obtains James Damore's Complaint Against Google (siliconbeat.com)
A Silicon Valley newspaper brings this update on fired Google engineer James Damore:
California law allows employers to fire workers for virtually any reason -- and the Constitutional protection of free speech doesn't apply to private company workplaces. Until now it was unclear how Damore might fight back against Google over his termination. Now, this news organization has obtained the U.S. National Labor Relations Board charge sheet that reveals the basis for Damore's battle. His argument hinges on the contents of his memo, which went far beyond discussing a possible biological reason for the gender gap.
The document contained detailed criticism of Google's diversity initiatives and their effects on employees, and it said that the company's biases led to alienation among employees holding conservative views. His Labor Board charge rests on Section 8(a) subsection (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which gives employees the right to engage in activities for the purpose of "mutual aid or protection." Google discriminated against Damore by firing him "in retaliation" for activities protected by law, and also possibly to discourage such activities within the company, the charge sheet said. It appears clear that the protected activities Damore refers to are his communications, in the memo, with co-workers, about issues in the workplace.
Google was unavailable for comment, but the newspaper quoted an earlier statement from Google CEO Sundar Pichai that "An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace that doesn't mean that anything goes."
The document contained detailed criticism of Google's diversity initiatives and their effects on employees, and it said that the company's biases led to alienation among employees holding conservative views. His Labor Board charge rests on Section 8(a) subsection (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which gives employees the right to engage in activities for the purpose of "mutual aid or protection." Google discriminated against Damore by firing him "in retaliation" for activities protected by law, and also possibly to discourage such activities within the company, the charge sheet said. It appears clear that the protected activities Damore refers to are his communications, in the memo, with co-workers, about issues in the workplace.
Google was unavailable for comment, but the newspaper quoted an earlier statement from Google CEO Sundar Pichai that "An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace that doesn't mean that anything goes."
So is it the case that the conservative view is that women are inferior in STEM careers?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Fake WhatsApp App Downloaded 1 Million Times https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
"Constitutional protection of free speech doesn't apply to private company workplaces"
Funny how that works. It's not protected, as long as the company disagrees with you?
I would argue it's better to protect free speech especially when the corporation disagrees with you.
Let's put it this way - a very left wing employee of a very right wing company gets fired for advocating her views at the company. Do you still think the company is ok to violate free speech? So only some people get protection from very powerful people?
"An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace that doesn't mean that anything goes."
weasel words
noun
words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading.
You obviously did not read the memo.
-- Has the definition of harrassment and creating a hostile workplace culture broadened to include when the offensive activity in question is actively engaged in (through calmly / voluntarily reading a website) by the person who claims being harrassed or antagonized?
-- Does the person who claims being harrassed or feeling antagonized have complete free reign to define what constitutes this and is reasonable for someone to be fired over?
-- If all of the claims in the "manifesto" were true, does it change whether someone can legally be fired over it? (truth of course is hard to judge)
He needs to remember to add "These views are mine and mine alone and in no way represent the official views of Google Inc...." next time he wants to piss all over his companies diversity policy.
Sure he might be right and there might be genetic reasons for distribution of skills that make Googles 50/50 aims bad, but YOU STICK A CLEAR DISCLAIMER ON IT IN CASE IT LEAKS TO THE PRESS AND IS DISCUSSED AS IF ITS A GOOGLE STUDY DOCUMENT.
Otherwise you're opening up Google to a wealth of lawsuit pain, and of course they then have to fire your sorry ass to create distance between you and them. Distance that should have come from the disclaimer you forgot to add.
I don't think they wanted to sack you, I think they had to.
Isn't that something like an email that you used to dictate to a typist before computers forced us all to learn to type?
Memo gets written that Google could do a better job being sensitive to the differences between men and women.
Gets fired for being "insensitive"
The old "When you don't like the message, shoot the messenger." tactic.
Or in this case typical Stupid Juvenile Whiner tactics.
/cynical Classic.
An important part of our culture is lively debate. Unless you start making arguments that threaten our position that we cannot refute.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
James Damore is the Rosa Parks of whiny MRA incel manbabies.
In case you've forgotten, here's an unretouched photo of Mr Damore with two former co-workers who had just had their way with him. If you look closely, you can see that one is still holding the fork that Damore used to toss his salad. According to several other co-workers, it was entirely consensual.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/con...
:
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why does a conservative snowflake's need to work only with men trump my desire to not work with conservative snowflakes? I mean in the real world we need to be able to work with anyone. and we certainly don't want to work with people whose mind is so weak that they can't differentiate someone looking different from someone who is less able. This reminds me of a snowflake working for a Austin tech company that could not hold meeting with women because his wife would yell at him. This is especially funny because it was not so long ago that a conservative man who was afraid of his wife would be summarily laughed out of town by all the real conservative men.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I am grateful when I find leftists who honestly want to have open debate. Unfortunately, that is rare. The hard left actually hates free speech because its ideas cannot stand up to intellectual scrutiny.
Damore is not even all that radical of a conservative. He just departed from the religion of the Silicon Valley c-suite and that is, of course, a grand heresy for which he must be punished.
To all left-leaning readers, just remember: if you are against free speech for ideas you dislike, then you are against free speech period. And the limits you impose on others can one day be turned on you.
Google fires James Damore for writing a conservative memo.
Liberals: It's a private company, they're not obligated to respect his free speech rights.
The NFL fires Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the anthem
Liberals: THEY VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Instead of being as clueless as all the other group-think-morons, you could actually read what he wrote and edited, which was based on feedback of coworkers. But then that would require effort, something virtual-signalling does not. And if you did read it, or got past the TLDR... Nice! Is it that your reading comprehension sucks? Or is it that you're so biased, it has clouded your comprehension?
Good luck to him. I've found the Oakland NLRB branch to be kind of useless, and the Office of Appeals even worse. I filed a complaint against a former employer, and the initial group dismissed it, so I wrote an appeal. Even found 5-6 prior cases the NLRB has decided that reflect on elements of my case and worked that in. The response I get back from the Office of Appeals is something along the lines of, "You allege you were engaged in a protected concerted activity, but we're not going to actually take the time to figure out if you were or not." The entire rejection letter read like something a high school student might come up with when they realize the night before they have a book report due the next day: skim a few pages looking for a couple of specifics to throw in, and then just BS the rest.
These agencies all tend to have the one set of rules that they put out for public view, and then there's a separate secret set of rules that they follow. I know it'll never happen, but there really should be an agency that advocates for workers, since most can't afford lawyers.
I said when it happened that Google was stupid to fire him; at most they should have just asked him not to do it again. I hope that he wins and nails Google to the wall so that they think twice the next time. I seriously doubt that he will win, but I hope he does. It's long past time for the second gilded age to come to an end and the balance of power swing a back a bit more in favor of workers.
Please read this ten page memo. But if you fire me, you'll hear from my lawyers.
Try reading the memo.
You are trolling. Everyone who read the memo knows that you did not.
It's painfully obvious, in fact, and it's hilarious because it makes you look so ignorant and you're not even aware of it.
Bunch of goons, faggots, and brittle millennials
it is okay to be white
The Economist posted the response Google should have sent to James Damore here:
https://www.economist.com/news...
It is far more eloquent than a typical Slashdot comment. If you're interested in this subject, and in seeing what in my opinion is the most thoughtful commentary on this subject, the above article is highly recommended.
Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
Don't say that you want a dialogue about something, then fire somebody if one actually happens.
> He says things - over, and over, and over - like they're facts, with zero basis for them. His citations are often ridiculous, and he certainly does spend some time talking about how unbiased HE is.
Way to contradict yourself. He has zero basis... except for all the citations of scientific studies. What could be more ridiculous than hand-waving away all the evidence without bothering to engage with it? Why don't you read the memo some more and discuss that? Right, then you'd have to deal with scientific facts that make you uncomfortable.
So please explain the factual basis of your disagreement with the citations or GTFO. There are facts on this side in the paper. You haven't presented even one specific factual basis for disagreement. That only serves to show people that you know your basis for arguing is weak and you therefore are reluctant to disclose any specific factual disagreements.
In short, facts or GTFO.
A white male publically expressed politically unorthodox opinions, and must be completely crushed to discourage the others.
Damore was fired, not for being anti-diversity, but for being intentionally disruptive and confrontational, writing a ten page attack memo and posting it in a company-wide forum, where it was (not suprisingly) leaked to the press. That put the entire company on the defensive.
If you do that, you're risking your career at that company. Similar consequences could be expected if Damore or a colleague had written a memo attacking the company's product or engineering strategy. It's not at all surprising that there are passionate disagreements on some of these things. It's a matter of choosing the right (or wrong) forum to publicize one's disagreements. It's one thing to argue about something in the break room or hallway, or to ask the CEO or VP a tough (but respectful) question at an internal meeting. It's another thing to publish what amounts to be a manifesto attacking company policy.
The memo is here. There are these crazy things called "quotes" that one normally uses to support a particular point like that. You have posted six times on this story as of a moment ago when I went here and counted. I note a conspicuous lack of supporting quotes in your posting.
I do not and will not believe that you have read the actual, uncensored memo until and unless you quote from the memo to support your claims. You appear to have read reports about the memo while ignoring the memo itself and then conflated what's been reported about the memo with that which was actually written. This is hilariously bad because some outlets have done stupid things like strip all the citations.
Because what reader would want to bother with pesky things like facts in a discussion like this?
So, you're saying he's a modern day civil rights leader, but we shouldn't listen to him because you think he's gay? This is one of your least coherent insults, and that's saying a lot.
Why read or allow diversity of opinion when you can just misrepresent and suppress your enemies?
Female scholar Christina Hoff Sommers on why feminism is an enemy of liberty:
http://tomwoods.com/ep-625-feminism-vs-free-speech-and-a-free-economy/
Google's diversity efforts also alienate many minorities and women, because the message that Google is sending loud and clear to minorities and women is: "You are incapable of standing up for yourself, and unless we train the wealthy straight white males to walk on eggshells around you, you can't succeed here on your own." Of course, the same wealthy straight white males have no trouble heaping vitriol on anybody who doesn't toe their political line.
No wonder that Google has some of the worst turnover rates of any US corporation (average stay: 1 year) and that diversity at Google isn't improving. I found the atmosphere stifling and left within less than a year. My new company deals much more maturely with diversity issues than Google, and the job is actually more fun too. I will never work for an Alphabet company again.
Why on Earth would you research something for yourself, peon? The Ministry of Truth has told you all you need to know.
Putting his name on it: is that not what James Damore did just before people like you crucified him because you are unable to debate his claims in the open?
I've had much less coherent insults, thank you very much.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't know, MightyMartian. The answer depends on whether or not you've stopped beating your wife yet.
That would depend on an unstated assumption. Does he has a wife or not?
Donâ(TM)t you have a date with an oven somewhere?
Türkiye'nin Ekonomi Rehberi - SGK, Bakur ve Banka Kredisi Haberleri
http://ekonomihavadis.com/
I read his "essay" in full. It's not completely bad, it has few good points, it has several bad ones, but ultimately this is about the image of the company.
All in all, no matter how much he tried to make it technical, cold or like a scientific study, it's still basically - men are biologically more apt to some types of jobs rather than women, the "extreme left" is hindering Google as a business, and attempts to bring more women into the company is getting to some extremes he doesn't like and feels threatened by.
Are there possibly some extreme left inside Google that is blindly against his views? Probably yes. Could they have had a hand in leaking the essay which ultimately led to him being fired? Also probably yes.
But ultimately, the problem is that Google could not keep him as an employee without it becoming a huge liability. He's smart enough to realize that. His defense will fail because Google will put it up that his attempt of "mutual aid or protection" was obviously damaging to the company as a whole, to several employees, and to general company policies. He has no ground to stand.
The press took his essay to say it's an attempt to biologically label women as inferior. It's not exactly that, nor it is what the full thing is about, but that's the image that was left.
With this, it's pretty much unsustainable to keep him there both for Google's image as a company, and as an employee that would most likely create an internal divide that the company really cannot afford.
Now, Google is a company that has been struggling, spending a whole ton of money, and reforming itself internally to adopt a more progressive role and go exactly against speeches like his. This is probably the current money sinkhole there, as it is on several other social networks.
His steps towards a better company, at least some of them, are not bad per se, but the way he put it isn't great for anyone.
It's all about the tone. There's a bunch of useful stuff in his write up, but unfortunately, it came with a bunch of other stuff that threw mud in entire areas where Google is investing a whole lot of money and effort. It calls for elimination of parts of Google. It certainly wasn't only mutual aid and protection, it was also an attack on parts of Google's internal structure. And to make things worse, he politicized his views - the sort of polarization that Google and other big companies are definitely trying to run away from. There's a lot of unjustified and baseless labeling in his speech where he keeps trying to defend stereotypification and labeling with general statistics. It's poor science at best, prejudice at worst.
If Google kept him there, even if the argument was in defense of free speech or whatever, it would bring the polarization and toxicity of political discussions inside the company more than it probably already is.
This is a personal opinion of course, but I think Google did the right thing. Even if he somehow wins his complaint, in the long run it'll be far less damaging to the company as a whole.
If you cant take inside criticism especially agreed with enough to be shared openly by so many inside.
It will be impossible to have continuous improvement.
Not even money keeps the best with such a hostile management to criticism.
Read the document, and make up your mind on the facts of the case, not second hand opinion.
Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, James Darmore.
Opinion - any rule that is based on "the eye of the beholder" rather than a clear standard is at risk of inconsistent, unfair, and unjust application.
“strong policies against retaliation, harassment and discrimination in the workplace,” that is a nicely shaped drama triangle. Although I would recommend swapping out harassment for intimidation so they all follow the same suffix. Doing nothing you are discriminating, doing something for yourself you are intimidating, doing something for others you are retaliating. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Certainly no Lead, Follow or GTFO rules of engagement here and when employees do not see that meta and prioritize accordingly its a broken culture of cargo cult science.
Who are you to say that a) "women" have a different style than men?, b) that this style you alleged is inferior to "men's style" and therefore c) women can't do jobs men can do without more difficulty?
That's the same stuff Damore got fired for saying but at least he tried to back up his assertions with citations.
You are just a pig.
You. Seriously. Referenced. Work. That. Had a game of thrones. Reference.
Lost me there, stopped reading.
First, it's *fiction.* Second, a lot of people haven't seen a single session of game of thrones.
Whatever the economist is, or was, it's ageist, or non nerdist ... But the editors need firing
Boycott Google! Boycott Google!
Don't search Google Don't Search!
Trump still uses Chrome!
Search american inventors........... Google's results are #fakenews!
Coding, especially at a biz like Google with an enormous pool of systems running 24/7, is mostly RPC and then "interfacing" - or whatever the local buzzword is for discussing - with other teams to find out why a particular call takes orders of magnitude longer every now and then. Anyone can cut code, some of it will be better of course and superhero coders will crank out much better faster lone gunman projects, but optimizing an inner loop or remembering how to call bespoke-munge-widget from the Australian server farm aren't irreplaceable skills at global scale.
Damore wants the "right" to be an asshole to those he particularly finds inferior. As he uses "conservative" we can guess what that demographic is. In an enormous coding shop that's not gonna work, because getting all prickly when someone points out that, just maybe, the problem will have to be solved by changing your PERFECT widget is going to create problems.
If he had wants the "right" to be an asshole to everybody because he's a genius he should go into design. Just pass off the PS files and then talk down your nose at the dev who points out the dimensions are wrong. Of course there will be cage matches with all manner of product managers and UI/UX/U? types and some of them might be female and they won't immediately be overwhelmed by his masculine genius but that's what video game comment threads are for.
Well, seeing how Damore was treated and given that this is one subject where a person's published opinion will impact their life and work, one shouldn't be surprised that any public discussion where the participants are not anonymous would heavily represent just one side.
Basically, everyone else is afraid for expressing their opinion, so you only see one side and think that's the consensus (or worse, know what's happening and pretend that's the consensus)
As I recall, there were a few months of time between when the memo came out, and when the memo leaked and resulted in his firing. If my recollection is correct, then Google o my fired him because of the attention the memo generated rather than the content of the memo. That suggests retaliation.
Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin comments on an impresario in the news for allegations, which the subject of these allegatiions has as much as admitted, that he had assaulted many women. Mr. Baldwin remarks on Twitter or other public places that "everyone knew" what was going on but said impresario was not held to account because "women accepted settlements."
The response to Mr. Baldwin was yes, women accepted financial settlements in exchange for their silence but what choice did they have given how the "system is rigged"? Excellent point, and there is also a "you go first" problem. Once many women come forward with corroborated stories, it is not anywhere near as hard as if you are the first woman to come forward against a well-connected man and how you as the accuser are going to be put on trial.
But that is not how the correct-thinking persons are responding to the once correct-thinking Alec Baldwin. There is not a conversation of the form, "This wouldn't have been such a problem if the women hadn't accepted financial settlements" to which the response could be offered, "Yes, I see your point that maintaining silence perpetuates the problem. But you also have to take into account that the first woman to speak out will be facing tremendous obstacles, especially not knowing if other women will follow in speaking out."
No, Mr. Baldwin offers his opinion and then it is, "Oh the Humanity! How can Baldwin make such a sexist, insensitive remark? Alec Baldwin is the worst sort of man in Hollywood with no regard for what women in Hollywood go through! Mr. Baldwin's career is finished."
The subject here is a somewhat different aspect of men's inhumanity to women, but do not many of the "debunkings" of James Damore, here and elsewhere, fit this pattern?
Just asking.
I had thought that Mr. Damore posted to an internal Google message board where employees were encouraged to post their views on the diversity policy?
If he had posted publically in his role as a Google employee, I would concur with the sobriquet "dumbass."
Had he on his own initiative circulated an "you are entitled to reading my opinion" memo within Google, also "dumbass."
Since he responded to an internal Google request to carry on a conversation on a potentially controversial company policy . . . wait, "conversation" doesn't mean having a back-and-forth exchange of views, "conversation" means the company speaks with one voice and the employee politely listens. This is a widely known social convention, this is not by everyone in the world apart from maybe a 'spergie coder. Never mind, "dumbass"!
Even if Mr. Damore is a RWNJ, he is utilizing a New Deal agency that numerous Republican administrations have crippled and tried to kill. It is still valid and needed, even more so in these times.
Engineer? He has a degree in biology. Also, you can betcha an engineer will research his topic before diving in, unlike the CEO type, who will certainly rush in with a virtue signalling opinion rather than science.