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."
Maybe you should read what Damore wrote. Copies are easily available from multiple sources, though look for the unedited copies, not the ones selectively edited to push an agenda. In short, he said there are differences to how men and women approach topics and Google's workplace tended to be more accommodating to men than women, and some changes could help the situation. This was interpreted the way your question implies (which I hope was an honest question rather than a passive-aggressive snark), and he was terminated for what was phrased as an attack on women.
"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.
Oh yeah and that was after his managers told him to drop it and he then made the company look bad.
You do realize that federal law explicitly grants workers the right to bring up discriminatory practices in the workplace, and therefore telling a person who brings it up is a federal law violation? And retaliating against them for bringing it up, or not dropping it, is also a violation? You realize that, right?
And for those unaware of how these laws work, the person bringing it up does NOT have to be a person negatively effected by the practices.
Maybe it's because you're ACTUALLY trolling, under the guise of "I just don't agree with you".
Because that's all leftists do, is claim to be the voice of reason when in actuality, they're just trolling anyone who can read and think logically. Since you are obviously incapable of using logic and critical thought when reading the memo, you simply state that it's "underwhelming" not because you disagree, but because you just "don't get it".
You may not even realize you're trolling, but you're still trolling nonetheless and deserve to be modded as such.
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.
It's exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to be written by an engineer - who thinks that because he's so, so smart, he can easily grasp argumentation, social sciences, and politics. But the reality is, this is the guy who - when he walks into a meeting - the room rolls its eyes because the meeting is going to take twice as long and accomplish half as much. But boy, are you going to hear his opinions.
The irony is staggering!
There is nothing in the constitution that says you have a right to a particular job.
You might want to let Colin Kaepernick know that. He seems to think otherwise.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I don't know, MightyMartian. The answer depends on whether or not you've stopped beating your wife yet.
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?
> I found the arguments essentially rehashing rather old, tired talking points without adding anything new
> All he did was take a contentious topic and give the pot a very thorough stir without adding anything new (IMO).
Since none of the points are discussed as part of the topic, within Google (as he stated and Google then characterized as hateful), it's hard to understand how your mind comes up with some of these opinions.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
You do realize that federal law explicitly grants workers the right to bring up discriminatory practices in the workplace, and therefore telling a person [to stop] who brings it up is a federal law violation? And retaliating against them for bringing it up, or not dropping it, is also a violation? You realize that, right?
They didn't retaliate against him for bringing it up.
Umm, yes they did.
What happened is he didn't like his manager[']s answer and created a hostile workplace environment (something which they are 100% entitled to act on) by posting his opinions to the entire company.
He posted it to an internal mailing list dedicated to discussing issues about inclusion, not to the entire company. It was then forwarded by someone else who objected to his memo. So, posting a concern about inclusion to an internal mailing list dedicated to discussing issues of inclusion is now deemed creating a hostile working environment? Interesting theory you have there.
Now of course you can argue back and forth as to whether you think he's right and whether or not that did create a hostile workplace environment. But that doesn't make your interpretation of the law one I think is correct.
And sooner or later we'll get a definitive answer on this unless google settles which I doubt they will.
If you mean if a decision is made by a court, that will only address whether Google's actions in this case violated the law, not whether the interpretation I cited is correct. BTW, go do some research and you may find the law journals I pulled it from. Also, I doubt it will reach a trial since Google will make it go away before that point is reached.
No, this is the case where a liberal presents a view that maybe women don't want STEM careers. And those critical of him and who fired him didn't bother to actually read what he wrote, and just assumed the author was a conservative who said that women are inferior at STEM.
Really, this case has become a great litmus test at determining who actually reads the facts and decides for themselves, vs. who doesn't care about the facts as long as they can use the issue to publicly demonstrate that they're being compliant with the socially acceptable conclusion.
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.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
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.
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.
I want you to take a step back and think about how you're trying to shame him based on his physical appearance and mock him by implying his sexuality, and then think about how you'd feel about anybody who did that to a woman for any reason.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
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?
Perhaps the issue is your baseless assertion that you've determined his conclusions are invalid because his citations are [all the negative characterizations], when neither you nor any of his other critics have actually presented evidence to support that argument. That's what makes it a troll argument. I've already commented so couldn't mod either way, but had you backed up your criticisms of his citations with research invalidating those papers, which weren't riddled with flaws, biases, etc, themselves, I would have been very interested in reading it and would have upmodded. But repeating the same old "Well I think the science he cited is wrong" is just a troll at this point without counter-cites.
You seem to be a tool, as he's not making any such claim. What he is claiming is that owners are engaging in collusion to deny him a job, deliberately passing him over for inferior quarterbacks.
Speaking of the Constitution, though, it's the government paying the NFL for players to be on the field during the National Jingoism, making it a free speech issue as well.
Well yeah, you can't exactly say a bunch of scientific papers are wrong by supplying flawed ones yourself.
The second link is an opinion piece with no scientific debate simply asserting how wrong all mischaracterizations were like everyone else, the first was more interesting, but of the portion that wasn't just explaining how horrible the author thought his opinions were without challenging the facts, and consisted of actual scientific references, the author has a few valid points here and there, but the bias is so incredibly thick and it's full of so much "no you're wrong and you're a racist sexist because I say so" it doesn't even seem worth pursuing the nitpicks; and there's lots of attacking straw men (by erroneously claiming Damore is asserting biology *alone* accounts for something, then linking to evidence for nature and nurture). I mean seriously, the author explicitly states we shouldn't judge people on their individual merits.. how can you really take that as a serious rebuttal? It's clear someone on the far left was extremely personally offended and tried to take it apart, but the extreme bias and desperation produced nothing but opinion, straw men, and minor nitpicks, among the small percentage of the article that actually directly addressed the actual content.
But that's not a comment I would mod down, since you did at least try to back up the opinion with a non-troll source. Might not mod it up since it's wrong and contradicted by lots of other scientists, but not down.
It is not the best thing since the bible, it is not novel, it is not an entertaining read. However since it is the argument of the discussion, one shoul read it before posting his/her insights.
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.
For all I know the document may have some valid points buried in the misogynist bullshit
You appear to have redefined the term 'misogynist'. Could you perhaps highlight the "misogynist bullshit" in Damore's document because I didn't spot it.
Whether he had valid points or not, the way people have demonised his writing means he was indeed clearly working within a hostile workplace culture. It's just that it was clearly hostile to men, not to women.
Why hasn't the person that leaked it been disciplined? They're the person that damaged Google's reputation. Damore merely wrote a document for internal use.
I've never written "These views are mine and mine alone" on a document created for internal use. I've never written it on one written for external use either, as those do represent my employer.
Yeah, someone posting their view on Jews totally wouldn't have a negative view on any Jewish coworkers. Oddly enough most human beings have emotions.
Whoa, hold on.
I am convinced that as a generalization, that men and women think differently.
I am likewise convinced that individual women and men do not all think alike
Therefore, any woman who wishes to work in a field where her thinking process lends itself to working in the field is welcomed to work there.
And of the female engineers and scientists and technicians I've worked with, almost all were quite competent. There was one unfortunate exception, who got into the field and was miserable, eventually leaving to start a day-care center.
Thinking that there are differences in thought processes is not holding negative views.
Those women I worked with were highly capable, and were highly capable by virtue of how their minds worked.
Counter example is my spouse, who is every bit as intelligent as me, but her thought process is geared more toward an accounting and organizational outlook, or a dear friend woman who is scary smart, yet very much more "traditional feminine" in her outlook, and makes a living as an artist.
I could give more examples, but those will suffice.
Point is, neither my wife nor this lady friend would ever thrive in what I do. They take great amusement with my "overly" analytical approach to everything. My STEM lady friends rather like my approach to the world.
Point also is that I could never do what they do proficiently. One of the most destructive aspects of modern education is the lie that "You can be anything you want - if you only try hard enough." for 90 precet of us, that is simply not true.
And as strange as it might seem to some in here, for a person who expresses opinions not in line with the present day dogma, that there is no difference between male and female, I have quite a few female friends. Both in male dominated fields, and more "traditional" situations.
I wonder if it is because I make my judgements on the individual level, and not try to force fit ideology to gender, which is as prevalent on the left as well as on the right.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It must suck to be a decent conservative (or a Republican) these days.
You have no idea. I've stayed pretty consistent as a Goldwater Conservative over the years, where you spend the money wisely but once you decide, you make certain the bills are paid, that you intrude on people's freedoms as little as possible, and that everyone gets a chance on the individual level.
And I think for myself, rather than get my ideology handed to me. I think that's what the crypto-conservatives really hate.
Anyhow, it's kind of lonely out here.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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?
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.
I've stayed pretty consistent as a Goldwater Conservative over the years, where you spend the money wisely but once you decide, you make certain the bills are paid,
Sure, that's a conservative value...
that you intrude on people's freedoms as little as possible,
...but that's a liberal one...
Keeping in mind that Goldwater was pro choice and anti-religious fundamentalist, I'm right in step with him:
Fundies:
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Gay Rights:
"The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least – and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays."
Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar"
Abortion:
A woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right.
Environmentalism
While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.
I think the problem is that it's so difficult to see just how horribly today's crypto-conservatives have drifted into whatever the hell they have become. It isn't conservatism, but corporatism. And they have found a wicked successful formula. Single issue voters of the Fundamentalist stripe Ex-Dixiecrats who can no more let go of theire racism than the people in the middle east can get over whatever the hell got them started thousands of years ago, And poor people who can be convinced to vote against their own interests. And now they have outside help.
Some people might call Goldwater's tendencies Libertarian, but even today's libertarians are just Republicans that won't take telling. "Don't let the Government tell you what to do - Jaywalk for Jesus!"
Anyhow, Barry was an interesting fellow who is well worth looking into. I don't agree with everything on his agenda, but he respected freedom of individuals. was open to compromise, which is the only way a government can function (today's federal guvmint is exhibit A) Hated Fundamentalists, and we need conservatives like him badly.
He made some pretty funny quips at times too
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.