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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
I read through that article, but I don't think it's a fair characterization of Damore's paper. From my reading of his paper (or whatever, I don't want to go read it again):
Damore was saying: A) There are many possible reasons for the gender gap among programmers: here are some suggestions; and B) Google's current recruiting methods are not effective.
The Economist article you linked to took those "here are some suggestions" and turned them into absolute assertions. You can tell the Economist article is confused because of phrases like, "at least that’s what you seem to be doing; you don’t quite say so." He doesn't say so because that's not what he's doing: the Economist author got confused because he assumed Damore was actually trying to make a solid assertion.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Don't say that you want a dialogue about something, then fire somebody if one actually happens.
There is pretty much no form of human interaction where anything goes.
Love.
War.
Zombocom.
Hinting that your co-workers are biologically predisposed to be worse at their jobs, even if some aren't... is crossing a line.
Who "hinted" that? Certainly not James Damore.
Further, which line, exactly? Please define it. Please cite where it is defined. Please also define and cite all other such "lines" not to be crossed.
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.
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.
by the people he wants treated as second-class.
Ugh, how many months now and we still have people posting comments like that? Anybody who got that from what he wrote clearly either hasn't read the memo or is deliberately lying to push the progressive lynching of the guy.
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.
Well, the thing for you to do would then be to cherry-pick some studies that support your viewpoint (based on what you say, this should be really easy, right?). And *not* to flame your opponent by saying "your opinions are worthless, I can't be bothered to refute them". Contrary to what a generation of crybabies and special snowflakes seems to have been taught in liberal arts colleges in the last decade or two, this is not how having an actual argument works. You dislike what someone else is saying? Come up with a counter-argument, not a whine.
Personally, I do not even have a particularly solid opinion on the matter that he was discussing in that memo. But I find it quite telling that one side (Mr. Damore) cites studies and such (as biased and wrong as they might be), while all the other side does is whine and say "it can't be true". Well, if the latter is the case, go right ahead and cite some studies that clearly show Mr. Damore is wrong. Or shut the fuck up.
Seems to me that Damore was trying to create a more welcoming environment to women. The people making it hostile are the fuckwits that misinterpreted it.
Right now Google is clearly a hostile environment to anybody that recognises the differences between men and women. I suspect it's hostile to most men too, and good fucking luck trying to implement or enact equality policies there.
Actual equality policies.
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.
Men NEVER face a similar problem, so their stress level is invariably MUCH LESS from the job.
Check suicide rates by gender, then fuck off with your pop psychology bullshit.
But I find it quite telling that one side (Mr. Damore) cites studies and such (as biased and wrong as they might be), while all the other side does is whine and say "it can't be true". Well, if the latter is the case, go right ahead and cite some studies that clearly show Mr. Damore is wrong. Or shut the fuck up.
That's because the other side had no need for citations. That isn't how this works. Damore was expressing a forbidden opinion.
And the stupid ass expressed his forbidden opinion in an actual memo.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The basic problem is that he asserts that women make, on average, biologically inferior engineers.
He didn't. He said that they choose not to be engineers (which is true, and you agree with it), possibly for biological reasons. Once women choose to become engineers, they are just as good as men.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.