Slashdot Mirror
Google Reportedly Paid Andy Rubin $90 Million After He Allegedly Coerced Sex From Employee (theverge.com)
The New York Times has revealed new details on the circumstances that surrounded Andy Rubin's departure from Google in 2014. According to the report, Google "investigated sexual misconduct claims against Rubin, which revolved around an incident in which he allegedly coerced another Google employee into 'performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013,'" The Verge reports. "Despite reportedly finding the claims credible -- to the point that Page decided Rubin needed to go -- Google gave him a $90 million exit package. The last $2 million of that agreement will be paid out next month." From the report: Before that payout, and during the initial stages of its investigation in 2014, Google awarded Rubin "a stock grant worth $150 million." The move gave Rubin, at that time a highly-valued executive at the company, major financial incentive for sticking around after he'd moved on from Android to focus his efforts on a robotics unit. The Times says it's unclear whether Page or Google's leadership committee knew about the misconduct allegations when they approved that huge grant. But they certainly did when reaching the $90 million figure as Rubin headed out the door, and Page offered public praise for Rubin in announcing his departure. After he left, Google proceeded to invest in his VC, Playground Ventures. And the company even allowed him to delay paying back a $14 million loan it'd given him "to buy a beach estate in Japan." In a statement to the New York Times, Google said: "[W]e investigate and take action, including termination. In recent years, we've taken a particularly hard line on inappropriate conduct by people in positions of authority. We're working hard to keep improving how we handle this type of behavior."
UPDATE: Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent an email to employees Thursday in response to the report, saying 48 employees have been fired for sexual misconduct over the last two years.
UPDATE: Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent an email to employees Thursday in response to the report, saying 48 employees have been fired for sexual misconduct over the last two years.
More like Andy RUBIN DEEZ NUTZ ON UR FACE.
Literally.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Legally yes, but a boss is not entitled to even attempt to convince an employee to engage in a sex act or allowed to participate in a sex act with a willing and consensual employee in most businesses. It is a conflict of interest. People are supposed to get raises for work performance not because they will suck a dick for it.
It was considered consensual by Monica Lewinsky. She's continued to say so even decades later.
Thanks for the comment. Was going to say, at Google they pay you $90 million to engage in "sexual misconduct"--nice euphemism for coercing a coworker to suck your dick--and then leave the company. Remember Google: where it pays to force sex out of your coworkers.
Legally yes, but a boss is not entitled to even attempt to convince an employee to engage in a sex act or allowed to participate in a sex act with a willing and consensual employee in most businesses. It is a conflict of interest. People are supposed to get raises for work performance not because they will suck a dick for it.
Actually, legally no, though it's civil liability rather than criminal. And the legal issue is not conflict of interest. Coercion is implicit when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties, even when both parties claim the relationship is consensual. A hypothetical example would be, oh, say the President of the United States and a White House intern.
Show us on the doll where you like to force it.
Others where not part of 1%, so they can just fuck off.
839*929
What was he going to do if they didn't pay? Sue, and air all his dirty laundry?
Having said that it's possible that the victim was unwilling to testify on Google's behalf, so would have been advised to settle. Often victims don't want what happened to be public because it can make it hard to get another job. That's just happened in the UK with Philip Green, a couple of the accusers supported not making his name public for fear of ruined careers.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Sucking dick is literally part of the job description for certain employees.
He got $90 million AND a blowjob? I'm in the wrong line of work!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
In this day in age you have to be absolutely pants on head retarded to even THINK about pursuing a romantic relationship with a co-worker (If you're male. Women it seems will get a bit of a pass here.)
And if you've managed to attract the attention of a female co-worker; be afraid, be very afraid -- in fact you might as well resign as you're one spurned advance away from a career ending false #meToo moment. (hyperbole? perhaps).
What am I supposed to believe "coerce" means in the context of this article?
Does coerce mean a promise to buy her a nice dinner later?
Does coerce mean threatening to chop her head off with a dull axe?
Interesting an article that goes on and on about golden parachutes, emails and extraneous drama involving unrelated people providing a history of who fucked who would pay lip service to the most critical aspect of the underlying story in a manner that offers no substantive information about the actual topic of the article to the reader.
a boss is not entitled to even attempt to convince an employee to engage in a sex act or allowed to participate in a sex act with a willing and consensual employee in most businesses.
This is a matter of common corporate policy, but by no means is this a law.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Coercion is implicit when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties, even when both parties claim the relationship is consensual.
I call bullshit. Citation please. We're not talking about statutory rape here.
NO citation necessary. IF the boss is trying to get a person who works for him to do something personal and not business related (sexual or otherwise) it is considered improper and subject to civil litigation. If it's a sexual favor being proffered for say a good review, retaining one's job or some such, epically if the "victim" is a woman, willing or not, you can bet her lawyer will have THEIR way with you and your company for allowing it.
I'm telling you, DON'T date where you work. Even as peer to peer. It's hardly ever a good idea and rarely works out well for anybody involved.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If you're a paranoid Slashdotter who thinks feminism is scary, then sure. If, on the other hand, you let things happen naturally (as opposed to begging everyone in a skirt for sex), and avoid dating people who work under or over you (this isn't new, the view bosses shouldn't have sex with subordinates is something I remember learning in the 1980s, before I even gained employment myself), you'll be fine.
Social stuff and dating has always been a little scary for nerdy types, but this paranoia crap has really gotten out of hand. You do know members of the opposite gender want relationships and/or sex as much as you do, right? Even *gasp* heterosexual female feminists have boyfriends and sometimes even husbands, the horror!
FWIW, I met my future wife at work. We did lunch a few times, and one thing lead to another, and, well, we're married. With a beautiful kid who's smarter than I am. In the real world, rather than Eric Raymond's blog, this is fine and normal and the way the world works. Stop worrying, just... you know... don't be an asshole and you'll be fine.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Paranoia in (moderation) is a healthy human instinct evolved for a good reason though. The simple fact is that realistically all it would take is a whiff of impropriety and you're fucked.
For every relationship that ends up in marriage, there's what.. 10-15 others didn't work out so well? When dating a co-worker, or you know, going down that path, the odds are definitely not in your favor. But true, it does occasionally work out.
But the sad truth though is given the many, many avenues of meeting people -- trying to fish off the company pier is probably the worst out of all of them.
Wow...a forced blowjob AND $90 million. When Google says they take a "hard line" on sexual misconduct, I wonder if they mean what we're supposed to think they mean.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
No, it hasn't been weaponized, it is paranoia, and what you're describing is not what's happening.
Firstly there are very, very, few cases where #metoo concerns one allegation against a man. In general virtually every #metoo case, from Spacey to Kavanaugh, has involved multiple people bringing up cases of sexual assault. Additionally, virtually all have been corroborated in some way. Dr Ford's testimony, for example, while imperfect, had the somewhat compelling fact behind it that she'd been in therapy about this incident for four years, without any reason to believe Kavanaugh was going to be appointed a supreme court justice. Cosby admitted his behavior in a court deposition on an unrelated case. Weinstein's own staff supported the allegations of multiple victims, and other directors - such as Peter Jackson - came forward to confirm that women who didn't cooperate with Weinstein were smeared and blacklisted.
Second, virtually none of the #metoo claims (none I can think of) involve relationships that have gone wrong.
Third problem: there are multiple disincentives for making false allegations: most women who have come forward have seen negative consequences for their careers despite apparently telling the truth. Now imagine that some idiot makes a false allegation against every ex-boyfriend who she has a bad break-up with. How credible do you think she'd be?
Now, that said, remember that we're talking about here are nerds frightened to date because they think they'll be #metoo'd if they ask Karen from Accounts Receivable on a date. They're not going to be #metoo'd for asking Karen for a date. They will probably suffer an immediate hostile response if they just jump in with a date request without spending some time getting to know her, but it's not likely to go to HR. Frankly, it's not likely to go to HR if it involves a stolen kiss, however gross that might have been for the poor woman, because she's (A) had to put up with this shit for most of her life and knows there are no consequences for people who do this and (B) she'd be embarrassed and unlikely to say anything anyway.
I'm not saying that because I think you should behave that way. Of course not! (1) You'd be an asshole if you did, and (2) if you're really interested in a date with Karen then you probably want her to be happy, rather than feeling disgusting and humiliated. But the point I'm making is that women put up with rather a lot of low level shit that you'd never think would be tolerated, so the paranoia about #metoo isn't justified. Let things happen naturally. Try not to be a dork. If it's not to be, it's not to be, be prepared to let go.
You definitely shouldn't be putting your life on hold because you think the moment you ask Karen to lunch Gloria Allred's going to appear out of nowhere demanding you be fired and Karen gets paid one kagillion dollars.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I call bullshit. Citation please. We're not talking about statutory rape here.
Have you never heard of a sexual harassment lawsuit? What the fuck do you think those involve? It ain't rape..
All a boss has to do is imply that a sexual act will affect your standing (positive or negative) and he/she has just opened themselves up to one whopper of a lawsuit.
But, since you apparently joined the workforce yesterday and require citation... This is from the US EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission):
It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.
That clear enough for you? It is unlawful (that means against the law) to request sexual favors if you are the boss. Failure to rectify situations where harassment is occurring between employees also will open the employer to lawsuit. But, generally speaking, the employee rarely ends up being the one sued. You go after the deep pockets and that's one of the reasons many employers have zero-tolerance policies regarding employee fraternization.
I never said it never works, I said it rarely works. My point about dating at work is the chances of having problems are high while the chances of success are low with heavy prices to be paid for failures. I'm just pointing this out and advising you avoid it. But if you want to make the mistake, best of luck.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"You do know members of the opposite gender want relationships and/or sex as much as you do, right?"
Rarely. Women have sex drives and an individual woman might even have a greater sex drive than an individual man but in light of recognizing and making things comfortable for these individuals we have started to forget the generality that the typical man has by an order of magnitude a stronger drive than the typical woman remains generally true.
Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you. Have you paid attention to the world lately? There have been numerous public pushes for action against men accused by women without any due process.