Slashdot Mirror


Google Engineers Are Organizing A Walk Out To Protest The Company's Protection Of An Alleged Sexual Harasser (buzzfeednews.com)

In response to a story about Google paying and protecting former executive Andy Rubin following an investigation into sexual misconduct, a group of 200 Google employees are organizing a "women's walk." From a report: A group of more than two hundred engineers at Google are organizing a company-wide "women's walk" walkout for later this week to protest recent revelations about the search giant's protection of employees that had allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct, according to four people familiar with the situation inside Google. The protest, which is expected to happen on Thursday, comes in light of a story by the New York Times last week into the misbehavior of Android creator Andy Rubin and other executives at the company, some of whom still have positions of prominence at Google. Google gave Rubin a reported $90 million exit package in 2014, following an investigation into an allegation that he had coerced another employee to perform oral sex on him. That investigation reportedly found that allegation to be credible.

26 of 400 comments (clear)

  1. What protection? by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since the company essentially fired Rubin, I'm not sure what protection they gave him.

    The previous story made it sound as though the money was actually through stock options or some other benefits package that he'd previously negotiated in order to stay with the company. Unless Google had some kind of morals clause as a part of that, they wouldn't have any good reason to deprive him of what they had already negotiated.

    So the company investigated a report (i.e., they didn't just brush it off), removed Rubin after finding the allegation credible (i.e., merely likely enough to have happened), and paid him what he was owed based on previous negotiations. I'm not sure what Google did wrong in any of this to warrant a protest by anyone. Normally this is the type of shit that just gets covered up, so Google should be getting praised by the people protesting this if anything.

    1. Re:What protection? by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      According to the NYT, the Google wasn't obligated to pay him that money. It chose to do that and treat the whole thing as a normal amicable parting. They had the option to do the whole you come in to work and find your desk and a security guard out on the lawn.

      But, of course, that treatment is for peons.

    2. Re:What protection? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, it is, at least that's what it's become today. The real lesson to learn from the social justice pantheon is that bigotry is perfectly ok as long as you target the right group at the right time. There's plenty of infighting among the different subgenres to prove this.

      I strongly suspect you would not tolerate typical feminist behavior and attitudes if they were coming from men directed at women.

    3. Re:What protection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'Toxic masculinity' is anti-male propaganda from feminists..It's no different than a nazi espousing on "The Anatomy of the Jew." It's designed to deconstruct and thus dehumanize the target. Much easier to gas people when they don't qualify as human in your mind or the minds of the public.

      Human rights revolve around individual liberty, not collectivist honeytraps for the insecure.

  2. What's going on? by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably gonna be downvoted to hell but I don't care.

    What's with all this witch-hunting nowadays? Notice how many things in this story are nothing but a pure speculation: "allegedly engaged", "a reported $90 million exit package", "an allegation", "reportedly found that allegation to be credible".

    Nothing in this story has been proven. There's never been a lawsuit. Nothing has officially been revealed.

    First, it was Hollywood actors and even directors. Now, CEOs or high ranking officers. Can anyone name a single instance of relatively recent sexual harassment allegation to be conclusively proven in the court of law?

    I'm not trying to downplay this story or say that women are never oppressed/sexually harassed at work. I just want such stories to become a tad more factual than they've been so far. Someone said something to someone and now the whole Internet is buzzing about it. What the hell?

    I'm not a woman, of course, but why on Earth at least a number of rape victims seek legal counsel, press charges and somehow act on the harassment in a provable manner while this recent witch-hunting has been fueled by pure speculations and seemingly nothing else?

    1. Re:What's going on? by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only witch hunts are against straight white males, especially those in positions of power. Similar actions by others are ignored. The extreme left doesn't want equality, they want special rules and privileges that that only apply to their chosen team members.

    2. Re:What's going on? by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The cost of upholding "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is always worth it, since the alternative is the collapse of the rule of law. Of course, there are some extremists who seek exactly that, and we should ignore those guys.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:What's going on? by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you seriously just say that it's better for innocent people to lose their jobs and be ostracized from society than for society to pay for a fair trial?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:What's going on? by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For every white supremacist there are thousands of "black lives matter" and feminist sorts who routinely generalize, stereotype, and deconstruct in the same manner as the former. The only difference is in the targets. They've become (or always were) what they claim to fight. It's an ideological power grab, nothing more. They lack any moral high ground over the neo-nazi sorts.

      No, it empowers witchhunts and dogpiling. It's the modern day lynch mob, using public shaming in place of sticks.

    5. Re:What's going on? by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The wing-nuts specifically want equity over equality. That is, they don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome. That post is also a perfect example of the Motte and Bailey strategy. The first part is the actual goal, the bailey. Inequal treatment in their favor. The second part is what they defend, the motte, which looks entirely reasonable. They are also against meritocracy. It is horrific. I can't believe that this got into the linux kernel and that people are standing by this sort of drivel.

      But people get swept up in movements. It becomes a tribalism thing of us vs them. You know it's a bad witch-hunt when any call for moderation gets you labeled as a witch. Democrats need to self-police and protest the protection and acceptance of these sort of hate-filled racist and sexist bigots. Otherwise our party is going to get as crazy as the TEA-partiers.

      (But Cosby is black. You too also need to tone down the racist rhetoric)

  3. Re:Fire them all by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd be happy to take a position at Google. And I won't spend...time on SJW virtue signaling

    Come on, they paid somebody $90m to receive a bj. Call me a SJW if you want, but that's just plain stupidity on Google's part in my book. It encourages more BS.

  4. Mob justice by johannesg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No innocent until proven guilty, no jury of equals, no rule of law, only mob justice. And that's supposed to hold the moral high ground? Why don't they just walk to his house and lynch him, if it's so bad...

    1. Re:Mob justice by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing new. Been going on for centuries. Its either shit like Salem or the Red Scare or the 24 hour news cycle going after OJ or Scott Peterson for weeks/months/years.

      Our system of justice was specifically designed to move slowly to reduce the chances of mistakes and failures. That is in direct contrast to the instant gratification society we've become and the needs/desires of the media to get instant ratings. It's one outrage/tragedy after another.

  5. I, For One, Welcome Our New Chinese Tech Overlords by L_R_Shaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Absolutely no one should be surprised when China quickly takes over the United States as world tech leader.

    To quote/paraphrase a vile and toxic SJW:

    "you made your SJW bed. Now get fucked in it" Google.

  6. Re:That's their choice to walk out. by stephanruby · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'd fire them.

    Why?

    It's not like Google engineers have a 9 to 5 schedule.

    If their work performance doesn't suffer, I don't see what the problem is.

  7. Two hundred engineers? Who cares? by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google's got over 85,000 employees. Probably half of them in the various south bay campuses. Two hundred being gone for a day isn't going to be noticed. Though I imagine eng-misc@ and industryinfo@ and memegen might be a little quieter.

  8. Re:Fire them all by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not like they had a choice.

    Andy Rubin sold Android to Google for 50 million dollars initially.

    But it's only with his continued leadership that Android became what it is today.

    And that continued leadership didn't come for free.

  9. Allegations by scourfish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the guy is found to be actually a piece of shit who sexually harasses women, and the company protects him, then I would support these people. If they are protesting with just allegations, then they should be fired.

  10. Re:That's their choice to walk out. by YouGotTobeKidding · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This over-reaction is all because of an ALLEGED issue. Nothing proven. Its a witch hunt / virtue signalling at its finest.
    IE
    Ever here of a Poison Pete? This is that on a grand scale. If you can not separate your personal from professional life... GTFO.

    Want to be a drama-lama? Do it on your own time and dime. Not your employers. This is not college where you are paying for the privlege of acting like a child throwing a tantrum.

    Plus its not like Google wont have ten for everyone they fire lining up for just the chance to work there. Why keep anyone that is not a team player? Why keep anyone who will make the workplace (more) toxic?

    Fire them all. Send a message that SJW'ing is for your personal time only... and get back to work... or dont work for Google.

  11. Re:I'm confused by Torodung · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You are pointedly not "innocent until proven guilty." You are presumed innocent. And that is a protection against a kangaroo court, not a viable life philosopy. All criminal trials start with the baseline that the defendant is innocent of the charge until the prosecution proves otherwise. The defendant also is never found to be "innocent." The determination is "not guilty." There's a big difference.

    Like it or not, HR departments have no such standard by which they need to abide.

    IRL, nobody presumes anyone innocent because they'd be a freaking idiot to do so. People may presume whatever they like, but it's better to base your judgement on the preponderance of evidence, the standard in a civil matter. If you wait for conclusive evidence as would be presented in a criminal court, you're going to get your head taken off very quickly. People also rely on so-called "gut reactions," and there's nothing wrong with that so long as you don't hurt anyone over it.

    TL;DR: If I see a guy in a ninja costume, on the street, staring at houses one-by-one, I'm not going to presume dick. I'm calling the police and they can sort him out.

  12. Re:#MeTooHonestToGod mega clawback by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actual outcome: Instantly demoted from a Stanford golden child, to a lifelong felon, having served a big chunk of actual jail time (six months in the slammer in the pink petticoat for a socially maladapted Stanford nerd is not small change), whose given name is now synonymous with "dumpster rape" on the Internet for all time, and is barely employable, anywhere, ever (except on false pretenses where he dishonestly conceals his sordid history) because the social media wrath of the Sorority Sisters against any "clean slate" employer who ever associates with this person for all time would be too vituperative to even contemplate. All this for an act committed as a socially mindless young male not yet brutally familiar with neither alcohol nor women.

    And if he had been a regular guy instead of that "golden child", he would have gotten 3+ years in prison and everything you list.

    Are we equal under the law or not? Because right here, you are arguing that we are not.

    have no freaking clue about the brain-cramping rampage of peak TSB in a young man's late teenage years.

    Hey look! Incel bullshit. How surprising.

  13. Favoritism is implied, defacto hostile workplace by drnb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and sticking cigars in an intern's [censored]

    There was no evidence of job favoritism or threats; merely two adults mutually playing around.

    That is not how sexual harassment works, even back then it was understood to create a hostile workplace. When a boss and a subordinate have a consensual affair the other subordinates fear there will be favoritism. This fear is real. It negatively effects retention, productivity, etc; it makes employees hate the workplace, their boss, their fellow employees, etc; it creates a risk of lawsuits for the company.

    Again, this is not some new radical SJW interpretation. This is what has been taught in sexual harassment training since the 1990s.

  14. Re:Fire them all by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Standards are not being lowered for diversity hires.

    They are because 'equal opportunity' is being replaced by 'equal outcome.' When this kind of thinking becomes law, industries with unequal representation in race and sex now have to hire people based on these supposedly irrelevant attributes to hit the minimum quotas. To further the irony, the current trend is to make racial and sexual 'diversity' some form of automatic productivity boost when, again, the stated goal was to reenforce the idea that these 'diverse' attributes don't affect merit.

    I still count as a diversity hire though and guess what, I always run into some asshole like you who thinks that I'm there just because I fill some Affirmative Action quota.

    ..and why do think people assume this? You're right. It's racism, just on the part of those who assumed you needed such preferential treatment in the first place. No one likes working with the boss' incompetent son who's there because of his bloodline and little else. Same thing here. No one wants to work with someone who was hired because of his race or sex. If you were hiring for a company, wouldn't you pick the interviewee you thought had the highest chance of having had to bust his ass to get where he is..or would you hire a less capable person who met some racist or sexist 'diversity' quota? This is no less bigoted than a company only hiring women or only men, or only whites, etc. You call it a cherry, but it is in fact the very kind of systemic bigotry 'social justice' claims to fight. If your race was merely 'secondary' to your hiring, then you were still given a buff for it. Would you tolerate it if a white was hired in this manner? Somehow, I doubt it.

  15. Re:Time to lose my karma by shess · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Many comments here only prove one thing,

    That slashdot has been overrun by Anonymous Coward Snowflakes who can't stand for something to happen without labelling it a conspiracy of the SJWs?

    I mean, don't get me wrong, slashdot has not been a go-to place for intelligent discussion for a very long time, but now it's becoming #gamergate enough that I'm kind of thinking I should go elsewhere for news. I don't even care if they're trolls or if they really believe this, because it's like debating whether you'd rather swim in a pool of vomit or a pool of shit.

  16. Re:Fire them all by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Standards are not being lowered for diversity hires. Stop perpetuating this bullshit.

    They absolutely are. Even when your life is on the line. Female soldiers, firefighters, etc. have to pass easier qualification tests than their male counterparts. That's absolute and utter bullshit that:

    1: Lets under-qualified people in to critical roles.
    2: Is unfair to one half of the population.
    3: Perpetuates the sexist idea that the other half of the population isn't as good and needs a handicap. (Even when this is true on average, those who beat the bell curve and can make it on their own still get treated as if they only got where they were because of the handicap.)

  17. Re: Fire them all by malkavian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's both racist and sexist of you.