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.

Comments

Fire them all

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Fire them all

[Tablizer]

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.

Re:Fire them all

[stephanruby]

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.

Re:Fire them all

[epyT-R]

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.

Re:Fire them all

[Your.Master]

No, he literally did not claim that. You have in your head that "diversity hire" means unqualified, and he's literally explaining that's not what it means. You need to step out of your own head for one moment to at least understand the argument presented to you.

The whole point of the diversity initiatives is the theory that ethnicity should not count in and of itself, but it empirically does, so it tries to set up an equal and opposite force so that ethnicity doesn't count again.

You may argue that this isn't true, and then we can have a statistics war because I can point to a bunch of things that say it is true, but likely there are scenarios where it's not or is even reversed which doesn't negate the overall trend but does call for nuance.

Re:Fire them all

[sexconker]

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.)

Re: Fire them all

[malkavian]

That's both racist and sexist of you.

Re: Fire them all

[rogoshen1]

So at the end of the day, it's still jumping through a bunch of hoops to avoid hiring more ____ due to nothing more than the color of their skin and/or genitalia?

Sounds totally legit!

Re:Fire them all

[PopeRatzo]

Die in a fire, DopeFatzo. Everyone hates you.

The data tells a different story.

Re:Fire them all

[swillden]

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.

That's a deep mischaracterization. Google had already given Rubin $150M in stock that vested over time. By firing him, they effectively took that stock away, opening themselves up to a lawsuit in which they'd have had to prove that they had cause for firing Rubin. It would have been a circus. So instead they gave him $90M (effectively taking back $60M) in exchange for which he agreed to go quietly.

I think they could and should have fired him with no parachute and dealt with the PR storm. But saying they paid him $90M to receive a BJ is ridiculous. It would be more accurate (though still not very) to say that they fined him $60M for it.

Re: Fire them all

[Hognoxious]

It stands to reason that if they were hired for their abilities they'd just be plain old hires.

What protection?

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:What protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was publicly decried to have committed a disapproved act by the moral outrage police. The fact that he hasn't been murdered in the street, and his family humiliated with public rapings and beatings is grounds enough for the protest.

Re:What protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what Google did wrong

Pander to irrational SJWs. They created this shit show. They can suffer it.

Re:What protection?

[sjames]

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.

Re:What protection?

[Calydor]

This protest is quite literally because they don't feel Google punished him enough by not breaking the law to do so.

Re:What protection?

[epyT-R]

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.

Re:What protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

'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.

Re:What protection?

[sexconker]

What law was broken? What crime was committed? When's the trial? Is he in custody? Did he post bail?

Re:What protection?

[swillden]

According to the NYT, the Google wasn't obligated to pay him that money.

Sort of. By firing him they took away $150M in unvested stock that they'd given him just weeks before. Without an agreement he could have sued for that money, unless they could prove the termination was justified. I have no idea if he'd have gotten it, but he might have... and created a PR firestorm in the process. It's possible that the $90M payout saved Google money.

What's going on?

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

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?

Re:What's going on?

[PeeAitchPee]

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.

Re:What's going on?

[Kaenneth]

nah, just mandatory sensitivity training for all employees as a group punishment.

eventually the people causing the problem will get driven out by people sick of having to take the training over and over.

Re:What's going on?

[lgw]

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.

Re:What's going on?

[Calydor]

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?

Re:What's going on?

[epyT-R]

How about if you're wronged by someone criminally, you file a police report instead and let them do the work they're supposed to? Then, if there's sufficient evidence, they get a warrant and arrest the suspect. Finally, if he's convicted, fire him. If not, he should return to work unscathed.

I know, what a concept in today's age of idiocracy.

Re:What's going on?

[epyT-R]

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.

Re:What's going on?

[HeckRuler]

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)

Re:What's going on?

[_merlin]

They came after Bill Cosby (black), Kevin Spacey (gay), and John "Cap'n Crunch" Draper (gay). They're all men, but not all white and straight.

Re:What's going on?

[Tyler Durden]

White supremacists use baiting, physical intimidation and feigned victimhood from a position of power to maintain and expand upon their dominance over minorities. While it is unfortunate that BLM and feminists (like all humans) may use false generalization or stereotyping at times, equating it to the goals and actions of neo-Nazi types is laughable on its face.

And here I thought slashdotters had a reputation for being bright. Is this really not obvious to you?

Re:What's going on?

[HeckRuler]

Anything that affects merit is factored into a (well run) meritocracy and that includes human factors. You've set up a false dichotomy and you're on the war-path for no reason. There are plenty of places striving and failing at being meritocratic, but I don't think that's enough reason to simply give up on rewarding people who do a good job.

Linux was held as the last bastion of the assholeocracy

Most of corporate America, Sous chefs, Stock brokers, Most of the middle east, Marines, Construction sites, African warlords, Pretty much any work environment that fosters ambition, China. Did you know that China executes thousands of people every year. They account for more than half the executions in the world. Have you read anything about their social credit score? It's essentially illegal to be a muslim in some places. Speaking of which, women can now drive in Saudi Arabia, that's a big win, but they still can't walk around a hijab. Or more importantly get jobs or an education and segregation is still a big thing. Russia is pretty much an open kleptocracy. When looking at all that.... you really thought that LINUX was "the last bastion of assholes"? You've earned your troll mod.

You need to get out more and observe the world rather than attacking one of the best examples of a meritocracy that humanity has to offer.

And really, this is what you're defending. This is what you want replace all those "assholes" with. Racism, sexism, hatred, and bigotry. Just... come on.... How can you read through that and not feel disgust?

Mob justice

[johannesg]

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...

Re:Mob justice

[Jfetjunky]

First it was trial by jury, then it was trial by media, now it's trial by social network and media.

Re:Mob justice

[geek]

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.

Re:Mob justice

[Torodung]

An HR department is not a criminal court. They don't have to presume innocence.

If the HR department were to lynch the guy, they would be in criminal court PDQ. In this case, they fired the guy, and people don't like that Google had to abide by his employment agreement and give him his termination compensation.

Guess what, folks? They do, therefore, given a contract and a legal obligation to honor that contract, he gets the money.

He was fired. That's all you're gettin'. March all you want. It's stupid.

I, For One, Welcome Our New Chinese Tech Overlords

[L_R_Shaw]

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.

Two hundred engineers? Who cares?

[russotto]

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.

Allegations

[scourfish]

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.

Re:That's their choice to walk out.

[YouGotTobeKidding]

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.

Re:Two hundred engineers? Who cares?

[ITRambo]

The money paid may have been a contract buy out. We may never know since facts are no longer important in SJW America. I agree that 200 engineers won't make a dent. It shouldn't even be news, other than the story seems intended to make men in power look bad.

Re:Is everyone supposed to act with no formal char

[jeff4747]

Such contracts typically do not require a criminal conviction to fire someone for cause. And typically it's firing for cause that stops golden parachutes.

Re:#MeTooHonestToGod mega clawback

[jeff4747]

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.

Productivity might even go UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on who decides to walk out, productivity might even go UP. I know I get more done when I'm not being constantly bugged by engineers who are more concerned about talking politics.

Favoritism is implied, defacto hostile workplace

[drnb]

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.

That's the definition of a diversity hire

[raymorris]

Before you interview your applicants, you can either:

A) Decide you will hire the most skilled / qualified person
or
B) Decide you will hire the person with the favored genitals or complexion

Choice B is called a "diversity hire".
If you set out to hire the most qualified person, it's not a diversity hire, by definition.

Re:Favoritism is implied, defacto hostile workplac

[drnb]

even back then it was understood to create a hostile workplace

My memory is different: "hostile work environment" that didn't involve favoritism or threats didn't become commonplace until a bit after.

Either way, I would agree to some degree of punishment for such as long as it's enforced consistently between parties so that it's not used as a political weapon.

I recall the corporation I worked for when I learned that a consensual affair creates a hostile workplace, it was an unintuitive concept to me at the time. I left that company in the early 90s. Perhaps our HR department was cutting edge.

Re:Time to lose my karma

[shess]

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.

Re:I'm confused

[Pseudonym]

They killed Kavin Spacey's career over an allegation.

Over 30 allegations, three historic police reports and six open police investigations in the UK alone, and a statement by Spacey that he was seeking "evaluation and treatment".