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

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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[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: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: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: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

[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.