Google Pledges To Overhaul Its Sexual Harassment Policy After Global Protests (theguardian.com)

In an email to staff on Thursday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said the company would overhaul its sexual harassment policies, "meeting some of the demands of employees who organized historic walkouts across the globe," the Guardian reports. "Pichai said Google would end forced arbitration of sexual miconduct claims, revamp its investigations process, share data on harassment claims and outcomes, and provide new support systems for people who come forward. From the report: Some critics, however, said the commitments were inadequate, failed to address pay disparities, and ignored demands to improve the rights of temporary employees and contractors. Pichai said Google would now make arbitration "optional for individual sexual harassment and sexual assault claims," but noted that employees could still choose to keep their claims confidential. [...] Pichai also said Google would disclose trends about investigations and disciplinary actions and would create "one dedicated site" that included "live support" for people with complaints. Google would now also offer "extra care and resources" to employees, including counseling and "career support" and a "support person," the CEO added.

Comments

Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when you try to integrate the sexes.

How about women stop dressing up like they're going on a dinner date. Lipstick; make up; cleavage; skirts, sassy splashes of color. That's how you get a man to pay for your dinner and then fuck you.

Men are buttoned up from to chin. Literally, a man exposes only his hands and his face—he might as well be wearing a burka by women's standards of clothing.

Re:Seriously

[Whibla]

I confess I haven't read the article - for topics like this it's the comments that inspire the largest laughs. Having said that, and sorry to interject a 'modicum' of reason, I thought the topic was sexual harassment not sexual assault. So...

It's nothing more than the old "She was asking for it" canard, so, yes, I believe that he DID say that.

"That" being it's "OK to grab anything", no, he didn't say that. He said nothing about what the 'man' did, he merely commented on the deliberated allure of the women. It's still perhaps a rather 'self-centered caveman' attitude, as it completely ignores the distinct possibility that the women are dressing for themselves and gave no consideration to the effect it might have on men, but it is still a valid perspective.

It all boils down to What part of "Look but don't touch without permission" do you fail to understand?

Honestly I can't speak for the original poster but I'm pretty sure that ninety nine to the several nines percent of men understand and abide by this, even the mentally ill ones who disagree, if only out of fear not compassion, empathy, moral reasoning or understanding.

The 'understanding' that's considerably less clear is when, and in what manner, is it OK to make a pass at a colleague? The boundaries of social decorum are vague, and pretty damn wide when it comes to different people. I still remember watching a woman in an interview for a documentary on harassment, apparently oblivious to the irony, state that it's fine for a colleague you fancy to ask you out, but if a colleague you don't find attractive does so it's harassment. To my mind this is crazy talk, yet any number of people now seem to believe in this 'definition' of harassment. Given this it should come as no surprise that people have begun to strenuously push back against what might be seen as society's slide into collective madness.

(That they go too far in their reaction should also come as no surprise, but that's a discussion for another day).

I just wish we all, men and women (and unspecified others), would take a moment to see things from the other's perspective before the knee-jerk disagreement or 'violent' reaction. If the poles get much further apart lines are likely to snap, and the 'energy' released in that moment will cause unpredictable damage to society.

Re:Why is this something for companies to solve?

[ShanghaiBill]

You know, lots of things can occur outside the bounds of decent and proper behavior at a workplace which don't happen to be a crime.

The incident being protested occurred in a hotel room, and it happened between two people that were in a pre-existing consensual relationship. They both worked for Google, but they were not at work, and I am not sure why Google felt any obligation to get involved. I'll bet they are now wishing they hadn't.

They're not protesting the incident

[rsilvergun]

they protesting the forced arbitration.

If I may go off on a tangent here (feel free to stop readying if you're not into a libtard libtarding out) I've been complaining about our right wing media narratives for years. Workers are understandably angry that a sexual harassment claim is forced into binding arbitration instead of being litigated as it should. Workers have lost a valuable right. This is barely discussed in most media outlets (CNN, to their credit, did) in favor of a focus on the part most likely to rile up the anti-SJW crowd. This is what I mean about the right wing media bias.

Another amazing example. Fiat-Chrysler just got caught bribing Union leaders to weaken worker benefits and pay. The news stories all ran it as a Union Corruption scandal and did everything they could to gloss over the fact that Fiat-Chrysler was the one paying the bribes. The message is loud and clear: Unions are bad because they are corrupt. Again, right wing narrative at play.

The media is a bit left on a few social issues. A bit. They (like Hilary Clinton I might add) opposed Gay marriage until changing times forced their hand. I'm sick of it. It's like living in bizzaro world where everyone around me clamors on about the left wing media meanwhile I watch stories like the above unfold over and over again...