Slashdot Mirror
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.
If someone commits a crime against you, call the police and charge them with a crime; otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Let this be a lesson to any organization that tries to embrace identity politics. SJW eat their own and if you are with them, you are just as likely to be the next meal.
Google is trying to appease the SJW mob. This never works. It just energizes them and makes them sure to make even more extreme demands of the future. We've seen this again and again.
You know what we've seen works? Ignoring them. They get sullen and bitter and move on to the next cause. Nothing worse than throwing a protest and nobody cares. The opposite of SJW hate is not love. The opposite is indifference.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
So you're saying you think it's OK to just grab anything you happen to see in public?
I'm not a woman, so no, I obviously can't do that. Instead I just wear a banana hammock in public and have them grab me.
If any line employment had done the same things, they would've been fired immediately sent packing, with a note added to their HR record to deny them severance and unemployment. But a high-level executive does it, and the company tries to cover it up, and when they can't anymore the person is let go with a $90 million golden parachute.
The problem isn't the policies. It's the uneven application of the policies. It's not limited to sexual harassment either. High-level execs regularly seem to be let go with a golden parachute following a myriad of things (fraud, embezzlement, etc) that would sink the career of a regular employee.* Revamping the policies won't make the slightest difference if they're still not applied evenly.
* This makes me suspect we need a law saying being let go for unethical behavior automatically nullifies any severance terms you've negotiated in your employment contract.
Never be alone with or have a one-on-one conversation with any woman who is not your wife. Don't even look at them, lest you be accused of "eye rape". Be the most boring man in the world and they'll leave you alone. Do all your socializing and flirting with women who don't even know what industry you work in. (No big loss -- an a Slashdot reader, your job title is probably something women would dismiss as "loser nerd")
If you're a key person, e.g. the guy who codes the search algos or the guy who invented Android, you have less to worry about. You'll either get a huge severance check or start a new company that eats Google's lunch.
Please provide an objective definition of "dress like a whore". Thank you!
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
When an foolish man gets punched in the face, nobody thinks twice about "He was asking for it".
Women need to grow a pair and accept that responsibility/agency comes hand-in-hand with feminine privileges (e.g., sexual allure).
Please provide an objective definition of "dress like a whore". Thank you!
I think the defenition is:
Wow you're really hot go out with me pleaaaaaaassssee pllllleeeeeeaaaassseeee WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU WON'T GO OUT WITH ME YOU DRESS LIKE A WHORE.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It struck me as very odd to see how supportive the CEO of Google was of this walkout.... most of the left/right world just sees it as caving in to snowflake pressure, or the workers bringing about positive change through collective action.... but I have a different theory.
Normally, the hands of management are bound by lots of rules, shareholder pressure, the SEC, etc... I'm sure the CEO was aware of the issues, but too bound up by the rules and social pressures from above (shareholders, the 0.001%, etc) to effectively deal with it.
if the workers happen to "organize" a strike demanding something that the CEO would like to do, but can't.... you get the aforementioned weird reaction. Moral dilemma on the part of the CEO is solved, workers are happy that they have some power, and shareholder blame gets deflected safely away from management.
I expect this to happen more, as it might be a new corporate cultural norm.
What part of "Look but don't touch without permission" do you fail to understand?
The part where looking is today already rape.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
They (SJW's) just won't be happy until they've remodeled the world à la THX-1138.
It's sad, sickening and makes me long for my retirement in the country-side and death.
I long for the days of self awareness, self-reliance and responsibility.
Humanity, the more you study it the more you realize you were sold a bunch of garbage.
End of Line.
something for the company to solve? Because companies are required to take steps to have a safe work environment. Workers forced them too in the 1900s because until they were forced to companies didn't bother. Workers were replaceable when something went wrong.
Also it's good for the work environment. Women are essential to modern business. Like it or not more of them are graduating college right now. The reason is girls calm down sooner in their early childhood and can focus on school, meanwhile boys are still balls of excitement and rage for a few more years. That gives girls a bit of a head start in early education which translates to a lead in long term education. Yes, this means boys could do with a bit of extra attention. The pendulum has swung the other way, but only because we've improved things so much for girls. Still, it does highlight the need for more funding in schools, if only to attract and keep better teachers.
Anyway, until we radically improve our education system (which ain't happening any time soon) this improves Google's bottom line while protecting workers. It's a win-win.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Because "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't satisfy the mob.
Innocent until proven guilty ONLY applies to criminal court cases brought by the government. It has NOTHING to do with internal HR actions of a private company unless it deals directly with actions regarding a protected class of individuals. Even then "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply unless the parties involved are standing in a courtroom. With some restrictions a company has wide discretion in how it treats the people working for it and they absolutely can treat you as guilty until proven innocent if they want.
Not saying it's a good idea to do that but that is the way it works.
It's exactly the same thing as freedom on speech as protected by the first amendment. Legally it only applies in relation to the government.
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...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
they workers were angry about the forced arbitration. That's a legitimate complaint. It's also being downplayed in most stories in favor of the SJW angle. Now that you know that you should be asking yourself why.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And in any case, it's often not a crime, it's a civil employment issue.
It also very often IS a crime in many circumstances. For example the moment anyone is denied benefits, promotions, punitively fired, given an adverse decision, interfere with their work, intimidate, etc, then it can very easily become a crime. And even in cases where it is not a crime it is certainly not decent behavior.
The 'understanding' that's considerably less clear is when, and in what manner, is it OK to make a pass at a colleague?
Never.
No, seriously. It's work. It's not a bar. Don't do it. Even if you really, really wanna.
Also, your fear exemplified by this anecdote:
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
Is false. It has to be a pattern for it to be harassment. So if you stupidly cast aside the advice above and ask, and she says "No", then don't try and get a date again.
This is not difficult or confusing. Attempts to portray it as difficult or confusing are attempts to find a loophole or excuse shitty behavior.
Which was kind of the point. If sexual harassment is handled in court, then the presumption of innocence applies. The prevailing sentiment -- at least of those who make the most noise -- is that those accused of sexual harassment should be punished without that standard of proof. And that's why those people push to have punishments meted out by employers rather than the government.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
right wing media bias. Step out of your media bubble. The hard right have bought up so much (re:Sinclair media) that it's tough to get away from them.
I'm not saying excessive Political Correctness and over eager SJWs and hucksters like Anita Sarkeesian aren't a problem (they're fanning flames to make quick cash). But I _am_ saying that a safe work environment is a good thing and that sexual harassment is a real problem. Men can be predatory. Not always, not even in a majority of the time. But that doesn't mean we don't need protections in place. You put locks on your doors, right?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As time has passed, I've become aware of it. I've realized I'm part of this problem. I just see them and the temptation is too great. I know it's wrong. I know it hurts everyone. But when I see one of these teasing, taunting.... oooh I just have to get in there. Yes these sjw stories on Slashdot have me in a pickle. But I'm almost over it now. I'm finally ready to move on and not click on them.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Will it still be against the rules to say out loud that men and women aren't exactly the same and may need different things from the workplace in order to thrive?
All the Alphas are dead. IBM, HP, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, and Google. All the real leaders are long gone and all that's left are the hippy liberal douches that went to business school leading them down the spiral staircase into progressive hell where the company will grind to a halt while it eats itself alive from the inside out. Keep appeasing stupid shit like this, the stairs will turn into a slide.
From now on, sexual harrassment will not be reported; however, it will be graded.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The 'understanding' that's considerably less clear is when, and in what manner, is it OK to make a pass at a colleague?
Never.
No, seriously. It's work. It's not a bar. Don't do it.
And yet, strangely, before internet dating the workplace was the location where most couples met.
Also, your fear exemplified by this anecdote:
Oh please... unless you work as a psychoanalyst don't give up the day job!
It has to be a pattern for it to be harassment.
Agreed! Harassment is a pattern of repeated unwanted behaviour. To most 'sensible' people what it is and isn't is not difficult or confusing, and yet we do see people confusing it. Hence the anecdote, and my incredulity at what was said.
So if you stupidly cast aside the advice above and ask, and she says "No", then don't try and get a date again.
This is not difficult or confusing. Attempts to portray it as difficult or confusing are attempts to find a loophole or excuse shitty behavior.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree as to whether asking a co-worker out on a date is stupid or not. I do agree that if one says no asking again is probably futile, and asking again almost certainly constitutes harassment. If anything though, the point of the anecdote was exactly the opposite of attempting to excuse shitty behaviour, unless you think that only men can behave badly, or engage in 'wrongthink'...
And yet, strangely, before internet dating the workplace was the location where most couples met.
Never said it was impossible. I said it was a bad idea. Your statement also ignores that sexual harassment was also incredibly rampant in the workplace - not all the women in the secretarial pool were looking to fuck.
and yet we do see people confusing it
We see people who want to engage in a pattern of harassment confusing it. There are precisely zero people actually filing civil charges over one incident. But is sure sounds scary when you want to scream about SJWs.
Run your business that way if you want, by should others have to run their business that way too?
If they don't want to go bankrupt paying legal fees and settlements, yeah.
Turns out starting a business is not the same as making a Tinder account.
the point of the GIS is you need to leave your media bubble. Here's another more specific place to start.
You're being had. Right wing politics and anti-SJW bullshit is just a trick to get you to side with the Mega corps. They let you hate on feminists and you let them have all the money and land. Doesn't seem like a fair trade to me.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Not really. It's just a reassertion of the reasonable-doubt standard. When you're no longer fooling anybody, that's enough. When the arguments against the charges are clear bullshit, they hold no value. Essentially, this is removing the veils that abusers and rapists hide behind to escape the consequences of their actions despite there being no reasonable doubt that they are guilty.
(If you want more proof of that, consider that they're hailing decisions like Google's to allow these cases to be settled in court. Shouldn't #MeToo be against that, if the idea is to end-run the reasonable-doubt standard? Private arbitration is much friendlier to end-running reasonable doubt, yet #MeToo runs toward the concept, not away from it.