Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shareholders Sue Alphabet's Board For Role In Allegedly Covering Up Sexual Misconduct By Senior Execs (cnbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the time's-up dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Attorneys in San Francisco representing an Alphabet shareholder are suing the board of directors for allegedly covering up sexual misconduct claims against top executives. The suit comes months after an explosive New York Times report detailed how Google shielded executives accused of sexual misconduct, either by keeping them on staff or allowing them amicable departures. For example, Google reportedly paid Android leader Andy Rubin a $90 million exit package, despite asking for his resignation after finding sexual misconduct claims against him credible.

The new lawsuit, filed in California's San Mateo County, asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The attorneys say the lawsuit is the result of "an extensive original investigation into non-public evidence" and produced copies of internal Google minutes from board of directors meetings. "The Directors' wrongful conduct allowed the illegal conduct to proliferate and continue," the suit reads. "As such, members of Alphabet's Board were knowing and direct enablers of the sexual harassment and discrimination."

128 comments

  1. Wait... by negRo_slim · · Score: 0, Troll

    Was it real sexual misconduct or that bizarro everything is harassment that is so in vogue these days, particularly among the younger set.

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    1. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Real afaik. In the case of Rubin he was getting sexual favors from a female under his supervision and she had trouble getting out of the situation. I know that during my time at Google both Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt had multiple extra-marital affairs with employees or contractors (guess how they got the contracts). Apparently Page also joined the club, because if everyone around him is doing it, why not him. Rubin was asked to leave the company because an employee started complaining about the situation, not because he was doing something illegal. Iâ(TM)m glad I left this sick company years ago, I was miserable then and would be miserable now if I had stayed.

    2. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment sexually harassed me. I'm telling HR!

    3. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And then they try to virtue signal by firing that autistic guy for writing that naive memo...despicable.

    4. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump Jr in prison in 6 months oh boyyyyy

    5. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You work here? I pity you.

    6. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But do you pity the foo'?

    7. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Virtue signaling" is right. We just saw this play out at the Arisia science fiction and fantasy convention. Their "code of conduct" is nearly 10 pages long, with massive "sensitivy" signaling, and one of their board members actually filed a complaint when two fans were discussing *why* so many books discuss the genocide of telepaths. Because, "after all, I'm a telepath". The "non-binary telepath" who filed the complaint was dressed as a "Psicop", the fictional equivalent of a Nazi officer with psionic powers. And all panels and presentations were required to have at least two and preferably more genders among the presenters, even when the panel was on costuming for women or the presentation by authors on how to write fantasy fiction were all women or historical fencing was all male.

      This oh-so-sensitive brilliance was followed up this year by the president resigning under accusations of rape for failure to wear a condom, see (https://crystalhuff.com/2018/10/25/why-im-not-at-arisia-anymore-my-rapist-is-president-again/. And there are other credible reports of hushing up abuse incidents, such as the 16 year old raped by a boyfriend in the room she was sleeping next to him. These reports were hushed up, the accused rapists expected to "behave logically" and simply stay away from their accusers at all times at a 5000 person convention. Various sexual harassers were repeatedly allowed to remain at the convention, year after year, while merely whispering that someone with all male body parts attached might conceivably be male. Everyone has to be *asked* their pronouns, especially the gender fluid "Naughty Nurses" who wander the convention in skimpy outfits encouraging blood donations. Man, I hope they triple check any blood they get from *those* sexually diverse people!

      I'm still laughing that they never caught on that their board has tried to hide getting kicked out of the Westin Hotel this year as the fault of the hotel for having a possible strike, which miraculously ended just after Arisia changed hotels. It let the hotel get out of the fees for breaking their contract, and gracefully drop a convention that was turning into the Boston version of Disclave with all the alternative sexuality practices. When it was much smaller, it used to be a really science fiction and fact convention. But they've shrunk the vendor areas, the web services describing schedules and panels simply don't work because the wifi is so crappy in the hotel, they refuse to admit they've outgrown using a single hotel, the food for invited guests and staff has turned into a disaster. But *hey*, what they spend their time on is flailing about what sign to put on the alternative gender identity bathrooms.

    8. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard they lost a really big customer over this dubious behavior - seven employees bailed from the marketing side

    9. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is more of an HR/PR call. I think they should have their house in order before or at least at the same time as they move towards that goal of positive culture. Align talk and action and why cant they just be nice to the women. Obviously shit rolls downhill. Petty and shitty

    10. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is stupid. It is not difficult to understand that a position of authority whether in title or in fact means you need to be friendly and apply common sense. If that slows down your dating schedule there is no need to go full on attack. I hope executives in general understand this stuff and they arent just farming out the unpleasant discussions to subordinates whenever possible

    11. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they confirm somebody was an asshole? Jeez, to hear this stuff.
      Frankly and not in jest, did i say?

    12. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NERDS! Fist pump!

    13. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbass where did you learn English? Full stop

    14. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In prison.

    15. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death is too good for them

    16. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Every time Sergei was found out, the whole company got sent to Harassment training. HR couldn't send execs, but they could send the peons. One year it was 5 times.

    17. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh so you want them all to rot in hell together? :)

    18. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Or it could be just you are highly triggerable and only your good friends (if you have any) would be expected to be aware. Either this or that. Or maybe both. There is a need to be super picky. After you get some time to think about something other than your wretched issues you can figure it out. I have faith in you

    19. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those two things are pretty much the same

    20. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACME harassment. How can we trigger you?

    21. Re: Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump until 2024. Trump junior until 2032. Then first female president ivanka to 2040.

  2. Incentives by Livius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean all this time people could sue over senior management committing "breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets"?

    For most of them that's the only reason they wanted those jobs in the first place.

    1. Re:Incentives by lollllol1 · · Score: 1

      Hello, Guys is there a pharmacist here. Can you please explain is it safe to use CBD oil https://www.marijuanabreak.com....? I cant understand the ingredients from it, What is the THD? Waiting for the reply. Thank you

  3. Privacy invaders and pervs too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great combination. Google is horrid. Anyone who uses Android should be ashamed.

  4. How does this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a low-level peon I fall to understand how this happens. How do you get a contract signed at hiring that says "if I leave or am fired for misconduct you must give me a parachute of $500,000"?

    1. Re:How does this happen? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a low-level peon I fall to understand how this happens. How do you get a contract signed at hiring that says "if I leave or am fired for misconduct you must give me a parachute of $500,000"?

      It's not that hard for the founders and early hires.

      One of the risks of a startup is that, after you've worked for them a while, they get merged, and the new guys fire the old ones - often before their stock options have all vested. The employee loses the prize he helped create and the value reverts to the company and/or the new owners. There are lots of variations on this (internal shakeups and office politics, companies buying and killing their upstart competition, etc.)

      This makes the potential employee leery. To get him to sign, the contract may have clauses to prevent that, such as immediate vesting if the company is acquired, an extra year's vesting if he's laid off or fired before his options vest, etc. If one company offers this and another doesn't, guess which he joins.

      But if (as they often used to) the contract DOESN'T hand out the goodies if he's fired "for cause", it gives the employer an incentive to claim misconduct and hold on to the goodies by faking cause. Then the employee is not just out the goodies but also gets an undeserved black mark on his job history. Oops! So again, in the hire-the-good-talent race, contracts have evolved so there is either a no-fault get-the-goodies-when-canned clause, or the bad conduct exception has to be something like a provable major sin against the company.

      Thus it's common to have contracts where, if somebody gets dumped because of an external accusation that makes them a bigger liability than their work makes them an asset, it may result in a dismissal with, not just all the benefits earned so far, but triggering a "we fired you early" bonus.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:How does this happen? by melted · · Score: 1

      Spot on. I managed to negotiate such a thing as employee #1. Still left on my own volition because things were turning to shit though. :-)

    3. Re:How does this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spot on .. but..

      Sexual harrassment is pretty big these days. Not just a leer, slap, tickle or grope, but full on undisputed sex with a subordinate, consensual or not should never get the golden parachute.

      The solution is the same for conflict of interest. Lodge a sealed letter with HR or the board stating the potential conflicts. Nothing wrong with registered and properly declaired affairs.
      Sadly doctors and schoolteachers are expected to behave like monks, meaning some towns miss out. Once the other party tells the board 'no problems' you are good to go,

    4. Re:How does this happen? by umghhh · · Score: 1

      That may all be t rue. It makes me think however that the society where all these tricks are necessary is on a wrong path.

    5. Re: How does this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is sex not allowed? Think about it for a moment. We're telling people who they can and can't have sex with. Isn't this the whole thing oberfell was about? Do we have the right to choose our sexual partners or not??

    6. Re:How does this happen? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      As a low-level peon I fall to understand how this happens. How do you get a contract signed at hiring that says "if I leave or am fired for misconduct you must give me a parachute of $500,000"?

      In 2005, Google bought Android from Andy Rubin for 50 million dollars. Andy Rubin was at the helm of Android until December 2012 (basically, Android had already taken over the World by then).

      In 2016, an Oracle lawyer leaked court documents that said that Google had made 22 billion dollars in profit from the Android operating system.

      So you do the math.

    7. Re: How does this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you heard? ALL heterosexual sex is RAPE!!!!1!!

    8. Re:How does this happen? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Those "we fired you early" clauses are called "retention bonuses. They're also a form of "golden parachute".

    9. Re:How does this happen? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Executives are capitalism's royalty, they live under special rules for the nobility rather than the iron law of wages like us peasants, it's that simple.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:How does this happen? by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      As a low-level peon I fall to understand how this happens. How do you get a contract signed at hiring that says "if I leave or am fired for misconduct you must give me a parachute of $500,000"?

      In 2005, Google bought Android from Andy Rubin for 50 million dollars. Andy Rubin was at the helm of Android until December 2012 (basically, Android had already taken over the World by then).

      In 2016, an Oracle lawyer leaked court documents that said that Google had made 22 billion dollars in profit from the Android operating system.

      So you do the math.

      I don't see much of an issue with this.

      $50 Million is enough money to live very comfortably. If it's possible to get 1% interest on it, that's half a million dollars per year without earning another dollar otherwise. $50 million may not be Walton money, but it's still far more than the majority of programmers will earn over the course of a career. Sure, he would probably end up keeping only $30M after taxes and lawyers, but it's still "never work again" money.

      Now, the argument here is that it's 0.002% of what Google's gross revenue from the platform is, so he should have gotten more. Well, I'm not much of a Google fan, but to give credit where it's due, Android's install base rivals Windows (exceeds it, depending on how you count), but in 2005, there was no guarantee of anything. 2005 was pre-iPhone, pre-Chrome, tablets were $2,000, ran XP Tablet PC Edition and shipped with a stylus, and the smartphone market was a three horse race between Microsoft, Palm, and Blackberry. If the outcome of the mobile race had Microsoft and Android in reverse, Rubin could have walked away with $50M, and he could have been the only one to turn a profit.

      Even if the argument is that he should make a percentage of the gross revenue, that's both tough to define and also brings into the picture Google's part in the development. For good or for ill, a nontrivial part of what makes Google so popular is the Google ecosystem. Rubin didn't develop Gmail, Maps, Chrome, Youtube, Wallet, or Assistant. Rubin didn't integrate Activesync or make a one-stop-shop market for apps, books, movies, music, or work out the licensing or distribution deals. Yet, an Android phone without these things certainly wouldn't have been as much of a competitor to iOS. Android 9, and the Google ecosystem it integrates, bears very little resemblance to the Android Google bought. Yes, it's $22 billion, but that averages out to $2 billion per year, which goes pretty quick if you use it to pay all the developers who have continued development on the OS, its first party apps, the backend ecosystems that make it work, and the ad infrastructure from whence that revenue came.

    11. Re:How does this happen? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      $50 Million is enough money to live very comfortably.

      Andy Ruben didn't get the $50 million, his company did. He had to split it with the rest of the investors, workers, etc.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:How does this happen? by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

      Wish I had know this. I was employee number one at a company and let go the day my patents were approved.

  5. But above all... by Excelcia · · Score: 1

    "Do no evil"

    1. Re:But above all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In retrospect, that was a major red flag. This feels like my failed marriage... How did we miss such an obvious one!?

    2. Re:But above all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do no evil"

      wasn't it "don't be evil"?

    3. Re:But above all... by Excelcia · · Score: 2

      wasn't it "don't be evil"?

      There you go! There was the loophole. You can do evil as long as you not acually are evil. I mean, who thinks "hey, I'm evil". No one. So, they leave the door open for any action as long as they don't self-identify as evil they're ok.

  6. Apparently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    The do no evil slogan was about a girl named evil. The rest of the employees were fair game though.

    1. Re:Apparently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The do no evil slogan was about a girl named evil. The rest of the employees were fair game though.

      That explains "Don't be evil" too.

      That girl's a slut.

  7. Cue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Toxic masculinity excuse for leisure class exploitation.........

    1. Re: Cue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With something like 30%+ of all births being bastards, our society is literally overrun with toxic femininity like garbage in the French quarter. To even make the complaint of "toxic masucility" is and exercise in selective blindness.

  8. The Board Consists of: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of dudes

    Name and Age
    ---------------------
    Larry Page 45
    Sergey Brin 44
    Sundar Pichai 45
    John L. Hennessy 66
    L. John Doerr 66
    Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. 67
    Diane B. Greene 63
    Ann Mather 58
    Alan R. Mulally 72
    Eric E. Schmidt 62
    K. Ram Shriram 61

    1. Re: The Board Consists of: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your point?

    2. Re: The Board Consists of: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A man was bad so all men are bad. It's like feminist logic 101. You probably took that bigoted mainsplaing regular logic in college.

  9. Humans are sexual creatures by Jarwulf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    apparently Silicon Valley and the Western world has to relearn the lessons all ancient cultures knew until the 20th century. Humans, at least normal humans are sexual creatures. You mix men and women, there will always be a very significant degree of inherent tension and drama as a result you can't get rid of. This tension and drama comes from the dynamics of intra and intersex competition and jockeying that is evolutionarily hardwired into us and is inherent for our survival. We've tried the 'humans are robots that can turn asexual at the flip of a switch' theory for decades or centuries if you count church, and it never works. Even at its strongest bastions (google and colleges) it backfires badly. Either you learn to live with this and stop taking every microaggression or flirt so seriously or you segregate the sexes and develop natural sex specific roles, like our forefathers have successful done for countless millennia.

    1. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by scdeimos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a whole load of crap. Responsible people act responsibly. Don't tar all of us with the "man is sexual creature" brush just because you can't keep your penis in your pants.

    2. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Jarwulf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People live up to my personal standard of morality because I repeatedly say they do regardless of all evidence to the contrary!

    3. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up Trump faggot.

    4. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't force people to open their eyes and see what's in front of them I guess.

    5. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's a whole load of crap.

      No, I'd say it was pretty accurate.

      Responsible people act responsibly.

      Of course they do. There just aren't any responsible people out there.

      Don't tar all of us with the "man is sexual creature" brush just because you can't keep your penis in your pants.

      That's the spirit. Denying reality always works out well.

    6. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      We have yet to figure out how to make corporate management act morally and responsibly. But expecting regular working class shmucks to be able to without help makes sense to you??? How about we acknowledge human nature and design our working environments around that? Does that really sound so bad?

    7. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Runs both ways. Plenty of older women seducing young boys in schools. Son rarely complains, but the mother usually goes ape shit. Then there are unreasonable variations on consent such as priests, schoolteachers ,medicos and politicians, that even extend to abortion and euthenasia. One principle of law is proportionality. Once a psycologist has declared of sound mind, that should be it.

      There are easy ways for women to be ignored: Wear a burqa, wear fluffy slippers, or just turn up looking unpresentable,

    8. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Humans are also creatures that eat. The desire to eat it way stronger tha nthe desire to have sex. If you put humans around a souce of food, they will start killing and eating it. o eally we should expect owrkplae cannibalism.

      Or we should expect people to exert some self control. We'e not talking about someone starved of resouces here either. It'a guy woth 300,000,000. If he's that desperate for sex, he couls always wait until the end of the day and go hire a sex worker.

      But no, you'e just an apologist. Clearly you don't think it's important becuase you're talking about "flirting and microaggeaaions". You have never bothered to read about what happened because you clearly don't think this is fundamantally important and it's all more or less equivalent.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are easy ways for women to be ignored: Wear a burqa, wear fluffy slippers, or just turn up looking unpresentable,

      But then, they wouldn't be able to get free help and other special treatment from male coworkers.

      Obviously, some women have no issue with sexism when they are the ones having an advantage.

    10. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Jarwulf · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Every liberal would agree that man is entitled to food. in fact you could point to practically anything basic and many nonbasic things and mainstream liberals would say you are entitled to it. Internet, free abortions, free executive positions, free feminine hygiene products, free money. We are expected to celebrate these needs and flaunt it, and everybody has to understand and cherish our need to have it. Why is heterosexual sex (for men) the only need in the universe that must be hidden away and be ashamed of?

    11. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I hate to break the news to ya Sparky but even one of the founders of the #metoo movement was caught paying off someone for sexually harassing them so its not just guys, in fact I've seen a lot more females pulling sexual no-nos the past few years than I've seen dudes.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't tar all of us with the "man is sexual creature" brush just because you can't keep your penis in your pants.

      Maybe you should be worried juuuust a little bit by the fact that you automatically converted "Humans, at least normal humans are sexual creatures." into "man is sexual creature." Are you somehow subconsciously thinking that women are not human?

    13. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, when I go to work I see people eating all the time.

      I expect that if other easier sources of food became more scarce some of my idiot co-workers would try to eat each other.

      Your reductuio-ad-absurdium is spot on and probably isn't the counterargument you think it is

    14. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a whole load of crap. Responsible people act responsibly. Don't tar all of us with the "man is sexual creature" brush just because you can't keep your penis in your pants.

      First off, the parents statement was not gender-specific. At all. So I don't know where you get off assuming that they were specifically talking about men, regardless of the statistics. Plenty of women have fucked their way to the top too.

      And what the parent was referring to was more the SJW-leftist stance when it comes to "harassment". The kind of shit that creates office policies that state men can't look at their female counterparts for more than XX seconds with their eyes in a "suggestive" manner, else it's considered sexual harassment. THAT is the stupid shit we need to curtail. If we don't, the parents assessment is completely accurate. We will eventually start creating male-only and female-only companies, because corporations don't want to deal with that liability. Unfortunately, with the insanity that is gender "fluidity" and having to recognize a few dozen genders these days, that makes a binary problem all the more difficult.

    15. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'e not talking about someone starved of resouces here either. It'a guy woth 300,000,000. If he's that desperate for sex, he couls always wait until the end of the day and go hire a sex worker.

      Hate to point out the fucking obvious, but prostitution isn't legal in most of the world, so you suggesting for someone to go break the law to avoid breaking the law is ignorant and stupid.

      Lastly, if a guy is worth $300 million, I highly doubt he has to hire someone for sex. Advertise that net worth on Tinder, and you'd have a line of free pussy at your doorstep a mile long, which only reinforces the parents point regarding how we humans use sex. There's a reason prostitution is called the worlds oldest profession.

    16. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not desperate for sex. He's aroused by the power he exerts upon others. You don't get that with an escort, who is an independent contractor.

      Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    17. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If my colleagues try to eat me, this would hurt me, and I would strenuously object. So they don't do it. This is encoded both into our explicit regulations and our implicit cultural practices.

      If my colleagues flirt with me, this doesn't hurt me. It doesn't help me either - I'm in a committed relationship - but my colleagues don't all know that. So occasionally some of them have flirted with me, following our cultural practice that flirting with someone is a reasonable thing to do. And, following the same cultural practice, I either ignore it, brush it off, or mention that I'm in a relationship, depending on how obvious they are. (If they were persistent, I could also give them an explicit "no" - but that has never been necessary.)

      The GP's point is that, if my colleagues were told by explicit regulations that they should *not* flirt with me - that they should be perfectly asexual beings - then they're going to ignore them. They're going to follow the usual cultural practice instead.

    18. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Humans are driven to eat, and they therefore *do* eat. If they can't get food where they're at, they'll go to extreme lengths to get it.

    19. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wear fluffy slippers

      Nah, that would backfire for me. Fluffy slippers are adorable and I'm attracted to dorky chicks.

    20. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      But no, you'e just an apologist. Clearly you don't think it's important becuase you're talking about "flirting and microaggeaaions". You have never bothered to read about what happened because you clearly don't think this is fundamantally important and it's all more or less equivalent.

      Do we know that more than that happened? "Credible" just means that you got somebody to believe it. I read the article and I don't see any proof mentioned.

      There's a reason that legal protections exist, in civilization. Has he been charged with sexual crimes and convicted?

    21. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And since you have absolute power that means we should all make of big show of begging and then gratefully accept your crumbs so then you can pay full attention to that evil empire of yours?

    22. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Quakeulf · · Score: 1

      Freud was fraud.

    23. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      We have yet to figure out how to make corporate management act morally and responsibly. But expecting regular working class shmucks to be able to without help makes sense to you???

      It should be much easier to get moral and responsible action from regular working class schmucks than a bunch of debauched psychopaths who have never had to take responsibility for their actions and can easily escape accountability in the future.

      How about we acknowledge human nature and design our working environments around that? Does that really sound so bad?

      Nonsense. If we acknowledge and accommodate human nature (by allowing sexual harassment in the workplace? Or allowing unrestrained sexism to create men's-only workplaces?) then we might as well legalize every horror we can imagine. We have laws because we want to live in a civilization and be safe from nature's limitless savagery.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    24. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are straddling two opposite opinions which will make it almost impossible to reconcile your own attitude. I think you should go work it out logically and then post

    25. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Jahoda · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow! What an amazingly legitimate source you've cited I'm the Daily Mail! Beyond that here's another bunch of hambeast Slashdot "independent thinkers"" crying about all of those SJWs and jacking each other off for it. Snooooooooooooooooze.

    26. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Do we know that more than that happened

      You missed the point (intentionally I suspect, because I've spoken to you before and you are exactly the same kind of apologist). This is about him equation serious misconduct to flirting as a generally equivalent thing, because he wants to downplay the importance of serious harassment.

      It's irrelevant for that discussion and my point whether the comparison is for the purposes of an accusation or an event. It's the comparison that's the problem.

      Has he been charged with sexual crimes and convicted?

      We both know that's irrelevant to whether flirting is broadly equivalent to serious sexual harassment.

      The question remains though: why do YOU want to see the distinction blurred?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    27. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in that situation people, mostly women, will be offering sex for food handouts. Just like women of today-sex for nice house, sex for expensive car, sex for expensive dinner, etc.

    28. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In denial much?

    29. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe. I think some people literally know better. Better than that.

    30. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Classic "Appeal to Utopia" logical fallacy, and also appeal to extremes. Mankind is a sexual animal.
      The amount of responsible people I've seen go into not-so-responsible behaviour due to temptation of one kind or another is spectacular.
      You're assuming that everyone is perfectly incorruptible and perfectly un-temptable, and to be something else is somehow to be sub-human.
      It's actually the natural state. Being that perfect paragon is the extreme exception.
      I spend a lot of time avoiding paths that could lead me to situations I'm not sure I could predict my actions on (I always go with the theory I'll be prone to manipulation by base instinct). And that's not perfect either.
      The hard fact is that humanity are part of the animal kingdom. We have our innate impulses that drove the species to reproduce enough to be successful. If you don't acknowledge that, you're missing a huge part of the picture.
      What we do about it is something altogether different.
      Over my working life, I've seen workplaces go from banter being quite accepted, and people (apart from the obligatory assholes that occasionally crop up) being self regulating. If people didn't like something, others backed off. It created a cohesive group, and a good cameraderie.
      There's now a huge pressure to be clinically detached and professional to avoid any chance of "causing offense". So the calibration patterns are never learned as to how to treat individuals as individuals. I've noticed that there's significantly less socialising in groups that correlates with this (correlation is not causation, but it's a suspiciously close correlation to which there aren't any sizable confounding factors that I've observed).

      From my point of view, the OP has it correct, with the optimum path being "Stop being a dick and taking every 'micro' act as personal and the end of the world". The world is imperfect, deal with it. By all means help it become better globally, but this isn't achievable by tyranny (which is what hunting for every excuse to claim offense is).
      Things will occasionally get 'ugly' in that path, as people get into situations they have difficulty extracting themselves from, which rationally are reasonably predictable.
      Again, that's part of 'experimentation', which leads to increased fitness and genetic diversity in a species. Occasionally, it goes very well, and the individuals have an extremely happy life. More usually, it goes awry and gets messy. But that's life. And the optimum path is to get people to accept this, work with it, and find their own path of greatest peace through the maelstrom, rather than burying the head in the sand, and saying that it's everyone else's fault and the world would be perfect if only everyone else would change who they are to fit a single person's ideology.

    31. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by h4x0t · · Score: 1

      I think you may be overly equivocating general workplace interactions with abuse of power. Surely there is a tolerable level of flirtation at Google. What these guys did was not that.

    32. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Humans are also creatures that eat. The desire to eat it way stronger tha nthe desire to have sex. If you put humans around a souce of food, they will start killing and eating it. o eally we should expect owrkplae cannibalism."

      Interestingly, you think you're giving an extreme example that's obviously false as a counterpoint, but you're actually pointing out something that is also true..

      There is a reason that it's been a meme for decades about having to hide the candy drawer, and having doughnuts / lunches stolen in office spaces.

    33. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Responsible to fuck. Men do this . Comprende Jose ? Otherwise fuck off gaffot-slut ... and kiss-a-bus-grill head-on.

    34. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by malkavian · · Score: 2

      The Mail is a right wing oriented new outlet, in much the same way the Guardian is a left oriented one.
      I've caught both in serious errors and propaganda. And I've also seen valid articles in both that wouldn't appear in mags of the opposing political stance (as it would 'disrupt' their message).
      That tired old "I'm the only independent thinker" is classic NPC rhetoric. It takes more than a very left wing view to be an "independent thinker".

    35. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by malkavian · · Score: 1

      You really don't get biological imperatives, do you?
      Or the vagaries of human interaction. You treat sex as if it's interchangable. In which case, nobody would ever choose monogamy, as it'd be just as suitable to engage with the next mate that showed up.
      You're also making the assumption that initial advances were made by the man. That in itself is a flaw in your logic.
      The fact is that nobody apart from the original pair involved, are likely to know what really happened. And perhaps not even those two, as perceptions can be distorted by subjectivity.

      Hey, there's no reason that you should allow your employees food in the working day. If they're that desperate for sustenance, they can wait 'till the end of the day and go and pick up some food from the trash cans, and drink from the gutters. See how your argument starts to fail?

      If you have all the answers, please, lay it out with evidence that would be suitable quality for a court case (which is about the standard I have for reasonable stance, anything less is hearsay, and I treat it as such; a possibility, but by no means a probability).

    36. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

      The load of crap is people like you that blame men because women throw themselves at them. I doubt these women groupies at Google were unwilling participants.

      Every man, or boy aged 16+, of status, money, or fame such as rock stars, hiphop stars, famous actors, sports stars, or just the local handsome hunk can go anywhere and can have their daily choice, if they so desire, from dozens or hundreds of willing women that throw themselves at these me. You can find endless examples of 80+ year old rich guys with a wife in her 20's. Do you really think she married him for love? No-she is happy to spread their legs for his $millions or $billions, just as these google women were hoping to become.

      Don't blame men for having sex because when they have 50 women every day jumping up and down in front of them and screaming "pick me for tonight, pick me for tonight, pick me for tonight."

    37. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by malkavian · · Score: 1

      The line between flirting and serious sexual misconduct has already been blurred. By people wanting greater excuse to complain and leverage it as a tool of power.
      Serious sexual misconduct used to be pretty much just shy of rape. And almost universally, it was something that people would rally against.
      Now it's become "they brushed against me, and I can find advantage in claiming sexual assault". By dilution of the meaning, you have a corresponding decrease in the reaction of sizable quantities of the population who correctly observe the dilution. So now, with sexual assault becoming just what someone can get away with saying it is, large swathes of the population are now treating it with very little credibility. And there's no clear immediate way to distinguish between some minor infraction, and some major problem.
      XKCD had a very clear message on exactly this: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/c...
      All that's happening is that someone is pointing out the state of things as they are now, and allowing people to determine if they would like to get a clear definition in place, or just arbitrarily decide to string people up because they choose to define behaviour as something on an ad-hoc basis where it serves their agenda.
      The big hint is that one way allows people to to accurately assess the meaning of an accusation and judge their reaction commensurately, and the other way leads to metaphorical burning of the witches.

    38. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you're a perfect crystalline example of a pure and responsible human, but the data doesn't support that the vast majority of humans are like you. Instead, it turns out humans are a bunch of impulsive, horny critters even if you "educate" them not to be.

    39. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Now it's become "they brushed against me, and I can find advantage in claiming sexual assault".

      No, it hasn't, you'd be hard pressed to find a single case of that happening, and there are almost certainly no cases where that's the only thing alleged where anyone was disciplined or suffered consequences except the accuser.

      Let's be honest here: you're a paranoid nerd. Most of us are. We hear "horror stories" and we believe them because... we're frightened of the unknown and the guy telling them seems up and up. We nod sympathetically to the guy who's a registered sex offender who explains that it's because he had a one night stand when he was 20 with someone who told him she was 18, but was actually 15. Because that kinda sounds like it might happen, I mean, the law sounds like it's that strict.

      ...and only afterwards do we find the guy was a straight up rapist and his explanation doesn't have any truth to it.

      I mention that because it's common. Abusers always pretend what they were caught doing was lesser than it actually was. Sometimes they're helped by a lack of context, and always they're helped by a gaggle of apologists, people who feel they know the guy and want to believe the best of him and so spread the ludicrous smear around.

      When I was a teenager a kid threatened me with a Stanley Knife. I was terrified. I told my mother. She told the school head. The school more or less ignored the whole thing as a "He said/he said" thing, and then the taunting started. You see, the kid hadn't just threatened me with a knife, a very real knife he put against my cheek (but thankfully didn't press), but he also pretended to have a gun and stuck his fingers under his jacket. I didn't tell anyone about that, because that was very obviously fake and not what I was afraid of.

      But he told the kids I'd gone to the school head frightened of the joke gun. He didn't mention the knife. So everyone at school got it into their heads I'd complained about a very obvious joke.

      Women are not throwing accusations of men brushing against them. They'd be laughed at if they tried to, and no woman in their right mind wants the hassle associated with making serious sexual harassment/assault claims anyway. It's not happening. The people who told you they heard a guy who knew a guy who had been fired over something like this are repeating a lie. A lie almost certainly made by the person who was fired. Who was fired over a pattern of behavior that was driving women out of the company. Maybe he was groping people, maybe worse, or maybe he was just handsy, but he wouldn't have been fired if all he'd done was accidentally brush against someone. It's silly. Stop believing this ridiculous myth.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    40. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a truly independent thinker. Where do you think really bad ideas come from?

      Good thinkers must stand on the shoulders of giants.

    41. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Not especially paranoid, i just watch the way things are playing out.
      For court cases, I'd pretty much agree that the evidence base would rule out most of the spurious claims. But alas these days, the very mention of misdeed is enough to end someone's career (and there are swathes of the population who are pretty much neo-puritannical).

      I tend to withhold judgement until I get enough out of something to make a judgement. If I can't, and your anecdote is a tough one, then I mark it as something to keep under consideration in the event something else occurs.

      On my side, that kind of behaviour was fairly common against me in my years from about 8-11. It was reported, and on occasion observed by staff at the schools. And the action was to tell me that the kids bullying had a tough life at home, and thus weren't responsible. And I should get to know them because they weren't all bad.

      There have been women who've snuck into my bed, and if the genders had been reversed, would have been accused of rape, except people I've mentioned this to think it's funny, because I'm a guy. The fact that these particular women scared the hell outta me because they were really not quite normal doesn't even get considered.

      As far as it being a lie, I've seen it occur before in teams I've been in (and in one case, in a team I was managing), so this whole brushing it off thing doesn't work with me, I'm afraid. So please stop believing your myth that this doesn't happen. There's advantage to be gained, so some people will take advantage of it.

      I take each case as it happens, and my axioms are that most play fair, and that some don't. I can't assume guilt or innocence, and can only see the preponderance of probability. The more evidence there is, the more the probability shifts. And I've seen so many quite involved ways of setting people up, manipulating events, accusations and so on, it's overwhelming.

      One great case in point was a gal I knew back in my late teens, early 20s. Great fun, and very charming. Then she came up to me one day, claiming her partner had effectively raped her. She passed that message quite wide, and he got excised from the social group (And blackened name).
      She got a guy fired from her work after claiming he'd sexually assaulted her.
      Then after a few years, she claimed she'd had a huge argument with a current (quite popular) partner, and he was abusing her, and was threatening to kill her. I got involved, and got her out of the city, helped fund her until she got herself sorted in the new place, and protected her as much as possible, including against the very angry partner.
      When that settled down, she said she had cancer. Now I happened to know people at the hospital she was claiming treatment, and her apparent appointments were at times when the oncologists in question were not working. It took me a while, but I proved she wasn't being treated.
      So I went back to the historical paths of people she'd claimed against in the past, and lo and behold, her story didn't stack up with what others were saying. Literally everything she'd said had been a lie.
      So, after knowing how well I'd been manipulated, from that day on, I've looked far more skeptically at things. I'd seen how easy it was to cost people their jobs under accusation. How easy it was to turn people against others. And how much more people listened to those accusations from women more than men.
      That last part isn't something I'm against really, as I am quite old fashioned, and believe that women should be protected a little. They have enough hassle from the way biology works in the sexes without adding more to the plate.

      So, please stop believing your myth that this doesn't happen, because it does. And is observed to do so, and as it's been successful on the edge cases, it's been adopted more widely as a mechanism of gaining advantage, and been proven to be very effective.
      The best we can do is get as much evidence as we can, and then work out just how much either side is at fault given the objective probability.

    42. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See also, the story of David and Bathsheba.

      Given that David is one of the central authorities of the Hebrew people and 'chosen by God,' given that even HE couldn't prevent being tempted (and effectively murdering a man to steal his wife), claiming that all people should manage to be saints is naive.

      This is a messy sticky world we live in.

    43. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The line between flirting and serious sexual misconduct has already been blurred.

      No, that's one of those things that's so wide of the mark that it's not even wrong.

      For almost everything there is a smooth continuum between something that's absolutely fine and something that's absolutely not.

      You'e pretending it's something new in order to parlay "some cases are bordeline" into "eveything's borderline" which is utter bullshit.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    44. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      So "acknowledging and accommodating" human nature to you means either allowing sexual harrassment in the workplace, or allowing unrestrained sexism? You have such a small imagination. There's an entire kaliedescope of options beyond the current anti-scientific Liberal mindsent that humans are simply genderless robots ready to be programmed with the latest newspeak.

      By your own admission, you prefer denying the truth of human nature because you imagine bad consequences. The failure is your imagination.

    45. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      GameboyRMH is essentially insisting on denying reality because he doesn't like the consequences of admitting the truth. He says so himself. What strange religous belief system causes him to openly deny reality I don't know, but it appears to be one hell of a drug.

    46. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      You know what, I'm going to say it again. Downmod me "troll" all you want, you pussy little incel bitches reeeeeeeeeeeeing about SJWs.

      Wow! What an amazingly legitimate source you've cited I'm the Daily Mail! Beyond that here's another bunch of hambeast Slashdot "independent thinkers"" crying about all of those SJWs and jacking each other off for it. Snooooooooooooooooze.

    47. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by trawg · · Score: 1

      Based on your sig, it seems kinda obvious why you've 'seen it more'. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug!

    48. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your boss calls you into their office and implies heavily that they will fire you unless you perform sexual acts for them (essentially what the executives are being accused of here) that does hurt you.

    49. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      [list of things that apparently liberals say everyone is intitled to excluding sex]

      None of those things, just like sex, ae things you can simply take without consent. You don't get ot eat some food just becuase you like it if it's not yours. So kinda just like sex really.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    50. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      You really don't get biological imperatives, do you? Or the vagaries of human interaction.

      No I do, I'm just not a massively entitled asshat.

      You treat sex as if it's interchangable.

      It's not and that's tough on you. No, you don't get to have sex with whomever you like simply because sex is not 100% interchangable. Not only that but no you don' get to pursue it as you like just because it's not interchangable.

      You're also making the assumption that initial advances were made by the man.

      No I'm not. This is just you making shit up to support your point. If you haven't actually read my post, read it. If you have, then you know I made no such claim and you've admitted you lost the argument because you have nothing eal left with which to support it.

      Hey, there's no reason that you should allow your employees food in the working day.

      Nobody stops wokes going and getting sex during the woring day. But if one worker stats stealing food off the others because they can't be ased to wait to the end of the day then yes there's a problem.

      If they're that desperate for sustenance, they can wait 'till the end of the day and go and pick up some food from the trash cans, and drink from the gutters.

      Or wait until the end of the day and go to a shop on the way home?

      See how your argument starts to fail?

      Not with you reasoning.

      If you have all the answers, please, lay it out with evidence that would be suitable quality for a court case

      Lol you hypcrite! You gave zero evidence for anything you wrote as is entirely normal in a conversation between humans. You're a hypocrite for expeciting it from me but bein far too lazy to do it yourself.

      Honestly at this point you appear to be both very dishonest and hypocritical. Unless your next post is decent I won't respond further.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    51. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Its been reported by the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Post...any of those meet your criteria? I went for the very first link which happened to be the mail. But its not like this was a secret, just Google "Asia Argento Jimmy Bennett" and pick whichever link you want, or here let me save you the trouble.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    52. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Is CNN, often called the "Clinton News Network", left enough for you? Sorry but I couldn't find you a link to Pravda, the farthest left I could find was CNN, enjoy!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    53. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Enlighten me on some options then. I'm not denying the truth of human nature, I just think humans should be restrained from acting on the darker parts of human nature.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    54. Re:Humans are sexual creatures by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      It's called the "Communist News Network" where I live, though the Clinton version was popular during 2016.

    55. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Independent thinkers don't unironically reference the NPC meme

    56. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what you think "left" is but Clinton is a center-right law-and-order neoliberal.

    57. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that examples of women "fucking their way to the top" evidence of sexual exploitation of women by men in positions of power, rght? The only way it works is if you are fucking the boss.

    58. Re: Humans are sexual creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With nerdy glasses!!

  10. I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A strongly liberal leaning company covers up a culture of sexual harassment, and its "human nature". Nothing to see here. Sexual harassment is only to be pointed out when a non-liberal commits it.

    Liberal first, caring about women, blacks, poor, law abiding citizens and so on comes in second place. Just like Robert Byrd, former KKK leader, was a celebrated DNC senator for 60 years, but since he was a "liberal" it wasn't all that important. Bill Clinton, the rapist, also acceptable because he is a liberal.

    Pro tip: If you want to be a corrupt politician, rape women, or oppress blacks, just make sure you are part of the "liberal team" and they will cover for you.

    Disgusting.

  11. You can't fire someone for "credible" information by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    Even in civil matters you still need preponderance of evidence.

    We don't yet burn the witch on the say so of another.

  12. Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here I am, thinking stuff like which Lamborghini should I get, would be my biggest priority as a rich startup founder, instead of which worker should I bang

    1. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you canâ(TM)t keep a Lamborghini clean what good are you?

    2. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here I am, thinking stuff like which Lamborghini should I get, would be my biggest priority as a rich startup founder, instead of which worker should I bang

      And that's why you're one of the proletariat.

  13. Gad Saad said it best on Joe Rogan by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    Joe Rogan Experience #1218 - Gad Saad
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  14. As a former CEO.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a former COO, I can speak first hand to witnessing the shenanigans that go on at executive retreats and in the boardroom. Ladies, if your husband is a C-level executive, he is cheating on you. Period. There are no exceptions. Ever. And, the bigger the company, the worse it gets.

    Human beings with power and title, especially men, will always, and without exception, use them to enrich themselves with sex and money. Human beings have been like this since creation, and women are not immune to being corrupted by it.

  15. Who is this Shareholder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to know.

  16. Re:You can't fire someone for "credible" informati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure we do. A mere accusation is all it takes to ruin someone's life forever, regardless of whether a court of competent jurisdiction exonerates them.

    The US has become the land of torches and pitchforks. Renouncing my citizenship and emigrating was the best thing I ever did.

  17. Re:You can't fire someone for "credible" informati by malkavian · · Score: 1

    I really, really wish we didn't metaphorically burn the witch on the say so of another. It seems that this is still a popular path in today's society.

  18. Re: You can't fire someone for "credible" informat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easiest thing in the world to throw a pitchfork accurately

  19. Re: You can't fire someone for "credible" informa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah? And how far away was the scarecrow when you hit it? Or did another scarecrow jump in the way to save it?