So, this appears to be about having an allegedly consensual relationship with a subordinate. And I get why that's a problem, because of the power dynamic.
But I think it's a little funny if this is how he ended up getting pushed out at Google given that Sergey Brin had an affair with a Google X employee while working on Glass and is none the worse for it.
Indeed. My hypothesis at this point is that there's more to the story, including misbehavior at Essential, and that we'll have to wait some time to learn any details. Even within the current trend of righting wrongs, this seems like an overreaction to what little is known.
Don't forget that Larry dated Marissa for a long time, and she was his subordinate. And then there's Eric, who was notorious...
Anyway, my understanding was that it has historically been OK at Google to date subordinates, so I'm waiting for more to come out because I can't imagine that "he had a consensual relationship with a subordinate" is all that's going on here.
But maybe someone who has worked there for a long time can correct me?
No I didn't miss it. That's what I'm saying -- there has to be something beyond "consensual relationship with subordinate" going on here. The fact that someone complained to HR supports that hypothesis.
My point was that sleeping with subordinates is not historically the kind of thing that gets people fired at Google. I make no claim about whether that's good or bad (whether or not that should ever be ok is a different discussion), just an observation that that's the way it has been, which (along with the HR complaint) indicates to me that this wasn't a simple case of Rubin sleeping with a subordinate.
>>there has to be something beyond "consensual relationship with subordinate"
Yeah, he put a knife to her throat, no doubt. (sarcasm, OK?) She complained, said x, y and z and her word is taken at face value today. Plus, simply by dating her, he clearly violated Google's employment policies, probably a firing offense.
Do you think that all the actresses that are complaining today were unwilling participants? For a lot of them things didn't work out as planned so whatever happened 20 years ago is now rape or sexual harassment.
Was this the same as Bill and Melinda? But isn't Andy Rubin married?
There's two couples who are married (with children) at work and I think they met at work too. It's a nice dynamic... but only because it worked out :).
It's not clear from the article, but it might be that someone other than the subordinate complained. Perhaps he had given this subordinate preferential treatment. That would be grounds for pushing him out.
Full disclosure: used to work for Alphabet, and while I seem to recall the sexual harassment training on this pretty well, take my word with a huge grain of salt.
Google has a pretty open-minded approach about relationships: you won't get fired for starting a relationship with a report/manager, but you are required to disclose it to management and take the appropriate steps to fix the power imbalance. Moving the parties to two different teams is one of the suggested solutions. I could see that being hard to achieve if you are in the board of directors, but it should work for the vast majority of employees.
So my guess about this "inappropriate relationship" was that it wasn't reported and the proper actions weren't taken. I hope for everyone involved it was consensual and just an indiscretion, rather than something more perverse being at play.
One interesting aspect people are missing in this thread is that the power dynamic goes both ways: a manager could coerce a report into a relationship or a report gets unfair advantage over their peers by exerting influence on their manager. Or both. Not only that, it opens the door to blackmailing.
That's why the dynamic is bad and people trying to make a defense of it (I've seen co are misguided or haven't considered all the factors. There's a reason why there's a legal-approved training on this.
no one gives promotions at Google. They go to a review committee who decides if the person is performing above their current level. It is possible he wrote for her promo committee packet, but managers are generally not as important as peers in the promo process.
Possibly. It also could've been consensual (or been perceived as consensual) at the time, and reported as a concern later. The issue with relationships with subordinates is about the power dynamic, it's entirely plausible that both Andy Rubin and the other individual considered it a consensual relationship. The woman might've found out about effects it had on her career at a later date, or even just realized later that what had occurred was inappropriate.
Definitely not a lot of information to go on right now, especially considering that the original source of the report is paywalled. (The Information does some great work, I'd actually be really tempted to buy in if not for the $400 price tag.)
It wasn't clear to me from the article whether the woman who complained was also the one in the relationship:
"Google reportedly launched an internal investigation into Rubin’s relationship with a subordinate after _a woman_ complained to Human Resources. The woman who filed a complaint to HR is said to have worked on the Android team, which Rubin ran. There are no details in the report on the nature of the woman’s relationship with Rubin. "
Could be somebody who WASN'T dating Rubin, perceiving favoritism in the treatment of the person who WAS dating him. That's one of the problems that remains, even if a boss-subordinate relationship as such is completely consensual.
In the EU (at least in Germany) this would be illegal in a normal company because it is against the law and/of personal freedom! Why are this personal rules allowed in a company in the USA? Nobody should say to me that's ok or not ok to get in a relationship with one of my coworker and I have not to report it to my supervisor!
Sorry, but it seems we know too little at this point to already turn this into another debate about the puritanical oppression of American capitalism vs. the free love ethic elsewhere in the world.
What has been reported thus far is this:
> Google reportedly launched an internal investigation into Rubin’s relationship with a subordinate after a woman complained to Human Resources. The woman who filed a complaint to HR is said to have worked on the Android team, which Rubin ran. There are no details in the report on the nature of the woman’s relationship with Rubin. Google has a policy that does not allow relationships between supervisors and subordinates on the same team.
Until we get more information and confirmation that the complaint involves a consensual, non-entangling relationship between Rubin and a subordinate and that maybe they're even halfway into planning their wedding -- and yet Rubin is still going to be given an ax, then maybe we can go into the culture wars.
BTW, having a relationship with your coworker is not the same as having a relationship with your subordinate, though the latter is a subclass of the former.
Please provide some evidence that sexual/romantic relationships with subordinates is protected behavior in Germany. I cannot imagine that Germany has enshrined in law the right to have sex with subordinates.
That decision was (from what I can tell) about relationships with coworkers, not subordinates. Is there a decision asserting that it violates rights to ban relationships with subordinates? Given the clear avenue for abuse and harassment this creates, it seems like no liberal nation would protect this.
Not necessarily. I don’t know how the decision was actually written. It may not have protected all coworker relationships. The fact that a newspaper article phrases is that way doesn’t mean it’s entirely accurate.
Let me tell this to you. No normal company operating in Germany can write in their internal rules that relationships between executives and subordinates are forbidden (maybe the military can do this). This is against the law "Persönlichkeitsrecht". If it affects visible the work for others then it can have consequences but the knowledge alone that an executive and subordinate have a romantic relationship cannot be declared as wrong in Germany. Another example for prove: http://www.bottroper-anwalt.de/artikel/liebe-arbeitsplatz-wa...
I find this bizarre. Relationships with subordinates are problematic in normal businesses for the same reason as in the military: it opens up an avenue to pressure subordinates into an undesired relationship.
There is no law saying that relationships between managers/reports are forbidden. There is a huge potential for liability though, and any company with a legal team worth their salt will try to set some rules around it.
That said, if Germany explicitly forbids setting rules... well, that's neither here nor there.
Do you not understand the power imbalance between an employee and an executive? How can a subordinate consent if their job is potentially on the line? This exists to protect people from being threatened into going into a relationship against their will.
Every time a power imbalance exists there is always a chance it will be exploited and people must be protected from this.
I agree. I want to make sure you don't overstate your case.
It is possible to have a relationship with a subordinate that's nothing but equal and fair. People do it all the time.
Where the problem comes in is when there's a problem, either somebody did something wrong or the people just don't get along anymore. Suddenly every little piece of the relationship is now the company's business -- and there's no way anybody can go back in time and piece together what happened in private between two consenting adults. This makes what is usually a private emotional mess between two adults (and possibly a criminal case if something was done wrong) into this huge corporate-wide drama that can never be resolved well. The only thing to do when something like this is discovered, crisis or not, is to fire both parties immediately for violating policy.
So there's nothing puritanical going on at all here. And manager/subordinate relationships are not always bad and evil. Just from a practical standpoint, it makes the employer's job impossible to do well, so it has to be avoided.
Relationships between supervisors and subordinates can often be coercive, even when the supervisor does not mean it to be. If a supervisor asks out a subordinate, and she rejects his advance, can he ensure that he doesn't treat her any differently when it comes time for the next performance review? And even if he can, how does the subordinate know that the supervisor can remain objective despite being rejected? In that situation, subordinates often feel like they cannot reject such advances without consequences. And even if the subordinate knows and accepts the advances anyway, how can other subordinates know that the supervisor isn't giving favorable treatment to the target of his romantic overtures?
Relationships between supervisors and subordinates are not illegal, but can open the company up to legal liability, for good reason. In America, we believe workers should be able to go to work free from various forms of harassment, whether based on religion, race, or gender. Romantic harassment falls into the same category. Women should be able to go to work and just do work, without being subjected to inherently coercive romantic overtures from their supervisors. When companies permit such situations to occur, they can be legally liable for failing to maintain an appropriate work environment. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to allow them to have personnel policies that address such potential liabilities.
I agree that there can be problems. It's only a another mindset in Germany I think. There are problems and also legal consequences when it really affects the work in any way (even writing one personal/romantic mail is too much and can get you fired). In Germany you are hired & paid exclusively for your work and no boss can give you rules (or getting information about) what you do in your personal time (this includes private time beside work with coworkers and/or subordinates). It is even against the constitutional laws in Germany.
I can’t speak for individual countries (though you seem to be right about the legality in Germany) but in general this is incorrect: My previous employer (a European intergovernmental organisation) had explicit, written rules against superiors dating their subordinates (they weren’t always enforced but that’s a different story).
Since it’s an intergovernmental organisation, the country of residence isn’t relevant: it’s not bound by local law. In fact, the company I’ve been working with has outstations in five different European countries, and all outstations have the same rules (and some of these rules explicitly contravene local law! — because labour law in the host countries has evolved a lot since the organisation was founded).
I've also some knowledge about international companies within the EU. What you are describing is not possible. Local law cannot be broken with location and workforce from an international organisation operating within that country (you cannot just go to another country and disrespect local law) unless there is an higher EU law which regulates this situation. Country of residence and country of doing your work (there is one main location somewhere where you work for) is for sure relevant to judge about this. If you're sent from another country to do your work in Germany for some time (I think maximum is 2 or 3 years within EU) is different but certain rules have no or more relevance while beeing in Germany.
TL;DR: What your previous employer enforced is not legal to do in whole EU (pretty sure).
> What you are describing is not possible. Local law cannot be broken with location and workforce from an international organisation operating within that country
You are quite mistaken. Though “broken” is the wrong word: it’s simply not bound by it, it’s bound by treaties with the host countries, which supersede current local law (but were obviously legal in the previous framework). In particular, the treaties explicitly declare immunity from local law, law enforcement and jurisdiction, as well as inviolability of the premises — there’s no room for interpretation. There are exceptions to this immunity but they do not pertain to our discussion.
For context, I am somewhat familiar with these treaties, as I was part of an employee initiative that was in dispute with our employer at the time. I can’t go into details for obvious reasons but suffice to say that we were disputing clauses in our contract which did contravene some (though not all) member states’ rules. We managed to get those changed, but not without substantial push-back and compromises (some rules are still not in agreement with all host countries).
After all the recent high-profile cases the outcome is going to be brutal - zero trust between genders, open door policy for any 1:1 meetings, recorded if law allows; minimal and legally pre-approved communication, covering one's back in all cases, reduced VC spending in opposite gender-led companies, making work a hell where only lawyers would thrive.
And all of the blame for this inconvenient atmosphere lies squarely with the harassers. So direct it at them, not the victims. As long as Trump and Moore and everyone on down are immune to these accusations, everybody else is just going to have to suck it up.
It doesn't change the outcome - a few that poison the well for everyone. Regardless of where the blame lies, everybody would suffer.
In Andy's case it's not even clear if he indeed was a harasser or just played favorites/had a perceived bias towards his subordinate girlfriend that was not liked by other women in his team.
Both of the cases you describe in your "not even clear" are problems. If it was either of those things then it would demonstrate that Rubin was acting irresponsibly as a leader.
Not sure if they deserve the same treatment as if he were a harasser though; it's a disproportional justice. I hate when bosses play favorites, but don't demand them to be kicked out of the company for that, as everyone is biased towards people they like, and many people make a career out of "hacking" their bosses.
>And all of the blame for this inconvenient atmosphere lies squarely with the harassers. So direct it at them, not the victims.
If what 1/Nth of a group (the harassers) do, is applied to "all men" or "all VCs" or wharever, and are all "presumed guilty" then you can also blame those doing that lousy extrapolation.
The idea that "all X are Y", is of the same nature as the racist notion that "all blacks are criminals" because they know of some black criminals.
Notice that the comment mentioned harassers not "men", so maybe you are jumping the gun a bit there. The idea that "all harassers are harassers" sounds pretty solid reasoning to me.
>So you are making a general argument on the toxic role such generalizations have? ;)
Yes, on the toxic role SUCH (not ALL) generalizations have. So no need for sarcasm ;)
(Generalization, I'd say, is both the start point of knowledge, and the start (or maybe end?) point of prejudice. It's a tool. If it's not representative, or if it's representative but misreads the causes why it is so -- e.g. "blacks are overrepresented in jails because they're an inferior race with crime in their dna", it's harmful. Otherwise, it allows us to use abstractions, which elevate our thinking just like a higher level programming language does).
On the one hand we're puritanistic when it comes to sex and relationships (VP won't dine with opposite sex if not accompanied), while at the same time exalting sexual revolution, freedom of association, etc. But we want to control how people behave at work in a proscripted manner.
It's like we can't decide what we want.
Obviously harassment is detrimental to the affected, but also, we should not be told to shy away from forming relationships at work. People spend upwards of third of their lives at work. It makes little sense to deny that to people out of hand.
That said, clear directives about abuse and harassment are necessary so people can work in an exclusive environment where they feel welcome.
It’s not a contradiction. Our Puritanism is reflected in the extreme value we assign to work. Our feminist movement is no less Puritan—that’s why Hilary Clinton is so exalted for her professional accomplishments. Feminism thus means removing the barriers that women have to maximizing their success at work.
Discouraging relationships at work serves that important end. Moreover, it seems that most of the voices demanding the right to inflict romantic overtures on coworkers are comin from men. I’ve never heard a professional woman say “you know, what I really want is for more guys to ask me out at work!”
It's absolutely naïve to think women aren't playing power games to get what they want as well; I see it daily with my sister that is a head of some law agency. She's single as there are few men above her that would date her and her romantic relationships are just for fun, often with (current/former) subordinates (IMO they are co-dependents that need a strong woman to feel good about themselves). There is zero backlash she is getting for that. She's not in the US though.
Doesn't that just reinforce my point? To the extent there are women "playing power games" that's not something the company should tolerate either. And just because the subordinate is consenting or even willful doesn't make dating a subordinate okay. Then it becomes a question of whether the supervisor can maintain objectivity and fairness with respect to the rest of the team.
I agree, I'd absolutely love to live in such an environment. But my outlook is pessimistic towards abuse on both sides when one can get something out of it, while yours is optimistic. I'd worked in a company where a woman slept with a boss of a company offering a multi-million business opportunity and after securing the contract, she was rewarded with the role of a head of an important branch (I left in disgust with overall culture anyway). If you think this is an exception you might be surprised what a cesspool the top level of companies often is and what it takes to get there. The rules are applied highly selectively, often exploiting stupidity/idealism of the one that is now "out" that didn't properly cover their back or didn't play nasty politics collecting evidence against anyone that might threaten them. The flawless ones often aren't promoted either as there is no way to easily coerce them. In limit only the worst kind of people would stay in power unless some disaster comes, cleaning the Augean stables.
Personally, I'd stay away from work relationships because if they sour, then you're stuck working with someone you may not get along with... But that's my personal PoV.
I don't see why I'd impose my preference on others, when coworkers hooking up is as natural as coed students hooking up in university. The one thing id agree upon is people needing to be behaved, and if they can't, ie, engage in harassment, then we should have strong structures to handle those cases.
The office is a place for work, not for romantic overtures or ribald humor. I’ve made more than my share of jokes, among friends, that I’d never wanted printed and attributed to me. But I’m perfectly happy working somewhere where nobody ever says something offensive or sexual; it’s not hell, it’s professional. And it’s good for women and minorities, who just want to do well at their jobs without dealing with romantic overtures or guys who think they are funny.
"Hell" I mentioned relates to the need to second guess everybody else's intentions in every single encounter; your brain capacity would be spent on protecting yourself and playing required "politics de jour" instead of working. That's a recipe for bankruptcy. Societies/companies lacking trust don't survive (alright, I know there is Oracle...).
None of these harassment allegations involve men who simply failed to play the "politics de jour." That is a complete straw man. This is not about trust or intentions, but rather about boundaries. There is the sphere of work, and there is the sphere of socializing/romance, and as long as you respect that boundary there is no problem. Not trying to date people puts zero demands on your brain capacity (and, in fact, greatly frees your brain capacity, as I learned after getting married).
Look at it from my point of view - I am an attractive male, tall, handsome face , muscular, do photography and compose music, have that creative spark, now run my own company, yet my religious upbringing tells me I can't fornicate freely like the zeitgeist suggests, and can't tell you how many times even married women were hitting on me, willing to dump their husbands immediately - "it's just marriage". Whenever I turn any of them down, I need to have my back extremely well covered as they don't take rejection lightly. I am wondering when in the future some of them accuses me of "abusing" her because she couldn't have me (Potiphar's wife-style). Heck, I even had a female boss once that was luring me to her hotel room. This is what I call "politics de jour", being always aware of actors and nasty games they play to get into power regardless of justice and react on it real-time.
The predicament you describe for yourself is the exact same thing women face all the time. When a coworker makes an advance on a woman, she has to cover her back, because the coworker may not take the rejection lightly. They may badmouth her behind her back, exclude her socially, and generally refuse to treat her like he treats his other colleagues. That’s exactly why romance and sexual have no place in the office, on either side.
> That’s exactly why romance and sexual have no place in the office, on either side.
But it so happens that I am at work pretty much all day including a lot of weekends. My work is my life. If you're going to tell me that I am simply not allowed to get involved with a person at a place where my life is, it means that I will likely be alone for a very long while. Especially since I am not a bar person (I'm petite, shy when meeting new people, and can't speak loudly, bars/clubs are a no-go and I don't have much of a social network other than from work).
I have a suspicion that you work in a field and in an area where you are afforded the luxury of time and resources to be able to operate within the constraints you now stipulate. Many do not, and they cannot find their human need for romance met if you suddenly say that romance-at-work is off-limits.
Frankly, here I agree with the post you replied to - romantic relationships at work are a huge, unpredictable liability. It's better to completely separate work life from romantic life if you can afford it, otherwise you might get labeled "creepy" and instantly booted out of company with limited future employment prospects or worse.
Only the adaptable survive; you might not like what's coming but disregarding the new rules however irrational the may be might cost you a lot.
> I have a suspicion that you work in a field and in an area where you are afforded the luxury of time and resources to be able to operate within the constraints you now stipulate.
I'm a lawyer so I'm pretty much always working.
> Many do not, and they cannot find their human need for romance met if you suddenly say that romance-at-work is off-limits.
This is a selfish viewpoint. There's lots of appropriate places to find romance. Thanks to Tindr and online dating, we can even do it in a context where people can signal when they're seeking romantic advances (such that making such an advance won't be an imposition on a person just trying to go about her day).
But the office is not one of those places. The office is where women who studied hard in school toil to put a roof over their heads, food in their kids' mouths, secure health insurance so they don't die if they get cancer. It's a serious endeavor, every bit as serious for them as it is for you. And they deserve to be able to engage in it without having to put up with the politics and anxiety that goes along with romantic advances in the workplace.
Alright, I have the "office seductress" experiences instead, which are pretty freaky. I understand most men never get to experience them, so they have very hard time believing them, but for men considered top they seem to happen very often and it takes strong character to resist them. I had truly bizarre experiences, ranging from a fresh bride/wife of a friend on her wedding telling me she would instantly go with me if she didn't marry today; another girl that started using my surname (?!), a married woman that started talking to me like to her husband, testing my reactions; another married woman with kids asking me to stay in her apartment overnight during a business trip; a super intelligent woman detailing her crooked plan to become rich with a suicide as escape if it doesn't work etc. To top it, I had a 100-year old neighbor that once grabbed my buttocks and I heard her laughter afterwards...
If you are considered attractive, women go absolutely crazy for you (remember those crowds at Elvis' concerts?) and share their deepest secrets with you. Attractiveness never lasts forever though, which is where huge liability comes in...
Your list of potential outcomes seem to assume that people will mainly be wary of false accusations. Maybe — instead of worrying about this low-probability non-issue — people will simply stop abusing power and harassing subordinates due to the increased likelihood of negative consequences?
Yes, I am deeply pessimistic about human nature. When weaker men at the lower levels of companies see what happens to strong men at the top, what is the likely outcome? What would natural reinforcement learning tell them on how to maximize their reward/minimize their penalty, given their very limited options?
The title is click-baity. He took leave of absence from the current company Essential because reports of an in-appropriate relationship at Google surfaced publicly?
Leaders and board at Essential seem to be aware of his relationship at Google prior to the press reports. So, it is not clear why is this suddenly a big deal and requires leave of absence. Are they embarrassed that they got publicly caught and doing this for optics? What are they embarrassed about?
This could entirely be a CYA strategy of the board as the phone seems to be a flop and somebody has to be made accountable for that - here Andy might be a welcome scapegoat and distraction for not very smart investors.
All over history certain interest groups have tried to blackmail there way to power, by pushing moral codes and declaring the current power and ressource holders morally bankrupt and depraved. SV with its bunch of near autistic workaholics is a funny target for this, because you can see the repeated attempts to get to the source of power ending with just another storie about a traditional "power" group abusing, venture captial, lawyers and the likes.
I cant wait for the first snowflakes feeling harassed by Neural Networks. A unfeeling statistics sheet is out to get you? Are you sure?
84 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 138 ms ] threadBut I think it's a little funny if this is how he ended up getting pushed out at Google given that Sergey Brin had an affair with a Google X employee while working on Glass and is none the worse for it.
Anyway, my understanding was that it has historically been OK at Google to date subordinates, so I'm waiting for more to come out because I can't imagine that "he had a consensual relationship with a subordinate" is all that's going on here.
But maybe someone who has worked there for a long time can correct me?
Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/GrlEQ15mVPM
(Use HN upvote button to promote democratic discussion)
Edit: dude, why oh why you, changed your comment just as we are heading down the YT rabbit hole, why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Opt9bJlqg
Did you miss this^^? She complained. Maybe she complained to get back at him but still, she complained.
Bill Gates also dated and married a subordinate. Poor woman, where was Gloria Allred to save her...
My point was that sleeping with subordinates is not historically the kind of thing that gets people fired at Google. I make no claim about whether that's good or bad (whether or not that should ever be ok is a different discussion), just an observation that that's the way it has been, which (along with the HR complaint) indicates to me that this wasn't a simple case of Rubin sleeping with a subordinate.
Yeah, he put a knife to her throat, no doubt. (sarcasm, OK?) She complained, said x, y and z and her word is taken at face value today. Plus, simply by dating her, he clearly violated Google's employment policies, probably a firing offense.
Do you think that all the actresses that are complaining today were unwilling participants? For a lot of them things didn't work out as planned so whatever happened 20 years ago is now rape or sexual harassment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There's two couples who are married (with children) at work and I think they met at work too. It's a nice dynamic... but only because it worked out :).
Google has a pretty open-minded approach about relationships: you won't get fired for starting a relationship with a report/manager, but you are required to disclose it to management and take the appropriate steps to fix the power imbalance. Moving the parties to two different teams is one of the suggested solutions. I could see that being hard to achieve if you are in the board of directors, but it should work for the vast majority of employees.
So my guess about this "inappropriate relationship" was that it wasn't reported and the proper actions weren't taken. I hope for everyone involved it was consensual and just an indiscretion, rather than something more perverse being at play.
You may be right about the real issue here
One interesting aspect people are missing in this thread is that the power dynamic goes both ways: a manager could coerce a report into a relationship or a report gets unfair advantage over their peers by exerting influence on their manager. Or both. Not only that, it opens the door to blackmailing.
That's why the dynamic is bad and people trying to make a defense of it (I've seen co are misguided or haven't considered all the factors. There's a reason why there's a legal-approved training on this.
Definitely not a lot of information to go on right now, especially considering that the original source of the report is paywalled. (The Information does some great work, I'd actually be really tempted to buy in if not for the $400 price tag.)
"Google reportedly launched an internal investigation into Rubin’s relationship with a subordinate after _a woman_ complained to Human Resources. The woman who filed a complaint to HR is said to have worked on the Android team, which Rubin ran. There are no details in the report on the nature of the woman’s relationship with Rubin. "
What has been reported thus far is this:
> Google reportedly launched an internal investigation into Rubin’s relationship with a subordinate after a woman complained to Human Resources. The woman who filed a complaint to HR is said to have worked on the Android team, which Rubin ran. There are no details in the report on the nature of the woman’s relationship with Rubin. Google has a policy that does not allow relationships between supervisors and subordinates on the same team.
Until we get more information and confirmation that the complaint involves a consensual, non-entangling relationship between Rubin and a subordinate and that maybe they're even halfway into planning their wedding -- and yet Rubin is still going to be given an ax, then maybe we can go into the culture wars.
BTW, having a relationship with your coworker is not the same as having a relationship with your subordinate, though the latter is a subclass of the former.
That said, if Germany explicitly forbids setting rules... well, that's neither here nor there.
Every time a power imbalance exists there is always a chance it will be exploited and people must be protected from this.
It is possible to have a relationship with a subordinate that's nothing but equal and fair. People do it all the time.
Where the problem comes in is when there's a problem, either somebody did something wrong or the people just don't get along anymore. Suddenly every little piece of the relationship is now the company's business -- and there's no way anybody can go back in time and piece together what happened in private between two consenting adults. This makes what is usually a private emotional mess between two adults (and possibly a criminal case if something was done wrong) into this huge corporate-wide drama that can never be resolved well. The only thing to do when something like this is discovered, crisis or not, is to fire both parties immediately for violating policy.
So there's nothing puritanical going on at all here. And manager/subordinate relationships are not always bad and evil. Just from a practical standpoint, it makes the employer's job impossible to do well, so it has to be avoided.
Relationships between supervisors and subordinates are not illegal, but can open the company up to legal liability, for good reason. In America, we believe workers should be able to go to work free from various forms of harassment, whether based on religion, race, or gender. Romantic harassment falls into the same category. Women should be able to go to work and just do work, without being subjected to inherently coercive romantic overtures from their supervisors. When companies permit such situations to occur, they can be legally liable for failing to maintain an appropriate work environment. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to allow them to have personnel policies that address such potential liabilities.
You are quite mistaken. Though “broken” is the wrong word: it’s simply not bound by it, it’s bound by treaties with the host countries, which supersede current local law (but were obviously legal in the previous framework). In particular, the treaties explicitly declare immunity from local law, law enforcement and jurisdiction, as well as inviolability of the premises — there’s no room for interpretation. There are exceptions to this immunity but they do not pertain to our discussion.
For context, I am somewhat familiar with these treaties, as I was part of an employee initiative that was in dispute with our employer at the time. I can’t go into details for obvious reasons but suffice to say that we were disputing clauses in our contract which did contravene some (though not all) member states’ rules. We managed to get those changed, but not without substantial push-back and compromises (some rules are still not in agreement with all host countries).
In Andy's case it's not even clear if he indeed was a harasser or just played favorites/had a perceived bias towards his subordinate girlfriend that was not liked by other women in his team.
If what 1/Nth of a group (the harassers) do, is applied to "all men" or "all VCs" or wharever, and are all "presumed guilty" then you can also blame those doing that lousy extrapolation.
The idea that "all X are Y", is of the same nature as the racist notion that "all blacks are criminals" because they know of some black criminals.
I'm not discussing the parent comment itself (that would be extremely narrow focused).
I'm answering the ideas expressed in the comment, based on the general context, and how we've seen things play out in the world.
I understand where you are coming from, but I feel like jumping to conclusions about anything related to this story is way too soon.
Yes, on the toxic role SUCH (not ALL) generalizations have. So no need for sarcasm ;)
(Generalization, I'd say, is both the start point of knowledge, and the start (or maybe end?) point of prejudice. It's a tool. If it's not representative, or if it's representative but misreads the causes why it is so -- e.g. "blacks are overrepresented in jails because they're an inferior race with crime in their dna", it's harmful. Otherwise, it allows us to use abstractions, which elevate our thinking just like a higher level programming language does).
On the one hand we're puritanistic when it comes to sex and relationships (VP won't dine with opposite sex if not accompanied), while at the same time exalting sexual revolution, freedom of association, etc. But we want to control how people behave at work in a proscripted manner.
It's like we can't decide what we want.
Obviously harassment is detrimental to the affected, but also, we should not be told to shy away from forming relationships at work. People spend upwards of third of their lives at work. It makes little sense to deny that to people out of hand.
That said, clear directives about abuse and harassment are necessary so people can work in an exclusive environment where they feel welcome.
Discouraging relationships at work serves that important end. Moreover, it seems that most of the voices demanding the right to inflict romantic overtures on coworkers are comin from men. I’ve never heard a professional woman say “you know, what I really want is for more guys to ask me out at work!”
I don't see why I'd impose my preference on others, when coworkers hooking up is as natural as coed students hooking up in university. The one thing id agree upon is people needing to be behaved, and if they can't, ie, engage in harassment, then we should have strong structures to handle those cases.
But it so happens that I am at work pretty much all day including a lot of weekends. My work is my life. If you're going to tell me that I am simply not allowed to get involved with a person at a place where my life is, it means that I will likely be alone for a very long while. Especially since I am not a bar person (I'm petite, shy when meeting new people, and can't speak loudly, bars/clubs are a no-go and I don't have much of a social network other than from work).
I have a suspicion that you work in a field and in an area where you are afforded the luxury of time and resources to be able to operate within the constraints you now stipulate. Many do not, and they cannot find their human need for romance met if you suddenly say that romance-at-work is off-limits.
Only the adaptable survive; you might not like what's coming but disregarding the new rules however irrational the may be might cost you a lot.
I'm a lawyer so I'm pretty much always working.
> Many do not, and they cannot find their human need for romance met if you suddenly say that romance-at-work is off-limits.
This is a selfish viewpoint. There's lots of appropriate places to find romance. Thanks to Tindr and online dating, we can even do it in a context where people can signal when they're seeking romantic advances (such that making such an advance won't be an imposition on a person just trying to go about her day).
But the office is not one of those places. The office is where women who studied hard in school toil to put a roof over their heads, food in their kids' mouths, secure health insurance so they don't die if they get cancer. It's a serious endeavor, every bit as serious for them as it is for you. And they deserve to be able to engage in it without having to put up with the politics and anxiety that goes along with romantic advances in the workplace.
If you are considered attractive, women go absolutely crazy for you (remember those crowds at Elvis' concerts?) and share their deepest secrets with you. Attractiveness never lasts forever though, which is where huge liability comes in...
Leaders and board at Essential seem to be aware of his relationship at Google prior to the press reports. So, it is not clear why is this suddenly a big deal and requires leave of absence. Are they embarrassed that they got publicly caught and doing this for optics? What are they embarrassed about?
I cant wait for the first snowflakes feeling harassed by Neural Networks. A unfeeling statistics sheet is out to get you? Are you sure?