I got my stories mixed up. This is about the harassment walkout at the end of last year. For some reason I thought this was all about the ethics board and it's dismantlement.
For creating an unprofessional working environment. Here once again they are complaining to the press about their personal issues and causing strife for employees that would like to focus on the work and not on politics or media drama.
Let's not blame these employees for Google's internal problems. AI-related ethics is a serious concern and Google choosing unqualified people to sit on their AI ethics board was a problem that they were correctly raising attention to. It's quite disappointing that the firm chose to do away with the ethics board altogether.
That's definitely your opinion. I see trouble making employees who are causing a lot of issues for their coworkers. I'm with the parent post and would fire them.
Drawing attention to verified instances of sexual harassment, and systemic failures by management to deal with it (90 million dollars paid to a departing sexual harasser) is not creating an unprofessional working environment.
Harassment, and management's systemic failures to deal with it, however, does create an unprofessional working environment.
Regardless, if you are harassed, sue. If you don't like your company, quit. Causing a huge media uproar accomplishes nothing other than showing that you can't behave professionally.
The case we're talking about now is a great point. The two troublemakers aren't doing as well in their careers as they would like so what do they do? Go to sympathetic media companies looking for outrage bait and blame their lack of career progress and shifting roles on "retaliation".
I would not want to work with people like this and if I was their manager I would let them go.
It was sufficiently verified to get Andy fired. It clearly met the bar to be seen as a problem by the company.
> Regardless, if you are harassed, sue. If you don't like your company, quit. Causing a huge media uproar accomplishes nothing other than showing that you can't behave professionally.
It empowers other victims to speak out, employees to organize, and demand change. As a result of the walk-out, a number of positive changes took place inside Google.
Your argument is an authoritarian one, that values the appearance of propriety and conformity more then actual propriety.
For meddling with an ethics committee that wasn't their business in the first place. All of because there was one conservative on board. The horror, a conservative, on an ethics board. Think of the children.
As a manager, would you want an activist person that rails against bad company practices/policy, or a more docile person who only focusses on day-to-day work?
"The decision to abandon the council was made as employees criticized the inclusion of the president of the conservative Heritage Foundation. "
Note that TheVerge does not name Kay Cole James. Ms. James served as Virginia Secretary of Health and Human Resources under then-Governor George Allen and was the dean of Regent University's government school. She is currently a member of the NASA Advisory Council. She is the president and founder of the Gloucester Institute, a leadership training center for young African Americans.
In other words, she is eminently qualified. Yet Meredith Whittaker organized people against her because she disagrees with her politics.
Ms. James has not one incident on record where she caused harm to anyone. She is merely the head of a conservative think-tank.
Diversity of thought is very important. I feel little sympathy for the trouble-causers.
22 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 50.8 ms ] threadAlternate source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19725623
Hey mods, please go ahead and kill mine. Turns out it wasn't needed.
It's hard to know what is going on in detail.
Hopefully these two can push through and create the change they want.
Harassment, and management's systemic failures to deal with it, however, does create an unprofessional working environment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
Regardless, if you are harassed, sue. If you don't like your company, quit. Causing a huge media uproar accomplishes nothing other than showing that you can't behave professionally.
The case we're talking about now is a great point. The two troublemakers aren't doing as well in their careers as they would like so what do they do? Go to sympathetic media companies looking for outrage bait and blame their lack of career progress and shifting roles on "retaliation".
I would not want to work with people like this and if I was their manager I would let them go.
It was sufficiently verified to get Andy fired. It clearly met the bar to be seen as a problem by the company.
> Regardless, if you are harassed, sue. If you don't like your company, quit. Causing a huge media uproar accomplishes nothing other than showing that you can't behave professionally.
It empowers other victims to speak out, employees to organize, and demand change. As a result of the walk-out, a number of positive changes took place inside Google.
Your argument is an authoritarian one, that values the appearance of propriety and conformity more then actual propriety.
Note that TheVerge does not name Kay Cole James. Ms. James served as Virginia Secretary of Health and Human Resources under then-Governor George Allen and was the dean of Regent University's government school. She is currently a member of the NASA Advisory Council. She is the president and founder of the Gloucester Institute, a leadership training center for young African Americans.
In other words, she is eminently qualified. Yet Meredith Whittaker organized people against her because she disagrees with her politics.
Ms. James has not one incident on record where she caused harm to anyone. She is merely the head of a conservative think-tank.
Diversity of thought is very important. I feel little sympathy for the trouble-causers.