California sues Activision Blizzard over unequal pay, sexual harassment(npr.org)
npr.org
California sues Activision Blizzard over unequal pay, sexual harassment
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019293032/activision-blizzard-lawsuit-unequal-pay-sexual-harassment-video-games
510 comments
Another day, another situation where the best way forward was “we don’t comment on ongoing litigation”.
Less glib, this past year has taught me that a lot of companies are led by genuinely unintelligent people. The number of short sighted, self destructive, and downright childish behavior coming from the C suite of even some big companies has been nearly endless. The idea that Blizzard is led by someone so impulsive that he basically goaded the state into suing him is unsurprising.
Less glib, this past year has taught me that a lot of companies are led by genuinely unintelligent people. The number of short sighted, self destructive, and downright childish behavior coming from the C suite of even some big companies has been nearly endless. The idea that Blizzard is led by someone so impulsive that he basically goaded the state into suing him is unsurprising.
You'd be surprised how many people in upper management have very fragile egos, regardless of the company. Childish behavior is very common in the industry. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've had to call senior members out and the only reason I could do that (unfortunately) was that I am a dude. I really sympathize with anyone who has to deal with these people.
Hypothesis: what you're labelling as "childish behaviour" is in fact "narcissism".
[deleted]
I think it's a little far-reaching to apply a pretty serious psychiatric evaluation (i.e. something meant to diagnose a significant mental deviation from the norm) to a pattern of behaviour that's incredibly common. Because it is so common, it becomes the norm. It is therefore more reasonable to assume it really is childish behaviour.
Narcissism isn't just a medical diagnosis. It's also just a character trait used to describe extreme selfishness outside of psychiatric circles.
Certain personality disorders become much more prevalent in certain jobs. CEOs are much more likely to be sociopaths than the general population, for example. Is it a stretch to assume that NPD might be similarly more common in high status positions?
Common misconception about sociopathic ceos: https://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/landay-harms-psychopat...
I find this very unpersuasive. Especially where it is arguing against claims not commonly made by such studies:
> We also found that leaders with psychopathic tendencies were slightly less effective at their jobs in terms of fostering productivity.
Usually the argument is that sociopaths rise to this level of power and eventually flame out. I’ve never seen any argument that sociopathy tends to make you a good CEO, but rather than it makes you more likely to rise to that level.
> We also found that leaders with psychopathic tendencies were slightly less effective at their jobs in terms of fostering productivity.
Usually the argument is that sociopaths rise to this level of power and eventually flame out. I’ve never seen any argument that sociopathy tends to make you a good CEO, but rather than it makes you more likely to rise to that level.
might be that sensitivity to stimulation is key for getting shit done … until it isnt.
And yet the leadership is compensated as if they're the only ones fit to lead.
They aren't unintelligent. There are almost no consequences for bad behavior.
Even if they are found guilty on all charges, it wouldn't affect their bottom line too much.
But there may be other factors. Companies that sacrificed employees for the public mob did get into problems with their employees.
If they are found guilty, which I think is very likely, their statement is indeed not too smart though.
Even if they are found guilty on all charges, it wouldn't affect their bottom line too much.
But there may be other factors. Companies that sacrificed employees for the public mob did get into problems with their employees.
If they are found guilty, which I think is very likely, their statement is indeed not too smart though.
It's almost like they're regular people, just like the rest of us.
Most regular people don't try to cover up sexual harassment.
I personally would have a hard time not immediately applying violence to the accused harasser.
Most regular people don't have such fragile egos.
[deleted]
> Less glib, this past year has taught me that a lot of companies are led by genuinely unintelligent people.
There's a reason that "meritocracy" was invented as a term to mock the state of things. It's a myth. It was always a myth. A joke.
The people selling the notion that the way things are is the result of a meritocracy is the secular Western equivalent of people using caste as a justification for shabby treatment of have-nots.
There's a reason that "meritocracy" was invented as a term to mock the state of things. It's a myth. It was always a myth. A joke.
The people selling the notion that the way things are is the result of a meritocracy is the secular Western equivalent of people using caste as a justification for shabby treatment of have-nots.
[deleted]
> It's like they think it's 1995 and MeToo never happened.
They've also seemed to have forgotten that they're located in California. This is the type of thing you might say if you were in Texas and wanted to politicize the issue in the hopes of getting Greg Abbott to take your side. But here, it's just digging a deeper hole. I'm dumbfounded that any PR department would sign off on this.
They've also seemed to have forgotten that they're located in California. This is the type of thing you might say if you were in Texas and wanted to politicize the issue in the hopes of getting Greg Abbott to take your side. But here, it's just digging a deeper hole. I'm dumbfounded that any PR department would sign off on this.
They may intend to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, and with the court's current composition, there's an excellent chance they win and even get the underlying statute neutered or struck down.
If the executives think it's anything remotely resembling a reasonable use of company assets to fight workplace discrimination laws on constitutional grounds, the board should fire them, and if they don't, the shareholders should fire the board. ATVI is a large publicly traded corporation. It's not Hobby Lobby.
???
That’s not how this stuff works at all. This is a dispute over the facts, and how much money the facts are worth, and to whom. Someone in California DOJ had a 15 minute meeting with their people and ATVI people and already decided that ATVI is going to face a fine to be paid to its female complainant former employees, the next three years of lawsuit is a ceremony enacting that.
That’s not how this stuff works at all. This is a dispute over the facts, and how much money the facts are worth, and to whom. Someone in California DOJ had a 15 minute meeting with their people and ATVI people and already decided that ATVI is going to face a fine to be paid to its female complainant former employees, the next three years of lawsuit is a ceremony enacting that.
p1necone(1)
I would love to hear a theory for how the supreme court could take this case. Free exercise?
can you even imagine that being worth all the bad press and ill will this’ll cost them
Unless they are picked on for a very successful boycott, it's going to be mostly aversion from current and potential employees, with Google-like staff evaporation but with much lower attractiveness.
Does Activision have backup studios in "developing countries" or other clever plans?
Does Activision have backup studios in "developing countries" or other clever plans?
[deleted]
Its interesting to see how the quality of the games Blizzard produces and the company culture both seemed to decline sharply in lockstep after being acquired by Activision in 2008.
After 2008 Blizzard produced Hearthstone, Overwatch and Reaper of Souls which consensus 'fixed' Diablo 3 and were all pretty great. So I can't comment about the culture but I disagree with the general narrative that Blizzard's games have gone off a cliff. That might still be coming, but it hasn't happened quite yet.
Edit: snipped the bit about Hero's of the Storm since that was post acquisition
Edit: snipped the bit about Hero's of the Storm since that was post acquisition
In my opinion the downfall of Blizzard started even earlier in 2004. Ever since World of Warcraft their writing and worldbuilding has stumbled off a cliff. StarCraft's storyline was fantastic and its world spectacularly gritty. The weird whirring mechano-head of the adjutants and bodily entombed dragoons are just some examples of the kooky minds working at the studio at that time.
With the cartoonish push that World of Warcraft presaged I saw the wider ambitions to appeal to everyone which washed out the magic for me. Blizzard wasn't alone in this but it broke my heart as a kid who grew up on Sabriel and The Book of the New Sun and Baldur's Gate and EverQuest to watch all those game companies lurch forward to a blank-eyed glossed future.
With the cartoonish push that World of Warcraft presaged I saw the wider ambitions to appeal to everyone which washed out the magic for me. Blizzard wasn't alone in this but it broke my heart as a kid who grew up on Sabriel and The Book of the New Sun and Baldur's Gate and EverQuest to watch all those game companies lurch forward to a blank-eyed glossed future.
> and bodily entombed dragoons
Meh. It is an undeniable direct Warhammer 40K plagiarism: before coming up with their own StarCraft universe, Blizzard tried and failed to secure rights for Warhammer 40K setting. So it is easy to see the source of their 'inspiration'.
They had many bright moments, but this one is not one they came up with themselves.
Meh. It is an undeniable direct Warhammer 40K plagiarism: before coming up with their own StarCraft universe, Blizzard tried and failed to secure rights for Warhammer 40K setting. So it is easy to see the source of their 'inspiration'.
They had many bright moments, but this one is not one they came up with themselves.
I think Starcraft and Warcraft before it are both stellar examples of inventive remixing and borrowing from existing worlds. That is very different from plagiarism.
Games Workshop does not own the copyright on nearly-dead-warriors-entombed-in-exoskeletons. Nor did they invent the idea of the nearly dead being sustained by cybernetics, or of using robotics to assist those of limited physical ability. We all are inspired by things.
It's especially odd to talk about about "Warhammer" or "Starcraft" as if they are managed by a single human, when in fact all of these worlds are written and envisioned by a multi-generational army of creative people who are all drawing on sources to come up with ideas. Are all of the employees of GW who write about dreadnoughts plagiarizing the employee who came up with the idea?
Games Workshop does not own the copyright on nearly-dead-warriors-entombed-in-exoskeletons. Nor did they invent the idea of the nearly dead being sustained by cybernetics, or of using robotics to assist those of limited physical ability. We all are inspired by things.
It's especially odd to talk about about "Warhammer" or "Starcraft" as if they are managed by a single human, when in fact all of these worlds are written and envisioned by a multi-generational army of creative people who are all drawing on sources to come up with ideas. Are all of the employees of GW who write about dreadnoughts plagiarizing the employee who came up with the idea?
Starcraft copied a lot more than just that from Warhammer.
Tyranids giant biological hive mind that rapidly adapts to new environments consuming or infecting existing species to plunder their genetic advantages. Also have plenty of units that looks rather similar to their Zerg equivalents.
The basic look of space marines and Starcraft marines are completely different why they toned down the skulls and well that’s about it.
That’s fine at least they didn’t copy the ancient psionic technology using Eldar who, wait never mind.
Tyranids giant biological hive mind that rapidly adapts to new environments consuming or infecting existing species to plunder their genetic advantages. Also have plenty of units that looks rather similar to their Zerg equivalents.
The basic look of space marines and Starcraft marines are completely different why they toned down the skulls and well that’s about it.
That’s fine at least they didn’t copy the ancient psionic technology using Eldar who, wait never mind.
So what you're saying is that we shouldn't respect creative works that are too similar to their inspirations and you think a good example of the creative work we should respect is...Warhammer?
"It’s all in here, the neolithic bones of our current game system. Borrowing heavily from Tolkein, you get all the standard Fantasy races, standard beasties (heck even the Balrog is in there by name), and so many others...There is no Old World, no Warhammer world, no history, just some little crazed and revolutionary rules for using units of fantasy lead miniatures to fight out epic battles."[1]
[1] https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/01/lore-unboxing-warham...
"It’s all in here, the neolithic bones of our current game system. Borrowing heavily from Tolkein, you get all the standard Fantasy races, standard beasties (heck even the Balrog is in there by name), and so many others...There is no Old World, no Warhammer world, no history, just some little crazed and revolutionary rules for using units of fantasy lead miniatures to fight out epic battles."[1]
[1] https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/01/lore-unboxing-warham...
Tossing a huge range of different properties in a blender is fine, ripping off a single property is just lazy. Which sounds more original pure Harry Potter fan fiction or ER the TV show + Harry Potter + Cheers the TV show.
Draw evenly from M*A*S*H + Dresden Files + Mass Effect + Dexter and your going to end up in some strange and interesting places. Play through Starcraft 1+2 on the other hand and the story is fine if a bit bland.
Draw evenly from M*A*S*H + Dresden Files + Mass Effect + Dexter and your going to end up in some strange and interesting places. Play through Starcraft 1+2 on the other hand and the story is fine if a bit bland.
Also, Warhammer 40k heavily diverged from the original Warhammer.
I absolutely agree that Blizzard's worlds are weaker than Games Workshop's. GW has a real talent for genre fiction, where Blizzard struggles with the basics of plot structure.
The thing I disagree with is that Blizzard's problem is that they 'copied.' Everyone copies! The bits that Blizzard copied are the most compelling part of Starcraft. The reason it is weak is that they were not better at drawing on the ideas of others. They did not understand what was compelling about 40k, so they create this unsatisfying narrative mishmash.
Warhammer FB -> Warhammer 40k is a great example of this being done better. You could type out the same kind of demeaning summary of Warhammer 40k as you did for Starcraft: "Tyranids are gross, chitinous just like Geiger's xenomorph; the Eldar are just space-high-elves; The squats are just space dwarves." It's all true, as far as it goes. But - because GW is better than Blizzard - they went further and added other ideas (many of which also came from other works). The problem is never that they drew on other sources. In fact, looking at other worlds and using the core of what 'works' about that world before transforming it is at the center of basically all good works.
The thing I disagree with is that Blizzard's problem is that they 'copied.' Everyone copies! The bits that Blizzard copied are the most compelling part of Starcraft. The reason it is weak is that they were not better at drawing on the ideas of others. They did not understand what was compelling about 40k, so they create this unsatisfying narrative mishmash.
Warhammer FB -> Warhammer 40k is a great example of this being done better. You could type out the same kind of demeaning summary of Warhammer 40k as you did for Starcraft: "Tyranids are gross, chitinous just like Geiger's xenomorph; the Eldar are just space-high-elves; The squats are just space dwarves." It's all true, as far as it goes. But - because GW is better than Blizzard - they went further and added other ideas (many of which also came from other works). The problem is never that they drew on other sources. In fact, looking at other worlds and using the core of what 'works' about that world before transforming it is at the center of basically all good works.
> Tyranids giant biological hive mind that rapidly adapts to new environments consuming or infecting existing species to plunder their genetic advantages. Also have plenty of units that looks rather similar to their Zerg equivalents.
Tyranids barely existed when Starcraft got released, most of the things you talked about was created by games workshop afterwards, so likely they copied Starcraft instead.
Tyranids barely existed when Starcraft got released, most of the things you talked about was created by games workshop afterwards, so likely they copied Starcraft instead.
Tyranids where part of the 1987 version of 40k and barely mentioned. Genestealers were first introduced in the board game Space Hulk published in 1989 and introduced into the Tyranids well before Starcraft’s release date.
1993, featured the Tyranids in the supplemental books Wargear and Codex Imperialis, and then later in their own devoted army Codex.
By comparison Starcraft 1 is from 1998 at which point Tyranids had gone through multiple revisions and had fairly close to their modern lore.
1993, featured the Tyranids in the supplemental books Wargear and Codex Imperialis, and then later in their own devoted army Codex.
By comparison Starcraft 1 is from 1998 at which point Tyranids had gone through multiple revisions and had fairly close to their modern lore.
>Tyranids giant biological hive mind that rapidly adapts to new environments consuming or infecting existing species to plunder their genetic advantages.
Sounds like GW copied that from Heinlein's Starship Troopers, or maybe Enders Game.
Ditto the Space Marines.
Culture is just copying/remixing, all the way down.
Sounds like GW copied that from Heinlein's Starship Troopers, or maybe Enders Game.
Ditto the Space Marines.
Culture is just copying/remixing, all the way down.
Enders game’s alien are quite different from both they aren’t a single unified hive mind but a species of queens and mindless drones using biological technology rather than literally being the ships or having a wide range of forms, also no rapid evolution or gene stealing etc. Starship Troupers share even less they don’t even use starships, aren’t a unified hive mind, etc their both great example of sci-fi space biological armies being a fairly huge space for different ideas.
Remixing at least involves using multiple sources, my only real issue is SC both only copied from 40k and changed so little. It’s like the figured after just crossing just past the line of copyright infringement was enough and they would go no further. But hey they did the same with the original Warhammer game to make Warcraft and that worked out just fine for them.
Remixing at least involves using multiple sources, my only real issue is SC both only copied from 40k and changed so little. It’s like the figured after just crossing just past the line of copyright infringement was enough and they would go no further. But hey they did the same with the original Warhammer game to make Warcraft and that worked out just fine for them.
Like dreadnoughts? I'd argue fantasy and science fiction is all iterating over itself endlessly and there's creative ways of doing it. Plunging dragoons into a liquid bath puts dragoons at something of a cross-section of evangelion and 40k tomb-mech.
I could go on. The ghosts exhaling poison vapor with spider eyes or hydralisks vomiting buckets of saliva. Sunken colonies with their long knife-tongues; the Creep. As a whole I think Blizzard really made something special.
I could go on. The ghosts exhaling poison vapor with spider eyes or hydralisks vomiting buckets of saliva. Sunken colonies with their long knife-tongues; the Creep. As a whole I think Blizzard really made something special.
I grew up on Warcraft 2, and to me the cartoonish look of WoW was a direct continuation of the art style from that game. I was in the WoW beta. The first time I played it my initial reaction was that it looked exactly like I had stepped into Warcraft.
I see your point with Warcraft 2 though I do think a lot of the art from then leant more to the gritty like this one [1] that shows a troll squaring off with a human.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/pJ0entX_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&...
[1] https://i.imgur.com/pJ0entX_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&...
I think initial development/prototyping was done as an offshoot of the WC3 engine so in a sense you were stepping into Warcraft. That's not to take anything away from the great design and art direction consistency between these titles - just that it also had a practical technical component.
I agree with this. Early Blizzard games had amazing worldbuilding and great single player experiences, with good multiplayer options.
After WoW's success they seemed to try to pigeonhole all of their properties in the same direction, SC2 and D3 were quite clearly online/multiplayer first with single player as an afterthought, and the world depth felt lacking. Hearthstone's alright but feels like it has too much focus on PvP games and loot box mechanics.
After WoW's success they seemed to try to pigeonhole all of their properties in the same direction, SC2 and D3 were quite clearly online/multiplayer first with single player as an afterthought, and the world depth felt lacking. Hearthstone's alright but feels like it has too much focus on PvP games and loot box mechanics.
> With the cartoonish push that World of Warcraft presaged I saw the wider ambitions to appeal to everyone which washed out the magic for me.
You're looking at it through rose tinted glasses. Blizzard has always been about a cartoonish look. That's why I like their games. Realism always falls into the "uncanny valley" territory for me.
You're looking at it through rose tinted glasses. Blizzard has always been about a cartoonish look. That's why I like their games. Realism always falls into the "uncanny valley" territory for me.
> cartoonish push that World of Warcraft
wasn't the cartoonish style already present in Warcraft 3?
wasn't the cartoonish style already present in Warcraft 3?
There's nothing cartoonist about flying sheep and giant drunken pandas.
The fact that Diablo 3 needed to be "fixed" supports the narrative. Also the fact that executives didn't realize it had been fixed and cancelled the 2nd Diablo 3 expansion. The Warcraft III remaster was a disaster. Three out of the last four World of Warcraft expansions have been poorly received. There does seem to be a pattern of decline.
Which 3 of the last 4? Legion, BfA, and now SL have all been received quite well I think.
of the last 4, (ie WoD, Legion, BfA, and SL), Legion was the only one that you could call well received. WoD, BfA, and SL are all utter shit.
WoD deserves a special place in game design hell for choosing to implement garrisons over another tier of raid content.
WoD deserves a special place in game design hell for choosing to implement garrisons over another tier of raid content.
This is a common sentiment I hear from people who bailed during WoD and have just been looking at public commentary about the rest. Everyone I spoke to in-game were at least meh about BfA, loved Legion, and were still stoked on SL until the new patch just took a bit too long. There are legit criticisms of all of them, but to say they're shit is just silly. Those same people also tended to love MoP fwiw.
My only real criticism is related to the majority of all game content being kind of irrelevant, because there isn't a long road to max level and no scarcity of exp. However, I did level through BfA content, and it was really well done.
My only real criticism is related to the majority of all game content being kind of irrelevant, because there isn't a long road to max level and no scarcity of exp. However, I did level through BfA content, and it was really well done.
I'm odd in that I actually loved WoD, aside from Garrisons. Legion had it's moment of greatness, around the fourth patch it was great.
BfA and Shadowlands are incredibly bad, for casual players there's really nothing interesting to do, and raiders and stuck behind meaningless time gates. It's quite sad to see my friends list now, no one is playing - and a new patch has just been released.
I'm a huge fan, but I've also stopped playing. Blizzard feel like they've been ahead for so long they forget what made their games great. Saying that though, it only takes on incredible expansion for everyone to jump back.
BfA and Shadowlands are incredibly bad, for casual players there's really nothing interesting to do, and raiders and stuck behind meaningless time gates. It's quite sad to see my friends list now, no one is playing - and a new patch has just been released.
I'm a huge fan, but I've also stopped playing. Blizzard feel like they've been ahead for so long they forget what made their games great. Saying that though, it only takes on incredible expansion for everyone to jump back.
I've gone back to level through WoD, and I was very impressed with Draenor and HFC. I have no personal qualms with that expansion other than what I hear about.
I think I agree with your commentary about SL, but I just said the same thing in a different way. BfA had a bit more interesting content though in that respect. They were not 'incredibly bad' by my estimation, just have their various flaws.
With regard to friends list, I stopped playing shortly before new patch drop, but mostly because it's summer and WoW in general just makes it way too easy to spend time indoors. I was following the world first race though, and would love to raid SoD and do BGs. But, before letting my sub expire I went and farmed out all the Mechagon mounts and most interesting rare drop mounts, had my fill of Nathria, and a bit of Mythic+ as miserable as that is. Could have been more fun with a proper gaming setup and guild, but I knew summer was coming up and I'd want to dial my playtime back to zero.
This is all after a decade long hiatus.
I think I agree with your commentary about SL, but I just said the same thing in a different way. BfA had a bit more interesting content though in that respect. They were not 'incredibly bad' by my estimation, just have their various flaws.
With regard to friends list, I stopped playing shortly before new patch drop, but mostly because it's summer and WoW in general just makes it way too easy to spend time indoors. I was following the world first race though, and would love to raid SoD and do BGs. But, before letting my sub expire I went and farmed out all the Mechagon mounts and most interesting rare drop mounts, had my fill of Nathria, and a bit of Mythic+ as miserable as that is. Could have been more fun with a proper gaming setup and guild, but I knew summer was coming up and I'd want to dial my playtime back to zero.
This is all after a decade long hiatus.
In fairness to WoD the leveling experience really was great. However they utterly gutted combat mechanics which I think is a big part of why people coming from MoP into WoD hated it so much. And then the content drought...
> I disagree with the general narrative that Blizzard's games have gone off a cliff. That might still be coming, but it hasn't happened quite yet.
Have you played the last 2 World of Warcraft extensions? Or Warcraft 3: Reforged, the only "new game" they released since 2016, which is also commonly known as Warcraft 3: Refunded? [1][2]
[1] https://www.warcraft3refunded.com
[2] https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/blizzard-botched-warcraft-iii-re... (published 7 hours ago)
Have you played the last 2 World of Warcraft extensions? Or Warcraft 3: Reforged, the only "new game" they released since 2016, which is also commonly known as Warcraft 3: Refunded? [1][2]
[1] https://www.warcraft3refunded.com
[2] https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/blizzard-botched-warcraft-iii-re... (published 7 hours ago)
I remember Activision generally being a publisher of terrible licensed games in the 90s, so I wasn't too surprised by that.
Even Blizzard wasn't spared from making a bad licensed game in the 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_League_Task_Force_(vid...
[deleted]
The person named in the suit was at Blizzard since 2004. This is nonsense.
[deleted]
Bobby Kotick settled a sexual harassment lawsuit against him, personally, in 2010. Kotick fired a woman who was not interested in being the "arm candy" for his private pilot. https://kotaku.com/activision-boss-loses-legal-battle-over-s...
Perhaps that makes him the "right guy as CEO". You know, culture fit.
(It's not all Bobby's fault though: pre-Activision Blizzard folks are named too.)
Perhaps that makes him the "right guy as CEO". You know, culture fit.
(It's not all Bobby's fault though: pre-Activision Blizzard folks are named too.)
I've been saying this, jokingly, for awhile now: Blizzard is a law firm that just happens to make video games. I'm sure they went this route because they think they can win (I mean clearly, right? Who goes to court thinking they'll lose). Anyways, not super insightful either way but they do litigate a lot.
It's an interesting point. On the other hand, many of these state prosecutors are very afraid of losing: many of them have gone the "golden career route" of name-brand schools and law firms, and shy away from any possible failure.
That's mostly bad, because they won't bring cases that are worthy but risky to their career.
When they do ultimately bring a case, though, it means it's strong.
That's mostly bad, because they won't bring cases that are worthy but risky to their career.
When they do ultimately bring a case, though, it means it's strong.
I'm inclined to agree with you, honestly- my comment was more just me musing aloud about Blizzard's hubris in the face of the law. They've also lawyered up and ruined a lot of good vanilla WoW private servers, which I think adds to their hubris- fighting a state in court is going to be a lot more involved than telling a few nerds online to stop running a WoW server.
Anyways, I think you're correct and I personally look forward to Blizzard losing.
Anyways, I think you're correct and I personally look forward to Blizzard losing.
My vague understanding is that federal prosecutors are the extremely conservative ones, but state are more likely to prosecute - for instance because the AG is elected and wants to be seen doing something.
These state Human Relations/Civil Rights board are headed by appointed officials from the executive branch (not the AG). They generally pass on many cases (when you want to sue your employer you have to submit your case there first and they pass on the vast majority even though many of those cases have strong merits) so if they’re picking up the case that generally means it’s strong
Not sure. A case like this brings extreme publicity. And loosing would not necessarily attributed to the lawyer. In that case it would be an industry that suppresses women.
Yeah I'm flabbergasted by some PR releases lately. It's like some rando VP or someone decided to slip their personal ideology in there.
How many hands did that pass through and nobody was brave enough to strike that line? It adds nothing positive.
How many hands did that pass through and nobody was brave enough to strike that line? It adds nothing positive.
Have you seen this one from Google from earlier this year (https://blog.google/products/news/google-commitment-supporti...)?
Yikes.
Yikes.
This from Kent "need-to-know" Walker?
AKA the guy that single-handedly turned Google's culture from transparency-first to siloing-first by making looking at "need-to-know" information a fireable offense[1].
The Catch-22 here being, of course, that you don't know that you didn't need to know until you know.
That's to say, the only way to know if you have violated this policy is by violating it.
The result was, unsurprisingly, that where sharing permissions for documentation were default company-wide earlier, it quickly became "you need to know the right people to ask to get access to it".
Google, with its mission to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful", thus made its own technical documents unsearchable in internal engines (and thus, disorganized), inaccessible, and therefore, useless.
Everything that drops from that person's mouth is toxic.
[1]https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/google...
AKA the guy that single-handedly turned Google's culture from transparency-first to siloing-first by making looking at "need-to-know" information a fireable offense[1].
The Catch-22 here being, of course, that you don't know that you didn't need to know until you know.
That's to say, the only way to know if you have violated this policy is by violating it.
The result was, unsurprisingly, that where sharing permissions for documentation were default company-wide earlier, it quickly became "you need to know the right people to ask to get access to it".
Google, with its mission to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful", thus made its own technical documents unsearchable in internal engines (and thus, disorganized), inaccessible, and therefore, useless.
Everything that drops from that person's mouth is toxic.
[1]https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/google...
Wow, yikes indeed. This kind of thing reminds me of ebay from last year:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/six-former-ebay-employees...
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/six-former-ebay-employees...
What about this is bad? Attacking Microsoft?
> How many hands did that pass through and nobody was brave enough to strike that line? It adds nothing positive.
Perhaps I'm a cynic but I assumed that was the "compromise" version of the language and the original draft was worse.
Perhaps I'm a cynic but I assumed that was the "compromise" version of the language and the original draft was worse.
You can support MeToo and also agree California does have a problem with unaccountable state bureaucrats run amok.
You can but mixing both thoughts at once is kinda weird.
In this case they're kinda pulling in different directions and ... I dunno probably best to just stick to one topic as far as a press release goes.
In this case they're kinda pulling in different directions and ... I dunno probably best to just stick to one topic as far as a press release goes.
The point of defensive press releases is often to confuse the public about the matter. People don't remember what they don't understand.
The only confusion I have is how Blizzard would release such a wonky press release... that's it.
I don't think the public reads press releases otherwise.
I don't think the public reads press releases otherwise.
> I'm really surprised that Blizzard thinks a state suit against them for sexual discrimination, harassment, and a litany of odious behaviors by managers is best answered by calling them "unaccountable State bureaucrats," as they did in their PR damage control release. It's like they think it's 1995 and MeToo never happened.
It's about ethics in game journalism! Er, ethics in government?
The sad part is that I suspect many of the individuals involved actually believe that sentiment.
It's about ethics in game journalism! Er, ethics in government?
The sad part is that I suspect many of the individuals involved actually believe that sentiment.
> It's like they think it's 1995 and MeToo never happened.
I see it more as them either waking up to the relative supremacy of and latent unaccountability afforded to the modern Big Corporation, or finally being bold enough to drop the pretense of being an "equal" member of society. There is no need to be polite when your company's position is secure and permanent.
That is, the government and society being mad at them does not matter, for their profits are still guaranteed. The only question is whether the stock will go up right after losing the lawsuit, or a few days later.
I see it more as them either waking up to the relative supremacy of and latent unaccountability afforded to the modern Big Corporation, or finally being bold enough to drop the pretense of being an "equal" member of society. There is no need to be polite when your company's position is secure and permanent.
That is, the government and society being mad at them does not matter, for their profits are still guaranteed. The only question is whether the stock will go up right after losing the lawsuit, or a few days later.
This is what paying someone $150 million in a year gets you. Try the $10 CEO I’ll bet it’ll go better.
kotick lost a sexual harassment lawsuit in 2010
additonally, a phone number of "Kotick (Activision)" was photographed on Epstein's rolodex
additonally, a phone number of "Kotick (Activision)" was photographed on Epstein's rolodex
Bobby is your guy if you want great your company's stock to gain value.
I personally would never want him as a leader, yet alone a CEO. Ethically, I wouldn't be okay.
I personally would never want him as a leader, yet alone a CEO. Ethically, I wouldn't be okay.
PR has changed in them last 3 years dramatically.
Now the standard is just a flat out lie.
Used to be either no comment or getting the shit out yourself with apologies appeal to emotion and move on.
There are so many Trump-style statements I read in news every day. An article from ProPublica today on China's extra judicial kidnappings abroad had quotes from CCP that could have been Trump but flipped.
It's scary that the truth doesn't matter anymore to a significant %, and another significant % are just so flustered and overwhelmed they move on.
Now the standard is just a flat out lie.
Used to be either no comment or getting the shit out yourself with apologies appeal to emotion and move on.
There are so many Trump-style statements I read in news every day. An article from ProPublica today on China's extra judicial kidnappings abroad had quotes from CCP that could have been Trump but flipped.
It's scary that the truth doesn't matter anymore to a significant %, and another significant % are just so flustered and overwhelmed they move on.
> It's like they think it's 1995 and MeToo never happened.
Maybe they think their customers are more Gamer-gatey types, and will side with them over a bunch of underpaid, sexually-harassed female employees.
Maybe they think their customers are more Gamer-gatey types, and will side with them over a bunch of underpaid, sexually-harassed female employees.
If there is one lesson from me too movement then that fighting back is often the best strategy. Kavanugh fought back and is now justice. Matt Gaetz fights back and is still in congress. Biden did not even acknowledge accuser and is now president. People who apologized or resigned often suffered much more dire professional consequences. Blizzard could have misjudged situation but may have also acted strategically that settlement will bring onslaught of bad publicity and new cases.
me too didn't achieve much I think. I doubt it did convince anyone and there is still some bad aftertaste with the Kavanaugh process.
Some said they didn't care about sexual harassment from certain political parties and just used it as a political cudgel. Those that genuinely fought for reproductive rights got completely shafted and I think they are even worse than before.
Some said they didn't care about sexual harassment from certain political parties and just used it as a political cudgel. Those that genuinely fought for reproductive rights got completely shafted and I think they are even worse than before.
was MeToo something significant? I thought it was just a hashtag “movement” like countless others.
It seemed significant in the media arena to me. I mean, it basically took down Harvey Weinstein, right? That's not nothing.
It also managed to absolutely torpedo an incredibly popular series - don't forget that Kevin Spacey went down during MeToo as well.
I know that women still feel frequently disempowered in the workplace but I hope the movement helped them feel like they've got more widespread support than they did before. Once upon a time sexual harassment claims were seen as direct attacks on the success and health of a company "Gosh Susan, if you just told us in private we'd deal with it - instead you've cost all these people their jobs" - I think that impression has very much shifted. If you're being harassed then the company is failing at it's mission, any ill effect that comes to the company as a result of the report is a consequence the company should've (and failed to) protect themselves from by having a more robust and responsive HR department.
I know that women still feel frequently disempowered in the workplace but I hope the movement helped them feel like they've got more widespread support than they did before. Once upon a time sexual harassment claims were seen as direct attacks on the success and health of a company "Gosh Susan, if you just told us in private we'd deal with it - instead you've cost all these people their jobs" - I think that impression has very much shifted. If you're being harassed then the company is failing at it's mission, any ill effect that comes to the company as a result of the report is a consequence the company should've (and failed to) protect themselves from by having a more robust and responsive HR department.
Due process is coming back into fashion.
Blizzard's full response: "The DFEH includes distorted, and in many cases false, descriptions of Blizzard’s past. We have been extremely cooperative with the DFEH throughout their investigation, including providing them with extensive data and ample documentation, but they refused to inform us what issues they perceived. They were required by law to adequately investigate and to have good faith discussions with us to better understand and to resolve any claims or concerns before going to litigation, but they failed to do so. Instead, they rushed to file an inaccurate complaint, as we will demonstrate in court. We are sickened by the reprehensible conduct of the DFEH to drag into the complaint the tragic suicide of an employee whose passing has no bearing whatsoever on this case and with no regard for her grieving family. While we find this behavior to be disgraceful and unprofessional, it is unfortunately an example of how they have conducted themselves throughout the course of their investigation. It is this type of irresponsible behavior from unaccountable State bureaucrats that are driving many of the State’s best businesses out of California."
Classic - “The picture the DFEH paints is not the Blizzard workplace of today."
Even if that’s true, which lol, I love “we may have ruined any number of women’s lives in the past but surely you can’t hold us accountable for that today!”
Even if that’s true, which lol, I love “we may have ruined any number of women’s lives in the past but surely you can’t hold us accountable for that today!”
Not the Blizzard workplace of today, but according to the DFEH, it IS the Blizzard workplace of a time within the statute of limitations.
Are we reading the same thing? In the very first sentence they claim that the DFEH's descriptions of the past are distorted and false.
Blizzard's statement is arguing in the alternative. It says both that the claims are false and that they've "changed since then".
https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1418017955841982465...
https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1418017955841982465...
Yes it was misread.
This is, uh, not the way to reply to such accusations.
What would be a good way? I've never seen a positive response to a reply to such accusations before.
“We’re willing to fully cooperate with the state government. Sexual harassment and discrimination isn’t tolerated at this company and we will root out any sources of it and remove them expeditiously”
This is 100x worse if you think the state has no case. You're pretty much tactfully acknowledging a degree of guilt.
I would be incredibly shocked if Blizzard wasn’t guilty to any degree. There are far too many accusations
I think for such a huge company it's both hard
- Not to have many accusations
- Not to be guilty to some degree
But I think admitting guilt might not be a good move either way. My question was a bad one anyway since it'd be hard to know if any response would be well perceived.
- Not to have many accusations
- Not to be guilty to some degree
But I think admitting guilt might not be a good move either way. My question was a bad one anyway since it'd be hard to know if any response would be well perceived.
And? Every large company has sexual harassment to some degree. It's all a matter of whether the company actually responds to it. Saying the accusations are a sham looks much worse then saying you'll investigate.
Some details of the case are a grab bag (I'm not sure I see how "male employees proudly came into work hungover" is an incident of sexual harassment), but there are multiple accusations here that are both far beyond the "every large company" level and clearly implicate senior leadership. They probably should have been less... toxic about it, but a good response can only go so far if the underlying incidents are true. Personally, if I worked for Blizzard, anything other than a vehement denial would have sent me right out the door.
That's not to rule out the possibility that it was just a panicked response nobody thought through in detail, since there's gotta be a big overlap between people responsible for this message and people responsible for stopping sexual harassment.
That's not to rule out the possibility that it was just a panicked response nobody thought through in detail, since there's gotta be a big overlap between people responsible for this message and people responsible for stopping sexual harassment.
"male employees proudly came into work hungover" is an incident of sexual harassment when a female employee who did the same thing would be subject to discipline or termination. The men are excused with "well boys will be boys" or "no harm, no foul".
I worked at Blizzard for 6 years and I assure that the female employees in my team drank just as much (and in some cases more) than the male employees and there was no discipline for either men or women.
That's discrimination but not sexual harassment
Proof of that?
I'm speaking hypothetically. Unequal treatment.
...is discrimination but not sexual harassment
[deleted]
"We won't comment on ongoing litigation. We are conducting an internal investigation. We will discipline anyone who violated our code of conduct. We are committed to being an inclusive and equitable workplace."
That would not have lost them my business.
That would not have lost them my business.
“we don’t comment on ongoing litigation”
Not if you are sure you will win without any litigation. Otherwise it is indeed a bit self-implicating...
the company never, ever, ever, ever, EVER admits fault or any sort of mistake (even trivial ones)
Most of the links or posting doesn't even describe what was the causes, problem and the case is all about. As soon as I saw "suicide" I thought this was very serious. So I had to dig one up myself.
https://www.newsweek.com/activision-blizzard-lawsuit-female-...
https://www.newsweek.com/activision-blizzard-lawsuit-female-...
Question for lawyers: could lying in this sort of public statement expose Blizzard to further legal repercussions (fresh criminal offenses, informally irritating the California DFEH and the judges, proving they are in bad faith, etc.) or are they free to make up any bullshit they find useful?
In case anyone is interested, the WoW subreddit has put together a list of former and current female employees confirming and commenting on these allegations: https://old.reddit.com/r/wow/comments/op1t7m/activision_bliz...
I hope that this is used for good, and not evil, but knowing "gamer" culture all of these individuals are going to receive harassment and doxxing. There's a lot of money on the line for Blizzard and those involved in professional "esports" by extension. This is why people don't speak.
I hope these individuals will be able to find good work elsewhere when blizzard inevitably ousts them. California should be fining Blizzard into the ground, but given Blizzards response they've calculated out how much it'll cost and figured it's cheaper to do this.
I hope these individuals will be able to find good work elsewhere when blizzard inevitably ousts them. California should be fining Blizzard into the ground, but given Blizzards response they've calculated out how much it'll cost and figured it's cheaper to do this.
> but knowing "gamer" culture all of these individuals are going to receive harassment and doxxing
Given the sexual harassment and exploitation of women in other industries like Hollywood and how often this is either encouraged, actively ignored or swept under the rug by the executive level of other gaming industry companies I believe that giving this the label of "gamer culture" is just dishonest at this point because it implies that the people playing games are the "true root of the problem". I'm not accusing you of doing that, don't get me wrong.
Enforcing the image of the "evil gamer" is of course an easy way to diffuse responsibility and push it off to some imaginary group (it's not 1995 anymore, gaming is no longer some sub- or monoculture) so that the poor big executives never catch too much negative PR.
I'm sure the people in charge love the "it's a large scale problem of society or gaming culture" narrative.
Given the sexual harassment and exploitation of women in other industries like Hollywood and how often this is either encouraged, actively ignored or swept under the rug by the executive level of other gaming industry companies I believe that giving this the label of "gamer culture" is just dishonest at this point because it implies that the people playing games are the "true root of the problem". I'm not accusing you of doing that, don't get me wrong.
Enforcing the image of the "evil gamer" is of course an easy way to diffuse responsibility and push it off to some imaginary group (it's not 1995 anymore, gaming is no longer some sub- or monoculture) so that the poor big executives never catch too much negative PR.
I'm sure the people in charge love the "it's a large scale problem of society or gaming culture" narrative.
Bobby Kotick and "gamer culture" are extremely distinct, Activision isn't really a company in good standing in the wider community. Especially not with fans of Blizzard games.
They would still buy their games though, they buy everything...
They would still buy their games though, they buy everything...
> I hope these individuals will be able to find good work elsewhere when blizzard inevitably ousts them. California should be fining them into the ground, but given Blizzards response they've calculated out how much it'll cost and figured it's cheaper to do this.
Nah, I think the tone of their response shows that they think that a PR strategy based in rolling the dice on getting culture-war attachment and hoping that the upcoming recall succeeds before the case is resolved, resulting in an Administration from the faction whose rhetoric they are mirroring, who might then be inclined to dismiss the case.
Since the PR strategy doesn't really constrain their substantive legal strategy, and there is some chance of that PR strategy actually working (though it seems remote), its maybe not a bad idea, ignoring moral and ethical considerations.
Nah, I think the tone of their response shows that they think that a PR strategy based in rolling the dice on getting culture-war attachment and hoping that the upcoming recall succeeds before the case is resolved, resulting in an Administration from the faction whose rhetoric they are mirroring, who might then be inclined to dismiss the case.
Since the PR strategy doesn't really constrain their substantive legal strategy, and there is some chance of that PR strategy actually working (though it seems remote), its maybe not a bad idea, ignoring moral and ethical considerations.
Dang, what a gambit.
Assuming rational actors, it must look pretty bad from the top of the inside to yolo this kind of hail mary.
I wonder what this looked like passing by legal? I mean if PR let this out, assuming they even have that kind of throttle, surely the lawyers would want to take a long look. This will definitely come up in court, wont it?
Assuming rational actors, it must look pretty bad from the top of the inside to yolo this kind of hail mary.
I wonder what this looked like passing by legal? I mean if PR let this out, assuming they even have that kind of throttle, surely the lawyers would want to take a long look. This will definitely come up in court, wont it?
> but knowing "gamer" culture all of these individuals are going to receive harassment and doxxing
Then you don't know gamer culture, they only attack apparent wrongdoings, these accusations are far from baseless so there is nothing to rise up against. Instead you should expect the gamer culture to attack the Blizzard employees suspected of wrongdoing in that manner. Which, if you look around is what you will find in most forums, people are really angry at Blizzard about this, nobody is calling for attacks on these women.
Then you don't know gamer culture, they only attack apparent wrongdoings, these accusations are far from baseless so there is nothing to rise up against. Instead you should expect the gamer culture to attack the Blizzard employees suspected of wrongdoing in that manner. Which, if you look around is what you will find in most forums, people are really angry at Blizzard about this, nobody is calling for attacks on these women.
All of those on the list at least as of last night are former employees. Obviously nobody who wants to keep their jobs would come forward publically (or, apparently, to their leadership)
Below that list is another list of current employees' statements.
I hope this gets handled with the delicacy and nuance it deserves, and seeing Reddit involved feels like I'm watching a train wreck take place in slow motion.
There's a lot of value in polling the wisdom of crowds. Pending discrimination litigation is almost certainly not a good use case.
I also hope we're not watching the Next Horrible Thing to come from the Internet unfold before our eyes.
There's a lot of value in polling the wisdom of crowds. Pending discrimination litigation is almost certainly not a good use case.
I also hope we're not watching the Next Horrible Thing to come from the Internet unfold before our eyes.
> and seeing Reddit involved feels like I'm watching a train wreck take place in slow motio
I have yet to see reddit takes on this as awful as the ones right here.
I have yet to see reddit takes on this as awful as the ones right here.
List of victims instead of perpetrators? What could possibly go wrong?
Some of those replies are from men too, commenting on the awful behavior they saw. Possibly some are victims as well, but I didn't see any tweets like that.
I often wonder how does nobody say anything?
Then I remember when a recruiter told a friend on speakerphone that they thought he wasn't a culture fit and he asked what they meant and the recruiter said "Everyone here is young and they were worried you're too old."
I didn't say anything, he didn't ... at that time we needed a job / to break into the industry, not to get our names out there in a fight about a place that didn't want to hire guys like us. (We're both doing fine now.)
Then I remember when a recruiter told a friend on speakerphone that they thought he wasn't a culture fit and he asked what they meant and the recruiter said "Everyone here is young and they were worried you're too old."
I didn't say anything, he didn't ... at that time we needed a job / to break into the industry, not to get our names out there in a fight about a place that didn't want to hire guys like us. (We're both doing fine now.)
It's amazing when cultures are so bad that people whose sole job is recruiting fail to follow the most basic federal regulations involved in their job (assuming your situation was in the US).
If you're going to be awful, at least...don't obviously violate federal law while being awful?
If you're going to be awful, at least...don't obviously violate federal law while being awful?
This may not have been a violation. Age discrimination is only illegal if the person is over 40. You could easily be “culture fitted out” for being mid-thirties when everyone at a startup is early to mid twenties. And yes, it really is that bad in SV (or at least was pre-COVID, not sure if anything has really changed).
That's federal - some states have laws protecting people less than 40 as well. Also, fun fact, but reverse age discrimination is 100% legal in every state. It's entirely legal to say "We gave X the job because he is 55 and you're only 45", but it is illegal to say "We gave X the job because he is only 45 and you're 55"
> Age discrimination is only illegal if the person is over 40.
Sarcasm?
Sarcasm?
No, the law has a lower bound, and it's 40.
Fascinating; do you know what the logic was behind that?
The people with political power at the time were over 40 or expected to be discriminated against when they passed that age
No, fact.
> "Everyone here is young and they were worried you're too old."
This is a really weird complaint to me. Maybe I was just always an old curmudgeon, but when I was a naive young computer boy I got along great with the old guys I worked with. Plus they have accumulated wisdom. Maybe disrespect for accumulated wisdom is one of the reasons software sucks so bad these days. Damned kids...
This is a really weird complaint to me. Maybe I was just always an old curmudgeon, but when I was a naive young computer boy I got along great with the old guys I worked with. Plus they have accumulated wisdom. Maybe disrespect for accumulated wisdom is one of the reasons software sucks so bad these days. Damned kids...
> Maybe disrespect for accumulated wisdom is one of the reason software sucks so bad these days.
What do you mean "maybe"?! It has always been the case.
I am not even that old -- 41y/o currently -- and I work professionally as a programmer ever since ~22 and I always noticed how 99% of all programmers I ever worked with, when faced with advice from seasoned veterans, were like "meh, this doesn't apply to us, we'll figure out our own solution" which, sadly, goes exactly like you think it would, at least 90% of the time.
What do you mean "maybe"?! It has always been the case.
I am not even that old -- 41y/o currently -- and I work professionally as a programmer ever since ~22 and I always noticed how 99% of all programmers I ever worked with, when faced with advice from seasoned veterans, were like "meh, this doesn't apply to us, we'll figure out our own solution" which, sadly, goes exactly like you think it would, at least 90% of the time.
It's probably not really about work itself. More like they like to get drunk after work, spend time together or whatever, and they don't expect someone older to do that with them. Basically, they want a new friend, not only a colleague.
Which is even less explicable to me. I get along with my coworkers, but I don't hang out with them after work because I have my own life and work is just the thing I have to do to support living it. Why in the hell would you want everyone you work with to be your drinking buddy? And what sense does it make for a company to give up access to all that experience for that?
SV business culture is truly insane.
SV business culture is truly insane.
It's not only in silicon valley. My first company (in Switzerland) was like that. It was a start-up, mostly with people in their 20s fresh out of uni, no family and often expats/not from the area. Basically, people without their own life there, so of course colleagues become friends, and people recreate the university lifestyle they've just left, except this time you're getting paid. I think the appeal is clear if you're in that situation.
my recruiter from Twilio said they were were ready to make an offer to me but was hesitant to give it to me because I was white. They wanted to wait until they interviewed more diverse applicants
I've seen a lot of similar shenanigans with tech companies bending over backwards to get hires that aren't white or asian males.
That is blatant age discrimination and should have been reported to the proper authorities.
I thought about it but 1. I wasn't the person being discriminated against and 2. The friend wasn't going to report it for the reason I noted. I understood / respected that choice.
It still burns me up a little but at that point I 100% understood his call and honestly not sure I would want to go all the way down the road fighting it too...
It still burns me up a little but at that point I 100% understood his call and honestly not sure I would want to go all the way down the road fighting it too...
> That is blatant age discrimination
Which is perfectly legal, as long as the target isn't over 40.
Which is perfectly legal, as long as the target isn't over 40.
That does sound right
Lots of things are blatant. However, it takes a lot of money to run something through the legal system, and, if you win, you may still not be in a better position.
This is what allows so much harassment (both general and sexual) to go unchecked. It's better to shut up, bag some amount of experience and move on to a better job than it is to actively fight against it.
This is what allows so much harassment (both general and sexual) to go unchecked. It's better to shut up, bag some amount of experience and move on to a better job than it is to actively fight against it.
[deleted]
You can say that on the phone in California, since it requires "two-party consent" for recording phone calls.
There is an exception for perjury. Although it’s unlikely that the company does not settle first, you could then try to have the recruiter deny saying so in a sworn statement. The two-party consent laws do not apply when used as proof that someone perjured themselves
[deleted]
Except he was on speaker phone and there were at least two people on the other line, which provides a witness to the statement and it is not just a he said/she said anymore.
What age are we talking about? And what is the concern? What are they worried about exactly?
This part really helps put it into perspective:
> In a tragic example of the harassment that Defendants allowed to fester in their offices, a female employee committed suicide while on a company trip due to a sexual relationship that she had been having with her male supervisor. The male supervisor was found by police to have brought a butt plug and lubricant on this business trip. Another employee confirmed that the deceased female employee may have been suffering from other sexual harassment at work prior to her death. Specifically, at a holiday party before her death, male co-workers were alleged to be passing around a picture of the deceased's vagina.
(I had to manually type that out because the source doc is a scanned PDF; might have typos)
source: https://aboutblaw.com/YJw
> In a tragic example of the harassment that Defendants allowed to fester in their offices, a female employee committed suicide while on a company trip due to a sexual relationship that she had been having with her male supervisor. The male supervisor was found by police to have brought a butt plug and lubricant on this business trip. Another employee confirmed that the deceased female employee may have been suffering from other sexual harassment at work prior to her death. Specifically, at a holiday party before her death, male co-workers were alleged to be passing around a picture of the deceased's vagina.
(I had to manually type that out because the source doc is a scanned PDF; might have typos)
source: https://aboutblaw.com/YJw
> due to a sexual relationship that she had been having with her make supervisor
Am I wrong or does the statement make no indication that the sexual relationship was non-consensual?
Am I wrong or does the statement make no indication that the sexual relationship was non-consensual?
Relationships within a reporting chain are a classic example of bad business ethics, because there's obvious opportunity for favoritism and bias, and most corporate policies disallow it (in favor of moving folk to other teams or similar).
More important IMHO in power differentials like this are the other side of that: punishment or worse.
Whether it's a real explicit threat or not, it's built in.
women especially have had these experiences for decades. I'm sure almost any women on HN has a story about some superior being inappropriate and the pressures around that.
Whether it's a real explicit threat or not, it's built in.
women especially have had these experiences for decades. I'm sure almost any women on HN has a story about some superior being inappropriate and the pressures around that.
Exactly. I don't care that Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, they may have an arrangement for all I know. I care that he used his position as the most powerful man on the planet to sleep with a young intern. As a counterpoint JFK and Marilyn Monroe doesn't bother me at all, the power balance was much closer in that case and she was more than capable of navigating those waters.
JFK arguably sexually assaulted if not raped a few interns.
Many of the kennedy's have a LONG line of criminal behavior being looked upon as fine or just something to ignore
Or else what though? Get fired? I mean for instance, it's not like a man can just offer to have sex with their male supervisor to keep their job if they're straight. So the dynamic is also partly brought upon by the woman herself. It's very unfortunate but lets not act like she had 0 autonomy and no consensual actions involved here.
There's also a power dynamic at play which can make person to submit to their superior's advances to avoid any negative outcome. It's quite hard to consider such a relationship consensual.
Not to mention that the favoritism and bias can be used as an inventive for engaging in the relationship.
She likely wasn't able to refuse, because of the implication! https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/because-of-the-implication
Heh, downvoted. Guess people don't like thinking about the implication.
(For those who don't understand, the parent comment is willfully ignoring that most sexual relations between subordinates and managers are coerced. In this particular case, the implication was that she might be passed over for promotion, fired, or even blackballed if she didn't engage in sex.)
(For those who don't understand, the parent comment is willfully ignoring that most sexual relations between subordinates and managers are coerced. In this particular case, the implication was that she might be passed over for promotion, fired, or even blackballed if she didn't engage in sex.)
[deleted]
and yet no criminal charges have been brought, WTF?
What crime would you charge?
Distributing images of certain body parts the person depicted believed private is disorderly conduct in California.[1]
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
If someone is so humiliated by this that they commit suicide why would they go through the emotional agony of going to court and having their humiliation litigated in front of a judge and to be put into public record under their name forever?
Their question suggested they maybe didn't know it was a crime. I thought people should know it is.
I think rasz's point was a prosecutor could bring charges now. And public record regulations have privacy exceptions.
I think rasz's point was a prosecutor could bring charges now. And public record regulations have privacy exceptions.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/1258.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en ?
How F** is California If someone was harassed to the point of committing suicide and DA doesnt press charges?
Welcome to the complete ineffectiveness of the legal system to prosecute sexual assault and harassment. "Nothing we can do" has been the universal response to every woman I know who has experienced criminal assault and harassment.
Maybe i’m missing something, but how on earth is that related to commiting suicide?
Feels like we are making massive assumptions here.
Feels like we are making massive assumptions here.
Yes I think you could use some form of life broadening education and experience so you aren’t missing it.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2984
> In Cox regression analyses adjusted for a range of sociodemographic characteristics, workplace sexual harassment was associated with an excess risk of both suicide (hazard ratio 2.82, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 5.34) and suicide attempts (1.59, 1.21 to 2.08), and risk estimates remained significantly increased after adjustment for baseline health and certain work characteristics. ...
> The results support the hypothesis that workplace sexual harassment is prospectively associated with suicidal behaviour.
What you are missing is the knowledge that harassing people can hurt them. It can. And linked is some science to back it up in case you wanted a source.
> In Cox regression analyses adjusted for a range of sociodemographic characteristics, workplace sexual harassment was associated with an excess risk of both suicide (hazard ratio 2.82, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 5.34) and suicide attempts (1.59, 1.21 to 2.08), and risk estimates remained significantly increased after adjustment for baseline health and certain work characteristics. ...
> The results support the hypothesis that workplace sexual harassment is prospectively associated with suicidal behaviour.
What you are missing is the knowledge that harassing people can hurt them. It can. And linked is some science to back it up in case you wanted a source.
> Maybe i’m missing something
Maybe having pics of your vagina passed around the office might not make you suicidal, but it might make someone else suicidal.
Perhaps one way to find out is to present the facts of the case to a judge\jury with expert testimony and let them figure it out.
Maybe having pics of your vagina passed around the office might not make you suicidal, but it might make someone else suicidal.
Perhaps one way to find out is to present the facts of the case to a judge\jury with expert testimony and let them figure it out.
Fucking disgusting. Reading this makes my blood boil.
This is a big reason why me and my other female engineer friends ask about gender ratio during job interviews: sometimes a mostly male organization will be treat its female employees fine, but sometimes it will disrespect them, harass them, and treat them like garbage.
This is a big reason why me and my other female engineer friends ask about gender ratio during job interviews: sometimes a mostly male organization will be treat its female employees fine, but sometimes it will disrespect them, harass them, and treat them like garbage.
Say you ask about the ratio, in an interview. I would tell you, but, like most companies I've worked at, I doubt the answer would impress you. What do you do with the information? If you base your decision on it, and I presume pass over the company for having a poor ratio, how is that company ever supposed to change?
I've thought often about this, but fundamentally no woman should feel obligated to fix this issue at a prospective company. You should be prioritizing yourself, your career, and your comfort. It's hard to ask someone to take on the uphill battle when there are so many other teams or companies that are safer bets.
Let's compare to something analogous like recruiting an executive or manager to take on to a dysfunctional org/team. We don't ask "well if the good managers don't join, how will it ever get better?". We create incentives to get these better people to join (or let the ship sink). But we intrinsically look at it as a burden worth compensating, and I'd expect companies with this level of bad PR to look at doing the same.
Let's compare to something analogous like recruiting an executive or manager to take on to a dysfunctional org/team. We don't ask "well if the good managers don't join, how will it ever get better?". We create incentives to get these better people to join (or let the ship sink). But we intrinsically look at it as a burden worth compensating, and I'd expect companies with this level of bad PR to look at doing the same.
I would assume it's not only about the answer, but also/more about how an interviewer answers it.
This is definitely part of it. If I get the impression that at least it's something the company cares about and is working on, that helps.
But also, as you mention, many companies have disappointing gender ratios, so it's not like I'd pass on a company purely because of that. It's more like another data point to consider. And conversely, if a company does have a higher portion of female engineers, that will weigh strongly in its favor.
But also, as you mention, many companies have disappointing gender ratios, so it's not like I'd pass on a company purely because of that. It's more like another data point to consider. And conversely, if a company does have a higher portion of female engineers, that will weigh strongly in its favor.
Scrolling down this thread and reading the flagged and greying comments makes my blood boil all over again.
To quote one (awful) take,
> I’ll care when women worry about misandry.
Want to see the perpetuation of misogyny in the tech industry occurring in real time? Just take a skim through the rationalization, defensiveness, and whataboutism littering the bottom and following pages of this thread. This is a community including a high proportion of engineers and engineering leadership and the problems endemic to our industry are on full display in this filing and in the responses posed by more than a few members of this community.
If anyone reading this is privileged enough to have been insulated from these problems before, has truly been skeptical about whether this is a problem in our field today: this should be all the proof you need.
Edit: Enough users have opted to downvote this comment that it now sits at -2 and I think I am entitled to at least a reply explaining why.
To quote one (awful) take,
> I’ll care when women worry about misandry.
Want to see the perpetuation of misogyny in the tech industry occurring in real time? Just take a skim through the rationalization, defensiveness, and whataboutism littering the bottom and following pages of this thread. This is a community including a high proportion of engineers and engineering leadership and the problems endemic to our industry are on full display in this filing and in the responses posed by more than a few members of this community.
If anyone reading this is privileged enough to have been insulated from these problems before, has truly been skeptical about whether this is a problem in our field today: this should be all the proof you need.
Edit: Enough users have opted to downvote this comment that it now sits at -2 and I think I am entitled to at least a reply explaining why.
"'akin to working in a frat house.'
Male employees drank on the job and came to work hungover, the lawsuit said."
Isn't that the big selling point of game industry - the hours can be terrible but the free snacks/beer/games culture keeps people there?
The other stuff seems pretty bad.
Male employees drank on the job and came to work hungover, the lawsuit said."
Isn't that the big selling point of game industry - the hours can be terrible but the free snacks/beer/games culture keeps people there?
The other stuff seems pretty bad.
If you have a great company culture, and it involves an occasional beer on Friday afternoon, I don't think it's a problem, but if you're having a problem preventing inappropriate jokes, groping, etc. then alcohol is certainly not going to help. I don't think it's the biggest issue listed, but it does (to me) suggest that upper management was not taking the situation seriously.
Beer on Friday afternoon means everyone is relaxing instead of being busy with end-of-week deadlines for releases, progress reports, meetings etc. It is a good situation that offsets some of the inappropriateness of drinking and partying at work.
Yeah, that one stood out to me too. I don't think there is anything inherently sexist about letting employees drink on the clock or come in hungover.
As a woman in tech, the problem is that men start hitting on you when they’ve had a few beers. This happens extremely frequently, so much that I have personally decided to discount what people say to me when they’re drunk at company events
Interesting. I wonder if the sector influences that. I've never seen men hit on women coworkers at happy hours. I Actually had a woman coworker start talking about going to a strip club after one and taking a bunch of other men and women there and inviting me too. I have to say, that wasn't something I was expecting (I was only there a year at that point). I'm in finance IT. I haven't noticed it in the office either. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on a small scale. I've had 2 women say... "stuff"... to me in the office before.
Do people actually drink at work events? I just keep on adding ice to my drink and pretend so I don't look out of place
Work events are work :P just a different kind of work
Work events are work :P just a different kind of work
Yea, ditto. I need to be in the office with these folks tomorrow so I tend to be very conservative with consumption at work events.
I don't want to burn the accumulated good will from the workplace by being an asshat one evening.
I don't want to burn the accumulated good will from the workplace by being an asshat one evening.
Depends on company culture. In some places, people really let their guard down and get loose with their co-workers.
I dont know bro. it really depends on where I work. I agree that in some places that yes it was work work but at others it was a way of letting our guards down and coming together as a team. This helped relationships in the office since we were all drinking together...albeit this tended to be with select individuals (i.e. we would avoid invite those who were too serious). After a few drinks, we would debate work topics and right the wrongs of the world. In some companies, this is where the wheels are set in motion and opens up new channels of communication. Drinking together creates some kind of bond.
I do have a policy of not sleeping with anyone from work so that helped me have good boundaries and avoided trouble..
I do have a policy of not sleeping with anyone from work so that helped me have good boundaries and avoided trouble..
This is a sexist comment and could be career-ending if made by someone of the opposite sex. For a demonstration why:
"The problem is that (class of people that encompasses billions of unrelated individuals worldwide) start (any kind of negative action in particular)"
No matter what you fill those variables with, it remains a broad, harmful generalization. I'm sorry you had to work with unprofessional assholes that won't take 'no' for an answer, but your experience is not license to slander literally half of the planet.
"The problem is that (class of people that encompasses billions of unrelated individuals worldwide) start (any kind of negative action in particular)"
No matter what you fill those variables with, it remains a broad, harmful generalization. I'm sorry you had to work with unprofessional assholes that won't take 'no' for an answer, but your experience is not license to slander literally half of the planet.
> As a woman in tech, the problem is that men start hitting on you when they’ve had a few beers.
> I'm sorry you had to work with unprofessional assholes that won't take 'no' for an answer, but your experience is not license to slander literally half of the planet.
You've broadened the original statement to say more than was commented. The original did not say "all men" or even "only men". Quite the disingenuous interpretation turned around to try to make up a controversy.
> I'm sorry you had to work with unprofessional assholes that won't take 'no' for an answer, but your experience is not license to slander literally half of the planet.
You've broadened the original statement to say more than was commented. The original did not say "all men" or even "only men". Quite the disingenuous interpretation turned around to try to make up a controversy.
Is there any reason to believe that the "men in tech" are significantly different from all men? If anyone made sexist claims about women in tech, would they not actually be sexist because the claims are just about women in tech and not women in general?
If you're against the broadening the reading of claims, do you think that Garcia Martinez should be reinstated at Apple? For reference, he was fired over claims of sexism, because in a book he published before being hired, he wrote something along the lines of "Bay area women are weak, Eastern European women are strong"
If you're against the broadening the reading of claims, do you think that Garcia Martinez should be reinstated at Apple? For reference, he was fired over claims of sexism, because in a book he published before being hired, he wrote something along the lines of "Bay area women are weak, Eastern European women are strong"
Karunamon(3)
Yep, likely wasn't intentional, but that person's statement does have the air of, "they are INSERT_CLASS, so it's in their nature"...
I feel very ambivalent about your comment. Parents comment is sexist and you are absolutely correct in saying that men can and are fired at some workplaces for making similar comments that generalize women.
On the other hand, parents comment is also true.
I'm a man btw.
On the other hand, parents comment is also true.
I'm a man btw.
At my brothers old dev job the women drank with the men. And by drinking I remember visiting and seeing one of the woman devs with a half empty bottle of rum and a can of coke at her desk. FWIW, the boss was an alcoholic, though thankfully the happy kind of drunk. Weird shop for sure.
As far as I know, the big selling point is that you get to work on video games instead of CRUD apps or adtech or "Uber for X". I've seen several anecdotal reports of people tolerating a seriously sketchy work environment because as far as they know, the alternative is not working on video games.
I'm reminded of allegations of the K-pop industry basically being a soulless meat grinder because it has no trouble finding kids who will do anything to be a K-pop idol.
I'm reminded of allegations of the K-pop industry basically being a soulless meat grinder because it has no trouble finding kids who will do anything to be a K-pop idol.
> I'm reminded of allegations of the K-pop industry basically being a soulless meat grinder because it has no trouble finding kids who will do anything to be a K-pop idol.
That's most of the music industry. Startups play the same game by paying in lotto tickets.
That's most of the music industry. Startups play the same game by paying in lotto tickets.
I was only in the industry for 6 months, but this was the best part by a mile. No one gave a shit as long as you weren't blocking them on some task. I genuinely never felt so alive and intimidated. Watching what some people could do under the influence was just staggering to me at the time.
I really want to get back into gamedev. Maybe 2024/5 I can seriously consider it again.
I really want to get back into gamedev. Maybe 2024/5 I can seriously consider it again.
This stuff always seem strange to me. We had a bar at the office. We used to drink at the bar. That's the point of a bar.
And because we were engineers we'd sometimes work past six on a Friday when others are at the bar. Sometimes I'd go have a beer with them and then go back to write some code because something struck me.
Sure I drank 'on the job'. That's part of why software engineering is fun. I get to do my job with these things included.
And because we were engineers we'd sometimes work past six on a Friday when others are at the bar. Sometimes I'd go have a beer with them and then go back to write some code because something struck me.
Sure I drank 'on the job'. That's part of why software engineering is fun. I get to do my job with these things included.
I worked for AB a few years back and it was easily the worst job I've ever had. Incredibly toxic work culture, and frequent gaslighting by managers. I'll never work for a big games company again after that experience.
The accusations I've been reading are simply awful and outright depressing. A woman may have committed suicide over the harassment.
I had been considering resubbing and trying out The Burining Crusade in WOW, but then I found Final Fantasy XIV. I've played many FF games over the years. My cousins played FFXI but I was too young to play at the time so I never got to. I love MMOs and for me there is nothing like the excitement of playing a good MMO with friends. It's just nice to play a game whose leadership makes the player base feel as if they are important. Obviously we can never know what is actually going on behind Square Enix's doors but Yoshi-P makes me believe the things he says are true at least.
I'm tired of playing games whose companies are actively hostile to the players (and to be fair after the whole Artifact debacle I'm starting to feel this way about Valve too).
When I was younger I never considered myself someone who would be playing older games (early 2010s and older) instead of the latest ones. I used to be so excited for the new releases. But a game without microtranscactions, little to know DLC and a good modding scene has become more important to me than the newest stuff. It's honestly been disheartening as a gamer to have lost my enthusiasm for the newer stuff. But maybe part of that is just getting older and busier as well.
On the bright side my hardware is plenty powerful for the games I play, which is great considering the silicone shortage and all.
I'm tired of playing games whose companies are actively hostile to the players (and to be fair after the whole Artifact debacle I'm starting to feel this way about Valve too).
When I was younger I never considered myself someone who would be playing older games (early 2010s and older) instead of the latest ones. I used to be so excited for the new releases. But a game without microtranscactions, little to know DLC and a good modding scene has become more important to me than the newest stuff. It's honestly been disheartening as a gamer to have lost my enthusiasm for the newer stuff. But maybe part of that is just getting older and busier as well.
On the bright side my hardware is plenty powerful for the games I play, which is great considering the silicone shortage and all.
Most of this sounds horrifying, and if its true I hope they throw the book at them.
However this one line seems like it would be hard to prove:
They(women) were also assigned to lower-level positions and passed over for promotions, despite doing more work than their male peers in some cases
I know many people who are really good at filling out their TPS reports, and never break the rules. They don't ever get promoted, because they do so much in their current role, and since they never break the rules, they never get to be highlighted for "showing initiative." Though if the rest of it proves to be true, it would not look good.
However this one line seems like it would be hard to prove:
They(women) were also assigned to lower-level positions and passed over for promotions, despite doing more work than their male peers in some cases
I know many people who are really good at filling out their TPS reports, and never break the rules. They don't ever get promoted, because they do so much in their current role, and since they never break the rules, they never get to be highlighted for "showing initiative." Though if the rest of it proves to be true, it would not look good.
TFA excludes it, but from page 12 of the filing [0] there's an example of someone with measurably worse performance getting promoted ahead of a female colleague:
"... In another example, a female employee who worked at Blizzard Entertainment was assigned to a lower level, denied equal pay, and passed over for a promotion despite multiple factors that suggested she earned it: (1) highly rated performance reviews; (2) she generated significantly more revenue in her marketing campaigns than her male counterpart; and (3) she ran almost twice as many campaigns as her male counterpart."
0 - https://aboutblaw.com/YJw
"... In another example, a female employee who worked at Blizzard Entertainment was assigned to a lower level, denied equal pay, and passed over for a promotion despite multiple factors that suggested she earned it: (1) highly rated performance reviews; (2) she generated significantly more revenue in her marketing campaigns than her male counterpart; and (3) she ran almost twice as many campaigns as her male counterpart."
0 - https://aboutblaw.com/YJw
I'm saying that If she's making twice as much money where she is, why would you want her to do a different job?
Though combined with all the other allegations it doesn't look like it's just standard corporate unfairness/politicking.
Though combined with all the other allegations it doesn't look like it's just standard corporate unfairness/politicking.
If you've got a dev that codes absolutely brilliant bug-free code at a lightning pace - you give them an honorary title bump and a pay bump appropriate to their performance while keeping them in about the same role. Organizations with role based salary caps that are more generous to management than individual contributors are acting in a self-destructive manner.
What were the responsibilities of the promoted position?
There are plenty of other factors at play in viewing a candidate for promotion. Leadership ability, experience, overall operation knowledge, seniority, and etc. Bringing in revenue is only a fragment of the considerations.
It looks damning on the surface, but she could tank a portion of the review that is critical to being promoted and still rank highly.
This is a situation that it's best to reserve your conviction until it plays out in court.
There are plenty of other factors at play in viewing a candidate for promotion. Leadership ability, experience, overall operation knowledge, seniority, and etc. Bringing in revenue is only a fragment of the considerations.
It looks damning on the surface, but she could tank a portion of the review that is critical to being promoted and still rank highly.
This is a situation that it's best to reserve your conviction until it plays out in court.
As an aside, I've seen poor results from (2) and (3) a few times, regardless of gender.
Junior marketers who run a litany of extremely expensive campaigns, generate a lot of revenue at the cost of negative ROI, and act shocked when losing the company's money is frowned upon.
Junior marketers who run a litany of extremely expensive campaigns, generate a lot of revenue at the cost of negative ROI, and act shocked when losing the company's money is frowned upon.
> However this one line seems like it would be hard to prove
Its a civil case. If it goes to trial, the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence” (basically, on the evidence presented, is the allegation more likely true than false), not the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Systematic gender discrimination in promotions (absent a smoking gun like a document in which that is outright stated, or testimony of multiple ex-managers to having been involved in such a policy) may be challenging to demonstrate even in that context, but it is very far from impractical.
Its a civil case. If it goes to trial, the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence” (basically, on the evidence presented, is the allegation more likely true than false), not the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Systematic gender discrimination in promotions (absent a smoking gun like a document in which that is outright stated, or testimony of multiple ex-managers to having been involved in such a policy) may be challenging to demonstrate even in that context, but it is very far from impractical.
So....if you're a single guy, and you start a company and you WANT to have a party place with frat house attitude and exercise your right to the pursuit of happiness in life, I take it that a company founder that is a guy should only hire other single men that share those same values?
I don't know, I'm just asking other's opinions here.
I don't know, I'm just asking other's opinions here.
Here's a man who worked at Blizzard saying that he was repeatedly sexually harassed by his (male) supervisors and HR was useless: https://twitter.com/bkcrusco/status/1418241726792142849
Frat house culture at a company is universally shitty.
Frat house culture at a company is universally shitty.
It is fine as long as your fratboy culture doesn't include nor ignore sexual harassment or sexism. At the end of the day it is your responsibility as an employer to provide a safe and fair work environment for everyone, it is illegal to not do it. Lots of women love partying, they aren't really a problem, the problem is that a some guys harass women at parties and you as an employer will need to take that seriously if partying happens at work.
I mean, that's why I wrote that should one hire single men only. That way, there won't be any type of sexism or harassment. I am beginning to think that the Islamic way of strictly separating men and women makes sense. Let women work at companies founded by women, and men with men. That way, everyone wins, so it seems to me.
I don't know, I'm just thinking aloud here.
I don't know, I'm just thinking aloud here.
Employment law is a real thing, and people take it seriously. If you are thinking of hiring people you should probably look into it.
"culture fit"
If you want a party place with a frat house attitude, you should start a social club, not a company. There is no legal way to run a company like that. Hiring only men is illegal. Creating a hostile work environment for women is illegal.
If your purpose is working rather than debauchery, diversity and equality become practically important as moral guidelines.
- If you invite everyone to do X, who's likely to refuse? Are they going to feel excluded or mocked? If you don't care about your second class employees, there are more important issues you don't care about.
For example, excluding the gluten intolerant from a homemade cake is different from excluding some Jews from a deliberately pork-only barbecue.
- If someone happens to do or say X, could someone consider it a problem? If such people are present, X should be forbidden; if such people aren't represented in the company, usually they should. A line between requiring employees to have a somewhat thick skin and requiring everyone else to be nice needs to be drawn, and everyone should be aware of it.
For example, if the "frat house" insults absent customers and competitors with anecdotes of their incompetence, it is likely to be harmless (although a symptom of bad attitude); if jokes are about some ethnic group it's a serious problem because such employees are either successfully avoided, or openly offended by some rotten apples.
- If A has some unpleasant interaction with B, do the consequences depend on who A and B are? Why?
For example, if the owner's dog is forgiven for biting someone while the intern's dog is against company policy it isn't a good workplace.
- If you invite everyone to do X, who's likely to refuse? Are they going to feel excluded or mocked? If you don't care about your second class employees, there are more important issues you don't care about.
For example, excluding the gluten intolerant from a homemade cake is different from excluding some Jews from a deliberately pork-only barbecue.
- If someone happens to do or say X, could someone consider it a problem? If such people are present, X should be forbidden; if such people aren't represented in the company, usually they should. A line between requiring employees to have a somewhat thick skin and requiring everyone else to be nice needs to be drawn, and everyone should be aware of it.
For example, if the "frat house" insults absent customers and competitors with anecdotes of their incompetence, it is likely to be harmless (although a symptom of bad attitude); if jokes are about some ethnic group it's a serious problem because such employees are either successfully avoided, or openly offended by some rotten apples.
- If A has some unpleasant interaction with B, do the consequences depend on who A and B are? Why?
For example, if the owner's dog is forgiven for biting someone while the intern's dog is against company policy it isn't a good workplace.
hmmm....I don't see debauchery and working as mutually exclusive as you do. I think it would be ok to take a day once a month or quarter and everyone drink alcohol until the puke, and the rest of the time work hard on reaching goals.
I'm not sure what diversity and equality have to do with anything. That would mean that I should also hire stupid and unqualified people to make things equal. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being stupid, some of my best times have been with stupid people. But 50% to 75% of the world is stupid, and most unqualifed, so that would me 95% or more of the company's workforce should be stupid and unqualified, as that is a true reflection of diversity and equality. And, if one is going to be actually diverse and committed to equality, probably 98% of men are sexist, although 97.8% would deny it. So should 98% of males be excluded from the workforce? Or is hiring sexist males promoting diversity and equality?
>For example, excluding the gluten intolerant from a homemade cake is different from excluding some Jews from a deliberately pork-only barbecue.
That's just your personal opinion. Some gluten intolerant people might be just as offended.
>For example, if the "frat house" insults absent customers and competitors with anecdotes of their incompetence, it is likely to be harmless (although a symptom of bad attitude)
Yes, I have never worked in a company that has never had insults to customers who don't get it. That's pretty normal and understandable. But it is like a group of good friends, and there's always one person in the group who is an idiot, and everyone talks shit about him even in front of him, but you hang out with him anyways, because he's your idiot.
>if jokes are about some ethnic group it's a serious problem because such employees are either successfully avoided, or openly offended by some rotten apples.
Yes, that's true. But personally, I don't consider that "frat house" behavior.
>For example, if the owner's dog is forgiven for biting someone while the intern's dog is against company policy it isn't a good workplace.
Eh, again, this is just your opinion. Some people are allowed perquisites. I mean, I don't mean a dog biting per se, I take it that you said that as a general concept. But in general, everyone in a company is not absolutely equal. But f-ck biting dogs, I'd kill a dog if it bit me hard and probably beat the sh-t out the owner, too - f-ck the job, that is beyond the pale. But that is because I'm a manly man and would not put up with that shit. I know where my lines are and when someone crosses them. Or, if the dog bit me kind of lightly but with evil intent (growling at me before biting), that's when I would manage up and tell the owner that the dog is not coming back, too bad. I've done that before when my boss is clearly in the wrong, and have never once got any pushback for it. And I'd do that no matter who it bit, anyone at all.
I'm not sure what diversity and equality have to do with anything. That would mean that I should also hire stupid and unqualified people to make things equal. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being stupid, some of my best times have been with stupid people. But 50% to 75% of the world is stupid, and most unqualifed, so that would me 95% or more of the company's workforce should be stupid and unqualified, as that is a true reflection of diversity and equality. And, if one is going to be actually diverse and committed to equality, probably 98% of men are sexist, although 97.8% would deny it. So should 98% of males be excluded from the workforce? Or is hiring sexist males promoting diversity and equality?
>For example, excluding the gluten intolerant from a homemade cake is different from excluding some Jews from a deliberately pork-only barbecue.
That's just your personal opinion. Some gluten intolerant people might be just as offended.
>For example, if the "frat house" insults absent customers and competitors with anecdotes of their incompetence, it is likely to be harmless (although a symptom of bad attitude)
Yes, I have never worked in a company that has never had insults to customers who don't get it. That's pretty normal and understandable. But it is like a group of good friends, and there's always one person in the group who is an idiot, and everyone talks shit about him even in front of him, but you hang out with him anyways, because he's your idiot.
>if jokes are about some ethnic group it's a serious problem because such employees are either successfully avoided, or openly offended by some rotten apples.
Yes, that's true. But personally, I don't consider that "frat house" behavior.
>For example, if the owner's dog is forgiven for biting someone while the intern's dog is against company policy it isn't a good workplace.
Eh, again, this is just your opinion. Some people are allowed perquisites. I mean, I don't mean a dog biting per se, I take it that you said that as a general concept. But in general, everyone in a company is not absolutely equal. But f-ck biting dogs, I'd kill a dog if it bit me hard and probably beat the sh-t out the owner, too - f-ck the job, that is beyond the pale. But that is because I'm a manly man and would not put up with that shit. I know where my lines are and when someone crosses them. Or, if the dog bit me kind of lightly but with evil intent (growling at me before biting), that's when I would manage up and tell the owner that the dog is not coming back, too bad. I've done that before when my boss is clearly in the wrong, and have never once got any pushback for it. And I'd do that no matter who it bit, anyone at all.
This issue is endemic and has been a constant problem throughout my career. They’re just big enough that they got caught.
I find the comments section here to be about 60/40 men who believe it to be a problem, and men who are denying there are problems or minimizing/excusing them, which matches my experience w men in workplaces. Long looong way to go.
I am a man and I haven’t seen anything like this in my workplace but I can say I have been sexual harassed by several women at two of my old jobs. So statistically, if men are less likely to be targeted then it must be happening. So even though I haven’t seen it outside my own experience, it’s scary to think how much of it is likely happening behind the scenes. I say this as a father of two daughters and husband to a woman who was physically assaulted by her former boss.
I’m sorry that’s happened to you, and I think that’s a good perspective. It’s sometimes hard to grapple with something that one doesn’t personally experience, but I’m glad people are slowly becoming more aware.
[deleted]
I would hope that there are a majority of men who do think it is a problem but for whatever reason are silent on the issue. Case in point, I was not going to comment.
Australian here. Could someone explain why the state government is suing anyone? Wouldn't it be more normal to charge them with breaking a law?
Various regulatory agencies have the power to initiate torts against companies or individuals who are violating the law in addition to making criminal complaints. In most cases, a regulatory action is civil and not criminal. Your company dumped chemicals in a river that you knew probably were bad for the fish? The company will get hit with a civil action. It is possible that the specific person who decided upon this course of action or knowingly helped out will face individual criminal charges, but in most cases corporations do not face criminal charges.
On topic: Does anyone know if there is some precedent for lawsuits like this? From years of experience in the art of existing as a human, I would guess A-B can't possibly be the only organization with these problems, but if a lawsuit like this has happened before, it must have been targeting a much lower profile company that flew under my cultural radar.
Mostly off topic: I wouldn't consider myself a gamer (anymore), and I get that it's about high revenue examples, but I thought "Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Candy Crush" was quite the structural anapest to begin the article.
Mostly off topic: I wouldn't consider myself a gamer (anymore), and I get that it's about high revenue examples, but I thought "Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Candy Crush" was quite the structural anapest to begin the article.
> Does anyone know if there is some precedent for lawsuits like this?
Yes, lawsuits (both private and public) over sexual harassment and pay discrimination have a lot of history.
> From years of experience in the art of existing as a human, I would guess A-B can't possibly be the only organization with these problems, but if a lawsuit like this has happened before, it must have been targeting a much lower profile company that flew under my cultural radar.
DFEH is, since last year, involved in (by intervening in an existing class action) a similar suit against Riot Games that blew up after DFEH objected to a proposed $10M settlement saying it should be more like $400M. That case has slid off into a mess I can't quite trace easily; it looks like the DFEH and DLSE public claims, plus one private plaintiff who never signed an arbitration agreement are proceeding in court and other private plaintiffs were forced into arbitration but may also benefit from the public claims in court.
Yes, lawsuits (both private and public) over sexual harassment and pay discrimination have a lot of history.
> From years of experience in the art of existing as a human, I would guess A-B can't possibly be the only organization with these problems, but if a lawsuit like this has happened before, it must have been targeting a much lower profile company that flew under my cultural radar.
DFEH is, since last year, involved in (by intervening in an existing class action) a similar suit against Riot Games that blew up after DFEH objected to a proposed $10M settlement saying it should be more like $400M. That case has slid off into a mess I can't quite trace easily; it looks like the DFEH and DLSE public claims, plus one private plaintiff who never signed an arbitration agreement are proceeding in court and other private plaintiffs were forced into arbitration but may also benefit from the public claims in court.
I was referring more to "the state of California" being the plaintiff, for which giantg2 gave me the minutiae I was interested in. I hope it's obvious that I didn't think this was the first sexual harassment/pay discrimination case in recorded history. Thanks for pointing out DFEH's existence and involvement with the Riot Games hubbub; that was useful information that served as a good jumping off point for my skim research.
They are being sued u der California law. I think that specific law is fairly new and I can't recall any big cases in the news about it, but there may be stuff that wasnt reported. The other possibility is that places settle out of court in private negotiations. Either way, my impression is that there isn't much out there.
While it's not a precedent in the legal sense of the term, there's been a case in France against Ubisoft that has striking similarities [1]:
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/gaming/ubisoft-ceo-a...
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/gaming/ubisoft-ceo-a...
Apparently one director had groped so many women that his suite was known as the "Cosby Suite". As spoken by one of the victims [0].
[0]https://twitter.com/skrutsick/status/1418006293495762944?s=2...
[0]https://twitter.com/skrutsick/status/1418006293495762944?s=2...
tclancy(1)
I posted saying yesterday that Blizzard's fall from grace has been absolutely spectacular to watch
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27911924
then 2 hours later this news appeared
apparently there's worse news coming out later this week too
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27911924
then 2 hours later this news appeared
apparently there's worse news coming out later this week too
A lot more on the topic here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/wow/comments/op1t7m/activision_bliz...
Apparently their office was basically a frat house.
https://old.reddit.com/r/wow/comments/op1t7m/activision_bliz...
Apparently their office was basically a frat house.
So, what happens to the Diablo servers and, given the drm, Diablo itself, once the company shuts down / gets bankrupt?
I should at least hurry and play my copy while the servers are still running, I guess.
I should at least hurry and play my copy while the servers are still running, I guess.
Activision Blizzard isn't going anywhere anytime soon lol
As much as I would love to see the company crash and burn due to how they've butchered Blizzard, they aren't going anywhere. They'll settle the lawsuit out of court for an undisclosed sum, their stock price will take a temporary hit, and in a year you'll never even notice that it happened.
you have a deeply distorted idea of these sort of lawsuits if you think they would magically go bankrupt from it
Get out of Ca.
A federal mandate on pay transparency would put an end to all of the unequal pay issues once and for all. What’s the downside?
I agree it should be done, but the main downside is that a single pay number lacks a lot of nuance. At companies with open pay policies, a lot of times you will see one person complaining that another person is making more than them, and then a long meeting has to take place where all the special skills of that other person are explained. Having to do that repeatedly would get onerous.
Also, it's bad for small business owners, because then the large businesses could see what they are paying and much more easily poach employees.
Edit: To clarify, I'm absolutely in favor of pay transparency laws. But any time you make a government policy, there are always winners and losers. It's always a balance between how much you're harming the losers and who they are. In this case, the losers would be the businesses and their owners, which is all that I'm pointing out. But I'd say that the employees should be the winners here, and I say this as a business owner myself.
Also, it's bad for small business owners, because then the large businesses could see what they are paying and much more easily poach employees.
Edit: To clarify, I'm absolutely in favor of pay transparency laws. But any time you make a government policy, there are always winners and losers. It's always a balance between how much you're harming the losers and who they are. In this case, the losers would be the businesses and their owners, which is all that I'm pointing out. But I'd say that the employees should be the winners here, and I say this as a business owner myself.
> Also, it's bad for small business owners, because then the large businesses could see what they are paying and much more easily poach employees.
That sounds a bit like (apologies for the strawman): "small business needs to be able to exploit employees to survive."
If small business can't survive without that, perhaps the problem lies elsewhere?
That sounds a bit like (apologies for the strawman): "small business needs to be able to exploit employees to survive."
If small business can't survive without that, perhaps the problem lies elsewhere?
This is a double-edged sword, though.
For employees, working at a large company that has already achieved economies of scale is probably a better paycheck -- they have the budget to be able to pay you better.
For society, though, we definitely don't want those small businesses (which don't have the same efficiencies or economies of scale) to be boxed out by large corporations across the board.
Not that this means that we shouldn't have pay transparency (people can and should be able to make their own decisions), but the inability of small businesses to match the salaries of huge corporations is pretty unavoidable.
For employees, working at a large company that has already achieved economies of scale is probably a better paycheck -- they have the budget to be able to pay you better.
For society, though, we definitely don't want those small businesses (which don't have the same efficiencies or economies of scale) to be boxed out by large corporations across the board.
Not that this means that we shouldn't have pay transparency (people can and should be able to make their own decisions), but the inability of small businesses to match the salaries of huge corporations is pretty unavoidable.
I agree, the small business has to bring something else to the table, such as greater scope of responsibility or quicker execution.
Transparent pay is great for the employees, but it's still a downside to the company.
Transparent pay is great for the employees, but it's still a downside to the company.
The employee would benefit from more transparency, but that doesn't mean it is exploitation.
Not
Not
> Also, it's bad for small business owners, because then the large businesses could see what they are paying and much more easily poach employees.
I don't follow - to rephrase what you're saying, it's bad for small business owners because their (underpaid) employees will be paid more by (larger) other businesses?
Sounds like the employees of said businesses will overwhelming benefit if what you're saying is true.
I don't follow - to rephrase what you're saying, it's bad for small business owners because their (underpaid) employees will be paid more by (larger) other businesses?
Sounds like the employees of said businesses will overwhelming benefit if what you're saying is true.
Absolutely. It would be great for the employees, just not the businesses.
Ah, I misunderstood - I thought you were arguing that was a downside for an employee. Apologies.
This sounds like grasping at straws, I mean your arguments against pay transparency is that there would be some more meetings and that somehow this would enable big companies to easier poach employees of small business? I don't know where you work, but discussions about salary are such a small blib in the overall number of meetings, that even if (and that's a big if) pay transparency would increase the number of those meetings by a factor 10, it would hardly register for the vast number of employees amongst the flood of other stupid meetings.
And it would make poaching of employees from small businesses easier because they suddenly know about the salaries that they didn't have a clue about before? I don't know what you think the recruiters at of the big players do all day, I would bet they have very good ideas what all the other players pay. If anything it would help small businesses who don't have the money to pay top recruiters.
And it would make poaching of employees from small businesses easier because they suddenly know about the salaries that they didn't have a clue about before? I don't know what you think the recruiters at of the big players do all day, I would bet they have very good ideas what all the other players pay. If anything it would help small businesses who don't have the money to pay top recruiters.
I agree with everything you said. Like I said, I think it's a good policy, but there are downsides, just not to the employee.
Federal mandates are non-starters politically in America, for better or for worse, especially in regards to speech and privacy. There is a massive cohort of Americans who vehemently oppose the government mandating what they must publicly share about themselves. This doesn't seem feasible.
this is why we are a Republic of States, and we're supposed to care more about state and local elections than the Federal ones, but it seems like nobody learns this from high school civics class anymore (myself included).
A California state mandate on pay disparity would probably be generally well-received, for example.
exactly! this is why our Republican (not the party) system of government is so great, different states can try different things and other states can learn from each other, both in what to do, what not to do, and even "well, that worked for that state, but I don't think it'll work well for us." it's a neat system, and one that I feel is increasingly underappreciated, as everyone wants all legislation to be done at the federal level.
I don't understand the privacy rebuttals. Pay transparency doesn't mean your personal salary is identifiable.
It depends on the size and diversity of the company. If your company size is small and they list 10 tech leads and only one has 20 years experience, or a masters, or is female, then it's pretty easy to work that back to them. They've shown similar things for anonymous medical records not being so anonymous.
So larger populations and smaller number of attributes would probably make it better, but not foolproof.
So larger populations and smaller number of attributes would probably make it better, but not foolproof.
No matter what the company will know everyone's salaries. The question is mainly whether you want to be ignorant, or not. Usually these things (at least with the government) don't list experience, or educational attainment.
"Usually these things (at least with the government) don't list experience, or educational attainment."
Seems pretty useless without that. Those are huge factors.
"The question is mainly whether you want to be ignorant, or not."
That's not the only question. The other question mostly being discussed here is if you want anyone to be able to know your salary by working backwards from the published list, specifically in small companies.
Seems pretty useless without that. Those are huge factors.
"The question is mainly whether you want to be ignorant, or not."
That's not the only question. The other question mostly being discussed here is if you want anyone to be able to know your salary by working backwards from the published list, specifically in small companies.
> Seems pretty useless without that. Those are huge factors.
The point is to allow for more transparency, not perfect transparency.
> That's not the only question. The other question mostly being discussed here is if you want anyone to be able to know your salary by working backwards from the published list, specifically in small companies.
In practice this doesn't matter, but even if this were an issue you could exempt employers with fewer than 100 employees.
The point is to allow for more transparency, not perfect transparency.
> That's not the only question. The other question mostly being discussed here is if you want anyone to be able to know your salary by working backwards from the published list, specifically in small companies.
In practice this doesn't matter, but even if this were an issue you could exempt employers with fewer than 100 employees.
"In practice this doesn't matter"
How so? Even at 100 employees you might only have 5 tech leads. So the population of the subgroups matter.
"The point is to allow for more transparency, not perfect transparency."
What can we actually do with that transparency if it doesn't have the attributes necessary for meaningful comparison?
How so? Even at 100 employees you might only have 5 tech leads. So the population of the subgroups matter.
"The point is to allow for more transparency, not perfect transparency."
What can we actually do with that transparency if it doesn't have the attributes necessary for meaningful comparison?
The point is to create a range in which both current and prospective employees can refer to. Obviously it's not perfect as that would require all information which would be a privacy concern.
Are you arguing knowing nothing is better than knowing something?
Are you arguing knowing nothing is better than knowing something?
"Are you arguing knowing nothing is better than knowing something?"
No one is saying that. That is a gross misinterpretation of my statements.
"The point is to create a range in which both current and prospective employees can refer to."
A range based on what? The point being discussed here is equal pay. Ranges dont help if you have all the women at the low end and the men at the high end, hypothetically. If you just want to post salary ranges by position you can do that without publishing individual salaries.
No one is saying that. That is a gross misinterpretation of my statements.
"The point is to create a range in which both current and prospective employees can refer to."
A range based on what? The point being discussed here is equal pay. Ranges dont help if you have all the women at the low end and the men at the high end, hypothetically. If you just want to post salary ranges by position you can do that without publishing individual salaries.
Maybe you should have specified that.
Even with that said, I work at a small enough company where anonymous salaries could still easily be associated with an individual, and I would still not like that, for privacy reasons.
Even with that said, I work at a small enough company where anonymous salaries could still easily be associated with an individual, and I would still not like that, for privacy reasons.
Specified what? Pay transparency has never meant personally identifiable salaries.
In the interest of debate, I don't quite understand them either. But America is a country I have never fully understood!
It’s already mandated if you’re a government employee, which millions of people are.
Privacy would be one downside. I'm not sure I want my friends, acquaintances, home contractors, ect knowing how much I make.
Pay transparency doesn't necessarily mean you're personally identifiable. That aside, what are the downsides?
Not necessarily, but it is probably the most common way it has been implemented in the US, and a potential downside depending on implementation.
Another downside is that it could release competitive information from private companies.
Another downside is that it could release competitive information from private companies.
Sure, and the upside is a strengthened position as a prospective employee. As an employee or prospective employee to a new organization, what's the downside?
If you are currently underpaid, it could reduce you leverage with the prospective employer. I have 2Xed my pay because a new employer didn't know my current rate.
They still wouldn't know your rate. As I mentioned before, pay transparency isn't necessarily personally identifiable. Hypothetically you could've 4X'd your rate. Maybe your 2X rate is actually a lowball. Who's to say?
yeah, it really all comes down to implementation. How much information is available an to whom.
Being able to look up anyone by name in a public registry and see their exact salary would probably be a worst case This is the current state for public employees.
Anonymized data for companies larger than a certain size with job class (like levels.fyi[1]) would probably be a best case. However, if you want to get meaningful information about sex, race, age, & gender, this information quickly becomes identifiable for even moderate companies.
https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Google,Facebook,Microsoft&tr...
Being able to look up anyone by name in a public registry and see their exact salary would probably be a worst case This is the current state for public employees.
Anonymized data for companies larger than a certain size with job class (like levels.fyi[1]) would probably be a best case. However, if you want to get meaningful information about sex, race, age, & gender, this information quickly becomes identifiable for even moderate companies.
https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Google,Facebook,Microsoft&tr...
Given the amount of tracking that's possible today, I think that anybody who cared would be able to easily determine your exact salary if the salary of every position at a company were published.
IDK in your country, in mine the downside was that we all knew such pay gap is mostly non-existant, so they mandated a pay gap law but data is locked under trade unions gatekeeping.
Of course it doesn't exist, because if it did any CEO could say "let's hire women instead of men and save 25%"
In my country most salaries are mandated with trade-union agreements, even variable compensations. Only very specific and niche cases behave outside that framework.
If any trade union or person believed that there was a real pay gap in any company, they could sue and win if true. Even way before current law.
With the new law, it's even easier, as they get access to all the microdata basically.
But nothing lands on courts yet.
If any trade union or person believed that there was a real pay gap in any company, they could sue and win if true. Even way before current law.
With the new law, it's even easier, as they get access to all the microdata basically.
But nothing lands on courts yet.
If people were rational, bigotry wouldn't exist in the first place.
By this logic, racial and gender pay gaps should never have existed. Why didn't any visionary CEO in America hire blacks instead of whites in 1950 and save 50% on labor?
Because they were also kept out of the schools that would give them the qualifications to work those jobs. No cost savings if your engineer or accountant was never trained. So companies hired them for the menial jobs which paid less universally.
No black engineers or accountants in 1950? Whats the pay gap between you and a knowledgeable employee?
Not that there were zero, just that they were rare due to entry barriers. If you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it rather than listen to your pathetic attempt at a clever put down.
You're the one who said there were none.
Now you admit there were, my original question remains. Why didn't any CEO hire them at a white firm at half pay and make a bundle?
Now you admit there were, my original question remains. Why didn't any CEO hire them at a white firm at half pay and make a bundle?
I don't know, but I don't find it hard to furnish ideas. Colleges used to try to ensure they didn't produce more professionally qualified graduates than there were entry-level positions for. Perhaps colleges only graduated fewer black students than there were openings in black-owned enterprises?
Maybe you can learn reading comprehension. In the context of a company hiring only minorities in professional roles there were effectively none.
Again, how about some evidence to the contrary?
Again, how about some evidence to the contrary?
I presume you are from Spain, which indeed is one of the top countries in the Global Gender Gap Index [1] but its unadjusted gender pay gap still sits at 11.9% (2019 provisional) [2]. Yes it's called "unadjusted" for a reason (gender pay gap is a broad phenomenon and can't be described with a single statistics and that's why we have the Index) but it is far from "non-existant".
[1] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf (14th place in 2021)
[2] https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=sdg...
[1] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf (14th place in 2021)
[2] https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=sdg...
Trade Unions have access to companies microdata now. If there such pay gap, there's no excuse now.
I don't really want to get into a large discussion, but I know the data sources of these studies as I used them pretty often, and you'll have to be pretty creative, either with data or with definitions.
This issue for me is very linked with my distrust of academia, is not just this issue.
I went to uni (sociology) in my mid 20s and I wasn't impressed with the ethical standards of the field, let's say that.
I don't really want to get into a large discussion, but I know the data sources of these studies as I used them pretty often, and you'll have to be pretty creative, either with data or with definitions.
This issue for me is very linked with my distrust of academia, is not just this issue.
I went to uni (sociology) in my mid 20s and I wasn't impressed with the ethical standards of the field, let's say that.
Gender pay gap is not just about the wage equality in the same companies (AFAIK this is what the 2021 law concerns). It can for example also arise from the selective employment, which effectively segregates the labor force by gender. If my reading of the Global Gender Gap Index is correct, the disparity of estimated earned income in Spain is 34.9% (score 0.651), which suggests this scenario.
> I went to uni (sociology) in my mid 20s and I wasn't impressed with the ethical standards of the field, let's say that.
This honestly sounds like conspiracy believers. If you feel a particular statistics is flawed (perfectly possible by the way) you ought to give a counter evidence, not your anecdote.
> I went to uni (sociology) in my mid 20s and I wasn't impressed with the ethical standards of the field, let's say that.
This honestly sounds like conspiracy believers. If you feel a particular statistics is flawed (perfectly possible by the way) you ought to give a counter evidence, not your anecdote.
> selective employment
That's mostly an effect of what women study, and motherhood.
There's a discussion about nature/nurture, the gender paradox and all that behind those figures.
> This honestly sounds like conspiracy believers. If you feel a particular statistics is flawed (perfectly possible by the way) you ought to give a counter evidence, not your anecdote.
I don't really want to vent out publicly here, I already did too much, but someone influential in this field was my professor. This professor admitted, maybe without being aware of so, that the results of the research being conducted in that moment were being massaged to fit the hypothesis.
Look, IDK, my nick can already be linked to my real persona, so understand I don't want to get into details here. In fact I'm not sure if I should be posting this, as it could affect future job prospects.
That's mostly an effect of what women study, and motherhood.
There's a discussion about nature/nurture, the gender paradox and all that behind those figures.
> This honestly sounds like conspiracy believers. If you feel a particular statistics is flawed (perfectly possible by the way) you ought to give a counter evidence, not your anecdote.
I don't really want to vent out publicly here, I already did too much, but someone influential in this field was my professor. This professor admitted, maybe without being aware of so, that the results of the research being conducted in that moment were being massaged to fit the hypothesis.
Look, IDK, my nick can already be linked to my real persona, so understand I don't want to get into details here. In fact I'm not sure if I should be posting this, as it could affect future job prospects.
> That's mostly an effect of what women study, and motherhood.
I secretly wanted to see the actual arguments based on numbers since I'm very aware that the global survey like this can fail to account for domestic contexts, but yeah, typical canned arguments.
I personally don't care who you are (except for your country in question), but if you feel unsafe about the discussion after all you'd rather not talk about it at all. In the other words, expect the criticism if you keep posting those typical canned arguments.
I secretly wanted to see the actual arguments based on numbers since I'm very aware that the global survey like this can fail to account for domestic contexts, but yeah, typical canned arguments.
I personally don't care who you are (except for your country in question), but if you feel unsafe about the discussion after all you'd rather not talk about it at all. In the other words, expect the criticism if you keep posting those typical canned arguments.
> That's mostly an effect of what women study, and motherhood.
Have you seen data from companies showing total comp of each individual? Every study I’ve seen shows discrimination after accounting for differences in education. I’ve known many women in different workplaces that were not being paid equally.
Have you seen data from companies showing total comp of each individual? Every study I’ve seen shows discrimination after accounting for differences in education. I’ve known many women in different workplaces that were not being paid equally.
Paycheck transparency, paycheck+stock option transparency, or transparency of all benefits? Didn't Steve Jobs have a salary of $1?
The downside is that it's a tyrannical intrusion into private business.
Private business operates under the umbrella of government regulations and if they didn’t you and I would have a much worse life.
Try an argument that's structurally capable of distinguishing between good and bad ideas.
The self proclaimed guys that are at the same time 10X devs and 10x negociaters think that all the simpletons will be envious and hate on them. It could be that some of the double 10x guys are not paid 10x times as "simpletons" (most of the time this ones are stuck to cleanup the 10x devs garbage output)
How much money do you make?
I would answer this, but it would give my potential next employer the opportunity to lowball me.
This would not be the case if the pay transparency that parent describes were already a thing, because I would have the same ability to check the salaries of that company.
But without that mandate happening, whoever moves first loses. That's why salary transparency should be mandated, because otherwise no one has any motivation to move, so no one will.
This would not be the case if the pay transparency that parent describes were already a thing, because I would have the same ability to check the salaries of that company.
But without that mandate happening, whoever moves first loses. That's why salary transparency should be mandated, because otherwise no one has any motivation to move, so no one will.
This is such a stupid retort. I'm totally fine with my salary being public iff everyone's salary is public.
Start from yourself.
Would what someone claims online make any difference to you?
The point is to drive home how they might feel about publicity announcing and verifying their income for the world to see.
Pay transparency does not necessarily mean a specific individual is tied with a specific amount of money.
Yes, but in many cases it does (not-huge companies with enough data on role, experience, location to disambiguate)...
I really would not want this. I already compare myself to my peers and feel the pressure enough. I don't want to have the salary figures as an extra metric to obsess about. I think it would lead to a lot of resentment and be generally unproductive
I'm sorry, but you'd rather be ignorant to potential pay discrepancies not in your favor because you might just feel bad?
If you were the best person on your team and were being paid the least you wouldn't want to know? I honestly don't understand your view.
If you were the best person on your team and were being paid the least you wouldn't want to know? I honestly don't understand your view.
People, to the great benefit of companies, tend to actually negotiate up front and then not want to think about money as long as they consider it “enough” for their lifestyle, at least not wanting to revisit it on a weekly or monthly basis.
It allows people to fool themselves that they do what they do for something other than money, and or they’re afraid of any conflict in the workplace (and thereby instability).
It allows people to fool themselves that they do what they do for something other than money, and or they’re afraid of any conflict in the workplace (and thereby instability).
Then don't look at them.
Certainly depends on if where you fall in the system; are you taking advantage of getting paid more than those around you with no transparency or could you benefit from transparency because you're lacking information?
While I agree with this perspective, I also feel like there's a lot of cultural baggage around this that makes a transition it a hard sell for the time being.
> A federal mandate on pay transparency would put an end to all of the unequal pay issues once and for all.
Were you...being serious?
Were you...being serious?
I wouldn't want everyone to know my income. Have you thought about all repercussions of that transparency?
adamrezich(4)
pelasaco(2)
jimbob45(4)
>Years after the online harassment campaign known as Gamergate targeted women in the video game world
Ironically, GamerGate started as an expose on how dishonest and corrupt video game journalism had become, though it all went downhill from there. And now journalists dishonestly hijack GG to push whichever agenda suits them, though at least this time the writer didn't act as if it was still relevant today.
Ironically, GamerGate started as an expose on how dishonest and corrupt video game journalism had become, though it all went downhill from there. And now journalists dishonestly hijack GG to push whichever agenda suits them, though at least this time the writer didn't act as if it was still relevant today.
If you're reading this, there's a pretty solid chance that you're a male working in the software industry.
It is super, super critical for you to know: this happens where you work, too.
No, not "this could happen where you work." I'm telling you that if you work with women in engineering, they deal with this shit anywhere from weekly to hourly.
It comes from "the nice manager," from a QA on another team, from a tech lead, from a customer.
Misogyny and harassment are happening around you, and you need to be looking for it.
If your first thought upon reading this was "well, I'm just glad that could never happen here," you are wrong, and you need to be on your guard.
It is super, super critical for you to know: this happens where you work, too.
No, not "this could happen where you work." I'm telling you that if you work with women in engineering, they deal with this shit anywhere from weekly to hourly.
It comes from "the nice manager," from a QA on another team, from a tech lead, from a customer.
Misogyny and harassment are happening around you, and you need to be looking for it.
If your first thought upon reading this was "well, I'm just glad that could never happen here," you are wrong, and you need to be on your guard.
This take is a little too extreme, it is one you see a lot on the internet, but if you talk to actual women in the industry there are much more varied experiences. Some don’t perceive any problems at all, others do but consider it minor, others are depressed and angry as hell.
> it is one you see a lot on the internet, but if you talk to actual women in the industry
You seem to imply that women on the internet are not actually in the industry? Not sure what you're saying here, unless you mean IRL, in which case,
it is likely that women are not as comfortable talking IRL to men about these issues as they are online. I'm not a woman, but I sure am more comfortable discussing these things online. Seems like it would go both ways.
> Some don’t perceive any problems at all,
A person's perception or lack thereof of a problem does not mean that the problem does not exist. Millions or billions of people are discriminated against every day without knowing it in the moment, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen or cause harm.
You seem to imply that women on the internet are not actually in the industry? Not sure what you're saying here, unless you mean IRL, in which case,
it is likely that women are not as comfortable talking IRL to men about these issues as they are online. I'm not a woman, but I sure am more comfortable discussing these things online. Seems like it would go both ways.
> Some don’t perceive any problems at all,
A person's perception or lack thereof of a problem does not mean that the problem does not exist. Millions or billions of people are discriminated against every day without knowing it in the moment, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen or cause harm.
This is an overgeneralization.
My girlfriend works at a woman-led software company, where most of the people on her team are women, and from her description, that type of shit just doesn't fly there. It is her first time working at a company where this is the case, and she's loads happier.
For whatever it's worth, she landed her current role by attending some local "women in tech" meetups for a few months, and a woman she met from there was hiring.
I think it's important for any women reading this thread to know that software companies do exist where women are treated fairly, and it might be worthwhile to seek out those companies.
My girlfriend works at a woman-led software company, where most of the people on her team are women, and from her description, that type of shit just doesn't fly there. It is her first time working at a company where this is the case, and she's loads happier.
For whatever it's worth, she landed her current role by attending some local "women in tech" meetups for a few months, and a woman she met from there was hiring.
I think it's important for any women reading this thread to know that software companies do exist where women are treated fairly, and it might be worthwhile to seek out those companies.
I'm pretty certain there's no Cosby room at my employer's offices
I'm also certain no-one has committed suicide due to sexual harassment by the company's employees
I'm also certain no-one has committed suicide due to sexual harassment by the company's employees
misogyny in tech is an innate, intractable problem that is literally impossible to solve? why would any woman work with any nonzero number of men in tech, then? I changed my career trajectory when I realized the video game industry wasn't a fit for me in terms of politics, work-family balance, and (to a lesser extent) religion... if this problem is truly unsolvable and endemic to software development, shouldn't women, looking out for their best interests, pursue other fields of work?
(note that I don't actually believe this supposition, I'm just following it to the logical conclusion.)
(note that I don't actually believe this supposition, I'm just following it to the logical conclusion.)
The OP said nothing about it being " an innate, intractable problem that is literally impossible to solve"
OP made unabashedly broad claims about an entire generalized industry, saying something happens everywhere, yes even at your company where you think everything is fine and there's no problems, yes, it happens there too. this implies that literally every measure possible taken at every possible corporation in the entire broad field of "software" continues to be ineffective at solving these problems, and that we must be aware of this. OP went out of their way to both leave no room for nuance in this assertion and to provide zero solutions or ideas for solutions for solving this problem, and implied that it was endemic to women working together with men (in software, I guess). what other possible alternative interpretation is there?
> this implies that literally every measure possible taken at every possible corporation in the entire broad field of "software" continues to be ineffective at solving these problems
OP did not imply that; read their comment again, you will note that they actually stated the opposite of your accusation quite clearly. That there is more work to do (their point) directly contradicts your assumptions.
> implied that it was endemic to women working together with men....what other possible alternative interpretation is there?
The only interpretation of OP that I can see is that there exists a problem and that being aware of the problem existing is a key factor in solving it.
I have no idea where you got these ideas from in OP's comment, I read quite the opposite from it actually.
OP did not imply that; read their comment again, you will note that they actually stated the opposite of your accusation quite clearly. That there is more work to do (their point) directly contradicts your assumptions.
> implied that it was endemic to women working together with men....what other possible alternative interpretation is there?
The only interpretation of OP that I can see is that there exists a problem and that being aware of the problem existing is a key factor in solving it.
I have no idea where you got these ideas from in OP's comment, I read quite the opposite from it actually.
I don't see how you read "this happens where you work" any differently
You don't see the difference between pervasive and intractable?
you don't see the difference between pervasive and literally in every single workplace of a given profession?
Pervasive means present or noticeable in every part of a thing or place.[1]
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pervasiv...
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pervasiv...
the basic idea that anything could be literally, explicitly 100% "pervasive" at literally every place in the entire world regardless of culture is so far beyond ridiculous it's nowhere even near entertaining, and the sheer delusion in making such a statement, including explicitly doubling down on any chance of doubt or wiggle room, is so far beyond the pale that it's just plain silly, and can only be made by someone who has minimal life experience and is extrapolating said limited life experience to the whole world
gameswithgo(1)
> Misogyny and harassment are happening around you, and you need to be looking for it.
I disagree.
You should be reporting it if you witness it, but not actively LOOKING for it.
It's not my job, nor yours, to go actively LOOKING for these problems. It is my job, however, to report them should I see them happening. That's just common sense.
I disagree.
You should be reporting it if you witness it, but not actively LOOKING for it.
It's not my job, nor yours, to go actively LOOKING for these problems. It is my job, however, to report them should I see them happening. That's just common sense.
I think this is a pretty unhelpful response which tends to diminish the gravity of serious allegations. I don't claim to work in a perfectly enlightened place where nobody ever faces harassment, but I'm confident "the nice manager" at my company has never harassed a coworker to the point of suicide and I've seen people get fired for isolated incidents of behavior which the lawsuit describes as pervasive and routine. If you're working for a company where this conduct could happen, you should try to find a better one; if you're building a company, you have a strong but achievable obligation to ensure it couldn't happen.
You might want to reread the article. It isn't about harassment or misogyny from individuals. It's about a corporate culture and leadership that allegedly encouraged the same.
I believe that the leadership team doesn't encourage sexual harassment where I work. I know that people get fired for harassing others.
Maybe I'm naive and all the CEOs at all the tech companies encourage their subordinates to harass women. Or maybe you just need to get another job, at a place that doesn't suck. Or maybe you just need to read the article.
I believe that the leadership team doesn't encourage sexual harassment where I work. I know that people get fired for harassing others.
Maybe I'm naive and all the CEOs at all the tech companies encourage their subordinates to harass women. Or maybe you just need to get another job, at a place that doesn't suck. Or maybe you just need to read the article.
I actually think this is much more prevalent in the US and probably even concentrated at their west coast around silicon valley. Not exclusively though, but even in this case at Activision. How many employees are involved and how many do they have?
I think summoning a threat everywhere is keeping more women out of tech than cases were sexual misconduct actually did happen.
I think summoning a threat everywhere is keeping more women out of tech than cases were sexual misconduct actually did happen.
I’ll care when women worry about misandry.
But insisting I care while women engage in illegal sexism for their own benefit is an abusive, one-sided relationship.
Study after study confirms that women are preferentially hired and receive privilege in education. Study after study shows women dominated fields like HR and education are incredibly sexist. Women are allowed to organize on the basis of sex for more sexist privilege at most universities and businesses. Ask any man who has worked in a majority female department if lewd comments, inappropriate pictures, etc happen there.
When women do their part to end sexism, I’ll care.
Until then, it’s just entitled whining.
But insisting I care while women engage in illegal sexism for their own benefit is an abusive, one-sided relationship.
Study after study confirms that women are preferentially hired and receive privilege in education. Study after study shows women dominated fields like HR and education are incredibly sexist. Women are allowed to organize on the basis of sex for more sexist privilege at most universities and businesses. Ask any man who has worked in a majority female department if lewd comments, inappropriate pictures, etc happen there.
When women do their part to end sexism, I’ll care.
Until then, it’s just entitled whining.
There’s never been a female President and almost every single CEO in the country is a man but HR is mostly women so it’s equal right?
/s
/s
CEO positions tend to be filled by the most highly competitive personality types. People willing to sacrifice most of their life to attain a single goal.
Perhaps women tend to choose to lead more balanced lives because they find it more rewarding and meaningful.
Why more men are CEOs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbH0Q39JCPk
Perhaps women tend to choose to lead more balanced lives because they find it more rewarding and meaningful.
Why more men are CEOs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbH0Q39JCPk
Humans are incredibly varied and I don't doubt there are highly dedicated, passionate women sacrificing most of their life to attain singular goals. That's why there are enough women to have an entire women's league of most professional sports. If it were true that women tend to choose to lead more balanced lives to the point where entire leadership positions are almost completely bereft of women, there would be no female professional athletes, and certainly not enough to have leagues and teams of them. There would be no female dancers, and especially no female ballerinas.
I'm very confused by this argument.
I'm very confused by this argument.
[deleted]
gameswithgo(1)
I am big proponent of STFU and do your job.
No "we are family here". No dating people from work.
Because some people really really need that next pay-check.
There are people paying off their chemotherapy that have to go to work reading about this and worrying about their livelihood. Nobody deserves that. Nobody has a right to get you to worry about how are you gonna survive next mortgage payment. And over what? people acting like they are in highschool. Stuff like this boils my blood before we even get to politics. Life is hard enough. I will not burden you with my family issues and I will work as hard as I can but in return you let me do the work and worry only about what I am working on. Everything else goes under grow the f up and get a life outside company.
In the suit, the state even attempted a mediated resolution to prevent it from going to court. But Blizzard refused to cooperate, essentially taunting the state to bring a case, which they now have.
It really makes you question whether Bobby Kotick is the right guy as CEO. Not only did he fail to demonstrate ethical leadership, but his handling of this crisis is massively destructive of shareholder value.