Google Workers Fume Over Executives’ Payouts After Sexual Misconduct Claims(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Google Workers Fume Over Executives’ Payouts After Sexual Misconduct Claims
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/technology/sexual-harassment-google.html
69 comments
I think they published it because it was news. Many details in the news outrage me, but as long as they are based in fact, I consider that reporting of the news of the day, not an attempt to incite outrage.
Also, "Callous Googlers Don't care about sex harassment payouts" doesn't seem like a particularly good potential news piece, if that's what you are suggesting they could have done.
I mean, I was outraged by the Snowden revelations. Were those stories generating outrage, or just revealing an outrage that others had already perpetrated?
Also, "Callous Googlers Don't care about sex harassment payouts" doesn't seem like a particularly good potential news piece, if that's what you are suggesting they could have done.
I mean, I was outraged by the Snowden revelations. Were those stories generating outrage, or just revealing an outrage that others had already perpetrated?
>but as long as they are based in fact, I consider that reporting of the news of the day
The issue is that they get to pick which facts are reported and which are not. They could publish 100 articles on all the good things Google is doing, or they could publish 100 articles on all the bad things google is doing, and they don't have to lie to do either of these things, but yet they would both give their readers very warped perspectives on reality.
We see this a lot in politics, where we can have far-right and far-left websites that both technically report nothing but 'facts', but due to the extreme sampling biases used, present completely opposing views of reality.
I'm not defending Google, I'm just pointing out who is running the show here, and the answer is the New York Times. They decide what happens next. Their next article could talk about all the positive discussion and improvements Google is making in this area, or it could talk about how many additional employees are upset and don't think things will get better.
The issue is that they get to pick which facts are reported and which are not. They could publish 100 articles on all the good things Google is doing, or they could publish 100 articles on all the bad things google is doing, and they don't have to lie to do either of these things, but yet they would both give their readers very warped perspectives on reality.
We see this a lot in politics, where we can have far-right and far-left websites that both technically report nothing but 'facts', but due to the extreme sampling biases used, present completely opposing views of reality.
I'm not defending Google, I'm just pointing out who is running the show here, and the answer is the New York Times. They decide what happens next. Their next article could talk about all the positive discussion and improvements Google is making in this area, or it could talk about how many additional employees are upset and don't think things will get better.
Valid point, and worth noting this also happened with the Iraq War.
While there was deception, it seemed like a much larger public impact was caused by news momentum and nobody voicing a counterpoint.
That a biased narrative can be constructed only out of reasonable facts is fairly well supported in recent history.
While there was deception, it seemed like a much larger public impact was caused by news momentum and nobody voicing a counterpoint.
That a biased narrative can be constructed only out of reasonable facts is fairly well supported in recent history.
The NYT also publishes good things about Google and it's products.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/personaltech/g...
Google is a major visible corporation that is used by the vast majority of US and probably world internet users.
Calling big companies, politicians, and other public figures and groups with power to task on their mistakes is definitely something I expect of a journalist.
The NYT has an editoral voice and makes choices in it's coverage. But Google could also have chosen to not give massive payouts to problematic people. Acting like the NYT, which is just covering the story, is the problem seems a little weird.
Maybe you are the sort that believes that the news media is the enemy of the people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/personaltech/g...
Google is a major visible corporation that is used by the vast majority of US and probably world internet users.
Calling big companies, politicians, and other public figures and groups with power to task on their mistakes is definitely something I expect of a journalist.
The NYT has an editoral voice and makes choices in it's coverage. But Google could also have chosen to not give massive payouts to problematic people. Acting like the NYT, which is just covering the story, is the problem seems a little weird.
Maybe you are the sort that believes that the news media is the enemy of the people.
That's what happens when they are conditioned to produce content that maximizes view/click counts. Who created that incentive? Google did.
Oh yeah there were no tabloids before Google, and all the news was completely unbiased too.
While this may be true, it falls flat once you consider that this has been done to many non-google organizations too.
You only get to understand what a massive role Google plays in the like/click/view generating ecosystem when you spend time in a modern digital publishing/advertising/marketing firm. It's like watching a huge cattle auction where peoples views/clicks etc are being traded 24*7.
So by your definition, no stories about large companies should be published ever? I imagine if a company has a large amount of employees, you can always find a contrary opinion.
The issue is with how the NYT framed it. The headline says, "Google Workers Fume..." which implies a plurality or majority when we have no idea what a collective of 85,000 think.
A more accurate headline would be something like, "Alphabet CEO Confronted about Sexual Harassment Policy" instead of characterizing "Google Workers" as if they were one, single-minded Borg-like entity.
A more accurate headline would be something like, "Alphabet CEO Confronted about Sexual Harassment Policy" instead of characterizing "Google Workers" as if they were one, single-minded Borg-like entity.
>original story to generate outrage
While a consequence of the story may have been "outrage," it was Rubin's actions and how Google dealt with them that are at issue here. We can play "shoot the messenger" or assume bad faith on the NYT's part, but neither of those things undoes what has happened.
While a consequence of the story may have been "outrage," it was Rubin's actions and how Google dealt with them that are at issue here. We can play "shoot the messenger" or assume bad faith on the NYT's part, but neither of those things undoes what has happened.
> Kind of funny how the NYT publishes the original story to generate outrage
The older I get, I realize that more often than not, these companies don't report the news, they create/generate/manufacture the news. Half the time, news is actually a manufactured product for consumption no different than a movie or a song and the other half, it's political advocacy. There isn't much news in the news industry.
> then after successfully doing so to an extent, cherry-picks examples of the outrage in order to generate yet another article that is apparently worth publishing.
And voila, they are bumped to the frontpage every single time. It's like watching a world class magician ply their trade.
The older I get, I realize that more often than not, these companies don't report the news, they create/generate/manufacture the news. Half the time, news is actually a manufactured product for consumption no different than a movie or a song and the other half, it's political advocacy. There isn't much news in the news industry.
> then after successfully doing so to an extent, cherry-picks examples of the outrage in order to generate yet another article that is apparently worth publishing.
And voila, they are bumped to the frontpage every single time. It's like watching a world class magician ply their trade.
Exactly. This is opinion engineering. They take an event, look at it, find the angle that is most likely to solicit responses from their readers. With that narrative in mind, they would go on to produce the story, weaved it a way to appear like that their account is what actually happened.
Well-said. Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_Me,_I%27m_Lying
I'm not sure the follow-up story is necessary, but one way to look at it is that they were successful at publishing news that some people care about.
It's not always clear when "getting a reaction" is just trolling or what a quality newspaper should set out to do. It depends if you agree with the editors about what's newsworthy.
But if leaks keep happening at this rate, I suspect TGIF isn't going to happen for much longer.
It's not always clear when "getting a reaction" is just trolling or what a quality newspaper should set out to do. It depends if you agree with the editors about what's newsworthy.
But if leaks keep happening at this rate, I suspect TGIF isn't going to happen for much longer.
There is, in fact, a lot of internal outrage. I wouldn't call this cherry picking.
(Source: I work there)
(Source: I work there)
Let's say you know the feelings of 100 coworkers on this issue. That's still 100/85000 employees, or 0.1%. Not exactly a representative sample size.
Now, it's entirely possible 60% of the employees actually are outraged, but we have no way of knowing outside a survey.
Hence the NYT is cherry-picking an opinion based on anecdotal data (that just so happens to positively reflect on their earlier coverage), when it's also entirely possible that 80% of Googlers don't really care.
The headline and story imply the NYT has a firm handle on how the bulk of 85,000 people think, which is not the case.
Now, it's entirely possible 60% of the employees actually are outraged, but we have no way of knowing outside a survey.
Hence the NYT is cherry-picking an opinion based on anecdotal data (that just so happens to positively reflect on their earlier coverage), when it's also entirely possible that 80% of Googlers don't really care.
The headline and story imply the NYT has a firm handle on how the bulk of 85,000 people think, which is not the case.
FWIW, if you have a sample size of 100 out of a population of 85000 and observe 60% of your coworkers care, there's a 95% confidence level that the true number of people who care will be within 50-70%. There's a 99% confidence that it'll be within 47.5-72.5%.
https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
"80% of Googlers don't really care" would be an extreme outlier, statistically.
https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
"80% of Googlers don't really care" would be an extreme outlier, statistically.
Only if your sample is random, and my sample is mostly the Google Cambridge office.
> Kind of funny how the NYT publishes the original story to generate outrage [...]
It's not just this; I think there's a clear agenda here by releasing this on the day of Google's earnings announcement.
It's not just this; I think there's a clear agenda here by releasing this on the day of Google's earnings announcement.
Reading the story, it certainly seems like they were aiming for outrage. They say there was an accusation and they could have just not paid him $90million. They don't go into any of the contractual obligations of why they owe him that money. Nor do they explain how a mere accusation is going derail that payment. If outrage and journalism were fighting over ownership of that article, outrage won.
I think they didn't go into contractual obligations to pay him $90M because no such obligation existed.
It's something they decided to give him after it was decided that he should lose his job over the credible allegation of sexual assault.
It's something they decided to give him after it was decided that he should lose his job over the credible allegation of sexual assault.
> It's something they decided to give him after it was decided that he should lose his job over the credible allegation of sexual assault.
Is this true? This is propagating spin, which the authors of the article made quite liberal use of.
I remember the article explicitly stating that they couldn't determine whether or not the decision to pay $90M was made with any relation whatsoever to the HR issue.
Yet they and others seem to keep labeling it as a "payout" anyway. When you keep repeating a thing, eventually it becomes true in the hive mind, which is what's happening here.
EDIT:
From the article:
> It is unclear if Mr. Page or the board knew of the investigation into the harassment complaint when Google approved the $150M grant for Mr. Rubin. Mr. Page, 45, did not respond to a request for a comment; Mr. Doerr and Mr. Shriram declined to comment.
And he got $90M when he was effectively fired, $60M less than the initial grant; see https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
Like others in this thread, I'm starting to believe the NYT is just as bad as FoxNews when it comes to manufacturing opinion and sensation (esp. against Big Tech these days) instead of presenting objective journalism.
Is this true? This is propagating spin, which the authors of the article made quite liberal use of.
I remember the article explicitly stating that they couldn't determine whether or not the decision to pay $90M was made with any relation whatsoever to the HR issue.
Yet they and others seem to keep labeling it as a "payout" anyway. When you keep repeating a thing, eventually it becomes true in the hive mind, which is what's happening here.
EDIT:
From the article:
> It is unclear if Mr. Page or the board knew of the investigation into the harassment complaint when Google approved the $150M grant for Mr. Rubin. Mr. Page, 45, did not respond to a request for a comment; Mr. Doerr and Mr. Shriram declined to comment.
And he got $90M when he was effectively fired, $60M less than the initial grant; see https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
Like others in this thread, I'm starting to believe the NYT is just as bad as FoxNews when it comes to manufacturing opinion and sensation (esp. against Big Tech these days) instead of presenting objective journalism.
I've never seen a contract contain the clause, "We don't have to pay you what we owe you, simply by having one of our employees make an accusation of sexual harassment against you." I would never sign one.
Do you think that termination clauses given by google to employees have zero conditions attached to them? Even if you're an executive there are absolutely things you can do that would forfeit the contract. If you were fired for stealing secrets, do you think they'd pay you out? Certainly the same clauses could be written to avoid paying if you have to be let go because something you did caused some other sort of harm to the company. We can talk about whether or not the contract included such a clause and whether or not thats a failure on Google's part, but I have a feeling that's not why you posted this comment.
And btw I think it's clear that if I offered you the sort of money this dude had you probably wouldn't pass it up based on what the conditions for termination payout clauses were.
And btw I think it's clear that if I offered you the sort of money this dude had you probably wouldn't pass it up based on what the conditions for termination payout clauses were.
Getting accused won't stand up as "something he did". There is a much higher bar for that and it would have to play out in court unless he completely rolled over.
Why don't you say why you think I posted this comment?
Because I didn’t think it was relevant at all: I don’t believe you want to talk about whether or not google is representing its own interests contractually.
But now that you bring it up I imagine my intuition is correct.
But now that you bring it up I imagine my intuition is correct.
"Accusation of sexual harassment" is kind of an understatement given the massive amount of misconduct that occurred, often not even denied by the bad actor, in direct violation of company guidelines. You don't just get to light the employee handbook on fire and keep all your compensation. You can get fired with cause.
Naturally trying to kick someone out and withhold compensation is a lot harder than just quietly ushering them out the door and paying them off, which is what typically happens here because Google does not want bad press and does not want to get dragged into a multi-year court case by someone they're trying to fire.
Naturally trying to kick someone out and withhold compensation is a lot harder than just quietly ushering them out the door and paying them off, which is what typically happens here because Google does not want bad press and does not want to get dragged into a multi-year court case by someone they're trying to fire.
In the case mentioned in the article the person accused denies it. According to other articles it was an accusation by somebody he had an affair with. I wouldn't take the situation filtered through journalists too seriously but I don't think he shouldn't get the money he's owed because believe women.
You seem to conveniently ignore that Google investigated the claims internally and found them credible. He wasn't 'owed money', he was given a strong exit package in spite of being let go due to a credible accusation.
The fact that you also flippantly toss a remark about 'believing women' in this circumstance does say a lot about your character.
The fact that you also flippantly toss a remark about 'believing women' in this circumstance does say a lot about your character.
Credible doesn't mean "true." It means "not incredible."
I agree 100% with everything you have said. But I also think this isn't the right hill to die on.
The fact that this is the best case scenario here - for all sides - is irrelevant to anyone likely to comment. Pragmatism is dead in this area.
This issue is just too hot for anyone to be rational about with the current Zeitgeist, and it is wise to, if not say nothing, at least use a throwaway account!!!
The fact that this is the best case scenario here - for all sides - is irrelevant to anyone likely to comment. Pragmatism is dead in this area.
This issue is just too hot for anyone to be rational about with the current Zeitgeist, and it is wise to, if not say nothing, at least use a throwaway account!!!
Huh? These people were insinuating I liked the idea that you don't lose your money because of an accusation that couldn't survive a day in court [1]. That's obviously a popular idea.
[1] At least I think so -- three different people suddenly found themselves unable to complete a sentence in a way that didn't make them look stupid.
[1] At least I think so -- three different people suddenly found themselves unable to complete a sentence in a way that didn't make them look stupid.
[deleted]
>>We don't have to pay you what we owe you, simply by having one of our employees make an accusation of sexual harassment against you."
What do you mean by “simply”? Do you believe accusing someone of sexual harassment is a “simple” matter, or that it is easy?
I think the language you are using here speaks volumes about your beliefs.
What do you mean by “simply”? Do you believe accusing someone of sexual harassment is a “simple” matter, or that it is easy?
I think the language you are using here speaks volumes about your beliefs.
What does it speak about my beliefs? You sure like making vague insinuations instead of speaking clearly. It speaks to your character.
>>What does it speak about my beliefs?
I already explained it.
I already explained it.
The money wasn't owed. It was an exit package.
He had a $150M stock grant that he used to negotiate the exit package. - According to https://www.businessinsider.com/andy-rubin-90-million-exit-p...
[deleted]
stilltorn(1)
Mass resignations threatened like after the James Damore memo?
Doubt it.
Sexual misconduct is more acceptable at Google than writing gender biased dogma.
Doubt it.
Sexual misconduct is more acceptable at Google than writing gender biased dogma.
It's also acceptable for our head of state, so expectations for justice are extremely low.
And has been since just about the dawn of the Republic.
Turns out you don’t have to be a Saint to be leader of the free world. Might go as far to say that a Saint wouldn’t be particularly well suited for the job.
Turns out you don’t have to be a Saint to be leader of the free world. Might go as far to say that a Saint wouldn’t be particularly well suited for the job.
Since we've presumably never had a 'saint', how would we know that they wouldn't be better for the job? It's hard to imagine that someone who had integrity and respected other genders would make a worse leader, so I'm interested in why you'd thing so.
There’s a pretty wide margin between having integrity and respecting other genders, and Sainthood.
IMO, I think that down on planet Earth two people may get into a sexual relationship that is anywhere from uncouth to unwise to unacceptable to illegal. As long as these affairs are consensual my own position is who the heck am I to judge?
Further, someone who is so abjectly in control of their passion — someone who is so dispassionate — I think would have a hard time fighting so hard day in and day out for a grueling 4 or 8 years.
Good leaders tend to have the personality, charisma, confidence, and ambition that they will go after the things they want even if it means some rules or social mores will be broken. To even think oneself possible of leading the Free World does require a certain arrogance. I certainly wouldn’t want a President feeling imposter syndrome in the Oval Office, even though it is certain to happen to some extent.
IMO, I think that down on planet Earth two people may get into a sexual relationship that is anywhere from uncouth to unwise to unacceptable to illegal. As long as these affairs are consensual my own position is who the heck am I to judge?
Further, someone who is so abjectly in control of their passion — someone who is so dispassionate — I think would have a hard time fighting so hard day in and day out for a grueling 4 or 8 years.
Good leaders tend to have the personality, charisma, confidence, and ambition that they will go after the things they want even if it means some rules or social mores will be broken. To even think oneself possible of leading the Free World does require a certain arrogance. I certainly wouldn’t want a President feeling imposter syndrome in the Oval Office, even though it is certain to happen to some extent.
It is not acceptable for our head of state.
...it seems like it is though. Curious why you'd say it isn't.
One can readily argue that roughly 270 elected representatives appear to regard it as insufficiently unacceptable as to require corrective action in light of a broader political context.
That doesn't mean something is, in isolation, acceptable.
That doesn't mean something is, in isolation, acceptable.
One of our heads of state got impeached for (lying about) sexual misconduct so there's that.
So your point is entirely different then. Lying trumps (no pun intended) sexual misconduct.
No, they were investigating cases of sexual misconduct but the lying about it is what stuck.
If there was a "free ride program" they wouldn't even have investigated it.
If there was a "free ride program" they wouldn't even have investigated it.
> No, they were investigating cases of sexual misconduct
Actually, real estate transactions.
Actually, real estate transactions.
Perjury is a crime, for starters.
Yes it is. They both are, technically (e.g. sexual harassment). Somehow sexual misconduct does not conjure nearly the same negative response that perjury does, and candidates/world leaders get a free pass for that one.
Sexual harassment is a civil matter not a criminal one. Sexual assault is a different matter.
Yeah, but sexual misconduct itself is clearly not the problem, so much as being of the wrong political party.
As much flack as Trump (justifiably) takes for the remarks he made about how a celebrity like himself "can do anything" to women and "grab 'em by the pussy", he wasn't entirely wrong. Society has always seen sexual aggression by rich and powerful men as a signal of authority and virility.
As much flack as Trump (justifiably) takes for the remarks he made about how a celebrity like himself "can do anything" to women and "grab 'em by the pussy", he wasn't entirely wrong. Society has always seen sexual aggression by rich and powerful men as a signal of authority and virility.
"Don't be evil."
I really believe they believed it, at first. As the old saying goes, power corrupts.
I really believe they believed it, at first. As the old saying goes, power corrupts.
I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil, and Google chose the wrong one.
So think that one through. Rubin was accused of whatever, and Google owes him money. Which is NOT evil:
A. Not pay any money to Rubin - despite legally owing him some - because the mob has decided that is best?
B. Pay the full amount he is owed to get rid of him?
C. Negotiate a reduced amount, as he is indeed owed money?
C. Take this to court, and make all parties go through all the hassle, be forced to keep Rubin, what, employed but suspended? and then hope that by some miracle you get the outcome you desire?
Again, I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil, and Google chose the wrong one. They are all TERRIBLE options.
So think that one through. Rubin was accused of whatever, and Google owes him money. Which is NOT evil:
A. Not pay any money to Rubin - despite legally owing him some - because the mob has decided that is best?
B. Pay the full amount he is owed to get rid of him?
C. Negotiate a reduced amount, as he is indeed owed money?
C. Take this to court, and make all parties go through all the hassle, be forced to keep Rubin, what, employed but suspended? and then hope that by some miracle you get the outcome you desire?
Again, I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil, and Google chose the wrong one. They are all TERRIBLE options.
[deleted]
We seem to have moved from one person (Snowden type) dissent of institutional bullshit to groups standing up.
The current bunch of leaders are great at keeping the ship on course to well known destinations (scale at all costs/maximize profits/wage war to keep peace).
If the destination has to change, a new crop of leaders will have to take this bunch on. And it won't happen without employees making their voice heard.
The current bunch of leaders are great at keeping the ship on course to well known destinations (scale at all costs/maximize profits/wage war to keep peace).
If the destination has to change, a new crop of leaders will have to take this bunch on. And it won't happen without employees making their voice heard.
Like immediately after the original story aired an email was leaked where the CEO of Google basically admitted that it was fucked up and said the policy changed a couple years ago so there isn't going to be a big group dissenting over anything here.
>If the destination has to change, a new crop of leaders will have to take this bunch on. And it won't happen without employees making their voice heard.
I think some form of labor organization, enforcing principles like the ACM Code of Ethics, is the only sane way forward. We in tech have to move beyond this reactive posture in how we approach what are really structural problems with how decision-making, power, and resources are distributed.
I think some form of labor organization, enforcing principles like the ACM Code of Ethics, is the only sane way forward. We in tech have to move beyond this reactive posture in how we approach what are really structural problems with how decision-making, power, and resources are distributed.
[deleted]
I can't remember who made the point, but the friction stems from the current generation of Silicon Valley still thinking they are counterculture rebels from a decade ago. Nobody working at Wallstreet would dispute that Wallstreet is huge, capitalistic, and corporate. Silicon Valley is the same, but it's filled with people wearing metaphorical Che Guevara t-shirts, clutching onto their copies of Marx's Manifesto, dying their hair purple or blue, and smoking weed. They have largely become that which they claim to hate, but have not realized it.
Events like this are what we see and will continue to see as reality and self-image merge. The leadership is fine, but they are probably more cognizant of this fact than the rank and file. Their challenge is helping their employees make the transition without suffering an existential crisis.
Events like this are what we see and will continue to see as reality and self-image merge. The leadership is fine, but they are probably more cognizant of this fact than the rank and file. Their challenge is helping their employees make the transition without suffering an existential crisis.
Of course some Google employees are upset, there are 85,000 of them. You could have cherry-picked ones who weren't upset as well and written an article the opposite of this if desired. I'm not commenting on the claims themselves but it's just funny how the NYT is able to completely run their own show here.