Emails reveal extent of Google's toxic work culture

[FeralWombat]

4 hours ago, Mihle said:

@FeralWombat If true that's shit.

 

But just saying, If you consider China as a hole overpopulated, I am just going to tell you that China have lover population density than lot of European countries, including Italy,  Switzerland, Luxemburg, Germany, UK and Belgium.

China does have a lot of people, but it's also huge in area.

The countries that is actually some of the most population dense is Bangladesh, Taiwan, Lebanon  and South Korea.

Population density is calculated with territorial area, china is overpopulated in urban areas; with that said you are not incorrect.

[AshleyAshes]

ITT: The teens and other students of this forum are unable to accept the reality that in employment, one can't just say what ever the hell they want in the workplace and be guaranteed to remain employed.

[Theguywhobea]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

ITT: The teens and other students of this forum are unable to accept the reality that in employment, one can't just say what ever the hell they want in the workplace and be guaranteed to remain employed.

People don't realize a job isn't a right, and most places can legally fire you whenever they want with out notice, because it's written into almost every contract.

[AshleyAshes]

4 minutes ago, Theguywhobea said:

People don't realize a job isn't a right, and most places can legally fire you whenever they want with out notice, because it's written into almost every contract.

Pretty much.  There are specific reasons you CAN'T be fired but that's about it.

Can't get fired for being gay, or Chinese or for being concerned about workplace safety or stuff like that.  (And some places WILL try and if you don't have the cash to fund a legal case, you might get screwed anyway) On the other hand you can totally get fired for spreading shit around the office, just having a 'hostile attitude' or any number of other things.  Work at McDonalds?  Did you tweet 'The BigMac is basically poison and no one should eat it.' and McDonalds caught wind of that?  TOTALLY okay to fire you for that in most places.

 

I work in the film industry.  Know what I don't do?  I don't use social media to talk shit about movies, TV shows, companies, or people who work in the film industry, because I'm not a freakin' idiot.

[matrix07012]

I recommend you all read the entire lawsuit. I know it's 161 pages, but it's really interesting.

[luigi90210]

44 minutes ago, FeralWombat said:

Population density is calculated with territorial area, china is overpopulated in urban areas; with that said you are not incorrect.

i would even go as far to say that china is overpopulated in poor urban area, the chinese government has built a lot of housing that can house nearly every citizen there in comfort, but they mostly go empty because the houses cost too much and the average chinese citizen can not afford to buy one of those apartments, its actually become a real big issue throughout china, tons of apartments sitting empty for years, shopping malls sitting like ghost towns, and the average chinese citizen living in terrible conditions

 

its quite a mess over there

[Memories4K]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

 

Well apparently not to ravenshrike which is the person I was quoting and henceforth responding to. He said multiple reports were "factually wrong" when that wasn't the case: Damore really did write lots of misogynistic, right wing talking points on his memo. Someone disagreeing with what Damore say or interpreting it as an attack on women and their abilities is not reporting something that's 'Factually wrong' at all.

 

Sorry but having rights as a worker doesn't means you have the right to use your work as a political platform: it just means you shouldn't be persecuted for believes you express outside of company time and company platforms but once you bring it indoors, you're no longer talking "personal believes" you're talking a fucking political agenda you're pushing on everybody which is what Damore did.

Damore didn't say anything even remotely misogynistic or right-wing in his memo, where are you getting this from?

Apparently, pushing political agendas was the norm among Google's employees even before Damore; so why is Damore being singled out? Why the unequal treatment among employees?

Like you're totally right, you shouldn't be using your work as a platform for your cause, i'm 100% with you, but Damore's memo was a response to the already very present agenda-pushing; James Damore being treated differently from his peers for the same "crime" is a problem that needs to be addressed.

[JuNex03]

56 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

Damore didn't say anything even remotely misogynistic or right-wing in his memo, where are you getting this from?

Apparently, pushing political agendas was the norm among Google's employees even before Damore; so why is Damore being singled out? Why the unequal treatment among employees?

Like you're totally right, you shouldn't be using your work as a platform for your cause, i'm 100% with you, but Damore's memo was a response to the already very present agenda-pushing; James Damore being treated differently from his peers for the same "crime" is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Yep, apparently, pushing political agendas if everyone is agreeing with you is A-OK, but disagree and you'll find yourself burning while nailed to a cross and everyone gets a peer bonus. I've read the lawsuit document @Maxxtraxx shared, and damn the place is toxic.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Memories4K said:

Damore didn't say anything even remotely misogynistic or right-wing in his memo, where are you getting this from?

Apparently, pushing political agendas was the norm among Google's employees even before Damore; so why is Damore being singled out? Why the unequal treatment among employees?

Like you're totally right, you shouldn't be using your work as a platform for your cause, i'm 100% with you, but Damore's memo was a response to the already very present agenda-pushing; James Damore being treated differently from his peers for the same "crime" is a problem that needs to be addressed.

1) Women being inherently inferior for some areas and inherently more skilled at others is not misogynistic? It's first not based on actual science: the observations are not conclusive or predictive of behavior. Second of all as I discussed when this story first broke, his interpretation of the data, even at face value (which is a mistake according to the very people that compiled the data for the study) is already inherently flawed observations because Google hires IT professionals meaning the characteristics of women who are already on IT engineering fields are vastly different than the norm several standard deviations on the curve. Your data set is already skewed simply by the hiring process Google goes through to get qualified candidate who can actually code and develop solutions as IT professionals so Damore is basically telling women who are already different than the norm and have chosen this career path that they should go back to the socially oriented fields and leave the hard sciences for men.

 

That is, in my analysis, inherent misogynistic. You might not see it that way but you'd have to introduce a Biological Determinism argument here and that's not something that's actually supported by science or studies (not scientific data but the interpretation of said data which is as important if not more important than the data itself)

 

2) What Damore is presenting for his lawsuit is not evidence that there's a present "agenda-pushing" whatsoever at Google: He and his Lawyer have an incredibly difficult and long road ahead of themselves to actually show that in their court case and I really do not think he will succeed, but at most you can say he brought it into question but at this point is a one-sided claim that serves only Damore and the damages he is seeking from Google.

[Memories4K]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

1) Women being inherently inferior for some areas and inherently more skilled at others is not misogynistic? It's first not based on actual science: the observations are not conclusive or predictive or behavior. Second of all as I discussed when this story first broke, his interpretation of the data, even at face value (which is a mistake according to the very people that compiled the data for the study) is already inherently flawed observations because Google hires IT professionals meaning the characteristics of women who are already on IT engineering fields are vastly different than the norm several normal deviations on the curve. Your data set is already skewed simply by the hiring process Google goes through to get qualified candidate who can actually code and develop solutions as IT professionals so Damore is basically telling women who are already different than the norm and have chosen this career path that they should go back to the socially oriented fields and leave the hard sciences for men.

 

That is, in my analysis, inherent misogynistic. You might not see it that way but you'd have to introduce a Biological Determinism argument here and that's not something that's actually supported by science or studies (not scientific data but the interpretation of said data which is as important if not more important than the data itself)

 

2) What Damore is presenting for his lawsuit is not evidence that there's a present "agenda-pushing" whatsoever at Google: He and his Lawyer have an incredibly difficult and long road ahead of themselves to actually show that in their court case and I really do not think he will succeed, but at most you can say he brought it into question but at this point is a one-sided claim that serves only Damore and the damages he is seeking from Google.

1. No, it's not misogynistic or sexist to be sincere about people's biological potentials and talk about behavior patterns in animals. You gonna start advocating that female MMA fighters should also compete with the male MMA fighters? Sexual dimorphism is a real thing supported by basic fucking biology lmao and you'd be hard-pressed to find a clinical journal of psychology arguing that there is '0' difference between male and female behavior patterns that have been been recorded.
Men also have their short-comings and common behavioral patterns, that's just the reality but it doesn't mean it's a rule you have to stick to or that Damore is at all saying that it should be the rule.
It's not about telling people what they can't be, i'm a man myself and i'm working on my degree for Nursing. You have any idea how DOMINATED this field is by women? You ever wonder what it is about Nursing that doesn't appeal to the LARGE majority of men? It doesn't mean men can't be nurses and it doesn't mean men can't be good nurses, but it's just the reality that there will almost NEVER be an equal 1:1 ratio of men and women in this field.
Even in more egalitarian countries and societies like the Scandinavian countries, you still see a MASSIVE disproportion of both men and women in fields.
It's not about telling people what they can and can't be, it's about understanding why the situation is what it is.
The reason men are such an extreme minority in Nursing i would bet is the same reason there's an extreme minority in women within tech; it's not that it's some "Male-only" space, it's that it doesn't appeal to a lot of women. I'm going to repeat it again, OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL WOMEN, just the VAST MAJORITY of women. And that's ok, because there's nothing wrong about wanting to aspire to what you want to aspire to, so long as nobody is holding you back. Which in these both cases, nobody is holding any of us men from wanting to be nurses much the same way nobody is holding women back from roles in engineering and technology.
Damore didn't say women are inferior as people, simply explaining why there's not many women in the field and questioning the merit in sexual discrimination as a common hiring practice.

2. I don't give a shit, that's not what i'm talking about lmao
Are they going to have a tough time proving that Damore was treated unfairly? Maybe, and by making such claims he should absolutely be responsible for bringing any evidence to the case that pertains to that claim.
Is it hard to believe though from past experience, other accounts, and from reading the memo ourselves? Not even in the slightest.

[Mihle]

2 hours ago, FeralWombat said:

Population density is calculated with territorial area, china is overpopulated in urban areas; with that said you are not incorrect.

Then make them use the hole country that they have.

[Lawyer4Ever]

4 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

Which is don't believe is really even that comparable, there's room for argument between the discrepancies of worker's rights and the rights of consumers.

This last sentence says it all, so you believe its OK to turn away the gay couple for a public service, but its not OK for Google to fire a guy because of his political beliefs?  And that is because you believe that there is a critical distinction between the rights of company employees and consumers who seek the services of a business that holds itself out to the public?  If so, what is that distinction?

[asus killer]

3 hours ago, Evanair said:

Yes there is but people misunderstand.  Free speech is only protected my the government, it's not a criminal act.  However a business isn't a government and can, and do, enforce speech codes and can fire you for saying things they do not like.  You don't go to prison but you also won't be employed.

I get your point, but a company that fires people for having a difference view on whatever, is insane (as long as it does not interfere with the job of course, like saying our products are crap I guess), just goes to prove my point, people are going insane in the USA.

[Misanthrope]

24 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

1. No, it's not misogynistic or sexist to be sincere about people's biological potentials and talk about behavior patterns in animals. You gonna start advocating that female MMA fighters should also compete with the male MMA fighters?

So you're saying there's a biological potential that's as objectively measurable as physical strength for personality traits? Based on what? Statistical studies? Studies that actually do not always account for how much is determined by biology and how much is determined by upbringing, cultural factors and such?

 

You're really going to tell me that you've finally solved the age old question of Nature vs Nurture to win an internet argument?

 

Good for you but then you proceed with this:

 

Quote

 I'm going to repeat it again, OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL WOMEN, just the VAST MAJORITY of women. And that's ok, because there's nothing wrong about wanting to aspire to what you want to aspire to, so long as nobody is holding you back. Which in these both cases, nobody is holding any of us men from wanting to be nurses much the same way nobody is holding women back from roles in engineering and technology.
Damore didn't say women are inferior as people, simply explaining why there's not many women in the field and questioning the merit in sexual discrimination as a common hiring practice.

 

So why, to quote you, "OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL WOMEN" and why just some? You know for certain that there's only biological factors that influence this? If not, do you know specifically by what percentage is affected by biology? Can you reliably predict this? Are you going to just tell me percentages without understanding those percentages are not taking into account how much social factors influence the behavior, something we cannot know and that nobody can predict?

 

Suddenly your outrage at screaming "Sexual diphormism is real!" is basically just putting the car before the horse: You already have your conclusion, that women are inherently different in their behavior because of biology and then work your way back to find "evidence!" that would confirm your bias.

 

That's now how science works and that's not the reason why studies like the one Damore cited were conducted. 

[AshleyAshes]

30 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

You gonna start advocating that female MMA fighters should also compete with the male MMA fighters? 

WHO WOULD EVER ADVOCATE SUCH A...

 

 

GOD DAMNIT RONDA ROUSEY, YOU ARE MAKING MEMORIES4K LOOK FOOLISH!  DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW IMPOLITE THAT IS!?

 

Yeah, actually Male vs Female MMA matches are not unheard of.  This works because MMA works on the concept of weight classes.  Where competitions are generally within the same weight class.  Cause, apparently, if you put a man in a light weight class against a man in a heavy weight class, the match is usually very one sided. Almost as if not all men are physically equal to all other men.  Shocking, I know.

[Memories4K]

16 minutes ago, Lawyer4Ever said:

This last sentence says it all, so you believe its OK to turn away the gay couple for a public service, but its not OK for Google to fire a guy because of his political beliefs?  And that is because you believe that there is a critical distinction between the rights of company employees and consumers who seek the services of a business that holds itself out to the public?  If so, what is that distinction?

No lol I'm telling you that's where the argument lies, i didn't say i was on the side that said it's ok to treat people differently just because they're gonna use something you made for something you don't agree with; such as the case of refusing to service a wedding due to it being against your religious beliefs.

I have no idea where you would draw the line and what would be considered fair between the two, that's what i'm asking.
Where is the distinction between the rights of consumers and employees?
Why is it ok to discriminate based on political beliefs but not religious beliefs?
Why is it ok to discriminate based on religious beliefs but not political beliefs?

[Maxxtraxx]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

You can't write an essay about your employer being a discriminatory company without proof and making incorrect scientific claims, put it online for everyone to see, and then expect them to just ignore it. If you tell your boss he's a jackass you'll get fired and rightfully so, even if it is your opinion. He can't put you in jail for it, but he can refuse to have you as part of his work force. I'm pretty sure the exact same would have happened if the opposite were the case (i.e. someone who isn't a white man complaining about discrimination and that *insert group* is being favoured despite their lower competence).

 

You can say and write whatever you want, but don't mistake freedom of speech for freedom from consequences. What you think in your private life is your own business but the instant you write about your employer they can take action.

 

Then I believe that you are not fully understanding the memo that he originally wrote and where exactly the memo was posted. I will attempt to give some context that I am hoping will clarify some things as I understand them to be.

 

1: The location that the memo was posted...

 

is an internal bulletin board of sorts that the company actively promotes to it's employees as a place for them to bring up topics for discussion with an emphasis on improving the workplace and making the company a better place to work. This is thusly an open invitation for EVERYONE in the company to bring up topics, express thoughts and opinions and discuss them for the betterment of the company.

 

2: The memo itself

Damores memo was his personal thoughts and opinions that were presented very respectfully and were an effort to put forth ideas to IMPROVE diversity within the company by looking at possibly reasons why men and women behave the way they do and how he thought Google could be made a better and more diverse place to work. His memo was NOT inflamatory, did not berate, call anyone a jackass or claim that google was discriminatory.

 

So, his memo was a respectful offering of his opinions on a subject that google was actively asking employees to discuss and it was in an internal forum that was for all employees with the purpose of that forum being a place to discuss these things that google was actively asking employees to discuss in an effort to improve the company.

 

The lawsuit then alleges:

As a direct result of him doing what the company was asking employees for, BECAUSE his opinions/views were conservative, he was a cisgender white male, he was singled out for hateful, derogatory and abusive treatment that was given the approval of by google itself.

[Memories4K]

11 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

WHO WOULD EVER ADVOCATE SUCH A...

 

 

GOD DAMNIT RONDA ROUSEY, YOU ARE MAKING MEMORIES4K LOOK FOOLISH!  DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW IMPOLITE THAT IS!?

 

Yeah, actually Male vs Female MMA matches are not unheard of.  This works because MMA works on the concept of weight classes.  Where competitions are generally within the same weight class.  Cause, apparently, if you put a man in a light weight class against a man in a heavy weight class, the match is usually very one sided. Almost as if not all men are physically equal to all other men.  Shocking, I know.

Are you a fucking moron or do you actually believe Rhousey could take Lewis on?
You also know where that photo's from right? hahahaha lmao did you just google Rhonda rousey and take the first photo you saw of her and a dude? 

Rhonda's a fantastic athlete who's a better fighter than any of you here on the forums, but against another trained MMA fighter who's reached his genetic potential? Rhonda's got nothing. There's a reason Rhonda pussied out when she got called out to fight another male MMA fighter and a reason her transphobic ass was bitching about having to fight a trans-woman because it's "not fair"

No it's not unheard of, you're not listening though; the genetic potential is different, and Rhonda's not stupid, she knows it herself but of course you don't follow MMA so you didn't know that.

Of course not all men are the same, why are you so tilted? hahaha
You're trying really hard to say things that are obvious to everybody else here that understood the context.

[GDRRiley]

4 hours ago, Evanair said:

Last I checked, political idealology isn't a protected status. You can actively discriminate based on that bias at will and not violate US law.

 

I could be wrong, but I've not seen it in the law for protected status.

it is in CA sort of. an employer can't discriminate against you in most cases unless it results in you doing little work or conflicts with the companies business model.  

[Drak3]

35 minutes ago, Lawyer4Ever said:

This last sentence says it all, so you believe its OK to turn away the gay couple for a public service, but its not OK for Google to fire a guy because of his political beliefs?  And that is because you believe that there is a critical distinction between the rights of company employees and consumers who seek the services of a business that holds itself out to the public?  If so, what is that distinction?

Few things:

1. The baker is offering GOODS, not a service.

2. It is a privately owned company. One perk to owning a privately owned company is the right to turn away customers, unless the good is considered a necessecity by some form of government (baked goods are not).

3. Cake isn't even remotely essential to living in modern society. A job is.

 

[AshleyAshes]

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

2. It is a privately owned company. One perk to owning a privately owned company is the right to turn away customers, unless the good is considered a necessecity by some form of government (baked goods are not).

Actually, no.  It's pretty clearly codified in law in most regions that certain classes can not be denied the sale of goods on the basis of being one of those classes, even if those goods are sold by a privately owned company.  Even if the reason for denial to that class is on the basis of religious belief.  While the specifics and which classes are protected do vary by region, it's overall not a 'grey area' that's open to interpretation at all.  Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States and others are set pretty rock solid precedents, relative to the United States of course.

[Memories4K]

40 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

So you're saying there's a biological potential that's as objectively measurable as physical strength for personality traits? Based on what? Statistical studies? Studies that actually do not always account for how much is determined by biology and how much is determined by upbringing, cultural factors and such?

 

You're really going to tell me that you've finally solved the age old question of Nature vs Nurture to win an internet argument?

 

Good for you but then you proceed with this:

 

 

So why, to quote you, "OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL WOMEN" and why just some? You know for certain that there's only biological factors that influence this? If not, do you know specifically by what percentage is affected by biology? Can you reliably predict this? Are you going to just tell me percentages without understanding those percentages are not taking into account how much social factors influence the behavior, something we cannot know and that nobody can predict?

 

Suddenly your outrage at screaming "Sexual diphormism is real!" is basically just putting the car before the horse: You already have your conclusion, that women are inherently different in their behavior because of biology and then work your way back to find "evidence!" that would confirm your bias.

 

That's now how science works and that's not the reason why studies like the one Damore cited were conducted. 

No, that's not what i'm saying; i never said anything about being able to measure EXACTLY how much more neurotic, open, or conscientiousness a person is but simply that we already knew there was a discrepancy in which cultural factors were accounted for and compared to each other.
Ok so hold on, you have a problem with any studies that show the difference between men and women, EVEN IN SOCIETIES THAT ARE MORE EGALITARIAN THAN OURS, because you can't be bothered to compare the data between regions of culture?

Like that's fine, hey, it's possible that the reason why nursing is so female dominated in ALL THESE DIFFERENT REGIONS might be to reasons outside of the legal and social treatment of women (which is going to be hard for you to prove what cultural factors actually would matter outside of social and legal treatment) but then what evidence do you have that it's cultural outside of social and legal factors?

It is some because, again, it's not a rule. No of course your environment also plays into this, the point is that even when the environment is accounted for when you compare the data you see that the impact has only maximized the variables left. No, there's not a set percentage of nature vs nurture; everybody is different within their own group, it's about comparing groups with other groups. Yes, you can reliably predict human behavior on groups based on psychology; that's like asking me "Well how do you know the group of people who like chocolate ice cream will actually choose chocolate when they all take a trip to the ice cream shop?" Well of course maybe there's some people who want to try something new or are bored with chocolate but by-and-large the "We love chocolate ice cream club" is going to pick chocolate ice cream. 
You're asking questions i don't have any problem with as if it somehow makes what i aid any less true.
Do you just have a problem with psychology and the study of the human mind or something? Are you one of those people that hates therapy and thinks clinical psychologists are selling snake oil? hahahaha

Outrage?
What outrage?
You mean the fact sexual dimorphism exists? lmao

Women aren't inherently different in their behavior solely because of biology though? Why are you putting words in my mouth?
I didn't go back to find evidence? It's already there, what are you talking about? hahaha
Again, what are your problems with what i said, you've yet to contend with anything but go with "b-b-but this over here!" route on things that i never brought up or are relevant beyond the idea that you believe those "big bad doctors and researchers" might be lying and all these things you can't see with the naked eye must be a load of baloney.

[Maxxtraxx]

4 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

 

Well apparently not to ravenshrike which is the person I was quoting and henceforth responding to. He said multiple reports were "factually wrong" when that wasn't the case: Damore really did write lots of misogynistic, right wing talking points on his memo. Someone disagreeing with what Damore say or interpreting it as an attack on women and their abilities is not reporting something that's 'Factually wrong' at all.

 

The part that some people have trouble accepting is one that you casually mention as if it didn't needed to even be discussed further: "because of his race his gender and his personal beliefs."

 

1) It wasn't "because of his race and gender" at all. You have 0 evidence to support said claim and the original post on this thread at best has vague conjecture about a possible, distant correlation between his race and his dismissal that still needs to be proven in court both in terms of veracity and context which is Google's right to defend said accusation.

Listed in the lawsuit in reference to another google employee named Gudeman.

Quote

2) His believes ceased to be "personal" the minute he himself widely distributed the memo for all employees to see. I might have personal believes outside of my workplace and I shouldn't be fired because of them. If I publicly and widely distribute said ideas to all of the company, then I am basically no longer talking about my personal believes as I am putting them forth for all of my co-workers and the company itself to evaluate.

 

At the very least companies frown upon using company property and time to discuss political believes and even if that wasn't the case (Might or might not be again, we haven't heard Google's side and probably won't if/until the court case) we can't say if others circulating similar memos suffered any kind of reprimands by Google.

The place where Damore and others listed in the lawsuit were Discussion boards put in place by google for the very purpose of employees discussing ways to improve the company. That was the purpose and goal of Damores memo, he wanted to increase diversity in the workplace by adding his thoughts on the reasons for differences between men and women. His views expressed were not political, they were his constructive thoughts out of a desire to help the company.

Quote

Sorry but having rights as a worker doesn't means you have the right to use your work as a political platform: it just means you shouldn't be persecuted for believes you express outside of company time and company platforms but once you bring it indoors, you're no longer talking "personal believes" you're talking a fucking political agenda you're pushing on everybody which is what Damore did.

I'm still not seeing what Damore did as political, can you give me an example of him in his memo specifically promoting a political party/platform?

 

 

[RagnarokDel]

On 10/01/2018 at 7:19 PM, AresKrieger said:

This is not remotely surprising

 Google, ethics  

 

Google's main profit method amounts to spying, they manipulate search results to their whimsy on their platform for various "legit" reasons, they simply have good pr.....because they control the internet........

I havent used bing in forever but the last time I did even searching for a company brand directly didnt give you the company's website as the first result. The only reason Google is #1 is because it's the best search engine

[2FA]

55 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

I'm still not seeing what Damore did as political, can you give me an example of him in his memo specifically promoting a political party/platform?

Then why is asserting he was discriminated against for being conservative?