Discussion in 'Current Events' started by unchanged_lineup, Nov 1, 2018.
Good. Public moves like this might actually have an impact.
Great, can they pay their fair share of tax now please?
Fair play to whoever managed to organise this within the company. I'm sure they took a big personal risk doing it.
I know a few people who work in the Dublin office and it sounds like the best place to work ever so I guess if they've nothing else to worry about, they may as well.
So they paid Rubin off rather than just firing him. What the hell?
Was he found guilty of sexual assault?
They can't fire him if nothing is proven against him, the article says it was just an allegation. Much easier to pay him enough that he just leaves.
american companies fire employees all the time for no reason
I was more going by the article bbc linked to
CA is an "at will" state, anybody can be fired for any or no reason at any time.
if an entry level employee reported sexual harassment by a superior google would have no problem firing the victim. its only the executives who get golden parachutes.
Fantastic stuff and massive kudos to the group who started this.
Executives that love the at will status often themselves are on employment agreements that give them protections regular employees don't have.
Probably because the entry level employee wont go to court as it making it public will only harm their future job opportunities and the payoff is nowhere near worth it.
A top executive stands to gain tens of millions if he/she can make it a case of wrongful dismissal.. They are more likely to challenge it..
Making it public helps no one. Paying them off and asking them to move on is the easier/less messy option.
Well it’s been made public now and has made they option more messy with employees striking and Google just paying him off like that. If they had credible evidence then they should have felt confident.
yes well done for proving that corporations are immoral and treat employees like shit while the rich executives never face any consequences
They are getting rid of the person accused of inappropriate behaviour.
The payoff is most likely to cover their own ass and not have their name involved in a messy legal battle. I doubt any company would give people millions of dollars if they didn't feel like they had to.
I'm not bringing my pitchfork out for that.
Yeah. Hopefully going forward, companies would stop with this behaviour.. but its not just google/tech companies.. and its not just for sexual harassment.
People have been getting these payoffs for years after messing up. It has been the easiest path.
It would be nice if that changed.. and hopefully it will. It was easier to keep things like this under wraps 20 years ago... not so much anymore.
If they say, "feck off and get out", there is nothing preventing him from going up the street to a competitor. The payout is to prevent litigation (which an executive can certainly do), and prevent trade secrets from getting leaked.
Someone in Google did the calculation that it's not worth considering the public reaction on this.
The walkout is obviously great news. I don't see Google or other companies voluntarily ending forced arbitration. Arbitration panels lean towards the company in most cases, it would take a lot for them to relinquish that and let the courts decide. It would have to be forced by law. CA is very liberal so I can see their legislature passing arbitration legislation in the next few years that tips the balance towards workers.
The only real competition in terms of software is Apple and if they find out would that he was fired due to sexual allegations then they wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole. Hardware wise the likes of Samsung are far ahead of Google without needing Rubin.
He did release his own phone though, which failed.
The landscape of Silicon Valley is much more complicated than an Apple - Google - Samsung trifecta. If it was as simple as that then they would let him go without a payout. Google is a traded company... companies don't make payouts out of the goodness of their hearts without a business justification, over paying dividends to shareholders. And there's a strong case to be made that the payout, public opinion aside, made sense for Google's bottom line from a legal and technology standpoint.
Plus, if you're good enough, you'll get hired. Probably not as a direct employee, to prevent public angst. As a consultant? Most certainly. The legal settlement covers all of that.
there are plenty of examples of companies doing just that for executives.
You think that's all Rubin did? He was leading their Robotics division which had acquired Boston Dynamics before he left. Google sold off Boston Dynamics shortly after that as well.
Google spends billions on Google X. Wouldnt be surprised if Rubin knew things about that as well. You dont kick someone with that information out.. like it or not
That’s what I’m struggling with. What’s the alternative to arbitration? Every incident of allaged harrassment or discrimination gets dragged through the courts? That’s going to mean a lot of lawyers making a tonne of cash but I’m not seeing how this makes life any better for the employees?
Maybe the mere threat of legal action will make the company lean more towards an employee, to avoid the attention a legal case brings?
Just guessing here.
A least in the US since this year, the company can force arbitration within the employment contract itself. IE the employee cannot take them to court for any case. I'm guesssing they want that clause removed.
That's exactly the one.
At some point, probably when the Democrats hold majorities in both houses, legislation needs to be passed that undercuts rulings like this. This is not only applicable to this case; the furore over Roe would be greatly diminished if Congress did it's job and banged out sensible legislation that eliminates the need for abortion rights to live or die on the decision of 9 judges.
Not sure about the first point. Facilities are great but they're there with the intention of encourage presenteeism.
But yes, I agree, whilst there's clearly some issues with individual victims, particular when senior stakeholders are involved but for something like a group walkout, they're comfortable in feeling protected and by most managers backed. I don't think that undercuts what they're doing though, it's still a move to be encouraged.
The article says that Google felt the accusation was "credible" - which is typically used as a synonym for plausible. As in "it could have happened."
It also says Rubin denies the accusation and that he was involved in an extramarital affair with the woman.
Based on the facts that are available from the articles in this thread I'm finding it hard to see a fairer conclusion than the one that Google came to.
They've basically offered a severance package to an employee that they felt they could no longer employ. She says she was sexually harassed. He says she wasn't. They say it could have happened but they're not certain either way and found a solution which served everybody's interest.
The bolded bit in the OP says they're walking out over the companies treatment of women, but they're not. They're walking out over the treatment of a man who has been accused of sexual harassment.
As much as I want to live in a society where nobody is sexually harassed. I'd also like to live in one where an accusation isn't all that's required to see somebody lose their job, income, status and reputation.
He wasn't just an anybody though. He founded Android which was bought out by Google. He will not have been on a regular employment contract.
Besides, it's hardly right that someone could just be booted from a lucrative job without comeback because someone made an accusation against them.
the accusation was considered credible (i.e true) by googles own corrupt arbitration system and they chose to buy him out because their executive branch does as they will with impunity
These feckers and their jobs.
Person that’s really good at job gets paid to leave job.
It’s not like the pay off was for being really good at harassment. He crafted their mobile OS ffs.
You work for Google. Applaud your efforts for trying to make a point. But the payout was justified.
He left (probably) because his personal conduct was bad. He still generated billions of dollars for them. He deserves a pay out by the standards of the whole companies structure.
Just be happy that he’s gone.
Separate names with a comma.