At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
If true, that is quite obviously legally actionable.
As long as the performance review was done based on the employee's performance over the entire year, it's fair game no?
I'm not sure I agree with the logic that someone who takes time off during the year is given credit for the good work they would have done had they not taken time off.
Reviews should be about the quality of the work, not whether you take 0 vacations days or work until 10pm everyday because you're 22 and don't have a family.
So in my opinion it's not fair game.
The big issues here (at least for me) are that a) there was a non-zero expectation for someone on paternity leave and b) someone was given a performance evaluation either while on or regarding work done during a paternity leave.
I'm curious if this signals a larger issue at Google where they have paternity leave 'in name only' - similar to 'unlimited' vacation policies and the like.
That is not the case, the gender pay gap does not compare salaries for equal job positions and qualifications.
Anecdotes are also really misleading here: not everybody earns the same amount of money, so you can always find two people where one of the two earns more than the other. It doesn't mean anything. And as a male engineer I have also discovered before that somebody who seemed less qualified earned more than me. Renegotiate, or switch companies.
As for the Google spreadsheet, it is interesting, but I doubt it captures sufficient detail.
In fact, a often used trick with the gender pay gap (among other things) is to remove just enough detail to make it seem outrageous.
For example lets say pediatricians earn less on average than neurosurgeons, but more women become pediatricians then neurosurgeons (why is another matter). Now if you want to give the impression of sexist salaries, you don't publish the average income of male and female pediatricians and male and female neurosurgeons. You go one step back and publish the average salaries of male and female physicians. Just omit the details that could explain the differences in salaries, and you have shown your desired sexist wage gap.
(why pediatricians earn less than neurosurgeons: simple supply and demand).
If the employee would otherwise exceed expectations and took paternity leave, then they still exceed expectations. If they were hired in March and worked for 40 weeks, they would not be penalized for failing to work in January or February. Leave should be handled the same way.
If the employee was not professional about taking leave (didn't give any notice, did not work with colleagues to organize coverage of his tasks, etc.) then things are different. Similarly, if they promised to do something while on leave and didn't, then that would be an issue.
Being rated as someone who meets expectations is not a punishment.
Certainly, one has the right to exercise one's rights, but one also has a duty to acknowledge that they impact others. Someone who takes paternity leave will, mutatis mutandis, achieve less than someone who does not; someone who is on leave for an entire review period and does nothing related to work cannot fairly be said to exceed expectations.
Is that true? I seem to recall a scene from Office Space and flair about this...
Seems like they shouldn't include leave in the review at all and only review when they're working.
On a scale of 1, 2, and 3, where each of these confers different privileges, when I knock you down from a 3 to a 2 specifically because of X, I am punishing you for X.
The corporate words tied to the ratings are not magical.
It depends on what the rating is used for.
Of course, if paternity leave really means "we expect you to work at a similar rate", then it's quite obviously not a "paternity leave" in anything other than name.
TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect.
The point of the list, again from TFA, is to raise awareness about bad things that happen at Google, often outside the view of privileged white men like myself. With 20% of the company subscribed, it sounds like it's working.
This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual assault go underreported.
I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one.
Disclaimer: I work at Google, and speak here (as always) for myself.
While we're doing thought exercises, let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process. Someone could just value justice and fairness, including channels for recourse when legitimate incidents of slander (or honest misunderstandings!) arise.
There's nothing wrong, ignorant, or shameful about that perspective. In fact, we should embrace these perspectives in a diverse work culture.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is nothing wrong with valuing evidence-based judgements and due process. But that is not what I was ranting against. Conflating the trope of immediately jumping to a concern about false accusations while ignoring victims with "valuing evidence-based judgements and due process" is, however, a pretty good example of what I am bothered by.
I think the real thought experiment is: Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims?
I think the answer might be, most of us here have never had to worry about being harassed at work. Most of us here don't know what it's like to be worried for our safety -- psychological or sexual -- at work. Most of us don't know what it's like to be subjected to a constant stream of microagressions from coworkers. So most of us can't imagine what many minorities in tech go through on a daily basis. That's just because most of us fit in.
What all of us can imagine is being falsely accused of doing something bad. And so since that's what we can imagine without effort, that's what we talk about, and worry about. Availability bias.
Falling prey to the availability bias doesn't make you a bad person. But you can learn to be better.
What makes you think they don't care about victims? My loved ones and I volunteer a lot in this area.
> Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations...
There are personal (verbal, emotional abuse) and social (bullying) forms of abuse that hinge on slander, lies, and manipulation to punish people or to otherwise assert power. Wanting to make sure that is not an issue is wanting to protect people.
I guess we could argue about which kinds of innocent people are worth protecting, but I'm not really interested in getting into that business.
There aren't many specifics being posted here about particular stories, but there mostly seems to be consensus that egregious behavior requires at least immediate dismissal and that less cut-and-dry incidents require some sort of correction. There also seems to be agreement that better awareness of poor behavior is a good thing.
There just doesn't seem to be consensus that anonymous posts sent out by anonymous curators is the best way to go about this. That doesn't mean some people are indifferent to awful things. They're just wary that the tools we use to help people don't end up hurting others.
> What makes you think they don't care about victims?
I never said that anyone does or doesn't care about anyone else.
I said that the words written here on HN focused on the spectre of false accusations, rather than on the victims of harassment, abuse, and worse. I also said that this is a common, much-discussed failure mode, and that we should know better.
> There are personal (verbal, emotional abuse) and social (bullying) forms of abuse that hinge on slander, lies, and manipulation to punish people or to otherwise assert power. Wanting to make sure that is not an issue is wanting to protect people.
Right.
But in this particular instance, we're talking about wanting to protect people from those they're harassing. This list is very clearly not being used to bully anyone, and part of my objection is with the kneejerk assumption that this must be what's going on, and that privileged white men aren't getting sufficient protection in their workplace.
What I am saying is, rather than restricting our consideration to fringy concerns of how this list might harm white men (it doesn't), we should also (not even exclusively! -- just also) consider how it affects everyone else.
[edited for formatting]
you're connecting two points that are not naturally connected. caring about false accusations does not exclude caring about victims.
additionally, some awareness of the current political climate is necessary for this discussion. false accusations have been weaponized in other contexts.
I really think you are missing my point, sadly.
> This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual assault go underreported.
a victim of a crime should make a criminal complaint, and if he or she doesn't, then we should attempt to discover the reasons why not.
however, anonymously accusing people of misconduct does absolutely nothing to assist those who have been wronged. it has significant potential for harm and creates a chilling effect and a culture of paranoia.
what is the supposed benefit of anonymous accusations? is this intended to mitigate against future misconduct? why do you suppose it will accomplish that? my intuition on this is that those who are legitimately abusive will continue to be abusive (because they are already insensitive and not caring about how their actions impact others) and those that are only accidentally committing transgressions will now be subjected to ostracism because they could not adequately predict how their actions made in good faith will be perceived by others.
additionally, let's consider the principles of due process and justice described in the U.S. constitution. the right to face your accuser. the right to expedient arbitration. the right to representation. the right to defend yourself without being presumed guilty. all of these principles of justice are lost with an anonymous accusation mailing list.
This system does not facilitate accusations of any kind, because it is anonymous to all parties involved.
I've repeated this a number of times, but people are not hearing it. This is exactly my point, that people here are fixating on the non-problem of false accusations instead of the real problem of microaggressions, macroaggressions, and harassment proper in the workplace.
> a victim of a crime should make a criminal complaint, and if he or she doesn't, then we should attempt to discover the reasons why not.
Not everything bad that people do to one another rises to the level of criminal misconduct. And not every victim of a crime wishes to confront their perpetrator in the court of law. Part of the point of this list is to raise awareness of stuff which does not go through the courts, but which is nonetheless bad.
> however, anonymously accusing people of misconduct does absolutely nothing to assist those who have been wronged. it has significant potential for harm and creates a chilling effect and a culture of paranoia.
Nobody is accusing anybody of anything.
People are relating stories. "This happened to me." That is not an accusation. The only victims here are the people relating the stories.
If the "paranoia" effected is that more white dudes start considering how the things they say and might affect people who are not white dudes and think twice before doing or saying things that might hurt another person, then I think that's working as intended.
> what is the supposed benefit of anonymous accusations? is this intended to mitigate against future misconduct?
That is one purpose to the list, yes.
> why do you suppose it will accomplish that?
By raising awareness, as TFA and I have said multiple times now.
> my intuition on this is that those who are legitimately abusive will continue to be abusive (because they are already insensitive and not caring about how their actions impact others) and those that are only accidentally committing transgressions will now be subjected to ostracism because they could not adequately predict how their actions made in good faith will be perceived by others.
Nobody is being publicly accused of anything, as has been said multiple times in this thread.
Those accidentally committing transgressions -- either called out or not in the newsletter -- may now be made aware that they are doing something bad. Through this mailing list, I personally have learned of whole classes of things that are hurtful to people, that I just didn't realize before. That makes me a better, more considerate person.
> additionally, let's consider the principles of due process and justice described in the U.S. constitution. the right to face your accuser. the right to expedient arbitration. the right to representation. the right to defend yourself without being presumed guilty. all of these principles of justice are lost with an anonymous accusation mailing list.
Those are all rights that you have when the government accuses you of something.
Those are not rights that you have when another person accuses you of something.
But, one more time: Nobody is being accused of anything via this list.
Notice how many times above you assume that's not the case and that people are being falsely and publicly named and shamed, despite this having been made clear multiple times in thread? Notice how few times you have considered why people might be posting to this list? This is exactly what I am talking about.
This thread was a great opportunity to talk about harassment in the workplace. Instead it's turned into a bunch of people complaining about something that is not happening, but is bad because it might hypothetically hurt privileged white men.
Give it a break, everyone. White men are doing just fine at Google. We are not the victims here.
I find considerable irony in this assertion considering we're talking about Google here. If any organization should know about the emptiness of promises of anonymity it's Google.
> Nobody is being publicly accused of anything, as has been said multiple times in this thread.
they are, actually. they're being accused anonymously, but that is cold comfort because anonymity in an organization and social setting like that one is a false promise. the ease by which candid identities can be discovered and correlated makes this a deep flaw if you mean to use it as a defense against potential abuse of the list.
> Those are all rights that you have when the government accuses you of something. Those are not rights that you have when another person accuses you of something.
this seems like deliberate misinterpretation of my point. I presented the principles of due process in the U.S. justice system as a model for how to manage disputes in other systems as well. I'm not making a legalistic argument I'm making an ethical argument. I believe those principles establish solid ethics for handling disputes, and are just as well suited for interactions between individuals they are for interactions between the state and an individual.
> Give it a break, everyone. White men are doing just fine at Google. We are not the victims here.
Not the point. The point is that the slippery slope to truly bad outcomes begins with well intentioned systems like this one.
I only wish you'd express and weigh equally a concern for the well-being of women and minorities in tech, who are disproportionately the victims of harassment.
I only wish you'd express and weigh equally a concern for the well-being of those who might be anonymously accused of harassment without evidence or opportunity to defend themselves.
-----
Does it sound better turned around? If not, why not? What are you attempting to communicate, and how might you state it more clearly?
To my knowledge, as I have said a dozen times in this thread, that is not happening. Nobody here can point to a single instance of that happening as a result of this email list. All anyone has offered is an entirely hypothetical slippery-slope potential.
We know that people are being harassed in our workplaces all the time. That's a real problem, which is why I am concerned about it.
You keep equating these two issues -- harassment and false accusations -- like they're both big problems that we need to worry about equally. I have zero evidence that this is true, and tons of evidence that it's not.
But no matter. Thank you for clarifying your perspective. I understand, appreciate, and empathize with it. After all, here before us is a clear, real, known problem that hurts the vulnerable and weak among us. Why would we worry about what else could go wrong, when we know for certain that women and minorities are being hurt?
So, you're assumption is that the 15,000 engineers who are subscribed (including multiple people in this thread), are incapable of determining whether or not the list is actually anonymous? Its a google internal list, how do you think people submit things? Your argument seems to boil down to "these 15000 people don't actually know what's good for them", and I find that (as a subscriber) incredibly infantilizing.
>they are, actually. they're being accused anonymously, but that is cold comfort because anonymity in an organization and social setting like that one is a false promise.
That's not what an accusation is. "Someone did something that made me feel uncomfortable" does not accuse anyone of anything.
>the ease by which candid identities can be discovered and correlated makes this a deep flaw if you mean to use it as a defense against potential abuse of the list.
You don't think the list curators thought of that? C'mon.
>I presented the principles of due process in the U.S. justice system as a model for how to manage disputes in other systems as well.
Which are irrelevant. Half of those things don't apply in civil cases, much less a company's HR process, much less something that isn't a disciplinary tool. But if we're going to use the constitution as a point of argument, it also prohibits restrictions on speech so if Google as a company intends to uphold the constitution, it shouldn't restrict its employees right to speak to each other about anything, including complaints about perceived sleights.
Once again: comparing this list to any kind of disciplinary tool or group is misleading and conveys a misunderstanding of the list and Google.
think carefully before you answer. officially designated authority is not necessary for a thing to be impactful.
If management wanted to find out who posted what on yag, it would have no problem doing so.
I agree with you but please don't single out us "white dudes", we can be victims of harassment and discrimination as well and we benefit from the yes@google list as well as anybody else.
The former president of the US was a black man, he was arguably in one of the most privileged positions in the US / World.
The current Chancellor of Germany happens to be a women, which is the most privileged positions in Europe.
I'm also sure that you will find a lot of white men who lack anything that can be considered privilege.
> why people might submit anonymously to such a list > This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't.
Even if a rape accusation turns out to be false, the damage is done, and nobody will care about your "privileged white men" because they don't have enough victim creds.
That's not what privilege is. Its about how society treats people as a whole. As as a whole, white men benefit from their gender and race. Yes there are white people who are poor or have other issues. Yes there are black people people who are wealthy or in positions of power. Citing individual examples doesn't discount macro trends
> Citing individual examples doesn't discount macro trends
Sorry mate, if you look at statistics, Asians earn more in America than 'whites', so I guess we should start calling Asians privileged then, right?
...and when he was reelected president, the Free Expression tunnel at NC State was spray painted with the confederate battle flag background, his "Hope" pose portrait, and in huge bold black letters the word "NIGGER".
Racism and systemic oppression didn't get solved just because you can cherrypick examples well.
I don't see non-white people oppressing white people because Trump is in power, calling them/him a "cracker" or other slurs, on the same continuous intensity. Which is a good indication that society is still skewed.
http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a26621/donald-trump...
If that doesn't make you stop and think, I'm really not sure what else will.
Actually it seems to me Nigger is a lot softer than Hitler. It basically means "black person I don't like because they are black". Hitler means "psychopathic mass murderer".
Besides, this is again the "there is an asshole in Kansas" line of thinking. Just because you can find somebody, somewhere in the universe who is an asshole, it doesn't prove that everybody is an asshole.
Second, there's a huge difference between insulting someone because of their perceived character ("asshole") with little cultural baggage, and insulting someone for being literally in their own skin with a word that has huge cultural baggage. On this point I would hope we would agree. Also, I find comparisons of Trump to Hitler silly and overreactionary (and I have a book recommendation for those that want to learn how Hitler actually rose to power).
Finally, I do agree that the lashing out against Trump supporters is bad. Just as it was bad that Obama supporters also had to put up with burning crosses in their frontyards when he was elected. Both sides can't see this sucks for everyone at different times for some reason and it's a stupid cycle.
The ultimate lack of empathy from both sides is what really bothers me, the culmination of which is the continued ignorance of believing we are in some post-race society. I may as well proclaim we are a species that lives on multiple planets because we sent humans to the Moon once.
The whole point of an insult is to get the other side angry, not necessarily for it to have roots in reality. I do agree that it's not a good way to have an argument. If I want to insult you I'll look at what hurts you the most.
Here is something that's not being called out as racist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5ulvcqaiM8
> I would say sexism wouldn't exist if people could disagree on merits of discussion instead of any insults (which, by nature of personal attack, immediately invokes all *isms of the victim).
Sexism exists because:
- there are a few actually sexist males and females out there see: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=marissa+mayer+gender+bias&...
- biology is sexist and there is little we can do about that
- sexism can be used as a great excuse for failing and it can be weaponized, you can threaten your boss that you'll call him sexist if you, the female don't get the promotion instead of the more qualified male
What I don't believe exists is: systematic sexism, that I believe is made up to be the ultimate excuse for everything.
> there's a huge difference between insulting someone because of their perceived character ("asshole") with little cultural baggage, and insulting someone for being literally in their own skin with a word that has huge cultural baggage
There is no difference if your objective is to hurt the other person's feelings, you pick whichever is most effective.
> Finally, I do agree that the lashing out against Trump supporters is bad. Just as it was bad that Obama supporters also had to put up with burning crosses in their frontyards when he was elected. Both sides can't see this sucks for everyone at different times for some reason and it's a stupid cycle.
I mostly noticed this from Hilary supporters, it's not an eye for an eye thing: http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-supporters
> continued ignorance of believing we are in some post-race society
Do we have slavery? No
Is it acceptable to be openly racist? No
What is your criteria for a 'post-race society'? What other checkboxes do we need to hit to get there?
Is it acceptable to be openly racist? Yes, in certain parts of America. My grandparents' county courthouse had a KKK rally to celebrate census results showing no minorities lived there. This was early 2000s.
Also, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you mich further as all your responses are not conveying a genuine desire to discuss and consider arguments you disagree with, which is frankly a waste of both our time.
systematic
Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/systematic
If this is systematic, then I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system? What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?
> thousands of men telling women to "smile more" at work to look prettier
Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today? If these are the biggest problems we have, I would say we are in a really great place.
Also, what about women telling women the same thing?
> Is it acceptable to be openly racist? Yes, in certain parts of America. My grandparents' county courthouse had a KKK rally to celebrate census results showing no minorities lived there. This was early 2000s.
Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side.
> Also, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you mich further
So these were your best arguments?
> as all your responses are not conveying a genuine desire to discuss and consider arguments you disagree with, which is frankly a waste of both our time.
I have no idea where you got that idea from, I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering.
You can't expect me to accept the existence of things like "Systematic sexism" if you can't define what it is, and prove it.
If your views are on solid ground, you should have no trouble defending them.
"relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part."
Systemic doesn't imply directed, it can also be used to mean it is deeply embedded in the system.
> Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?
It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions, including seeing and treating women as decoration.
> Also, what about women telling women the same thing?
What about them? Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too.
> Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side.
People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously.
The original comment used the wrong word. So what does this mean? are all white males part of this system that is designed to keep women down?
> It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions
Can you name those all kinds of actions? If I go today and tell a female to smile more, can you tell me what dark path will that lead to? I would be also keen on seeing solid proof that connects telling women to smile more to the tragedies that women have to endure on a daily basis. Also, is telling women to smile less the way to fix all these problems?
> including seeing and treating women as decoration.
Treating them as decoration where and how? Also, are you familiar with this thing called biology and evolution? Members of species of the opposite sex judge potential mates based on a appearance (among other things).
Did you also stop to think that women might be equally or more judgemental about looks.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ylmg9zrEDo
> Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too.
Or maybe it's just not really sexist.
> People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously.
What I meant is: protest against racism in areas where there is actual racism and don't just point the finger at anyone, you won't win people that way.
I'm not going to response here with my views in a well-articulated response. Instead, here is a meta discussion of what we have discussed so far, from my perspective.
Forgive me if I am seeking to have a discussion at a level higher than pedantry. All your arguments thus far against what I have set out to say are based on technical definitions of words, what a particular word actually means and entails at a nuanced level, all in an attempt to disprove, disregard or avoid dealing with my original core point: we are not in a post-race society. For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition.
Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote. Which is actually a valid argument when needing to supply a proof by contradiction (by definition of the proof, N=1 contradiction is all that is needed). Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further.
I understand that the arguments worth having are with people that genuinely seem to want to explore ideas together in a debate instead of convince "the wrong side they are wrong". I even opened up to the former by sharing a very vivid, personal anecdote to hopefully invite reflection. Instead, I was called a hypocrite, so please consider yourself informed (re: "I have no idea where you got that idea from").
So please forgive me not continuing to answer the following questions:
- "I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system?" (Rooted in strawman)
- "What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?" (Rooted in strawman)
- "Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?" (Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?)
- "What about women telling women the same thing?" (What is the implication behind this question? That you think I believe only men can be sexist? Another strawman setup?)
- "So these were your best arguments?" (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won)
Finally, the kicker, to really embody and summarize this whole meta discussion:
- "I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering."
Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win.
Language matters. The questions you pose to "people with the same opinion as me" that we have trouble answering are, to be frank, bad questions and heavily loaded. The real kicker though, is whether your response to this post is "Yep, he had trouble defending his view, so he is attacking me and avoiding to answer the question", because that is the strongest signal to me that there was never going to be a chance of having a good-faith exploration of ideas, and to me justifies why I will keep disengaging from people who try to have arguments the way you do.
At best, I hope we can have a different discussion in the future. At worst, you think I'm an unreasonable person (to put it lightly). I accept these ranges of outcomes, hence me writing this response. But please do not expect any more from me on this thread.
I thought you intentionally used 'systematic', the word 'systemic' actually makes your argument weaker.
> Though I am not surprised
Why are you not surprised, are all people just bad who don't blindly agree with you?
> For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition.
No, it does not excuse insults, insults of all form are bad. What I said is: when picking insults, you pick the one that hurts the most, because at that point, your objective is to do the most damage.
Just because someone utters the word 'nigger' does not make them racist. Otherwise Kanye and everyone who sings along would be racist, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_dA32oH44 .
> Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
If I tell you the Earth is diamond shaped, I can't really expect you to believe it without some hard evidence.
If you say that society is still racist, you are the one who needs to point out why, I'm not the one who needs to point out why not.
> Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote.
The original claim: white men are privileged My reply to that: some of the most privileged people are black and/or women therefore that statement cannot be true
> Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further.
I used a few examples to disprove a generalised statement, you tried to use an example to reinforce a generalised statement. If you look at all my comments, I never imply that there is absolute 0 racism and sexism in the world, my issue is when people generalise and start pointing at mystical hidden 'systems'.
> (Rooted in strawman)
More like rooted in you choosing the wrong word.
> Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?
How does my character have anything to do with the ridiculousness of this claim? Who are they? Where is the study that proves out this is an actual issue?
I can find women who get offended if I complement them on their looks, does that make this sexist even if majority of the women would actually enjoy that?
> (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won)
The intention was not to stop the conversation, I was pointing out that your arguments so far are incredibly weak, if you have better ones, I'm happy to debate them.
> Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win
It's not me-versus-you, it's me pointing out that people with similar opinions have trouble when they receive basic questions.
Examples: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpfOW3vhZbPMsPHa8TGjL1Q/vid...
> Language matters.
It doesn't invalidate points though, just because I use harsh(for people worried about PC) constructs doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong.
Trump won the election, despite his incredibly hostile and offensive style of discourse.
I worry more about the points I'm making than the style or tone.
Not to minimize it, but I do wonder how often this sort of thing is elaborate trolling versus racism. Especially on a college campus.
If I tell a joke about black/asian/latino/<insert your favourite race or ethnicity here> then I'm automatically racist, then I'm exactly the same thing as the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church?
And then you just cherry picked an example:
> ...and when he was reelected president, the Free Expression tunnel at NC State was spray painted with the confederate battle flag background, his "Hope" pose portrait, and in huge bold black letters the word "NIGGER".
Good job for being consistent!
> I don't see non-white people oppressing white people because Trump is in power, calling them/him a "cracker" or other slurs, on the same continuous intensity
Trump is being called names all the time, they even call Trump voters deplorable.
> Racism and systemic oppression
If this so called systematic oppression would exists, than how did Obama get elected? It seems to me that even if there is systemic racism, it's ineffective.
Hopefully it makes us uncomfortable enough to change our actions, thus obviating the need for this discomfort at all.
But in this case, I am unconvinced that scaling these experiences in this environment is a healing force. I think there is a missing piece here and one organization alone will not produce the best solution.
You might be right. But I think that's a limited point.
Mistreatment of women and minorities is as old as time. All that's changed here is that they're talking about it in a public forum.
Maybe that helps heal things (I tend to think it does, by way of raising awareness), maybe, as you say, it doesn't help. Maybe it even hurts.
But I am not about to tell victims how to deal with their own pain.
There are many studies that also prove emotional trauma and conflict also produce responses similar to physical pain in the brain.
And it's not just the accused that could be outed. The accuser faces the same issue.
I don't see why it's odd to have some concerns about this approach. It clearly requires a moderator with some skill, or a mistake could really hurt someone.
The moderator(s) have actually been quite good about removing or otherwise obfuscating the details you mentioned.
The entries are usually along the lines of "A (male) engineer said $AWFUL_THING to another (female) engineer in a large meeting". Specific enough that you understand the $AWFUL_THING but generic enough that you can't easily infer who the people are.
Also, look at 'name and shame' subreddits like the SRS communities. Those places are toxic. While I think that there's some value to be had in viewing other people's missteps and learning how to improve based upon them (a favorite quote of mine, "the best way to cure your bad habits is to see them in others"). However, a wide scale list like this one does not seem to me to be good.
For example, the reason aviation gets safer and safer is because every time there's a mistake it's documented, studied, and then if corrections need to be made, they are made. What's not helpful is some open forum where people just make anonymized complaints that some airline has bad pilots or crappy planes. Maybe that's not the best analogy, but I think there's something there...
This is a hypothetical worry that doesn't seem to play out in practice.
Especially since it sounds like the stories are personal, you can just figure what team the victim is on and narrow down the list of possible offenders to a few. Usually there are details: senior/junior, married/unmarried, old/young, manager, direct report, colleagues, etc, etc.
You can figure it out... Not in all cases, but most of the time I'm sure it's easy to figure out...
I have to ask, are you saying this because have you read the stories and been able to narrow down who it was? Or are you just assuming? The stories are extremely vague, and they're curated by someone who removes unnecessary detail from the stories to make sure they stay anonymized.
Here's the type of story you might see in the mailing list (this is a fictitious example along the lines of what actually shows up) "I had a meeting with a male team mate and a male employee from another group. The employee from the other group would only address my male colleague despite me being the lead of the project."
That's what most of the stories are like, with few identifying details, and just a few sentences at most describing the situation. The stories are intentionally obfuscated and brief. If this was a real incident, I'd have no idea if someone from my team was involved, or if it was my manager, or any other person I worked with. The people involved will be able to figure it out if they're reading, but in the overwhelming majority of cases there'd be no way of knowing.
The only time I've every seen someone figure out who was being mentioned was when they outed themself.
Nevertheless, I need to pipe up and express that g/yes-at-google makes me feel terrified. I'm not alone either. Some people have expressed that they plan on discontinuing all non-work communication. I've done the same, but not announced it. I've also started scrubbing all my technical communication. Anything I say might be interpreted in the worst possible light as taken as evidence of deep-seated bigotry and bias. I've never had to be this paranoid before in my life.
The scariest thing is that I've seen people "called out" for comments that would have passed even my paranoid-mode filter, even on purely technical subjects. At this point, I'm scared of making too much or too little eye contact. (Either one might be a micro-aggression.) I feel that no matter how careful I am about what I say and no matter how little bias is in my heart, it's only a matter of time before I land in front of HR for something I didn't intend to say.
Programs like YAG sensitize people to these sorts of uncharitable interpretations of others' speech. They encourage a kind of paranoid bunker mentality when it comes to social interaction. They teach people that their experiences are particular to their identity, not universal among their colleagues. They teach people to punish the wicked, not work together to solve problems.
Is this the kind of company we want to have? Is this the kind of culture that any organization should foster?
I'm another white man who works at Google. I don't feel this way. You see me here commenting using a username that's easily traceable to my real identity. So we are reacting to a similar situation quite differently. What's the difference between us? I don't know.
I also think that your having this feeling is not WAI -- Google has been pretty clear that they want everyone to feel psychologically safe at work.
Ultimately what you have is a feeling -- it's not a fact, or even an opinion. I can't argue you out of it. But feel free to reach out to me IRL if you want to talk about it. I am easy to find.
Discussion that I've seen around microaggressions seems to land on the idea that, much like sexual harassment, one can be guilty without intent or awareness. This is a difficult to balance situation because, on the one hand, you have the fact that we as white men do not know what it feels like to be "othered" or harassed every day of your life, thus making our own judgment of what constitutes fair and unfair treatment somewhat skewed. On the other hand, this can lead to the infliction of the "perpetrator" status in situations that, to my honest attempt to calmly and thoughtfully analyze the circumstances, grant too much power to the accuser.
Prior to the current email list under discussion, there was a web app internally for tracking microaggressions. I remember reading it and being horrified at the treatment that non-white people in general, and women in particular, endured - story after story of degradation, insults and bullying. Referring to these actions as "micro" aggressions was comically understating their magnitude. However, I did see one or two stories that I thought were an extremely uncharitable interpretation of a normal, everyday situation. I vividly recall one - let me attempt to retell that story here: "One day I was waiting for the bus to ${SOME_DESTINATION}. The bus stop was unusually busy, lots of people were around. Somebody said out loud 'Wow, looks like everybody is going to ${SOME_DESTINATION} today'. This comment was aimed at me because I was not white."
In the above scenario, I acknowledge the possibility that the speaker was aiming a negative comment at the reporter...but surely it is also possible that a non-biased person would make that comment innocently, perhaps even without knowledge that the non-white person were present? The reason I am afraid is that I can imagine myself making an innocent comment like that, bereft of any bias (implicit or otherwise), and I am afraid of what the consequences might be. Having a discussion about the comment would be fine, but what if I were to be brought in front of HR and have it formally recorded in my employee file? What if I received explicit disciplinary action? Could I be fired in circumstances like this?
As I've said, I recognize the legitimacy of the vast, vast majority of these grievances as well as the need to share them. What scares me is the absolutes with which they are spoken about, in that the accusation of having committed a microaggression or act of bias always means the accused is guilty. Without acknowledgement that communication is challenging and an innocent comment can be interpreted uncharitably, I am afraid of the potential consequences.
Can you handle a little guilt, though? It sounds like you can -- you're saying, I know I'm not perfect, I know I can be better.
I think that is, to a first approximation, the standard applied to employees at Google.
> On the other hand, this can lead to the infliction of the "perpetrator" status in situations that, to my honest attempt to calmly and thoughtfully analyze the circumstances, grant too much power to the accuser.
In the story you relate, does the accuser actually have any real power? They told their story, and...that's the end, right? I think you're assuming somehow that every time someone says "someone did this shitty thing to me," they want HR to fire that person. I know from talking to people who have had shitty things done to them that that's not true. People -- victims, HR -- have a sense of proportionality.
And I'm sure someone here can come up with an anecdote that shows someone acting without proportionality. But the fact that the system isn't perfect doesn't mean it's wrong as a rule, and consider that for every one accused who is acted upon disproportionately, there are surely many more victims who never seek or see justice. So if the system seems more imperfect to you lately, perhaps what is actually happening is that the imperfections are being felt more equitably.
If Google fired every white man who referred to a group of people men+women as "guys", there would be very few of us left. I don't mean to say that stuff like that isn't important and that we shouldn't change our language, just that degree of harm and intent are important. I have never heard anyone from HR suggest otherwise.
If I can make a guess as to where this fear might be coming from: A friend at another company related a story to me about how she tried to gently correct a coworker's microaggression. He blew up at her, angry that she was making a big thing out of a little thing. Which she wasn't, objectively or in intent. But then she took the blowup to HR.
So that's what happened, but I have to imagine his story is going to be, I made this innocent comment, and then I got taken to task with HR over it.
I'm sure many people have stories like that, where they completely miss the point about what they're actually talking to HR about. And then maybe these stories make their way to you, and you conclude, "gosh, I'm terrified of stepping out of line, look at the awful thing that happened to person X for doing basically nothing. And this other thing in YAG, I did that myself recently. I am terrified." But I suggest there's a different way to look at the same data that paints a quite different picture.
The comment was flag-killed.
I can't speak for the other commenter, but I would never risk attaching this opinion to my real identity, and thus I'd never come to you IRL to discuss this.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fraction+of+rape+reports+tha...
> I urge you and everyone else to think deeply before reiterating what you have heard or read from others.
Likewise. :)
I'm no expert, and not trying to sway opinion either way. But the results of your Google search only make it muddier.
I think this is a very wrong-headed way to go about self-criticism. It shouldn't be about loyalty to a party, it should be about recognition of faults and how to improve them. This is how I envisage worker control of production should be like, anyway. We should have a culture of criticism and self-criticism, in my opinion, because it does not necessitate meanness or humiliation.
It's nominally about bonding and seeing that everyone has failings, but as you point out that doesn't get problems solved. In practice, it creates social pressure to confess errors (you don't want to act superior to those around you), plus top down pressure ("confess or we'll say it for you"). It also creates investment (if this was all for nothing, why'd I humiliate myself?) and vulnerability (if I leave, they can tell everyone what I said!) And, of course, the degree of shaming can be tailored to cut down people doing too well.
It's a terrifyingly effective thing, and the state communist version looked remarkably similar to the cult version. I don't think it's something you'd do if you actually wanted to help people or improve process, though. The best cultures of self-criticism seem to be the ones that criticize in abstract, sorting out what happened and why publicly but not aiming at individuals.
Criticising in abstract I think leads to a passive-aggressive culture, which I don't think it's right at all. The point of the meetings would be that everyone is involved, there's no secrecy, and that the meetings are perhaps optional, or at least participation in them is optional. I think a social pressure to confess errors may be a good thing at times, though I admit there's a lot of variation in how it could go.
It's strange that I've been downvoted three times on my comment, but only have one reply. Such is the way of HN.
> no secrecy
This is a nightmare for the person who's percieved underperforming due to unavoidable health issues that they've discussed with their manager/HR but would prefer to keep secret.
> social pressure to confess errors
This turns into bullying very quickly.
on what evidence/grounds?
Nothing, but that's not what this is. For a variety of reasons, people are reluctant to report incidents through official channels. This is an unofficial and anonymous channel. It's a way to make people aware that yes, things are happening, even if no official action is taken. I hope it makes people more aware.
You'd get sued for wrongful termination if you go around firing people based on mere implication.
Another convenient thing was that with an anonymous complaint the burden of proof lay solely on the accused, who had to protest his innocence without even being able to face the accuser. But we are half-way there anyway, aren't we?
Also even with anonymity although such a system maybe open for abuse, so that people can implicate innocent people, the potential to allow actual victims to speak up who wouldn't otherwise seems worth the risk
Another observation - the article states that people aren't "usually" named. I don't see anything preventing the peoples names appearing later on, as this thing develops.
So I don't see this as management sponsored spying, just employees wanting more transparency. To highlight what actually goes on.
I believe the point with the 'usually' was that the only one who had been named was Eric Schmidt from a open meeting.
Seems apt here.
because they might be innocent? why is a person's employer a better arbitrator than the legal system? firing someone based on implications is deeply problematic. that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made.
- Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal?
- Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10?
- Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint?
- Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct.
- A company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?
They can fire an employee for any reason they want to in an "at will" state, so your question isn't cogent to begin with. Whether or not it should be done is contextual and I can't answer in the abstract. The way you frame your question here is designed to be a rhetorical trap though, and I don't appreciate that.
> Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10?
Remember, I'm discussing ethics not laws here. Yes, I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is a good ethical stance almost always. Your hypothetical isn't cogent here. Decisions must be contextual and your contrived example lacks context is is constructed so as to advance your (poorly concealed) agenda. Another rhetorical trap. I expect good faith discussion here and you're demonstrating bad faith.
> Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint?
Liability is a matter of the civic code and is a legal question, and remember, we're discussing ethics not law. Your contrived example here is once again lacking context so it is unanswerable as presented and yet another example of you attempting a rhetorical trap.
> Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct.
"I hope you don't think". Your constructions here are insulting to me. Nothing but leading questions, contrived examples, begging the question and other rhetorical tricks. If you have a position of your own you should state it directly and not assume I will be tricked or trapped by you.
> company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?
yes to both. an implication of harassment should result in a fair process to determine the truth bounded by the context of the situation and the interests of all the involved parties. FAIR PROCESS is the key portion of the last sentence. My objections have always been to UNFAIR PROCESSES and are not a defense of harassment.
You stated that "that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made." Which to me comes across as rather absolute, your response has made it clear that that wasn't entirely true, so my apologies for misunderstanding you.
From your comments here though, it sounds to me that you consider an HR investigation an unfair process, would that correctly characterize your view?
To be clear, I do believe your stance is untenable, but that doesn't mean my statements are in bad faith, these questions are more or less the reasons that I believe that the stance that "companies shouldn't fire people before they're found guilty of a crime" is an untenable stance (and s/companies/universities or other organization/ for a broader conversation).
I don't think that an organization can hold itself to the ethical bar you think is proper without causing itself (and its constituents) a level of inconvenience that is too great. For a society or government, where membership is not voluntary, that is necessary, but for groups whose members are free to leave (for whatever definition fits the group), it doesn't work.
You can't simultaneously have a group that people will want to voluntarily join in and one that protects abusers.
I'm not an absolutist but I do have a high standard of ethics when it comes to disciplinary action that can affect a person's livelihood and reputation (and thus future employment prospects).
There is an unfortunate trend in our society right now for the justice of the mob. The loudest and most aggrieved mob tends to exert its "authority" (as such, it's illegitimate but is authority none the less) against those who stand accused of a moral transgression. This has created the atmosphere of a moral panic which leads to numerous false accusations. It's a troubling circumstance.
Given the troubling circumstances we find ourselves in I find it important to advocate for higher standards of discourse, ethics, and institutional conduct because the natural tendency otherwise becomes a race to the bottom combined with CYA behavior.
I don't think my advocacy for high standards of ethics in institutional authority is untenable though. I think we have reached a place where we need new solutions because HR isn't cutting it because it is not intended to nor should its mandate be expanded to cover this kind of stuff.
If workplace harassment is as pervasive and problematic as it seems to be (at some companies) then a separate function for handling those issues fairly would be my preference. I'm also, however, deeply concerned that we are seeing a slip into a transgressions-driven-dialogue and the moral panics and kneejerk reactions we see all over social media, and particularly on college campuses, is beginning to become normalized in the workplace as well. That would be a tragic outcome.
Why do you believe this to be the case? From my perspective, I've seen very few examples of false accusation (certainly not enough to call them "numerous") and many more examples of actions that go unpunished.
Really I think that's what defines the core of our difference in view. You seem to believe that there is some great number of false accusations flying around, and further that these false accusations are causing innocent people great harm. On the other hand, I see many instances of people who should be punished for actions that are unacceptable go completely without consequence. Can you see why, from my perspective, I don't see our current situation as tragic, and indeed see it as a vast improvement over the past (which had an even greater number of unpunished actions).
Wasn't it you who said we should speak in good faith. I prefer not to be patronized.
I asked you a question, which applied equally to universities as workplaces, that could be summed up as "As someone who has recently been at a university, and is currently in a workplace, I am aware of many more (perhaps orders of magnitude more) instances of abuse that goes unreported or unpunished as compared to instances of people being falsely accused of things. Given that, why should I take your concerns seriously, other than your wisdom and perspective?" You avoided it. Its difficult to take your concerns seriously when you avoid explaining them.
Or in other words, I have anecdotal evidence that a lot of harassment goes unreported, and similarly anecdotal evidence that relatively few accusations are false ones, and anecdotal evidence that in many cases, being forced out or punished for perceived harassment won't actually have a lasting negative impact, and certainly won't be life-ruining. Actual data tends to agree with me. If, as I believe, for every 1 false accusation of something, 10 instances of that thing go unreported, why should I stand for focussing resources on providing additional (and perhaps unnecessary) protections to the 1, when at the same time there are 10 victims, and perhaps 10 assailants, who go without justice and punishment, respectively?
Hopefully it's carefully moderated/anonymized/edited by somebody who is good at that sort of thing.
How do we know the acts happened indeed?
There is already a debate about the "princess" incident. Eventually somebody will make statistics about that list, and the "princess" incident will be counted as a harassment incident along the lines of grabbing somebodies ass or blackmailing them for sex over losing their job. That seems very misleading.
Also, I'd argue the existence of such a list is already harassment of a lot of people. If now you have to watch your back for every comment, it doesn't make for a very pleasant work day.
I can not judge if "princess" was harassment or not, because we lack context - and so do the readers of the list. It could be friends who habitually edge each other on, like calling a vegetarian "princess" to probe their determination. Or it could be said with disdain, Redneck style (anybody who doesn't eat meat can't amount to much). We don't know. But everybody now has to worry about their words being taken out of context and glued to the wall.
From the report, this is fully anonymous on both sides, so it sounds like the purpose is more to learn from mistakes and realize things that we may have done unconsciously, more so than pointing fingers. Like for example, when Eric interrupted the other person as the article say, I doubt they were intentionally trying to be disrespectful and he may not have realized what he did was not nice. But by seeing the impact that some action have had on other people, we can view things from other people's perspective and learn from it.
If a person voluntarily and freely posts to the mailing list, (s)he is deciding that this is not confidential. Of course, if it identifies other people who did not consent, then you have a problem.
I imagine the guy that delivered that comment would be hard pushed to figure out what he did wrong. I suppose we all have to really careful what we say.
Professionalism is what allows you to work together despite being very different people with different interests and personalities.
Fun workplaces tend to discriminate against those who are different on personal level regardless of their actual skills and contributions.
It's not, but when it takes up the majority of your waking life at ~60-80hrs/wk, it's not an unreasonable expectation, especially for the mental well-being of the workers. And so long as the trend continues towards longer work hours, there really doesn't seem to be much of a humane way to deal with that added stress otherwise, despite all the obvious drawbacks you mentioned.
The ideal of course, would be to shorten the workday. Unfortunately, inertia seems to be working very much against that possible solution.
Yes, my observation is the same - the people who spend 60-80hrs at work do take all their socialization into workplace. Meaning they waste time of people who want to work at work and then go home - either because of kids or because of aging relative or because of anything else including hobbies.
The above is one more reason to avoid fun cultural workplaces. They tend to want all of you, not just your work.
Anyway, I was thinking of the sorts of situations that actually turn up, on average, for most people. There are only so many princesses to go round, a tiara is highly unusual office garb, and I've never heard of anybody asking to be called "princess" in a professional capacity, at least not in white collar work such as Google. I stand by my rule of thumb. My difficulty thinking up situations was based on my experiences of being at work, which are of course unique, but not, I suspect, especially unusual.
(But if we're trying to think of unlikely possibilities, what about if Princess is your colleague's name? Though given your reply, I expect you're the sort of pedantic so-and-so who'd actually notice that I deliberately quoted it in lower case to sidestep this one.)
(but yes, clearly exceptional case)
Other than that, I cannot think of a single place that is appropriate.
This could be making fun of a friend. How is this harassment?
Obviously casual sexism. Friend or not that's not professional to call a colleague that way at the workplace.
But if the "friend" feels the need to file a complaint rather than talk to the person about it then clearly the comment wasn't appropriate.
I can understand most of the listed complains, but both the "princess" reference and the one about the hairdressers sending supposedly racists code messages sound more like if some problems are also somehow with the people that complained.
No. It's okay to say this to someone you know well and who you know won't mind. But the default position is "don't say this", and so the people who have a strong negative response to it are not "particularly touchy", they're normal.
Most probably normality - like beauty - is in the eye of the beholder.
The comment is made, we laugh, he has his salad, I eat my burger, we moved on to something else.
(UK)
But yes, we all have to be really careful what we say. Not for fear of being shamed -- for fear of offending someone! Calling someone a "princess" for liking salads could easily be taken as an offense, gender aside.
It's the same reason you don't just go around talking politics in the officf. Keep that kind of dialogue out of the workplace.
Or freely leave until you find a place that's cool.
You talk of vague "inclusivity", and hyperbolic "say anything I want"; but the post specifically referred to "Calling someone a 'princess' for liking salads" - when are we going to be inclusive of differing opinions and forms of expression? Seems a very specific interpretational framework is being mandated here.
Using rough language versus running off to HR when offended - I know who I'd prefer working with.
This is also why I originally said it depends on the context. You can say it to a work buddy who you hang out with after hours. You can't say it to someone from another team who you don't know very well. Use your head.
If you retreat when pushed, they'll just keep pushing. The issue here isn't whether you offend someone, it's who should be sided with when it goes to HR.
If she pushes back and humiliates you back, would you be cool with it?
But it's always possible to claim your offense is real. Pushing is using real authority to moderate a person's own language. Interpretation is subjective.
HR is neither a nuanced or objective judge of semantics - they aren't even in the same ballpark as a direct response.
I meant would you be ok if she really humiliated you. As you said, offense is semantic. Pushing back won't be comfortable to you. If she did that, would the teasing stop or would the group take your side and retaliated?
> If she did that, would the teasing stop or would the group take your side and retaliated?
false choice. I don't know what you mean retaliate, anymore than I know what you mean "really humiliated". Maybe I'm thick skinned, but what do you imagine a coworker could say?
I would find the princess salad comment hostile, unless there is context to mitigate that (we are good friends and in mutually teasing relationship).
Meaning, I would see that as one of those situations when I need to respond more aggressively next time otherwise I risk to be picked on regularly. Not sure if "humiliating" is the right word, but princess is not the image I want to maintain in front of colleges or anyone. Someone not to be picked on is much more practical image.
"I don't know what you mean retaliate, anymore than I know what you mean "really humiliated".
I am less likely to come with the answer right away, but I would attempt to figure out answer ready for next time you pick on me. Most likely, I would just tell "go fuck off" or something else rude with the tone of voice that is as deep and unfriendly as can be. Other then that, I am not sure, I don't know you nor the whole situation, so it is hard to come up with something.
Not a path for someone who considers it important to look like polite person all the time, but you gotta give up something. I think that this is where many women make mistake - they see aggressive response as something wrong and end up being constantly picked on.
"Maybe I'm thick skinned, but what do you imagine a coworker could say?"
That is part of the thing, right? You don't stick up with anything like that, you are mainstream and know that you are accepted by colleges. That gives you advantage in this bullshit.
But mostly, I prefer more formal workplaces that are above this elementary school stuff.
You make a lot of assumptions..
It is easier to criticize people if you did not picked up on them nor mocked nor humiliated them previously. Because a.) they will have more trust to what you say b.) they will not assume you are not just humiliating them again c.) they will not be predispose to see you as a jerk.
The hardship begins when personal and professional relationships mix, but if a personal relationship is established it's reasonable to assume that both people should know how to deal with eachother and would have cleared this up between themselves. If HR was involved, it's because someone was out of line or just doesn't understand how adults manage boundaries, in which case he should be warned and, if the case merits, punished.
I love those beanbag-chair, not corp environments. Not everything that isn't corporate is 'unprofessional'. Wearing trainers to work was unprofessional, until it became established; now tech CEOs compete on who has the most expensive sneakers.
> If HR was involved, it's because someone was out of line or just doesn't understand how adults manage boundaries, in which case he should be warned and, if the case merits, punished.
I assume you mean the person who said it? It's also possible the person who reported it doesn't know how to manage relationships, or had some other motive in reporting this to HR - you can speculate either way.
Directness, professionalism and - yes! - impersonal conversation - is what I would generally prefer.
And as for competitive dressing. Bring back uniforms is all I can say to that.
Edit: grammar
It's can be a disrespectful joke. Besides, it's a gendered joke. If it was directed to a woman, it's very impolite, given the constant pressure on woman to keep thin in society and how that is a frequent bias towards woman. If it was a man, it sounds very transphobic/homophobic, as in "you're less because you act like a woman", besides man also deals with fat shaming. And a lot of people deal with eating disorders, so making fun of people eating choices at work is not a good idea.
Of course, if they were friends, I mean actual friends. It would be fine. If one person had felt offended, they would be able to say that to the other, instead of an anonymous mailing list. Or if they didn't felt offended, they could laugh together and each to it's own. But it's clearly not the case. So it's a good idea to avoid this sort of behavior to people that you don't know well, even you get along with them in a work environment.
If people feel they need a guideline to avoid this behavior and not feel like they need to be hard pushed to figure out what they did wrong, here it is: you can make this sort of joke to someone who is your friend (friend enough to regularly see each other outside of work, take care of each other kids, trust in each other in personal matters), if not, it's not work appropriate.
Likewise, I wonder how often this list mentions when someone casually makes a rude remark about Christianity or Judaism, or when someone puts down men, or whites, or Republicans. Maybe it does — certainly the article didn't mention any anti-right bias incidents though (unless I missed it after reading twice).
I'm rather "unenlightened"/regressive/whatever from a SV perspective. But... If there wasn't a significant power difference here, like an intern vs someone senior, how does this even happen? I mean, I get it if it was one-on-one, even a direct boss might pressure someone into that. But "sleep with everyone"? What's the expected response?
Or was this some poor excuse after a failed attempt? "Hey don't get upset. Everyone sleeps around on this team."
I'm just having a hard time comprehending this quote, not from an offended view, just a practical/social/etc. view.
Tangentially I wonder if a similar system could be used to report bullying in schools. Perhaps the anonymity only works at a certain scale.
That one of their most senior executives, who at one point rewrote the entire Google Search engine, when that was possible for one person to do, and worked there for sixteen years was fired for sexual harassment.
It's hard to imagine he suddenly started harassing women sixteen years in, so I have to wonder how long Google may have been trying to protect one of their most valuable employees.
I don't think he started suddenly, but rather has done it for a very long time. Being such an immensly valuable asset does buy you slack, I bet.
None of the jerks or assholes I've known had anything happen to them, that I am aware of. I'd like to think they'll be fired eventually.
Why?
I don't think these entities should have the power to exert pressure.
Be like this, and you'll get free meals, free shuttle bus and goats at company campus. And it's good for your resumé.