Hacker News Reader

> The pros vastly outweigh the cons: [...]

This is not true, and sounds like it's written from the perspective of someone who hasn't had to go through this. I don't have personal experience with this, but for many people, it sounds like a very difficult thing to come forward to talk about harassment, with huge potential downsides and stigmas associated with it, even as the wronged party. And anyone prepared to talk about it should be treated with empathy and respect and shouldn't have to face a court of public opinion (like this thread) until whatever appropriate investigations are complete.

Yes, your point is true, that if you act like a sociopath you can exploit this system, but if you act like a sociopath there are many social contracts you can exploit. But I imagine you will find very few people who would actually do this, and it's besides the point for this discussion (and actually counterproductive, if it creates an environment that discourages other people to come forward, thus delaying fixing a very clear and obvious problem for many right now).

I usually try to avoid commenting online on social matters, but there's a lot of unpleasantness here, and it feels important to try and respond to it.

I hear you. I do think there is a better way though, than a) always disbelieving the accuser until proven otherwise or b) always believing the accuser until proven otherwise. Both sides can be exploited. In the case of predators, absolutely, environments that discourage accusers coming forward makes it easy for them to exploit, and that is wrong. In the case of false accusers (more common than I believe most people think), environments that take the side of an accuser makes it easy for them to exploit, and that is also wrong. There's a balance to be struck, and I think we can only consider that balance when we think about all the dynamics of all the actors.

To paraphrase: "Im not saying it didn't happen and I have nothing to back this up, but here's a wild accusation I just thought up."

why is this the top comment? Do you have any actual facts to add?

Sometimes specific articles spark a look at a system as a broader whole. I don't see any reason to discourage that.

Also, it's literally a comment using hacker mentality to analyze a system. Why would it not be the top comment on a self-selected-hacker-populated forum?

The my theory top comment is an HN classic.

what was the accusation?

> The cons being you are fired (which probably would have happened anyways) or you are outed as a false accuser (very hard to prove in the realm of public opinion).

And probably never getting hired again, at least by any reasonably rational male hiring manager. Too much risk.

> it makes the most sense to allege some kind of harassment if you feel you are underperforming in your job and wish to get ahead

That's true for men as much for women. But I have not seen that argument used for men. So, I don't say that you are discriminating against women, as I don't know if you use this argument also when we talk about men, but you should understand that without further information it looks like you are telling us that "women" do this while "men" don't what is ridiculous from a "game theory perspective" as the situation is exactly the same.

I specifically used the words "protected class" in my statement, which covers: race, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, disability, age, military service, bankruptcy, genetic information, citizenship status, gender identity, sexual orientation.

Leveling thinly-veiled accusations of sexism ('it looks like you are telling us that "women" do this while "men" don't') is the reason why these topics don't advance from discussion.

Because sex doesn't just mean female. Males are an equally protected class in terms of gender based discrimination laws. So you pointing out that you specified "protected class" doesn't really mean much, since it equally applies.

>So you pointing out that you specified "protected class" doesn't really mean much

It means that I was intentionally being inclusive of everyone, and so these accusations are really trying to reach for something that isn't there.

> as the situation is exactly the same.

it's not clear that the court system is impartial to gender, so this doesn't seem so obvious to me.

nor is it clear that mistreatment of men is culturally seen as much of an issue as the mistreatment of women.

If the individual were under-performing then that would have been adequate reason to fire them; there would be no need to fire them in retaliation for making the accusation. It certainly would have been a better reason for Tesla to provide, should they care at all about the sensitivity of their public image.

Do you have evidence to support your speculation?

>If the individual were under-performing then that would have been adequate reason to fire them

Not if they had a claim of harassment, which is my point. Now any firing looks like retaliation, similarly to what is being claimed by Vandermeyden's lawyer. According to Tesla, she was fired for false accusations of harassment, as proven by an independent third party investigation (reported in the link). But because she made the claims of harassment, she's been immunized against the repercussions of making false claims, at least in the realm of public opinion. Now the burden is on Tesla to use their time and resources to prove that something didn't happen in order to justify her termination, not the other way around.

If an individual were genuinely under-performing, and the company were decently managed, then there would be a paper trail of feedback and attempts to rectify the situation which would indicate that the individual was not performing adequately.

Such a paper trail is what allows a company to defend itself in wrongful dismissal lawsuits. The sort of lawsuit that arises when an individual is wrongfully dismissed for non-existent performance reasons as a retaliation for other actions they took.

The individual is not, in any way, immunized from making false claims so long as Tesla is operating itself in a manner befitting a company of its size.

I once heard that LinkedIn endorsements by fellow co-workers & especially supervisors can come in to play as evidence that you performed well.

poor performance and harassment are discreet issues. both can be true (or both false). as such, any record of performance isn't by nature proof of non-retaliation.

The problem with your argument is that it's impossible to measure or get reliable statistics on, so your game theory argument falls apart on empirical grounds.

Perhaps theoretically your point would stand, however it's entirely too politically charged to do anything but find polarizing responses.

If you lose, you will be out lawyer fees, which will be high to fight a large company like Tesla, and any chance of future employment. The game doesn't work out the way you think.

"cannot be fired"

Nope, she was fired already.

And it's being fought as wrongful termination, which could have been avoided if the employer chose not to fire her.

Tesla's statement is very interesting. They say: "Despite repeatedly receiving special treatment at the expense of others, Ms. Vandermeyden nonetheless chose to pursue a miscarriage of justice by suing Tesla and falsely attacking our company in the press"

So Tesla is claiming that they discriminated against other employees and harmed them at this woman's behest.

Strange claim, since it is actionable by these supposed people who they harmed and admits that Tesla's management is incompetent and engages in gender discrimination.

It seems that like Uber most people with real skill and talent are jumping the Tesla ship before it goes down.

This is a side show compared to Tesla's other problems (just like Uber) but it is in these cases where there is an emotional impact as opposed to boring numbers that people actually take notice of how incompetent the management of a company really is.

I noticed that too, their defense against a sexually discriminatory environment was to admit to discriminating in a different way?

Also, their defense is bordering on the edge of defamatory if it's untrue. It wouldn't be hard for a reasonable jury to see the situation as malicious intent. IANAL.