let me know what industry you work in where you can poison the well so badly and not get canned.
Or sued, seems like this would be an easy basis for a hostile work suit. Couple promotion denials, a documented complaint and this manifesto would probably be an easy lawsuit, though INAL.
Policies that are effectively affirmative action are by definition lowering the bar for diversity candidates. His statement that it can lower the bar is correct but still not something people like to be reminded of. Google (and others) not recognizing this distinction and treating his lack of discretion as hate speech is irrational mob PC rule or just plain cowardice (if he was fired for PR reasons).
In an n-dimensional space where we take into account all the factors that go into whether or not a candidate is given an offer, you're actually complaining about "lowering the bar" when the bar is already lower for people (for people that's not being targeted for affirmative action) due to systemic effects? You're actually complaining that we're lowering the bar by tweaking other variable so that the bar will be effectively the same obstacle for everyone?
Please explain your rationale for doing so.
Then maybe you should just not make that assumption and work with them as a peer?
> or if your referral would have still gotten rejected had they been a person of color
This is utter bullshit. As someone who used to work for Alphabet, gender and ethnic background never came up during interviews, simply because the interview process does not account for that. You are either able to solve the technical problems you are presented with during the interview or not. "Culture fit" - which is the one item that might be influenced by things related to gender or ethnic background - is actually a liability for minority groups.
> Then maybe you should just not make that assumption and work with them as a peer?
Sorry, forgot to mention that I'm a human in my post.
He knows them. Everyone knows them. The average Alphabet employee does multiple interviews a month, sometimes multiple interviews a week (complaining about how many interviews you have to do is of the favorite pastimes in the company.) We are trained for this, and - surprise - none of the training says (or even suggest) 'you should lower your standards for minority candidates.' In fact, none of the interviewing training even mentions gender or ethnicity.
I feel that this guy is coming from a disgruntled conservative-leaning position where he feels the company values don't represent his. That's a valid concern, but there's plenty of companies out there. He should just leave and find one that has values matching his.
> This was not the case at the company I worked for and it was a very negative thing
That's sad. Hope you had better luck with the next one!
> Sorry, forgot to mention that I'm a human in my post.
Sorry, didn't meant to be offensive. I just know intrigue (which this memo tries to stir up) is the shortest path to a dysfunctional workplace.
People should feel free to exercise their voting privilege.
This has nothing to do with the company, but rather with the individuals working for it. How many people, do you think, felt free to discuss their support for a Democratic candidate in the Alabama?
> People should feel free to exercise their voting privilege.
And they did! Heck, Google encouraged everyone to vote, not just Democrats. Maybe your anger should be directed to the companies and governments that did their utmost to stop their own citizens from voting. North Carolina is a good place to start, move South from there.
On to voter fraud!
But those numbers likely don't indicate
anything nefarious like widespread voter
fraud. It's actually pretty common for
voter rolls to be a mess. In fact,
Judicial Watch threatened to sue 11 other
states in April for the same reason.
A 2012 Pew Research study found around
2.75 million people were registered to
vote in multiple states and more than
1.8 million deceased people were still
registered to vote.
Oftentimes, people don't realize they
need to notify local voting officials
when they move or when a loved one dies.
But outside of a few isolated incidences,
those extra numbers don't generally lead
to voter fraud.
Q: How big a problem was voter fraud in the 2016 election?
A: There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-...
Carter won in '76 and it's been within +-10% R/D till 2000. So not that lopsided as you might suppose.
I'm sure you could imagine walking in with a Hillary/Pussy Hat no problem whatsoever. But you would not walk with a Trump hat even as a joke. Ok, maybe in Moncks Corner or some boonie office.
Please stop trying to bring the "librul intolerance" right-wing talking point. It's pretty pathetic to paint yourself as a victim, even when you have everything in your favor.