Hotbed of Misinformation
tesla.com
tesla.com
Honestly it was just so...authentic. They described very exactly what happened, what the accusations were, what the consequences were for those involved, what concerned them as a company, etc. It has none of the corporate double-speak that you would expect if this were Equifax.
Seeing the first 5 bullet points was enough for me to pretty safely guess this is much about a lawyer out for $$ from Tesla.
Especially this:
The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system.
The lawyer apparently forgot that Tesla/Elon can easily hire a few dozen lawyers without any strain...
IMHO
the lawyer in this case === Patent Troll Lawyers
What I try to look out for are statements that are easily disproven by the other side if false. No highly paid PR person would release those, thus if they are there, they're likely to be true.
Now with those easily disproven claims in this press release as cornerstones of what is the truth, I can't come up with data points that would drastically alter my conclusion.
Now all that's left to do is hope that that isn't due to my limited imagination and wait for the opposition to make new claims or disprove the points made.
We perceive this tone as authentic because it makes claims that an uncertain or lying PR department wouldn't have the nerve, authority, or legal standing to make. In that way, it is an unforgeable signal. Of course it's possible to forge in the moment, but then it makes your situation 100x worse when you inevitably get called out later. Which is why people afraid of being called out later can't do it.
And being totally certain about whether fuzzy incident happened/not happened usually means you are aware of peoples bias toward looking confident - or that you jumped to conclusion without really investigating all the conflicting evidence.
There is not much specific that you could make inferences from, but there are general claims truth for majority of lawsuits phrased as something specific (trials being expensive, tesla employing contractor).
The rest is words made to make you feel good for working for Tesla (little company fighting good cause surrounded by ennemies). Again, this does not prove anything related to lawsuit, but it is PR in action - if it is either insincere or cultish. Either way, it is PR nothing else.
Everyone above is on the same page here. This is PR. Why keep re-stating this?
> It is not something sent to court, so your rational actor theories based on judge punishing them don't apply.
Who claimed that a judge would punish lies in this piece? Those above you are referring to the "court of public opinion", not legal ramifications. If Tesla's claims here are disproven in court, this piece gives the media a lot of ammunition to use to lambast Tesla with later.
> It is also very general, so there is not all that much judge would punish them for, even if untrue. (Unless they would lie about dude being contractor, but there is literally zero reason to lie about that as it is mostly irrelevant.)
The piece makes several assertions that are quite specific. Number of people involved in the situation, circumstances of termination of the plaintiff and, importantly, asserting that the actions taken were right and just, leaving them no graceful way to backtrack later and claim that the actions on the part of the company were a mistake and the fault of some individuals who can be thrown under the bus.
> There is not much specific that you could make inferences from, but there are general claims truth for majority of lawsuits phrased as something specific (trials being expensive, tesla employing contractor).
There are specific claims made. No inferences required. See my point above for examples of claims that I think are particularly impactful.
> The rest is words made to make you feel good for working for Tesla (little company fighting good cause surrounded by ennemies).
So you are thinking this is a fluffy PR piece with language that doesn't convey much information but placates the reader? I'd like to see examples of what you're reading there that strikes you as platitudinous.
> Again, this does not prove anything related to lawsuit,
Nobody is claiming that this piece proves anything. It simply makes claims which will then need to be proven in court.
> but it is PR in action - if it is either insincere or cultish.
What about this piece strikes you as insincere or cultish? Nothing about this piece seems crafted to rally folks on brand loyalty or warped worldview.
> Either way, it is PR nothing else.
That's been established. Repeatedly. Everyone above you has agreed that this is PR. We're just saying that it's good PR.
Well, if it is in a corporate press release you can certainly KNOW that it is NOT authentic.
> that being a jerk is not allowed
This made me take it in a much more casual way, as they didn't load it with PR speak for sure. Gave much more credibility — like it wasn't written by lawyers.
Like it wasn't, but it was.
> His email to Elon was about his commute and Tesla’s shuttles,
> We would also like to clear up the description of Elon’s prior email to employees.
> Elon’s full email is below:
Tesla hasn't been in a more vulnerable position for a few years now and so everything they do must be perfect.
So, they are blaming the minority groups for all of the alleged racism. Pretty bold approach in the current political climate.
This part struck me as important:
"The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system"
There are bad actors out there who will fan the flames of the outrage machine for their own selfish ends. Jumping to conclusions based on hearsay and accusations is what they want, not what is reasonable.
Another view of their desire to "...pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees..." is that they will use their corporate coffers to bury the plaintiff in paperwork.
Less loved companies like BP or Walmart would certainly get accused of doing so, even if they said they were preventing an "...abuse of the legal system"
If a company can get some great mileage out of creating a better narrative, they have a shot at much better leverage before/during any potential trial.
I'm not making any judgement about Tesla (certainly better than post-Deepwater BP) or the lawyer, just saying it's a matter of perspective and incentives.
Not independently verified I would imagine.
> At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system
Sounds high minded but actually just a practical strategy to fend off future lawsuits. Has nothing to do with fighting the good fight or defending liberty justice and all.
The establishment institutions outside of Silicon Valley in America — the media and Capitol Hill — have united recently to spin a decidedly anti-civil rights narrative about large tech companies. Some of it is valid, but much is not, and relevant complexities and subtle moral distinctions are lost on a general public which only has the bandwidth to digest memorable headlines and themes.
And what could be more complex and morally thorny than how to mediate social issues — particularly those involving race — in a highly visible tech company employing tens of thousands of people? Speaking for myself as a black tech co-founder, I agree with the cliffnotes of Musk's message entirely: those of well-represented groups should consider the challenges they never had to face, but no one from any group should have free license to be a jerk. And for god's sake: when you misrepresent facts to serve a handful of minorities you end up undermining all the other minorities.
I think progressives are under attack. Hollywood, entertainment, and tech companies.
I'm not arguing that bad behavior is acceptable and should be ignored.
I'm just saying that, for example, removing health care coverage from millions of Americans is more important and hurtful than a homosexual grabbing someone's junk. It's happened to me a couple times, but sadly I wasn't offered a several thousand dollar watch afterwards to keep it quiet.
The validity of racial tensions in silicon valley companies is due consideration completely irrespective of sexual assault or healthcare. Both are problems, but the size of B has no bearing on the size of A.
[1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...
I am arguing that we're rearranging chairs on the Hindenburg. The question is, "Are we devoting effort to the issues in accordance with their size and impact?"
I'm asking you to give 1 100th of a shit that you do about a closeted gay celebrity's past sex life about the vast fucking tragedies that continue to happen today in the USA - let alone across the world.
But that's not nearly as fun as jumping on a bandwagon against a wealthy famous person, is it? You can even pretend to be a little bit of a feminist or racially sensitive.
The facts call out the hypocrisy:
IN VIRGINIA FROM 2004-2013:
— Nearly 4,500 children were married.
— Over 200 children married at age 15 or younger.
— About 90% of the underage spouses are girls; and among the youngest spouses (15 or younger), there are 13 times more underage brides than grooms.
— Children as young as 13 (and pregnant) were granted marriage licenses.
— Nearly 90% of these marriages were to an adult spouse, and between 30-40% of those adults were 21 or older, and sometimes decades older.
These figures shocked us, too:
— 13: Number of children under age 15 married to spouses more than 20 years older
— 25: Number of 15-year-olds married to spouses more than 10 years older
— 47: Number of 16-year-olds married to spouses more than 14 years older
http://www.tahirih.org/news/child-marriage-happens-in-the-u-...
Also, it is extremely hurtful towards victims to say Hollywood is under attack, like they are the victims. Too many hypocrites there and shady things going on which doesn't mean the situation is dangerous regarding people being innocent and hung publicly.
>This doesn't mean there is a different standard of performance [for less represented groups] ...
...
>We have had a few cases at Tesla where someone in a less represented group was given a job or promoted over more qualified highly represented candidates...
Which is it?
Suppose we're giving out 100 promotions, and have 1000 promo nominations. You review the 1000 noms and find that there are 500 that pass the quality bar because your company is full of awesome people. So now you have to choose which 100 of the 500 to actually promote. You can do this in a number of ways, ranging from uniformly at random to doing a total stack rank and selecting the top 100. Or you can choose to try to correct systemic under-representation in management, which helps the company on a number of axes (including better recruitment of smart people from under-represented groups, providing a statistical bulwark against lawsuits, etc...).
(edit: It's worth keeping in mind that trying to do a full stack rank of your 1000 applications is going to be noisy as hell and an incredible amount of work, as there will be multiple (individually noisy) promo committees working on sub-sets of nominations. So it pays off to have a clear set of standards for promotion to a given level, even if you don't automatically promote everyone who meets that standard.)
So I don't think that the promotion was necessarily done just because those employees are from underrepresented groups and just to hit some company diversity/equality metric, but I wouldn't know for sure
Promotion is never a touchy thing when you set clear expectations for a persons progression - one that is measurable and comparable to their peers.
The individuals then know, directly or indirectly, if they are on the right path, and which one of their peers is ahead or behind. The incentive there is for them to either up their game, or stay where they are.
The only fear there is that the system / process can be gamed; but one almost always never picks the lesser of the two qualified individuals - you risk loosing the more qualified individual and the team no longer has any faith in the “system” and they too will loose respect and move on.
Perhaps I may not have the experience you do, but it’s something I would never stand for - I would love to hear examples of when and such a scenario would play out though as it’s something I may encounter at some point in my career.
you might have a lot of applicants of which maybe 600 got onto the short list (my boss commented if you get on the short list they know you can do the job)
All the systems I’ve ever encountered are horrible: lines of code, hours spent coding, issues closed, bugs created, and so on.
Not all lines of code are equal. Not all hours are equally productive. Not all issues are equally difficult. Not all bugs are equally costly. And so on.
It's not directly measurable, but you know it when you see it. And sometimes that impact is negative.
There is even a igNobel winning publication suggesting that it might be more efficient to promote people at random... https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455
Of course, no employer (that I have ever seen) is that open. We share a common expectation that the people who qualified but were passed over won't be told. Maybe an open ended promise of "next time". All this does is allow the same effects to be diluted to anyone who might have been impacted. So now even those outside the top 100, even those outside the top 500, consider there is a chance they were impacted by such an action. So while the impact is less than telling the person passed over, you now have more people feeling it.
And this does seem to be a damned if you do/damned if you don't, because even if you did create a top 100 ranking and used it to promote, that would be influenced by subconscious biases and other factors based on minority status and people aware of that who didn't get promoted would also be negatively impacted.
I mean, how is the case that people don't just use "racial slander" or something like that, and instead use what seems to be like kindergarden teacher expressions?
Is this phenomenon present in other languages/cultures?
Sometimes one needs to be specific about the nature and severity of the slur used.
Forgive me if I sound argumentative, I'm genuinely interested and trying to understand.
It's like "sexual harassment." That phrase alone will have some people thinking "oh, the poor guy just said she looked nice today and she flipped out." If you say "he stuck his hand up her dress and told her to be at his apartment at 9pm," there's no space for that sort of misunderstanding.
>>At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial language, including the "nigger" and "wetback" towards each other and a threat of violence.<<
>> At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial slurs towards each other and a threat of violence.
Consider "colored" compared to "nigger". Colored will definitely be seen by some as a racial slur, but to others it may be the appropriate for the time, not necessarily racially charged, correct terminology they initially learned. For that matter, "nigger" was a fairly neutral term originally, but changed over time, as the circumstances of the people it referred to changed and they preferred a different, less loaded moniker.
I prefer the companies tell it how it is, and not to censor information.
At the risk of being equally pedantic...
Does that really matter? And is there a company on Earth that will tell you everything with radical honesty? Is there any value in that?
Does Tesla tell you how bad their batteries, plastics, or leathers are for the environment? No. They focus on the positive aspects of the product and the company. We prioritize and value what we need to know versus what we might like to know versus all of the other noise.
And there is a lot of noise. Far too much noise for almost any of it to be useful. In fact, this is a tactic that large law firms use against small ones -- they DoS attack the small firms with too much paperwork during discovery in hopes that the small firm can't use it effectively and exhaust client expenses just trying to read through the material.
I imagine it would just make it easier to build lawsuits against the radically honest companies and the only ones that survived would be the ones with the weasel words or diplomatic silence. Almost like a darwinism where the fitness function isn't relevant to any of the current economics that we observe or product features we care about.
I find similar arguments against "political correctness" similarly tiring and fruitless.
When there is a murder with a knife everyone says person A murdered person B with a knife, not "he m'd person B with a k-thing". How come people can cope with describing murder and violence and not slurs?
Racial slurs are a different category from "regular" profanity though. I think in this case they wanted to indicate it was two marginalized communities flinging racial slurs to each other?
You can argue about whether it's appropriate to use in different contexts, but pretending it's the same as the word "murder" or "knife" is a false equivocation.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinctio...
Then when you move to the USA, you start to see how much of an emotional reaction it gets there, especially in a place like the bay area. Thats why they used n-word. If they didn't you would get even more outrage machine generation. If elon musk put the word fuck every second sentence, not nearly as many people would care.
And for those of you who haven't worked on the factory floor the behaviour there differs a lot from the nice and fluffy offices most of us are used to
"Roma" should be a pretty universal endonym, though. If I remember correctly, it basically means "people".
I kinda get it. No "reasonable person" likes to use or even hear others use words like these. I think it's just "political correctness" that keeps us from using them under any circumstances whatsoever (although, personally, I think that is taking things a bit too far) -- such as in news articles.
You could draw a parallel with how Nazi symbols cannot be depicted in Germany (for the most part). It is not just about not offending little PC snowflakes or something.. it’s a campaign of de-Nazification. So too with racism here.
[1] http://www.pitt.edu/~votruba/qsonhist/bearetymologyslovakeng...
I think it's high time that we stopped being afraid of these words. For example, I had to search for what the damn "w-word" was (I was thinking "wigger", but what do I know?)! African Americans can try and differentiate all they want between nigger and nigga, but they obviously stem from the same word so why pretend. It's a thing of power, I suppose. It's okay for one group to say it, but not another - a double standard and extremely hypocritical, but again, who am I to know.
EDIT: I am not focusing specifically on African Americans, as this is prominent behavior across many ethnic and racial groups. The group moves to restrict the usage of a word by bastardizing it in some way and making it normal in their group while shaming those outside who use it. This is what complicates race issues even more because non African Americans come away thinking "why is it okay for them to call each other this, and why would they?" Again, same goes for other races and ethnic groups.
In America, everything is weird. We're a conglomeration of nationalities and ways of thinking from across the world. Asking "is that an American thing to do?" to me is like asking "is the color Green in the rainbow?".
For example Trump got up and made a speech in front of a group of jews and made reference to how they were either good or tough negotiators. Certain jews called him out on that and were offended. Others thought it was great and a compliment. What gives the one group the right to decide it's defacto offensive and decide the political correctness? (I get paid for negotiation and I was like 'yeah!'.
When I was growing up it was common to refer to blacks as 'colored'. Nigger was derogatory. However now it's as if you can't even use it to refer to someone else saying it and many would take offense to either of us (as you did) even using it in a comment even historically. [1] I don't understand nor do I agree with that thinking.
[1] On the other hand if it was used in a play or a movie it would be seen entirely different.
There's a good talk on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa18UJVKr5s (Part 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8ZJ_g59Bqg (Part 2)
It's about 12 minutes total.
What I (non-US) don't quite get is why putting the word "nigger" in quotes is not enough. I mean, I can think of some reasons, I just feel quotes should be enough to distance oneself from the usage of said word.
Then again, the Dutch tend to curse with diseases (which is relatively rare, I think Spanish does it too). But it's mostly "old" diseases like typhoid, tuberculosis, pocks or the plague. Recent generations also tend to use cancer, which is frowned upon because many people know someone who suffered it (then again, heart attacks or strokes are similarly frequent and usually no big deal at all--I think that's related to the terrible suffering of chemotherapy) . I personally like to adopt even newer diseases like H5N1 or ebola, just for the ridiculousness of it.
I know the feeling, in IRL conversation, I tend to speak such words at a somewhat lower volume :)
I have a colleague who has "sincerely apologized" to me three times within the span of a few months. Some people just know how to play the system, and if management is not firm (which this passage indicates is the case in Tesla), these people will win out.
Unfortunately, I think human behavior and relations are far more difficult than that. To a significant degree behavior isn't subject to will, though we like to assume it is. Everyone I know makes the same mistakes over and over (different mistakes for different people); they would sincerely like to stop. IME, to survive in relationships we have no choice but to accept those things in ourselves and in others.
Of course, that makes accountability very complicated, but I think it's a fact of life.
"Sorry I stepped on your toes.". That was probably an accident.
"Sorry I did it again. And again." This is probably not an accident.
Yes
Not trying to excuse any behaviour or anything, but it's indeed quite fathomable that even with all the best intent in the world you can't change your behaviour overnight, forever, with a perfect track record.
It is professional to continue working professionally. That is about the extend of duty. The rest is on how I judge the situation to be.
The middle ground is where thickness of skin comes in, and while it's not on you to buy in to your employer's standard, it is on the employer to set a standard.
In that respect, I don't think Tesla has been very clear here. I have no idea from this article where the actual line is.
Is "guys" still gendered? I thought it was used to refer to any group of people, male or female, pretty much since the days of "Friends".
Guys is gendered if you think it is. I've lightly offended groups of women in the past - well after Friends started! - by referring to them as "guys".
Once is a miscommunication. To continue to call them guys even after they've said they don't like being called guys would be indistinguishable from intentionally causing offence, especially considering the ready availability of other words that serve the same linguistic purpose.
As a guy I feel like it's a "meh" issue, and most of the women I know agree and use the phrase themselves, but if it bugs someone it costs me zero to avoid it.
Are you serious? You are comparing physical harassment against your body with freedom of speech? Wow... No, it does not warrant a warning. Otherwise we can get offended by random stuff and blame it on others. Plus guys and lads are used for all genders in some countries.
Mostly because it's illegal for an employer to operate a business that way.
Sincere means nothing. It has become an ISO word. :)
It's best not to comment on voting if it can be avoided; I have made exceptions in the past, but I don't think I would make one for this.
It's a shame the account will [probably] be put to rest so quickly, there's probably room for q_tarantino references elsewhere, as long as they are accompanied by further content to satisfy the "substantive" requirement.
The US has had: slavery, racial segregation, ethnic cleansing, forced depopulation, extrajudicial killings (e.g: hangings, lynchings), compulsory sterilization, racial profiling/police brutality, mass incarceration, with the latter resulting in loss of voting rights. Thanksgiving day 2016 was being celebrated while people at Standing Rock were being tear-gassed... and that is only domestically.
What enabled a lot of that has been racial discrimination. If someone that has been discriminated doesn't want to accept an apology that is fine. At some moment you need to draw a line and racial discrimination is a reasonable criteria for that.
South Africa, the country Elon is originally from, had institutionalized racial segregation until 1991. He should know first hand there difference between being a racist and being a jerk.
That sounds very costly. If I was employer and had to abide by that, any work location would only have employees of single race and gender. Prevention is likely to be cheaper than dealing with the possible consequences. But then we immediately arrive second level of Allport's Scale...
Take a look at EEO laws.
You also seem to be forgetting the fact that people don't have to insult or antagonize each other in order to be successful. If anything that is neurotic behavior that is negatively correlated with career success.
Then, if it happens again, fire the employee. All depending on what the impact was.
I mean, look how awful this policy sounds if we substitute more concrete language: “if someone calls you a n_gger on a single occasion, but subsequently offers a sincere apology, then we believe that apology should be accepted.”
Weird that Musk is doubling down on that, especially coming from South Africa. He should have instead clarified that Tesla is zero-tolerance on racism.
I assume Tesla is a very high stress place (at least at times). I don't know if you've ever experienced a highly emotional situation but it's possible to get so upset you yell things at people that you actually feel absolutely terrible about later (and didn't realize you were capable of saying). I can imagine someone, in such a highly charged situation, saying something hurtful like that and then feeling absolutely gutted about it later. Of course you don't have to accept an apology in that situation but I personally wouldn't think much of the kind of person who would write someone off, permanently, for one such event when they never did anything like that before or ever again and sincerely appologized.
Your argument is weak as well. Would this logic apply to physically assaulting a coworker as well, if the perpetrator is stressed and they’ve never done it before and feel bad after? No, of course not. There is a line beyond which zero tolerance should be the rule, and that line starts with calling someone a n_gger.
In these cases, I don't think there should be any difference in forgiveness between those who used discriminatory language and those who picked another means to attack. I'm not saying people should accept a sincere apology. I see such an attack as very bad regardless if it used discriminatory language. The intent, to cause maximum pain, is unjustifiable regardless of the tool used to carry it out.
Side note:
From non-USA perspective, guys, sincerely, you're crazy. Everybody is suing everybody for what often times seems total nonsense. No offense or disrespect meant, just an honest bafflement -- how can somebody get promoted, then leave, and then sue? Wow.
That's a nice rule in general, although I think Elon is underestimating people's capabilities to rationalize past decisions.
Otherwise w- n- and other words will continue be part of entertaining back stage talk consumed with beer, sports, other unhealthy but fun things together with close friends and colleagues.
I don't know how much time he actually spends with his kids, but I suppose its comes with the territory of trying to change the world.
I wonder how your shareholders will feel about that.
Also, if the trial lawyer in question is just trying to make a quick buck, this is a deterrent. If the goal is just a cash grab, why would this lawyer go through an arduous legal battle for a false claim when there are plenty of other lucrative cases that will settle out of court.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I can't see any downside to saying this. There is zero obligation to follow through. The outcome of this case is going to be a big story regardless of this statement. It's just solid PR and posturing with little to no cost to do so.
This is the literal bare minimum in a U.S. corporation in 2017.
> Our human resources team also conducts regular in-person spot training sessions when an allegation or complaint has been made, even if the evidence is not conclusive enough to warrant disciplinary action."
This sounds bad to me. Discrimination complaints are complicated and dangerous and should be handled by experts--which the vast majority of HR staff are not. The idea of a "spot training session" sounds like the sort of thing that could be easily misinterpreted by any of the parties as a "make this go away" conversation.
> We have also created a dedicated team focused exclusively on investigating workplace concerns, recommending corrective actions and assisting managers with implementing those actions.
This is more like it but the timing is vague--by this wording, this could have happened at any point, including yesterday.
> Regarding yesterday’s lawsuit, several months ago we had already investigated disappointing behavior involving a group of individuals who worked on or near Marcus Vaughn’s team. At the time, our investigation identified...
Oh jeez, please don't share the details of an internal employee matter that is subject to litigation...
- (me, but also Tesla's general counsel, probably)
> Our company has more than 33,000 employees, with over 10,000 in the Fremont factory alone, so it is not humanly possible to stop all bad conduct, but we will do our best to make it is as close to zero as possible.
Ok, but you are not getting sued for just random "bad conduct," you're getting sued for a failing to properly handle a specific (but relatively common, sadly) type of bad conduct.
> There is only one actual plaintiff (Marcus Vaughn), not 100. The reference to 100 is a complete fabrication with no basis in fact at all.
Yes, this is how class action lawsuits work.
> The plaintiff was employed by a temp agency, not by Tesla as claimed in the lawsuit.
Doesn't matter for workplace discrimination litigation. Contractors are legally the same as employees under certain conditions and this is one of them.
> The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle.
Well yes, you did say it was a trial lawyer.
Overall I think this letter is not great for Tesla. It seems like the sort of thing that will be useful for feeding the current race-based culture war in the U.S., but doesn't make Tesla look serious about preventing racist and discriminatory behavior among its workforce. Fewer words and more contrition would probably have been better.
> This is the literal bare minimum in a U.S. corporation in 2017
Not in the slightest. It might as well say "drum circle", since there's no evidence that either are effective. The key is that there are supposed to be metrics and investigative procedures and protections for complaints, not some re-education mumbo jumbo.
That said, this is a common growing pain for companies and many only take it seriously once a situation blows up in their faces.
Is a corporation defined as a company with 33,000+ employees in the US?
>Doesn't matter for workplace discrimination litigation. Contractors are legally the same as employees under certain conditions and this is one of them.
It absolutely does matter when the lawsuit claims that the plaintiff was fired.
Welcome to the age of social media. It's a two-edged sword. Your company can use it to get some viral sharing of your great new concept car, coverage of how many pre-orders you sold, or it could be used to organize boycotts or spread word of "a hostile work environment" (whether true or not).
And now the class-action attorneys can find their plaintiffs faster than ever before.
> This kind of stuff is such a distraction from the business and the goal
I bet if you ask Travis K if he would rather have hired full time "sensitivity trainers" or still be CEO, the answer would be easy. You seem to be arguing that there should be a third option, but that's a counterfactual world where civil liability is different than it is today in the USA.