Google Workers Fume Over Executives’ Payouts After Sexual Misconduct Claims

I think they published it because it was news. Many details in the news outrage me, but as long as they are based in fact, I consider that reporting of the news of the day, not an attempt to incite outrage.

Also, "Callous Googlers Don't care about sex harassment payouts" doesn't seem like a particularly good potential news piece, if that's what you are suggesting they could have done.

I mean, I was outraged by the Snowden revelations. Were those stories generating outrage, or just revealing an outrage that others had already perpetrated?

So by your definition, no stories about large companies should be published ever? I imagine if a company has a large amount of employees, you can always find a contrary opinion.

>original story to generate outrage

While a consequence of the story may have been "outrage," it was Rubin's actions and how Google dealt with them that are at issue here. We can play "shoot the messenger" or assume bad faith on the NYT's part, but neither of those things undoes what has happened.

> Kind of funny how the NYT publishes the original story to generate outrage

The older I get, I realize that more often than not, these companies don't report the news, they create/generate/manufacture the news. Half the time, news is actually a manufactured product for consumption no different than a movie or a song and the other half, it's political advocacy. There isn't much news in the news industry.

> then after successfully doing so to an extent, cherry-picks examples of the outrage in order to generate yet another article that is apparently worth publishing.

And voila, they are bumped to the frontpage every single time. It's like watching a world class magician ply their trade.

I'm not sure the follow-up story is necessary, but one way to look at it is that they were successful at publishing news that some people care about.

It's not always clear when "getting a reaction" is just trolling or what a quality newspaper should set out to do. It depends if you agree with the editors about what's newsworthy.

But if leaks keep happening at this rate, I suspect TGIF isn't going to happen for much longer.

There is, in fact, a lot of internal outrage. I wouldn't call this cherry picking.

(Source: I work there)

> Kind of funny how the NYT publishes the original story to generate outrage [...]

It's not just this; I think there's a clear agenda here by releasing this on the day of Google's earnings announcement.

"Accusation of sexual harassment" is kind of an understatement given the massive amount of misconduct that occurred, often not even denied by the bad actor, in direct violation of company guidelines. You don't just get to light the employee handbook on fire and keep all your compensation. You can get fired with cause.

Naturally trying to kick someone out and withhold compensation is a lot harder than just quietly ushering them out the door and paying them off, which is what typically happens here because Google does not want bad press and does not want to get dragged into a multi-year court case by someone they're trying to fire.

Do you think that termination clauses given by google to employees have zero conditions attached to them? Even if you're an executive there are absolutely things you can do that would forfeit the contract. If you were fired for stealing secrets, do you think they'd pay you out? Certainly the same clauses could be written to avoid paying if you have to be let go because something you did caused some other sort of harm to the company. We can talk about whether or not the contract included such a clause and whether or not thats a failure on Google's part, but I have a feeling that's not why you posted this comment.

And btw I think it's clear that if I offered you the sort of money this dude had you probably wouldn't pass it up based on what the conditions for termination payout clauses were.

>>We don't have to pay you what we owe you, simply by having one of our employees make an accusation of sexual harassment against you."

What do you mean by “simply”? Do you believe accusing someone of sexual harassment is a “simple” matter, or that it is easy?

I think the language you are using here speaks volumes about your beliefs.

The money wasn't owed. It was an exit package.

Like immediately after the original story aired an email was leaked where the CEO of Google basically admitted that it was fucked up and said the policy changed a couple years ago so there isn't going to be a big group dissenting over anything here.

>If the destination has to change, a new crop of leaders will have to take this bunch on. And it won't happen without employees making their voice heard.

I think some form of labor organization, enforcing principles like the ACM Code of Ethics, is the only sane way forward. We in tech have to move beyond this reactive posture in how we approach what are really structural problems with how decision-making, power, and resources are distributed.

I can't remember who made the point, but the friction stems from the current generation of Silicon Valley still thinking they are counterculture rebels from a decade ago. Nobody working at Wallstreet would dispute that Wallstreet is huge, capitalistic, and corporate. Silicon Valley is the same, but it's filled with people wearing metaphorical Che Guevara t-shirts, clutching onto their copies of Marx's Manifesto, dying their hair purple or blue, and smoking weed. They have largely become that which they claim to hate, but have not realized it.

Events like this are what we see and will continue to see as reality and self-image merge. The leadership is fine, but they are probably more cognizant of this fact than the rank and file. Their challenge is helping their employees make the transition without suffering an existential crisis.

It's also acceptable for our head of state, so expectations for justice are extremely low.

I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil, and Google chose the wrong one.

So think that one through. Rubin was accused of whatever, and Google owes him money. Which is NOT evil:

A. Not pay any money to Rubin - despite legally owing him some - because the mob has decided that is best?

B. Pay the full amount he is owed to get rid of him?

C. Negotiate a reduced amount, as he is indeed owed money?

C. Take this to court, and make all parties go through all the hassle, be forced to keep Rubin, what, employed but suspended? and then hope that by some miracle you get the outcome you desire?

Again, I think the foolish view is that there is an option that ISN'T evil, and Google chose the wrong one. They are all TERRIBLE options.