My Time at Google and After | Hacker News Reader

My Time at Google and After

medium.com

46 pointsdsr1218 comments

Is having an affair a #MeToo movement thing? This is a horrible story, but he didnt force her to do things at work, did not take advantage of his position, did not harass her because she was of the opposite sex unless Im misunderstanding what #MeToo is about. He lied about his marriage, but it wasn't him who forced her out of her job, it was a 'violation of Google’s new policy which went from “discouraging” direct-reporting-line relationships to outright banning them'. She should have known about that policy too?

This just sounds like an affair gone horribly wrong between two people that worked at the same company. I feel bad for the kid.

When Google instituted a policy against relationships with direct-line managers and one of the reports, why does the woman have to be the one to move to new departments to resolve the issue?

It doesn't say she was forced to. What makes you assume she didn't choose to?

No one said the woman had to, it said one of them had to. But that still is not a #MeToo issue. She choose this relationship over her career and it did not work out.

> David and I began an affair shortly after that night and we were together for years. The first time we got pregnant was in 2005. I was travelling in Europe when I miscarried, about 3 months into my pregnancy. I phoned David who was in Hawaii closing on a house we’d found together to give him the sad news. We were pregnant again a year later. David assured me of his imminent divorce and our son was born in May 2007.

The first child would have been ~14/15 now. His son is ~12 and some months and could very well be reading this site and these comments (FYI).

I got to be honest here, I don't know what Ms. Blakely was thinking at the time. I don't know her age during the affair, her mental state, or her upbringing. None of that really matters. What David did, and what he continues to do to his closest family members, is wrong. Apparently, he has been doing such ghastly things to his family for the last ~15 years.

Compare and contrast this to former CA Gov. Schwarzenegger and his various children. He had an affair with Mildred "Patty" Baena and hid the affair for 14 years, ending in his divorce from his wife of 25 years. Though his relationships with the mothers is 'rocky', his relationships with his children is seemingly better. He recently attended the college graduation (Pepperdine) of his son with Ms. Baena and posted the event and celebration on social media.

It is no wonder, then, that Google has become what they started out to not become, namely 'evil'. Such behavious by these childish people (the noun of 'man' cannot be applied to such immature boys) should alert everyone to the aims of the C-suite at Google: I've got mine, screw you.

C Suite at google? like these guys are some type of mafia? This happens with rich, powerful men everywhere world over. I'm reminded of the bill burr bit, if a lot of women are throwing themselves at you, i wonder how many men would be able to be faithful.

Fair! But that many C-Suites in many other companies behave like this does not excuse Google or the behaviour of the other companies.

> I'm reminded of the bill burr bit, if a lot of women are throwing themselves at you, i wonder how many men would be able to be faithful.

I'm reminded of the Roman Triumphs of the republican era. Though the victorious general was paraded through Rome as a god-like figure, faced painted Jupiterian Red, with a full purple toga, there was often a slave very publically riding along in the chariot, speaking into the ears of the Triumphant :"you are mortal" and "look behind". Indeed, Cesar was killed by the Senate with small knives for being too ostentatious (among many many other things). Alexander the Great was killed by the smallest of things, a tiny little bug, likely the plauge (many theories abound though). Lincoln was killed not by great generals and massed armies, cannons and ships, but by a crazed and misinformed stage actor with a small Deringer and a single bullet. Hitler likely died similarly to a small mouse, in a deep and dark hole, convulsing and foaming at the mouth from eating something very bad.

Though martial infidelity by C-suite a-holes is not nearly the same as the deaths of famous men (in the case of the article, it is the exact opposite: birth), the lesson is the same: Memento Mori.

It is wrong to have a relationship with your direct report. However, I'm having trouble understanding why she intentionally became pregnant with her married boss. She was around 37 years old at the time. I also don't understand why he wanted to make her pregnant and have no involvement with his child. It all just seems bizarre. He didn't marry her or make any commitment. Clearly once the child was born from an affair that violates Google's rules she would have to at least switch departments.

> Clearly once the child was born from an affair that violates Google's rules she would have to at least switch departments.

As the employee with more power and rank at the company in question, David should have been the one to be forced to leave the department. That would have been the moral thing to do.

Logically, "As the employee with more power and rank at the company in question", he's the one giving the most value to the company (or he wouldn't have promoted, would he?) so - in regard to any company's interest - it's best to keep him where he give most value than to move him to some other where he would give less value.

Company's interest is most often not a question a moral, but efficiency.

The question then becomes is there another employee who would step up and give a similar value if given the opportunity, what is the impact to the organization of other employees seeing how people were treated in this case, etc., etc. Judging value to the company by existing power/rank in the company is certainly the simplest way to do it, but it's not necessarily the best way.

This train of thought has a lot of similarity to the discussions going on around corporations maximizing only share-holder value, or if it is better for them to include stakeholders, and other non-stock-price factors when making decisions.

Rules against nepotism in companies are there to prevent people in a personal relationship from giving their partner an unfair advantage over other employees, but also to prevent higher-ups from using their power within the workplace to victimize their subordinates. In either case, when a pair of employees clearly and willfully violates the policy to the level of having a kid together, I think the company should assume that the higher ranking person is more culpable, and should be punished for their actions, not the other way around.

Why do companies always strongly recommend against these kinds of relationships, instead of outright banning them and having repercussions if the rules are violated? It seems like it would save so much hassle and effort to have a zero tolerance policy.

I understand people drink and things happen. I don't really care. Adults should be expected to exhibit self control.

> instead of outright banning them

Come work with us but if you fancy someone then prepare to upend your work just to see if that relationship is worth pursuing.

I don't think I want any company to dictate what way my love life unfolds.

Come work with us but if you fancy someone then prepare to upend your work just to see if that relationship is worth pursuing.

"Fancying" someone doesn't oblige you to pursue a relationship with them any more than fancying some cake obliges you to eat it.

Are we adults or are we children?

> Are we adults or are we children?

After reading your comment, I'm beginning to wonder.

She claims he didn’t enter a formal child support arrangement till the kid was 4. If true, this is a huge red flag.

Also not very good at his job “Drummond was charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2005 with causing Google to violate securities law because he failed to advise the company's board that the company was required to register $80 million in stock options used as compensation for employees.”

He took home $47m last year.

I don't see how it's google's responsibility to babysit people. This guy might be a complete asshl, but he didn't seem like he coerced anyone, or harassed them into sleeping with him or having kids with him.

I bet he claims to be a feminist as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com