[mildbow]

idk.

Should he have disclosed it? Of course, because that would have lessened the impact when it did come out.

Maybe he thought it was over and done with. And, since it was an allegation vs proven maybe he didn't want to muddy waters.

However, to say that an allegation must be reported when taking a new job is pretty harsh. Innocent till proven guilty surely?

>> "Uber execs found out about the situation after Recode informed them of the chain of events between Singhal and the search giant this week."

Punish the person responsible in Susan's case. If anything, this feels like a person's career was taken down due to a witch hunt.

To me, this action by Uber's executive team is not one of cleaning house: it shows a lack of spine.

[st3v3r]

"Innocent till proven guilty surely?"

That's for the courts. Not for me hiring my executive team. I have enough damn headaches as it is; I don't need someone coming in and causing more. Especially because, let's be honest here, there's not exactly a shortage of people that could do that job.

[mildbow]

It's not just for the courts: I do believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Why? Golden rule: given a role reversal, I would like the same consideration.

Please note that the "headache" this seems to have caused is purely an external optics one. Not sure how great of a team you would have if you cut off members at first sign of issues.

Maybe the sort of dysfunctional mess Uber seems to have.

Internal, not external, optics are vastly more important in a company.

[x0x0]

Innocence of the men only, because you're implicitly accusing the women involved of lying. What about the golden rule?

[mildbow]

That's a good point. Thanks for bringing it up so I can clarify my position :)

It's not about calling one person a liar vs the other. Rather, it's about accepting that there are multiple sides to every story. Without an unbiased third party, it devolves into he said/she said.

If formal charges aren't brought forward (which would allow for more facts/third party analysis), then why should one person be denigrated? Should a hint of an accusation, sourced by third parties, be enough to fire someone over? If so, what does that firing actually solve?[0]

Anyway, I understand this is a trigger issue, esp. after Susan's post, but to over-react is as bad under-reacting: you want to fix the problem, and you can't do that when you are busy scapegoating.

[0] I'm talking about this specific case, not sexual harassment cases in general.

[x0x0]

This isn't a criminal court.

Your two sides dodge is the same thing used by sexual harassers: oh, well, if it wasn't on video, then I guess opinions differ!

This is more than a hint of an accusation: Google HR investigated, and found some evidence to create a belief that Amit acted improperly enough to warrant termination. That's far from a foregone conclusion (how many execs are fired for sexual harassment? Not many.)

[kevinburke]

Google found the allegations credible and was prepared to fire him until he resigned. That seems like "guilty" to me, and certainly something you need to mention to a new employer, if only to avoid stories like this one.

[mildbow]

Yeah, I agree it should have been mentioned (literally my 2nd and 3rd lines)

But, this firing has the smell of being one for appearances, rather than actual culpability.

But then again, I don't know the actors so if anyone with additional info confirms that it's a fair firing, I would be happy to listen.

[zigzigzag]

There's a big difference between guilty and "Google found it credible". The latter could mean almost anything, but presumably as he denied it there wasn't actual film of it happening or any other hard evidence. Bear in mind, a big part of feminist/SJW culture is to never disbelieve a 'victim': literally, to make an accusation is to automatically be credible unless there's clear evidence you made it up.

Expecting a guy who clearly believes he was let go due to an unfounded malicious accusation to tell every future employer about it seems extreme. He obviously expected that Google would not leak his personnell notes, apparently that was a mistake.

[stouset]

You don't have to throw feminism under the bus in order to recognize that there's a difference between a claim that's credible and a claim that's true.

> Expecting a guy who clearly believes he was let go due to an unfounded malicious accusation to tell every future employer about it seems extreme.

Sorry, but not at the SVP level. You are a semipublic face of the company and its culture, and it's in both your and the company's interest for them to know about these things to be able to get out in front of revelations like this.

[tptacek]

That's not what the story says happened. The story says, according to their anonymous sources, Singhal was about to be fired over the harassment incident, and Google instead allowed him to leave gracefully.

[zigzigzag]

I read the story. I don't see how that contradicts what I said. He was effectively let go: told he could resign with dignity or be fired, same result in the end.

[pvg]

Article: "He was about to be fired and resigned"

You: "Accused of a crime he didn't commit, he escaped into the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by feminists and SJWs, he survives as a soldier of fortune"

[stale2002]

"However, to say that an allegation must be reported when taking a new job is pretty harsh"

If you are an executive, who is expected to be the face of the company, yes, yes you should disclose anything at all that could look bad to the company.