[oliverx0]

I realise I might get downvoted here because of an unpopular point of view, but some of these comments raise a few flags:

“I reported it up to where my manager knew, my director knew, the coworker’s manager knew and our HR representative knew. Nothing happened. I was warned that things will get very serious if continued,”

So EVERYONE knew and they still disagreed with their point of view. Warned them that accusations without proof like that would get serious. Does that make them evil?

“I whistle blew a colleague who used the N-word in jokes. HR found nothing conclusive”

So HR investigated, found nothing conclusive. What is the alternative? The did their job and arrived to a conclusion. Just because the conclusion did not match the accusation, now Google is evil?

“when I was sexually harassed on my former team by my [team lead] I quickly reported it to my manager. I was told I was ‘overreacting’ and that I should just ‘get over it.’”

Again, this seems to be a subjective stance. Your manager thought you were overreacting, given whatever proof / accusations you provided. Just because he / she did not agree with it, does not mean they are evil.

[busterarm]

`“I whistle blew a colleague who used the N-word in jokes. HR found nothing conclusive”`

I was once asked in an HR investigation about a similar accusation where I was present in the room when a coworker was supposed to have said this slur in a joke.

Not only was the word not said, but the actual context of the conversation reported was that the accused party was decrying a public figure for making blatantly racist statements. I made it absolutely clear to HR that nobody in the room would tolerate even the slightest bit of racism -- none of us would find that acceptable in any way.

Certain people have sensitivities such that they will overhear things in passing and then inject words into a conversation that were never said. It's just like that game of telephone we all play as kids that somehow everyone forgets the lessons of by adulthood.

That's my charitable interpretation of the reporter's actions in this circumstance. Given their wild accusations about a recent new hire who is a minority though, I suspect something more nefarious and that HR process might be used as a weapon by an actual racist here.

My point is just that evidence is important and that probably most companies don't want the blowback of letting a known racist get away with it because that sort of thing tends to blow up in public later.

[anoncareer0212]

It might not save you from downvotes, but, you're absolutely right. Internally, the reaction was the same - people were happy to participate in the walk out, but when leaders tried creating into a referendum on their individual careers, they way overplayed their hand and tried harder than they did for the original walkout. People read the charges, smelled BS, and didn't participate.

Somewhat offtopic, but a heuristic that I've slowly learned is when people complain about promotion or org shuffles. Google is full of extremely type A people who stop getting signal of success the minute they walk in the door, and "it's been 4 years and no promotion or increase in responsibility!" is absolutely normal, and I've seen people stripped of 10+ person teams regularly and not as a punishment.

[aaomidi]

> Your manager thought you were overreacting, given whatever proof / accusations you provided. Just because he / she did not agree with it, does not mean they are evil.

In a company the size of google, managers aren't the people that should have an opinion on this matter. What that manager said, assuming this document is valid, is absolutely terrible. Heck, if some manager in my hypothetical company told someone that their report of sexual harassment is an "overreaction" that person wouldn't be manager for long.

[wruza]

I often see discussions like this, but there is no specific action described. How does one test for overreaction or not, if nothing is specified? Some paranoid people may get insulted by a a single unconscious look that you don’t really control, cause it’s just your facial feature. And then think about it all day, checking in more random details.

Can someone who read it please cite it here?

[anoncareer0212]

Somewhat blissfully, work isn't a court of law, and the source document makes clear everyone and their mother knew what was going on, and they knew the employee would go public with these claims, and yet had the courage to not throw someone else under the bus so they could appear morally pure

[oliverx0]

Fair enough. Perhaps a process needs to be in place in which no matter what the accusation is, it needs to go through a proper HR process. Having said that, if a manager should have no opinion on a sexual harassment accusation, then the accuser should have gone directly to HR.

[wolco]

A manager can be in an advisor role with some employees. In a mentor relationship I think giving an opinion should allowed.

If a manager knows this person's goals and understands the harassment process and resources involved then they may suggest not reporting. Most of the time its to save themselves but this could be a wise strategy

[4ntonius8lock]

To add to what you are saying: I feel a lot of the accusations are generic and overly ambiguous and this can lead to multiple interpretations which hurts everyone.

For example: “I witnessed first hand (and was told second-hand) of several situations where women were being belittled, insulted and ignored”

This text mentions the accusation of 'belittled, insulted and ignored'. But what exactly happened?

It COULD mean a long term pattern of horrific abuse and psychological torment.

But as a Latino working in the US, I've seen first hand other Latinos completely over-react and get defensive in situations which were completely uncalled for.

Someone makes a joke about Mexican food and they feel 'belittled and insulted'. Then because they are so insanely sensitive and tend to take everything personally, other co workers ignore them. To me, that's the logical conclusion of what happens to people with a victim mentality. I'm Latino and feel they were wrong for being sensitive. Am I wrong too?

I say this because as a Latino, I don't want WASPs to feel scared of speaking near me. If that happens, there will be segregation. And I would understand; who wants to be on the defensive all the time? Most groups of co-workers there tends to be hazings and people joke around.

This is not to say there aren't real cases of Latino discrimination, I'm just saying that the wording used in the accusations of the article is extremely vague.

When someone mentions 'sexual harassment', that can mean everything from a long term pattern of physiological torture under duress with physical attacks accompanying it (extreme cases of sexual harassment), to someone being asked out a single time in a less than appropriate manner but with no duress or obligation (maybe a co-worker though there was something and he misinterpreted a single time while drunk at the x-mass party but instantly backed out upon rejection... that too is sexual harassment).

Both of these are 'sexual harassment'. One of them would warrant a VERY strong response. The other... not so much so. I think some people when they read sexual harrasment think one extreme while others think the other. But this only leads to people talking over each other without understanding. Using words with specific and concrete definitions is necessary for communication.

At some point in the last century, words related to victims and attacks became so open ended that it's really hard to understand what is being discussed.

[thaumasiotes]

> I've seen first hand other Latinos completely over-react and get defensive in situations which were completely uncalled for.

> Someone makes a joke about Mexican food and they feel 'belittled and insulted'. Then because they are so insanely sensitive and tend to take everything personally, other co workers ignore them. To me, that's the logical conclusion of what happens to people with a victim mentality. I'm Latino and feel they were wrong for being sensitive. Am I wrong too?

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/02/different-worlds/ (read it!)

This is a personality difference. Who's wrong depends on the unknowable intentions of the different people you interact with. In a more practical sense, who's wrong depends on who gets better results from their interactional style. You seem to be saying that these other people are suffering penalties for their heightened sensitivity; on that analysis, you're right and they're wrong.

> Both of these are 'sexual harassment'. One of them would warrant a VERY strong response. The other... not so much so. I think some people when they read sexual harrasment think one extreme while others think the other. But this only leads to people talking over each other without understanding. Using words with specific and concrete definitions is necessary for communication.

> At some point in the last century, words related to victims and attacks became so open ended that it's really hard to understand what is being discussed.

These terms are intentionally vague for diplomatic, coalition-building purposes, in the same way that an important treaty between premodern Russia and China was drawn up in Latin, so that the treaty could avoid clearly stating anything that either side didn't want to see in there. Clear communication isn't the goal, it's something that people are actively trying to frustrate.

Compare this discussion from Mary Beard's SPQR:

>> The first word of the second book of Livy's History, which begins the story of Rome after the monarchy, is 'free'; and the words 'free' and 'freedom' are together repeated eight times in the first few lines alone. The idea that the Republic was founded on libertas rings loudly throughout Roman literature...

>> But how was Roman liberty to be defined? That was a controversial question for the next 800 years, through the Republic and into the one-man rule of the Roman Empire when political debate often turned on how far libertas could ever be compatible with autocracy. Whose liberty was at stake? How was it most effectively defended? How could conflicting version of the freedom of the Roman citizen be resolved?

>> All, or most, Romans would have counted themselves as upholders of libertas, just as today most of us uphold 'democracy'. But there were repeated and intense conflicts over what that meant.

[reroute1]

Right, there isn't enough evidence provided to actually verify or judge any of these. In itself they are pretty useless anonymous claims.

[ceejayoz]

> So EVERYONE knew and they still disagreed with their point of view. Warned them that accusations without proof like that would get serious. Does that make them evil?

Sometimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_and_Colorado_serial...

[jellicle]

Good companies have policies that any good-faith reports of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, fraud or abuse at the company, or any other similar event _shall not_ be subject to any bad consequences or disciplinary action, even if the complaint/report is not found to be substantiated or serious enough for the organization to take action on. No retaliation for people raising issues.

Google either doesn't have such a policy or it isn't followed, as shown by the linked article.

[username90]

Google already has no retaliation rules, but such rules can't rule out negative consequences which would befall them regardless. Otherwise you would encourage low performing individuals to accuse their manager of something before the manager pip's them.

[oliverx0]

You have a good point. I agree that there should not be retaliation for raising issues. But I think it is also important to realise that when an investigation has taken place, and the conclusion is that nothing can be done about it given lack of evidence, going against the company is not the right approach either. In the quotes that I provided, the only case of retaliation was really a warning to stop after a lot of people looked into the accusation.

[gowld]

So, because there is no permanent evidence of the harm, is the reporter "evil"? ("Evil" is your term.)

[oliverx0]

No, I don't think reporting is evil. I quoted the word evil because the article mentioned sarcastically Google's motto. I think raising these issues is important, but saying things like: “It’s been infuriating to watch Google make statements about the alleged things the company does to fight and prevent discrimination and retaliation" is wrong when the company is clearly trying to address them.

[iamnotacrook]

It was investigated and there was no harm?