[lacker]

These sexual misconduct investigations at Google are really finding some critical stuff. At this point my guess is that it is related to the Larry and Sergey resignations, and we will eventually hear information that reflects poorly on them directly.

[outside1234]

Haven't we already? Sergey was banging everything that moved at one point.

ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-employees...

[joering2]

Xoogler here; I haven't been close to the food chain to be there in person, but close enough to see photos from Managers/owners trips to Thailand, and believe me they were not going there to visit Temple of the Emerald Buddha. I seen photos that UK's the Sun would probably pay me seven digits for, but I was much younger and still wanted to live lawsuits free life. Fun times.

[zzzcarrot]

Details pls!

[thrwn_frthr_awy]

We've heard it already. They literally had a "masseuse room" where Sergey would have sex with employees inside the Google building.

[EForEndeavour]

This phrasing is a bit misleading. It makes it sound like Sergey had designated a room exclusively for sex with employees and called it the "masseuse room." To be precise, Google's offices include private massage rooms in which employees can get professional massages. Sergey allegedly had sex in one or more of these rooms.

[thrwn_frthr_awy]

> It makes it sound like Sergey had designated a room exclusively for sex with employees and called it the "masseuse room."

Yes, it does sound like that. I'd advise all people in leadership to avoid conduct that could be interpreted this way.

Edit: Thank you jacquesm for fixing my freudian slip :)

[jacquesm]

Interrupted? I think you meant 'interpreted'.

[celticninja]

Both are apt.

[natch]

Oh, that makes it fine, then. Carry on. /s

[pinewurst]

Quote from link above: "HR told me that Sergey's response to it was, 'Why not? They're my employees,'" Ayers said. "But you don't have employees for f---ing! That's not what the job is."

[GeekyBear]

The next line is really illustrative of whose interests an HR department serves.

>"'Oh my God, this is a sexual harassment claim waiting to happen!' That was my concern," she recalled

[sokoloff]

Sure, but in this case, stopping the behavior that is likely to lead to harassment claims is aligned with both the company's and the employees' interests.

[m0zg]

I might be wrong, but I don't think there's any law that forbids having consensual sex with employees. It's unethical if they're his direct reports, sure, but I don't think it's illegal. I'm sure if I had _fifty billion dollars_, I'd have to fight off women like zombies in a movie even though I'm already married.

[dredmorbius]

There is a potential criminal risk if a relationship can be construed as nonconsensual, coerced, or quid pro quo.

More generally, there's a tremendous civil liability, both personally to the principles involved and the firm, through such activity. A liability which may be entirely independent of the apparent (or actual) consensuality at the time, and which might be filed by non-participants (e.g., other employees perceiving sexual favouratism or discrimination).

A principle function of a corporation is as a risk-externalising, and limiting, legal structure. (This is literally stated in some forms of organisation, as with an LLC: limited liability corporation.) The principle job of management and oversight is to maximise the reward-to-risk ratio.

Company founders openly and documentedly treating the employee pool as their personal coital resource is a risk in the extreme.

[ellard]

Consent is murky at best when there's a large power discrepancy between two co-workers. See: everything that's been going on with Hollywood in the past couple of years

[thu2111]

The law has no concept of "large power discrepancy" affecting the notion of whether sex is legal or not, if there's no violence or force involved.

The attempts in recent years by a small group of feminists to broaden the definition of non-consensual sex to include "I had sex with that rich guy because he could give me an attractive job but later regretted it" just degrades everything, especially women. It causes people to stop believing them when they say they were coerced by a powerful man. After all, Weinstein's accusers settled, didn't they? And his ex employers picked up the legal bills. Rumoured to be because he had tons of evidence that the complainants had willingly accepted their side of the "deals" and that such arrangements were commonplace throughout the industry.

[johnhughesco]

Did it occur that the employee might be attracted BECAUSE of the power discrepancy?

[IfOnlyYouKnew]

Sort of: "I 'want' to have sex with him because I don't get to decide not to have sex with him and keep my job"

[nostrademons]

There's no criminal law against it, but it opens you up to civil suits from aggrieved parties (who can be either participants in the affair or bystanders who feel they were given a raw deal because of the relationship). Hiring, firing, and performance management is supposed to be based on your performance at doing your job, not because your boss dumped you and now dislikes you. Sexual harassment and discrimination suits are both relatively easy to document and tend to be viewed sympathetically by juries.

[m0zg]

You're assuming there are "aggrieved parties". To the best of my knowledge nobody was "aggrieved" by Sergey at least. He probably had them sign something before the "massage" or else I'm sure we'd see some lawsuits.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying sexual harassment in any way. But it's not "harassment" if it's wanted and consensual, and it's not _automatically_ unethical if the employee is not in his chain of command or even if they are, if they aren't forced into it, and there's no punishment for declining. If they make advances on their own and are merely not turned down (see e.g. Rosenberg, who IIRC wasn't in his chain of command), that's stretching the definition.

[nostrademons]

The "aggrieved party" doesn't have to be a party within the relationship. Anyone else in the org can make a case that their career opportunities were impeded by the existence of a superior/subordinate relationship within their reporting chain. People in a romantic relationship are assumed to not be impartial when it comes to things that may affect their romantic partners, which means that it's pretty easy to make a case that an executive's decisions were biased by the affair in a way that may harm your career. So if you were Rosenberg's teammate and she got placed on a hot project like Google Glass while you were passed over for the position, you could make the case that your career was harmed because she's sleeping with the head of Google X.

[nine_k]

This is reasonable, but it's very hard to be outside the sphere of influence of a company's top officer, even if you are formally not a direct report. At the very least, it is risky for that top officer, because it would be hard to shake off any accusations of coercion, were they brought up. And, of course, actual coercion becomes much easier, within certain range.

[saagarjha]

> He probably had them sign something before the "massage" or else I'm sure we'd see some lawsuits.

This sounds quite unlikely.

[damnyou]

Yes, it's probably not illegal, but it should still cause the exec to be fired.

[d1zzy]

He's not an exec, he's a founder (which together with Larry and Eric controls over 50% of shareholder voting power). He'd have to fire himself.

[vecter]

That's not entirely true. The board has the power to fire executives (that's one of the purposes of having a board, for executive oversight). You're correct in that those three could theoretically vote to change the board, but doing so also has other drastic consequences. That also takes time and process, and it's possible the board can make a move before they have the time to see that process through.

[cdumler]

Consent requires no coercion, meaning that both parties are fully informed of all relevant information and both are in a legal capacity to do so. It is guaranteed that employees are not in a position to be fully informed because they will not have the same access to company information and employee resources.