Got any evidence for that? Is Google in the habit of paying out giant HR-related settlements for something other than protecting good ol' boys like Andy Rubin?
As another commenter pointed out elsewhere, Google recently paid out a settlement claiming that it discriminated against Asians. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201 This settlement claims they favored Asians, but Google paid it out too!
So, yes, it appears Google is in the habit of paying out contradictory settlements rather than litigating them.
One thing I will note is that both of these can be true. Google is a huge company run by a lot of people and unless the specific claims are contradictory there's nothing stopping Google from doing both. It's not like we can expect it to be run with any consistent ideology
Getting 5 people to agree on one thing is so hard companies have Project Managers, doesn't seem unlikely that the left hand doesn't speak to the right when you get to Google scale.
> Got any evidence for that? Is Google in the habit of paying out giant HR-related settlements for something other than protecting good ol' boys like Andy Rubin?
The state of US case law -- IANAL, this is a layman's understanding -- is that plaintiffs only have to show that there exists "disparate impact," which is to say that outcomes were not exactly the same for Asians/whites and blacks.
Two things can be true: 1) Google did not intend to discriminate, did not institute any policy designed to discriminate, did not in actual fact discriminate against non-Asian/white employees; and 2) they could still be held liable for hiring results that look like discrimination in a single-variable analysis.
So, yes, I think there are indeed situations in which they'd pay out settlements knowing full well they've done nothing morally or ethically dubious.
It's not exactly beyond the realm of possibility that individual managers at Google had discriminatory promotion practices. Google picks up the legal tab for their alleged malfeasance, because they empower managers to make those decisions.
If it is so easy to squeeze some cash out of a major company, I'd imagine Google, Apple and many others in California would be cutting checks left and right to dodge lawsuits alleging violations of the state's Equal Pay Act, which saw its last major update in 2018, enacted into law in Jan 2019.[1]
Also NAL but I don't think you're correct about this.
First: the standard isn't relevant to a nuisance suit, since by definition you don't expect to win a nuisance suit anyway.
But setting that aside, disparate impact requires a significant difference in outcome and can be defended against by showing that the standards are relevant to job performance ("business necessity"). That's true for both the federal Civil Rights Act and the California Equal Pay Act (which is what this suit was brought under). So a "single variable analysis" isn't the end of the story, and employers can (and often do) provide statistical arguments that their policies satisfy business necessity.
I'd suggest looking up the case (Griggs v. Duke Power Co.) that established the disparate impact standard in the first place. TLDR, a company that had explicitly discriminatory Jim Crow-era policies banning black employees from certain departments adopted new requirements on the day the Civil Rights Act went into effect. Those requirements hadn't been in place before, Duke Power could not show any actual connection with job performance, and white employees were two to ten times more likely to satisfy them. A unanimous court (which, as a fun trivia fact, included an open former member of the Klan!) said nope, can't do that.
The people who are running the diversity stuff at Google when I was there were very "Eye-for-an-eye".
Some dumb stuff that happened while I was at Google:
* There was a ERG for literally every single race except White people. "Just join one of the others" was what they told me.
* During an onboarding learning exercise because I was merely showing initiative before the rest of the group. "Ok everyone here's my idea". I was tapped on the shoulder by the contractor-teacher-person and asked to move aside and let the group do the very same thing without me.
* Nonwhite employees in my org also got a special mentor who helped them get a leg-up in the company. Some employees were whisked-away from their work responsibilities to go on little field trips with other teams. A few of these people were totally inept technically at their job and I saw them convert into better jobs. It must have been nice.
I'm pretty liberal, but this corpo-liberalism that somehow thinks an eye-for-an-eye to people living in 2025 is insane to me. It might even burn someone so much it changes their politics if they're whimsical.
That's very different from Google when I was there (both before and after the Damore memo).
1. There were ERGs for old people, young people, people who brought dogs to work, Irish people, Jewish people, etc. I can't imagine why they would say you couldn't create one for the group you wanted.
2. One thing hot-shot programmers fresh out of college need to learn is that while their opinion is valued, they need to listen to other people on the team as they may have important points as well. While it's nice to show initiative, that's L3-L4 thinking. To get to L5 or higher, you need to be able to listen, strategize, and drive consensus. All of those fuzzy things that you became a software engineer to avoid. Because at the end of the day, no one is particularly interested in how clever you are, they're interested in what you can get done. And you can get a heck of a lot more done through working with other people, even if they aren't quite as clever as you. After all, quantity has a quality all its own.
3. Every new employee gets assigned a mentor (at least at the office I was at). I'm not sure how this would differ from the "special" mentor you're talking about, but maybe you can inform me. Though with the level of ego reflected in your post, I'm not sure you would have benefited from a mentor, special or otherwise.
4. Some people that are hired are not as good, technically, as others. I'm aware of confirmation bias, so seeing a few less technically capable employees that happen not to be white doesn't surprise me. And when I do the math, assigning scores to previous co-workers and talking it up, I don't actually see a statistically significant difference in the capabilities based on race (though it does lean a bit towards white males being less capable).
But maybe my Google office wasn't representative, as we weren't one of the main ones.
>There was a ERG for literally every single race except White people. "Just join one of the others" was what they told me.
Imagine moving to say, Switzerland, to work for a massive corporation. 90% of the employees are Swiss. The other 10% come from a smattering of other countries from around the world. To help those employees acclimate to a new culture and find support, the company sponsors country-based ERGs.
Of course, there is no Swiss ERG, as it's the "default", because the entire company is essentially a Swiss ERG. But, the company encourages its Swiss employees to join the others as a show of support and cultural exchange.
If you had attended one of those groups, you might have found yourself feeling extraordinarily welcome, and even learned a few things about your fellow employees.
>A few of these people were totally inept technically at their job and I saw them convert into better jobs. It must have been nice.
If "totally inept" people are being promoted with any frequency, then that's a problem for any company. I think we have all seen this occasionally but, in my experience, it has very little to do with race (or other identity) and more to do with the Peter Principle and the fact that hiring and HR management is notoriously hard to get right.
I'm not suggesting anything about the earnestness of your observations, but you should be aware that assuming every non-white person you see at a company is the beneficiary of preferential treatment is a bit of a canard. And the idea that a disproportionate number of those are inept is yet another.
As such, whimsical people might draw rather nasty conclusions from your statements, that are other than what you intended.
If Swiss and white were the same thing, that would make a lot of sense. On the other hand if you were a Ukrainian refugee or something, learning Swiss-German as a second language and struggling to integrate into the company's Swiss culture, then it might feel extra-alienating if the company suggests you could join the Asian or Indian employee support groups to help you bridge the culture gap.
OTOH, for the same reason, skin-color-based groups don't really make sense to begin with.
>If Swiss and white were the same thing, that would make a lot of sense
We all have multiple identities. We relate to those identities and others relate to us by those identities—at times, unfortunately. So, you can substitute any identity here, and it still makes sense.
>it might feel extra-alienating if the company suggests you could join the Asian or Indian employee support groups
Not necessarily. There's certainly some overlap in experience, as they are all working to integrate into the same culture.
What you may be missing here is that it's not strictly about which specific group, but also about the fact that the group is not the majority / "culture-defining group".
>OTOH, for the same reason, skin-color-based groups don't really make sense to begin with.
Oh, if only they didn't, my friend. What a world this would be. It's worth noting that it's generally not those "skin-colors" who made these groups necessary. Part of it is just the complicated tribalism of humans. And, yes, another part of it is that some people have taken advantage of that tribalism.
ERG groups provide mentorship and support. The assumption that all white people, males or in this case Swiss don’t need support or get it automatically is plain wrong.
Yes, and Google offers a wide range of mentorship/support programs, from those for community college students to
upskilling to new hires to tailored programs and more.
>The assumption that all white people, males or in this case Swiss don’t need support
I don't think anyone assumes that. I certainly don't. I'm sure Google provides other means of support to its employees, and ERGs represent just one approach, which address specific needs for specific employees.
What you have to understand is that people are tribal and that can have effects on "outgroups" in any given context. If we're out at lunch and all but one of us is in the same frat, we may unintentionally exclude that person. It's not necessarily intentional or malicious. That's obviously a simplification, but you can extrapolate.
So, ERGs aren't meant to be punitive or exclusionary. In fact, according to OP, Google encouraged all employees to join whichever groups interested them.
But again, why call out specific groups by gender or race and not call out others? Do people really think that a white guy from some poor area has more privilege and needs less support than some person from {insert oppressed group here} whose family is highly educated?
>But again, why call out specific groups by gender or race and not call out others?
History. There is an undeniable legacy of gender and race-based discrimination. This discrimination was absolutely laser-focused on gender and race, so is it fairer to simply ignore this and call it a wash?
For instance, some estimates of the value of free labor provided by slaves in the U.S. are upwards of $100 trillion, with an amplification effect (including an inverse one), compounding over generations.
>Do people really think that a white guy from some poor area has more privilege...
No. There are programs for people in rural areas, poorer areas, etc. To the extent that these are inadequate, they should also be addressed.
But, it's not just about economics. It's also about culture, socialization, etc.
Not surprising. There are different ways to view identity, and none of us are any one thing. Your observation underscores my point that providing support along the lines of identity can be completely benign sans a political context.
That said, feel free to substitute a more homogenous country if that helps to clarify my point.
The point is offering development resources based on race, an immutable characteristic, is deeply unsettling to a lot of people. (I’m not white, for what it’s worth.)
>offering development resources based on race, an immutable characteristic, is deeply unsettling to a lot of people.
I understand, but I'm trying to provide a point of view that might make it less unsettling. Otherwise, we're just kind of saying that people find it unsettling, so it must be wrong (BTW, we also can't overlook that there are people who want to make it more unsettling, for reasons).
Anyway, it really comes down to backing up a little to consider why race became a factor. Else, if we simply start the clock at the inception of these groups, then I suppose it should be unsettling.
Interestingly, there are other immutable characteristics that do not trigger that unsettledness. If nothing else, this gives us reason to question why this particular characteristic became so charged.
If Whites want to make an ERG, why can't they? What is special about Whites that they must be prevented from doing the thing that literally all others have done?
Google doesn't exist in a vacuum, but in a broader culture (e.g. America). If you're coming from an Asian country, you might still feel alienated or simply want to connect with people who intrinsically understand your culture.
That said, the Asian makeup of Google has increased significantly over the years. I wonder how that has impacted the participation rate in its ERG versus when it was originally established.
>* What is special about Whites that they must be prevented from doing the thing that literally all others have done?*
The dominant culture is essentially the "default" and is somewhat "self-reinforcing", so generally has no need of an identity-based support group. Thus, when the dominant culture does establish an identity-based group, it tends to take on a different meaning.
> The dominant culture is essentially the "default" and is somewhat "self-reinforcing", so generally has no need of an identity-based support group. Thus, when the dominant culture does establish an identity-based group, it tends to take on a different meaning.
You're being so indirect we're forced to guess at what you mean. Can you please say clearly why you think White must be actually prevented from doing this, when all other groups have already done so?
Not why you think they don't need one - why do you think they must be prevented, even if some of them want to start one?
I get plenty of that elsewhere. Do you have issues finding support, networking events, and mentorship programs?
ERGs specifically tend to group those generic, open-to-all programs together and add another layer of `navigating the workplace as [insert ERG demographic]` that doesn't really make sense if you insert "white man".
How about an ERG for people who need support? When I started working I had no idea how things work and nobody told me. I didn't even know that things like mentorship exist. I had been taught by my parents that you go to work and do what you are told to do.
>What would an ERG for white people even do? What would you want from it?
The exact same thing as anyone of any other group of course.
To be clear, Whites are a minority at Google. They are also not even the largest group. (Not that this should matter - all groups have the right to exist).
Well, most other groups have had a rough go at it throughout recent history, and often have to approach the workplace differently because it takes a long time to reverse some of our previous mistakes.
We considered many black folks property until 1865, and we had segregation of some schools in the 1960s. We didn't let women vote until 1920. We put Japanese people in internment camps until 1946. Gay folks couldn't marry in all states until 2015. Do I have to list more?
If you don't think this kind of stuff leaks into the workplace, then I don't think you're paying attention.
> We put Japanese people in internment camps until 1946
And now they are economically ahead of the average American. Universities actually discriminate against them by their malevolent definition of "fairness" where success is a punishable offense. People are where they are because of what they do today, not what happened to their ancestors in the past.
That doesn't explain why ERG's exist for that, and it doesn't explain why they are dismissive of what people who are white && and not women encounter in life or as an employee, seeking resources
Why are you invalidating their experience, its look like you have let something else leak into the workplace under an amusingly ironic interpretation of empathy
Let's write it again in a different way: Nothing about the name "Employee Resource Group" suggests that "state-sanctioned disenfranchisement at some point in the country's history" is the only reason or prerequisite for an employee seeking resources
Looks like an another race and ethnicity settlement is brewing
There are plenty of allyship opportunities at big companies. Or at least, there were. I don't really know the status of some companies after the current political environment started changing things.
Focusing on "White Allies" is a bit strange, though. Anyone not directly in a given group can be allies.
Except people on Blind brag about doing this under the domains they control.
I wouldn't interpret this as a top-level policy, just some individuals in some hiring and pay/leveling decisions with little accountability. This does mean they represent Google though, and one remedy for that is a settlement by the corporate entity.
Ideally shareholders would become interested in rooting this out and creating better, less expensive, accountability.
It creates an environment where everyone (or some additional subset of everyone) feels they need to elevate their own in-group.
What's the effective difference between unofficial policy of discrimination and individual groups conducting discrimination en mass?
Thinking back to a unicorn I worked for we were unofficially told to favour women in hiring. We all thought it was a great idea at that time, but also I do remember a coworker saying how her group has been doing heavy favouring of women in hiring for years already before being told to do so.
I've observed orgs go from diverse to turn largely Indian or Chinese based upon who does the hiring, the only group that doesn't seem to do this is Americans of all ethnicities (Chinese american, indian american, white american etc). White americans seem like the ones having the least legal recourse. When these leaders move they pull these buddies into their new companies, and they often form cliques that operate using their groups culture and protect each other over company interests.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-se...
Google has enough money to hire the best law firms too. Why would any law firm engage in frivolous litigation against a potential future client?
The linked settlement is 10X that of this one, which if paid, would be divided among 6,600 people. Not exactly a huge payday.