The problem for Google is that the company has condoned these sorts of inappropriate behaviors right from the start and from the very highest levels of the company.
>Here Fisher quotes Google’s first executive chef, Charlie Ayers, and Heather Cairns, the company’s first HR manager:
Charlie Ayers: Sergey’s the Google playboy. He was known for getting his fingers caught in the cookie jar with employees that worked for the company in the masseuse room. He got around.
Heather Cairns: And we didn’t have locks, so you can’t help it if you walk in on people if there’s no lock. Remember, we’re a bunch of twentysomethings except for me—ancient at 35, so there’s some hormones and they’re raging.
Charlie Ayers: H.R. told me that Sergey’s response to it was, “Why not? They’re my employees.” But you don’t have employees for fucking! That’s not what the job is.
Heather Cairns: Oh my God: This is a sexual harassment claim waiting to happen! That was my concern.
> The problem for Google is that the company has condoned . . .
That is a problem, but it is not the problem. The problem is developing good practices for handling harassment situations going forward. We can fret over what has been done, but we can only change the future.
Interesting this is the top comment when in the thread discussing the original article and abuse it was basically a series of hits against Ms. Simpson (the accuser in this instance)
There are interesting questions about how bad this is compared to executive shenanigans in other major corporations.
There are going to be men who just like money and power, but there are also going to be stereotypical men who seek out money and power to translate into creating sexual opportunity. Presumably Google is not going to have an unusually skewed executive either way.
It seems like many leaders fall down when it comes to protecting the company. It seems like leaders may fail to understand that no one person makes or breaks a company, not a great company anyway. There are many more people willing and able to step up, then their are opportunities to step up into - no matter what the job is.
I find it impossible to believe that lawyers are giving sub-optimal advice. Generally, it's probably situations where lawyers say "x is the best practice", leaders say, "what else do you have" and they end up with some sort of compromising, risk-accepting solution - a la any number of Google recent announcements or any other number of companies that bury things until it makes the headlines.
That's always how it works. To make sure everything stays hidden for years it has to be combined with a robust yet superficial call for antiharrasment. Lots of blogs and talks about it. This is not unlike say Harvey Weinstein showing up at the Women's March.
That's a good start but insufficient. In large, complex matrix organizations someone at a high level has a lot of power over others even if they aren't formally his subordinates.
> Alphabet CEO Larry Page, who was aware of the allegations and the investigation’s findings, did not disclose publicly Rubin’s reason for leaving, saying in a statement at the time, “I want to wish Andy all the best with what’s next.”
Maybe Google could invest in his next venture, like they did with Andy Rubin...
I mean, it is a verified fact that they dropped it from the code of conduct.[1,2] My understanding is that, consistent with your link, they added it back later.
Thank you for the correction. I see now that Google dropped the 'Don't be evil' clause from their code of conduct, but left in one instance of the phrase itself.
The hubris displayed by Google and other tech companies in their response to sexual harassment claims suggests to me that they have become poorly run. They have benefitted from an enormous bull market and so bad or wasteful behavior has been ex post facto rationalized as correct or inconsequential. In this time, the cost of keeping an alleged harasser on the payroll is nearly infinite. A good recession will clean house.
Maybe it’s just me, but I get the impression from these articles that Google et al. has been an auspicious hidey hole for well-pedigreed sexual deviants.
Bias up front: I work at Google. I obviously don't speak for the company here.
We are definitely hearing a lot about this stuff from Google and other tech companies lately. I don't know what we can reliably infer from the absence of that kind of news what that says about other industries.
My intuition is that workplace sexual harassment has been rife in all aspects of human endeavor since the dawn of time. The "boss screwing the secretary" trope isn't exactly a new one. It may be that we're seeing a combination of things:
1. Thanks to the #metoo movement, people who get harassed now have enough power to actually be able to stand up and cause the person they accuse to face some scrutiny. Before, it was just swept under the rug. "Boys will be boys", "that's what you get for dressing like that", "you should have known better to stay late at work with him", etc.
2. The very rapid rise of tech as a cultural dominator makes them a prime actor in our moral narratives. The average person sees a handful of giant tech companies dramatically changing the way we all live, and they naturally want to know if they are a force for good or evil. Those kinds of journalistic narratives sell.
For all we know, sexual harassment could be 10x worse in the insurance industry but we won't know because who wants to read articles about the insurance industry?
3. There's also the obvious bias that if something happens too much, it ceases to be news. "Newsworthiness" is a combination of significance and novelty. The former is where good investigative journalism can show the scope of a sweeping hidden problem. The latter is the old "dog bites man" isn't news but "man bites dog" is. It's easy to mistake the latter for the former and assume that something being reported indicates a trend, when really it indicates the exact opposite.
So, it may be that things really are worse at Google than at other places, but I don't know if we can rely on the presence of news articles to judge that.
These are all good points. Certainly, there are tons of examples of sexual harassment in other industries. I'll submit, however, that tech is a bit outside the mainstream on this. While sexual harassment happens for example at law firms, nobody in the legal profession (and I suspect, most of "sanitized corporate America") would try to defend with a straight face the practice of relationships between supervisors and underlings, as is typical here on HN.
In the legal profession which is prestige driven, relationship based, artificially supply constrained and very lucrative, you would fear for your career over most else especially if you're lower on the totem pole.
This creates a perverse set of incentives to hide all misbehavior even if you're a victim of it.
So I don't know where you're getting this idea that lawyers would automatically defend themselves in those kinds of situations when the incentives are heavily weighted towards ignoring the situations and moving on.
As a software engineer in the tech industry though (especially at a place like Google), you can tell your employer to fuck off and you can find a new high-paying job tomorrow.
I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying that "lawyers would automatically defend themselves" if they were harassed. Harassment gets buried in the legal profession for the same reasons it gets buried everywhere.
My point is that the Overton window is in a different place: whether it's okay for supervisors to date underlings, with all the problems that causes, is a settled debate in law as well as most of the rest of corporate America (it's not). Tech seems out of the mainstream to me in still entertaining the idea that it's okay.
Thanks for the clarification, because that's not what I got from your original comment.
I actually didn't consider it from that perspective e.g. it's a settled debate in other professions but a seemingly recurring debate in tech. That's an interesting point you raise and I think it's a valid one.
> As a software engineer in the tech industry though (especially at a place like Google), you can tell your employer to fuck off and you can find a new high-paying job tomorrow.
A white or asian man can do that, sure. But that's not necessarily true for women and other marginalized groups in the tech industry. Especially if this means they won't get a reference from their current employer.
Many tech companies that I know actually huge preference to "marginalized" group. I don't know if it is still done but Microsoft used to have a reputation that they would call females in for a second interview as long as the first wasn't terrible.
You have a valid point, but I think the "especially at a place like Google" part is relevant in my comment.
If you're a software engineer, woman, and at Google, you'll obviously still face challenges but getting hired is less likely to be one of them. That's a powerful wind in a person's back when standing up to a company - especially when others are willing to band together with you (because the others can easily find new jobs too). It's a compounding effect.
I presume the dynamic is far different in law or investment banking even if you're highly skilled in the respective industry.
> While sexual harassment happens for example at law firms, nobody in the legal profession (and I suspect, most of "sanitized corporate America") would try to defend with a straight face the practice of relationships between supervisors and underlings, as is typical here on HN.
I think you would be terribly surprised.
Most of the people sitting in politics come from the legal profession.
You don't magically start harassing people simply because you get elected. The fact that you harass people is already well established before that.
Not that I understand the point you're making, but, whatever it is, the people "sitting in politics" are a tiny minority of the legal profession as a whole.
To be clear I’m not saying sexual harassment is less common in law than in tech. I’m just saying that people are at least publicly on board with certain policies and best practices.
> "dog bites man" isn't news but "man bites dog" is.
That would imply that "jocks have sex" isn't news but "nerds have sex" is. Heh.
But there were also news about jocks having sex... so perhaps the rule governing the sexual harassment coverage in news is instead: "sex sells".
Writing stories about sexual harassment, especially colorful stories with lots of details, is simply a way to write about sex (and for the readers to read about sex) with plausible deniability. "No, I am NOT writing/reading these juicy stories as a form of porn; how dare you suggest that?! We are fighters against patriarchy, and we need to know every technical detail about how this agent of patriarchy misbehaved."
In agricultural societies, for example, men and women work together on the farm. They might have slightly different jobs and roles, but for the most part they work side-by-side. Men heading off to work while women tend the home is actually the exception to the historical trend.
I think you can extend to most technology, they are generally poorly run enterprises. When money comes easy as is currently the case, bad leadership is not as obvious to recognize.
> In the Times story, DeVaul allegedly invited hardware engineer Star Simpson, who was interviewing to work at Google, to the art and culture festival Burning Man, telling her he and his wife were polyamorous. Simpson attended the festival in hopes it would improve her chances of getting hired — she brought her mother with her and “professional attire,” according to the Times. Yet DeVaul encouraged her to remove her clothing and asked to give her a massage.
> Later on, Simpson learned that she did not get the job, and that DeVaul knew this when she chose to attend Burning Man.
> he thought Simpson had been aware that she did not get the job when she attended the festival.
This is all kinds of weird, and I am not sure how I feel about any of it. It seems like a failure to communicate all around, with some information asymmetry muddying the waters.
On one hand, what the hell are you discussing your sexual relationship with your wife to an interviewee for? How does that come up in an interview process?
On the other hand, Burning Man is not a place one goes to for professional reasons. Unless you've been under a rock, you know what Burning Man is, and what goes on there.
This isnt weird at all. It's exactly how harassment works. One individual is in a weak position and someone exploit that weakness. The person in the weak position will do: false confessions, unwanted sexual activities, unwanted financial transactions (for lack of better term), etc, in order to survive.
Was she interviewed for a job in relation with DeVaul? Anything he does that's sex or finance related toward Simpson is therefore harassment. At least, by my book.
> Was she interviewed for a job in relation with DeVaul? Anything he does that's sex or finance related toward Simpson is therefore harassment. At least, by my book.
Thank you! It’s not complicated. Be a g-ddamn grownup, treat your professional position with respect, and don’t make sexual passes at people you meet because they came in for an interview.
> On the other hand, Burning Man is not a place one goes to for professional reasons. Unless you've been under a rock, you know what Burning Man is, and what goes on there.
Do men not ever talk shop at Burning Man?
This isn’t muddy at all. If someone invites me somewhere after an interview, I assume (as a man) it’s work related. Women should be able to make the same assumption. And interviewers should never be sexually propositioning candidates. (The excuse that she hadn’t gotten the job is worthless, because if that’s an out it creates a huge conflict of interest and incentive to torpedo candidates because of the interviewer’s attraction.)
> Unless you've been under a rock, you know what Burning Man is, and what goes on there.
Or unless you are smart and know exactly what you're doing. She brought her mom and conservative clothes. Now there is both a witness if he decides to do anything more and him having to explain the background of his new employee getting there ... along with her mom.
It was a pretty good tactical move. Granted he ended staying as a director for all those years. And I think that tells us quite a bit about Google's values and culture.
I remember really wanting to work at Google. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole these days.
> On the other hand, Burning Man is not a place one goes to for professional reasons. Unless you've been under a rock, you know what Burning Man is, and what goes on there.
This is not strictly true. I know someone that went to Burning Man to find investors for his company and was successful in doing so.
That's not quite the same thing. He went there to find people who would be the type that go to events like this.
If you want to compare apples-to-apples, your friend would have been invited to Burning Man as part of the process of investing in his company (with it being implied that it is in their best interest to attend).
Telling someone that's interviewing "you should come to burning man because my wife and I are swingers" is gross and inappropriate (borderline illegal?).
If you're inclined to ask someone who you were interviewing for a job to come do sex to you and your wife, I think it's a very reasonable expectation that you confirm this person is aware they have not gotten the job. Doubly so when you're an executive of one of the largest companies in the world. Seems like this is extremely poor judgement at best, and abuse of his position/the implication of a job at worst.
What kind of person would consider going or being interviewed after they heard that statement? Regardless if they wore a suit and brought their mother to the event. It shows that you may be interested but are testing the waters? If this person really wanted the job, it looks like she would have done almost anything to get it.
I do not condone the behavior of either party involved. But at least one person should be strong enough to say no thanks, I don't believe in compromising my integrity for an interview with those requirements attached. I'd report this to HR ASAP too.
Spoken like someone who's never been jobless long enough to wonder when, not if, the electricity is going to be turned off...
Great that you have such high moral standards. Here's the thing: You're victim blaming. This is a bad look. This sort of "there are bad people on both sides" choice is ignoring that you're only condemning her behavior because she responded to his horrible behavior. She did report this behavior to google. She also said she didn't have sex with the guy, and only gave him a neck massage after constant badgering.
TL;dr- You're being part of the problem here bro, and you need to knock that off if you want to maintain this air of moral superiority.
I don't recall the source, but I believe Star Simpson had attended Burning Man multiple times prior to the incident. Whatever the reasoning behind this situation, it wasn't because she didn't know what the festival was all about.
It's missing information because the readers don't need to make a decision, and no one involved wants their private lives pried in to any further. It's fine.
Can we not conflate sexual harassment with inappropriate relationships at work? Schmidt and Brinn both have their demons, but their personal lives aren't at issue here, particularly when they don't involve violating the law. That is not the same thing as sexual harassment.
Brinn was well known for having sex with female employees, seems like a thin line when there's such a power disparity. Based on insiders it seems like having sex with Sergey was a pretty sure way to get a promotion
https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-...
This line of reasoning is pretty poor. You don't need to be someone's boss in order to have a huge ability to harm someone's life. All of us are capable of doing great harm to others - we just choose not to.
Saying "she can't consent because he could harm her" is like saying I can't deny giving my neighbor some milk because if I upset him he has the power to break all of the windows on my house. Since when do we focus on these hypotheticals? Since when do we always assume malice? We trust that people are good, prosecute the bad ones (both breaking windows and firing over sexual denial are illegal), and allow neighbors to ask for milk because 99% of the time no windows get broken in the event we say no.
Sure, the analogy might be a bit contrived. But I think it still does a good job of demonstrating how ridiculous this line of reasoning when applied outside of the sexual harassment thought bubble.
The harm doesn't have to amount to firing; showing disfavor (even unconsciously so) is a harm. We routinely bind peoples' hands in situations like this that involve conflicts of interest and power dynamics. We don't "trust" lawyers and doctors to appropriately handle sexual relationships with clients and patients, for example.
You didn't limit your point to what is and is not illegal under sexual harassment law. You said the whole "line of reasoning is pretty poor." A lawyer dating a client or a doctor dating a patient is not illegal either. But we apply that "line of reasoning" to make it a violation of professional ethics rules.
Likewise, it doesn't matter if dating a subordinate is illegal. It's wrong and should be against corporate policy. Corporate policies allow us to address lots of antisocial behavior that doesn't rise to the level of illegality.
What about people who the boss isn't sexually interested in? What sort of work environment and career can they look forward to, potentially? There is a reason many societies and companies discourage or prohibit relations between employees and tortured allegories about neighbors borrowing milk won't change that.
Its the first analogy I came up with. There are undoubtedly better ones. I imagine they will all seem a bit crazy - the reasoning behind it is as well.
Your next question is a separate issue and one that does not deal with harassment. It deals with favoritism in general. Whether it's favoritism for sexual reasons or because you and your boss both play on the same proam bowling league doesn't seem particularly relevant to me.
Sure it's relevant. You can always join your boss's bowling league. You can't hop into bed with him. It's about making a social determination about what kinds of incentive structures we want to permit.
The obligations and interdependence of pair bonding partners, and the complications that result, are usually more consequential than those of bowling mates (or any other relationship short of parenthood).
Sexual assault ("Grabbing by the pussy") and attempted rape (the other guy) are crimes.
Inappropriate relationships with subordinates are, well, "inappropriate", and can be sexual harassment when they are persistent and unwanted, or involve any sort of quid-pro-quo. That, however is not a crime, but only a violation of (civil) employment law.
Wow what a smoking gun. A chef and HR head from circa 2000 claim the dude screwed a bunch of employees so why not just make the enormous leap that it IS true, so you can start attacking the power disparity straw man.
And that doesn't change the fact that obvious nonconsensual sexual advances are not the same thing as dating at work in a relationship with a superior. Inappropriate as it may be, it certainly isn't illegal, now is it?
That's a stupid template. Any interaction is indistinguishable from sexual harassment if sexual harassment is a component. Inappropriate relationships at work are just that, unless they involve sexual harassment, which isn't an inappropriate relationship, it's sexual harassment.
No, but when the relationship has enough inappropriateness added to it (e.g. adding dating to where there's a power differential, or adding lewdness when there is isn't), it becomes sexual harassment.
Indeed. I really don't think there's an acceptable way to permit this. If you are so high up in the chain that any possible date works for you, you should really think about dating outside of the office. There's just no responsible way to handle a sexual relationship between an employee and their supervisor.
I don't think you can get rid of their bro culture without getting rid of the top bro. Of course, it's unlikely Sergey Brin could ever be ousted, I was reading an article about how little power anyone besides him and Larry have: https://www.recode.net/2017/6/13/15788892/alphabet-sharehold...
It is, however, functional distinguishable from rape and sexual assault, which are the more appropriate terms for these politicians' actions alluded to.
By that logic, seducing someone that you have the power to beat up is not functionally distinguishable from sexual harassment to any outside observer.
Hyperbolic? Yep. But it's silly to think that there's no manner in which consenting adults can have a relationship in which one has power over the other.
One consequence of this naming and shaming type editorial is that you end up with paragraphs like these:
"In the Times story, DeVaul allegedly invited hardware engineer Star Simpson, who was interviewing to work at Google, to the art and culture festival Burning Man, telling her he and his wife were polyamorous. Simpson attended the festival in hopes it would improve her chances of getting hired — she brought her mother with her and “professional attire,” according to the Times. Yet DeVaul encouraged her to remove her clothing and asked to give her a massage."
Wow, small world.I think this is the same girl who was arrested as a suspected terrorist a few years back because as far as the BoPo is concerned, exposed circuit board + blinking lights = bomb.
In her words on the record, "... the deal made with the D.A. was to perform 50 hours of community service, to not be arrested in Massachusetts, for an entire year, and that I had to issue a public apology to Boston."
Thanks. It's still more than the "be careful of uninformed non-scientist public perception" warning that she should have gotten, but it's probably the least the DA could politically speaking get away with and still save face. Society's reactions to this kind of thing are messed up in a complicated way.
> Thanks! Do you have a link to how her case turned out?
Honestly, I know nothing of the case. I've just googled the name and was surprised by the number of search hits, and the wikinews article was among the first search results.
>Here Fisher quotes Google’s first executive chef, Charlie Ayers, and Heather Cairns, the company’s first HR manager:
Charlie Ayers: Sergey’s the Google playboy. He was known for getting his fingers caught in the cookie jar with employees that worked for the company in the masseuse room. He got around.
Heather Cairns: And we didn’t have locks, so you can’t help it if you walk in on people if there’s no lock. Remember, we’re a bunch of twentysomethings except for me—ancient at 35, so there’s some hormones and they’re raging.
Charlie Ayers: H.R. told me that Sergey’s response to it was, “Why not? They’re my employees.” But you don’t have employees for fucking! That’s not what the job is.
Heather Cairns: Oh my God: This is a sexual harassment claim waiting to happen! That was my concern.
https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-...