Google done' goofed - fires employee for "opinions"

[Jaskalas]

If not, most people know that engaging in speech involving religion/politics while on the job is not generally looked on favorably by managemen

Hell, even if he did this outside the job - the level of attention alone would ensure a swift firing.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Do you have numbers?

Yep, but I'm not going to show you.

Lol.

I'm sure you know how the Internet works.

 

[realibrad]

I'm sure you know how the Internet works.

Then say no. He said yes he has the numbers, but wont show him.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Then say no. He said yes he has the numbers, but wont show him.

So you know how to use the internet, but simply refuse? How original, lol.

 

[Moonbeam]

I never said bias is acceptable. I said there is merit to the employee's criticisms of the effectiveness of the diversity programs at Google, and as a biologist, he attempted (and failed) to make an argument grounded in biology. He unfortunately also triggered the diversity cult, which demanded its blood sacrifice and received it.

Also, we are talking about Google. The cream of the crop. The 1%. The most brilliant minds in the world. If they cannot handle what the author wrote, it says more about them than him.

It doesn't matter. I've enjoyed reading the articles that address both sides of the political divide, and neither side is wrong. It's a healthy conversation to have. Google surrendered the opportunity to lead the conversation by firing him.

I think what they want to lead in is diversity. You are the one interested in the conversation. It is a fascinating one to be sure.

 

[realibrad]

So you know how to use the internet, but simply refuse? How original, lol.

Hey dummy try and follow along.

BS asks for data backing up his claim, because what BS found shows a parity. So Groove responds "Yep" to the question of "Got data for that". BS did not ask is there data for your claim or can I google data to support your claim. He asked if the person had (got) data for his claim. If he has it, but is not willing to share it, that is silly.

Then your dumb ass waltzes, smears your fecal words and says something super dumb. I'm sure you know how to go looking for the data he says he has but wont share.

So congrats on that.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Hey dummy try and follow along.

BS asks for data backing up his claim, because what BS found shows a parity. So Groove responds "Yep" to the question of "Got data for that". BS did not ask is there data for your claim or can I google data to support your claim. He asked if the person had (got) data for his claim. If he has it, but is not willing to share it, that is silly.

Then your dumb ass waltzes, smears your fecal words and says something super dumb. I'm sure you know how to go looking for the data he says he has but wont share.

So congrats on that.

You spend a lot of time not searching.

Congrats on that.

 

[realibrad]

You spend a lot of time not searching.

Congrats on that.

Jesus dummy, it was not my question. I commented on how dumb it was to be asked if he had it, and to say yes but not share it.

This should not be so hard.

Person A: I heard you say that its 9am but my clock says its 8:30am. Can you tell me why you think its 9am?

Person B: I do indeed think its 9am and the clock I looked at says so.

Person A: Can you tell me what clock you got that from, because the clock I saw said 8:30am.

Person B: I will no tell you what clock, but I did see the clock and it says 9am.

Me: Thats silly, why not tell him the clock you used?

You: OMG why don't you go looking for the clock that he used? I know you already looked around, but look harder I mean gosh.

Me: sigh, dummy.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Whew, look at you.

 

[Grooveriding]

I said I was being lazy, why look to pick a fight when literally the first google search result attends to it.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=chan...ian+field&sa=G&gbv=1&sei=BnWMWZatDI3ljwSY_Yxw
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340187/

 

[bshole]

I said I was being lazy, why look to pick a fight when literally the first google search result attends to it.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=chan...ian+field&sa=G&gbv=1&sei=BnWMWZatDI3ljwSY_Yxw
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340187/

Wow that was an interesting read. However, some of it's assertions seem pretty bold. See the highlighted portion below. They appear to blame women for the declining wages of veterinarians.

Studies conducted in the United States provide some evidence that feminization has affected the economic well-being of the profession (5,6). Veterinary incomes of women in the United States (and Canada) lag behind those of men, and the income of men in the profession is already less than optimal. In the United States, women continue to accept lower salaries than men. This may affect the incomes of all veterinarians, based on the theory that low incomes usually become the measuring point for all incomes. Women (as a group) appear not to place income high enough on their list of expectations and express satisfaction with much lower salaries than do men (7). It has also been suggested that women in general judge their career satisfaction less by objective criteria (salary) than by subjective criteria, such as relationships with colleagues, staff, and clients.

 

[Jaskalas]

I think what they want to lead in is diversity. You are the one interested in the conversation. It is a fascinating one to be sure.

To choose people based on traits over merits. Anti discrimination laws make that illegal, do they not?
Particularly if one were to openly say that is their practice.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well... here's a better formatted version with all sorts of references.
https://diversitymemo.com/




There it is, reasoning behind why the end justifies the means. We have to discriminate to overcome discrimination. Do two wrongs make a right? You two have a compelling reason at least, haven't seen anyone else state it quite like that. I sense a conviction here, that it's moral to apply bias in meeting a quota. To balance the scales of an injustice.

Do women have equal opportunity in a board room full of men? Probably not. I'd like to think if I were sitting on a seat I'd give them an equal chance to join, but maybe I'd be biased in ways I don't even realize. So bias could only be minimized by ensuring a near 50/50 split? In what other ways must we diversify to remove bias? There's gender, race, ethnicity, orientation, identity. If a quota is necessary for gender, is it also necessary for all the others protected by anti discrimination laws?

Of course that'd be tricky. Gender is at least split 50/50. Easy to find a meaningful balance for a "fair" Democratic majority vote. But a 15% minority on a board will still, easily, face bias from the majority vote. Even equal representation does nothing to solve discrimination against a smaller group. Is it really a solution then? Is equal representation the end we're looking for, and so... by mandating a quota have we solved, or at least addressed, the underlying problem?

To pivot back to the original premise... Women may not have shattered a preexisting patriarchy, of sorts, with board rooms and the 1%, but haven't they been steadily making gains throughout the past century? Wouldn't we expect those gains to continue without quotas and affirmative action? Maybe the end does not justify the means if the end is already our destination. Especially if the method is to inject new discrimination into a society that was already rife with discrimination in the first place. Is this not the equivalent of favoring vigilantism over law and order? Over a blind justice?

It's just that... we cannot pride ourselves on being a merit based society if all we're doing is filling quotas.

Very thoughtful. But if there is bias in hiring, a quota that insures hiring of qualified minorities doesn't discriminate it seems to me. You can never hire the best person for every job. Such a person does not exist. What you can do is hire somebody who can do the job well, that is good enough for that job, and of a type underrepresented by whatever your quota objective is. The workforce of every nation on earth is dominated by people of that nation. We are a nation of immigrants. Women did men's jobs when all the men were gone fighting WW2. The problem that quotas address is the bias that exists in hiring, picking adequate people from a favored category based solely on a stereotype of categories that is not objective. What is lost in that process is the entitlement that was enjoyed by a particular category, usually white men who have had the privilege of opportunity traditionally as the favored stereotype. Vigilantism is often viewed as a matter of whose ox gets gored. Justice can't happen in a world dominated by stereotyping. And stereotyping isn't favored in a world that does not permit its application.

All this resentment of the other is based on the fear that somebody somewhere is getting an unfair advantage., that they will live a better life than the dreamer who head is fill, first with a need for a means to survive, and later by the desire for toys and all the avarice advertising can stuff into our brains.

Competition is hate. It creates contempt for the other in a society whose aim is the gratification of the lust of the individual. It would be a different world if we saw the entire human race as a team and the team mattered more than ourselves. That can never be forced, but it is much more natural when there's no fear. We create the system and it creates us. The system can never be conscious, but the individual can. Only individuals can change the system by changing how they see, what unconscious biases they can overcome.

 

[jackstar7]

Jesus dummy, it was not my question. I commented on how dumb it was to be asked if he had it, and to say yes but not share it.

This should not be so hard.

Person A: I heard you say that its 9am but my clock says its 8:30am. Can you tell me why you think its 9am?

Person B: I do indeed think its 9am and the clock I looked at says so.

Person A: Can you tell me what clock you got that from, because the clock I saw said 8:30am.

Person B: I will no tell you what clock, but I did see the clock and it says 9am.

Me: Thats silly, why not tell him the clock you used?

You: OMG why don't you go looking for the clock that he used? I know you already looked around, but look harder I mean gosh.

Me: sigh, dummy.

So glad you're here, officer. These posters keep breaking all kinds of rules!

 

[Grooveriding]

Wow that was an interesting read. However, some of it's assertions seem pretty bold. See the highlighted portion below. They appear to blame women for the declining wages of veterinarians.

Hehe. I'm not going down that rabbit hole. I will say my wife makes a very good living, but she owns a practice with another veterinarian and they have a brisk business. We are in a very large and fairly well off city though, it's an excellent market for her field. No google links being provided for these statements

 

[Moonbeam]

Wow that was an interesting read. However, some of it's assertions seem pretty bold. See the highlighted portion below. They appear to blame women for the declining wages of veterinarians.

Women (as a group) appear not to place income high enough on their list of expectations and express satisfaction with much lower salaries than do men (7). It has also been suggested that women in general judge their career satisfaction less by objective criteria (salary) than by subjective criteria, such as relationships with colleagues, staff, and clients.

People who have been starved tend to be far more satisfied with oatmeal than people of means. Mothers, on whom biology has placed the burden of childrearing especially in paternalistic societies, tend to value objective standards such as relationships with colleagues and staff, etc., above the subjective and artificially set salaries set by cliques of sociopaths who in the pursuit of their own interests don't give a fig about the lives of others..

 

[realibrad]

So glad you're here, officer. These posters keep breaking all kinds of rules!

What rule am I enforcing? So far as I can tell, I commented how it was dumb to tell someone you have the data but not to share. Cheeze dummy is the one who was trying to tell someone to go do something. My comment is not a request, and even further from an order.

Did you confuse something?

 

[Ichinisan]

... If not, most people know that engaging in speech involving religion/politics while on the job is not generally looked on favorably by management. ...

Except when management / HR are the ones doing it.

 

[Moonbeam]

What rule am I enforcing? So far as I can tell, I commented how it was dumb to tell someone you have the data but not to share. Cheeze dummy is the one who was trying to tell someone to go do something. My comment is not a request, and even further from an order.

Did you confuse something?

Stop looking at the guys words and pay more attention to the context in which he said them and their effect. Somebody lit a candle in a movie theater and screamed fire. You focus on the fact it was just a candle flame. You are a very linear thinker, one that like a dog with a bone, won't let go of your one track. You have to step back and try harder to see things more in context. Just my opinion. But watch if you don't get this kind of feedback from others, or some such, because a similar impression can take many different forms of expression, like face palm etc.

 

[realibrad]

Stop looking at the guys words and pay more attention to the context in which he said them and their effect. Somebody lit a candle in a movie theater and screamed fire. You focus on the fact it was just a candle flame. You are a very linear thinker, one that like a dog with a bone, won't let go of your one track. You have to step back and try harder to see things more in context. Just my opinion. But watch if you don't get this kind of feedback from others, or some such, because a similar impression can take many different forms of expression, like face palm etc.

And what context do you believe I missed?

 

[woolfe9998]

Well lucky for him as a "classical liberal and individualist" California is a right to work state. So he can quit and Google can fire him basically for any or no reason whatsoever!

CA is not a "right to work" state. "Right to work" are laws which prohibit mandatory union membership. We don't have such laws. I think you mean California is an "at will" state. It means you can be fired for any reason absent a contract which says otherwise (i.e. a CBA), or else an illegal reason for the firing (i.e. discrimination).

 

[bshole]

Except when management / HR are the ones doing it.

Obviously... are you sure you are a capitalist? Are you inferring that labor has the same rights as management, that it is an equal partnership and not an ownership? Why don't you just admit that you are a socialist at heart and become a Democrat?

 

[jackstar7]

What rule am I enforcing? So far as I can tell, I commented how it was dumb to tell someone you have the data but not to share. Cheeze dummy is the one who was trying to tell someone to go do something. My comment is not a request, and even further from an order.

Did you confuse something?

Nope. I know who you are. And I thank you for your service.

 

[Moonbeam]

And what context do you believe I missed?

The one you missed. Since you missed it and I suggested stepping back and looking at the context, it is well expressed by others in this thread, it is your job to try to find it. I can show you but that won't cause you to see it. I can just suggest you don't see something and the rest is up to you. I could even be wrong, that I am the one not seeing something.

 

[woolfe9998]

Has anyone considered the contradiction between this notion that gender is 100% socially constructed and the left's defense of transgenders on the grounds that their sense of gender identity is biologically based? If the feminist theory of socially constructed gender identity is accurate, then a TG person ought to be able to "get over it" and identify with their original biologically assigned gender, perhaps through some kind of "conversion therapy." Socially constructed gender identity means that TG people learn to be that way. By definition, they couldn't have been born with it.