James Damore files class action lawsuit against Google.

[El]

And you can be disturbed and dislike my views all you want.  I don't especially like his views and attitude either.

So because you don't like his opinions, then he doesn't deserve legal rights or sympathy?? That's borderline sociopathic.

Did I *say* that?

I think that anyone sending out an email that inflammatory (whether they were views I agree with or not) would reasonably expect to have it cause problems for them, especially sending it all over the damn company.  If something like that landed in my inbox from a fellow employee I would literally assume they were having some kind of mental health problem or were on drugs- not because he wrote it like a crazy person (he didn't, he wrote it like a research article), but because the act of just sending it out willy-nilly was extremely fucking stupid.

And the fact that he clearly didn't grasp that sending any kind of politically-charged, controversial email all over your place of work, is a terrible idea, was probably because he's on the spectrum.  The fact that the way he wrote it- while it could have been a lot worse- also did have him coming across as a dick, was probably also partly due to him being on the spectrum (because you can see him trying not to, but also see it still happening, the way he wrote). 

There's ways to have that kind of conversation.  That wasn't the smartest way.

This would be a different story if this was just something he posted on his own social media- then he'd have a better case for discrimination based on political views.  As it is, this was behavior in the workplace, and that behavior happened to involve political views that were unpopular (and went against the company's philosophy and at best didn't exactly jibe with its stated policies; the way it was interpreted, they decided it actually went against their policies, and fired him).

I legitly think his case would be better if he played the autism card.  The political views card is a lot weaker.  The gender and race cards are nonexistent for him, in this case.  I actually am not seeing in any of this him being bullied due to gender and race.

I fail to see how that means I think he doesn't deserve legal rights.  The right to have an express an unpopular opinion is important.  But to expect that you can just send a companywide email with a manifesto without having any consequences takes that to a ridiculous and unreasonable place.

Am I personally less sympathetic to him as a person because I think he's kind of a dick?  Yeah, you got me there; that's how sympathy works.

But, to quote the memo that got him fired in the first place:

*De-emphasize empathy.
I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Was he sacked for being a member of a "minority" group, white conservative males?

Or was he sacked for being an asshat, saying offensive shit, and violating company policy?

It looks like Google has a very strong case that the latter is true.

James Damore displayed a surprising lack of judgement and common sense in sharing and promoting his opinions in the way that he did. If he has a formal diagnosis of autism and his employers were aware of that diagnosis then IMO he would have a strong case that accommodations were not made for his "disability".

[Walkie]

James Damore displayed a surprising lack of judgement and common sense in sharing and promoting his opinions in the way that he did. If he has a formal diagnosis of autism and his employers were aware of that diagnosis then IMO he would have a strong case that accommodations were not made for his "disability".

Unfortunately, according the article, he hadn't made Google aware of his diagnosis, so he hasn't a leg to stand on there.

Of course, autisic people are at a big disadvantage in the workplace, and often lose their jobs  for behaving like autistic people, not because they have a dx of autism . It's not the label that pisses people off.  Undiagnosed spazzes have all the same problems that diagnosed spazzes do...with knobs on, because without the dx, other people see no reason to make allowances.

Might be a good reason for going all-out to get a dx? and yet I've heard teachers and others advise that it 's better not to stick a label on a person. just  as if they actually believe that the label is the main cause of prejudice. I n Britain it's getting ever -harder to get diagnosed under the NHS  (Yeah, mostly because mental health is drastically underfunded, but "ooh . he might face prejudice  if we label him" will do as an excuse) and,. of course.  impossible to pay for a private dx, if you're unemployed (as most autitic people are)

So anti-discrimination legislation  fails to address the problem in most cases.   And t's the wrong tool for the job anyway.  Discrimination against autistic people isn't usually based on some prejudice against the target grioup as such , just the tendency to write us off as "asshats" in the absence of any kind of obvious disabilty.  If some genetically "black" person looked white, passed for white  and kept their heritage secret, but then suddenly accused their white  employers of racism against them , would we take that seriously? of course we wouldn't.  We're in a closely analogous position.

I think  that whenever we do take advabntage of anti-discrimination legislation, we're feeding that misconception that the label is the real  problem, bercause that does effectively assume that the label is the problem  . 

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe wider tolerance for socially inept asshats is the only thing that could  realistically  address the problem? Because that's the thing that peopl;e actually see and react against, not the "autism" pigeonhole.

For my own ,part I would love to see more tolerance for socially inept asshats.  And not just because they're probably autistic, but also because they're nowhere near as harmful  , IMO,   than the kind of people who hide their real opinions , and will happily spout any glib BS that will serve get them liked and/or promoted.

Anyway, WTF are we doing on this board if not tolerating a bunch of socially inept asshats? Hmm? I  couldn't help noticing that the guy would totally fit in here    Heck, he might actually be one of us, for all we know.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

For my own ,part I would love to see more tolerance for socially inept asshats.  And not just because they're probably autistic, but also because they're nowhere near as harmful  , IMO,   than the kind of people who hide their real opinions , and will happily spout any glib BS that will serve get them liked and/or promoted.

I've got to agree 100% with that.

Working in technology I've encountered a lot of people who were obviously on the spectrum. All the ones I've noticed are socially inept to some degree, but most of them are not asshats and are open to suggestions re appropriate behaviour. Perhaps those on the spectrum need to be given a handbook specifying the things that they probably shouldn't talk about at all in a work or work-related environment. Sharing opinions on the inadequacies of colleagues of certain races or gender would be near the top of that list.

And yes, there are nasty people who hide their real opinions and attitudes. So while they might appear to respect everyone their decisions and actions (including when it comes to hiring) will reflect their biases.

[Calandale]

The biggest problems I've had at work involve cultural clashes: I'm close enough to the norm of American social behavior in the workplace
(and probably closer to Aussie or Israeli) that I come across as just a wee bit blunt. Asian cultures however are far from this in the other
direction. Pretty sure I've stepped on some toes by just calling things as I see them.

[odeon]

Actually, the number of whites at Google is about proportional to the general population. Asians are *gasp* overrepresented while other minorities are underrepresented. This is entirely explicable by culture. No racial discrimination there.

Women are arguably overrepresented too, given that few women find tech to be particularly interesting which was the whole point of his memo, which was backed up by the bulk of science (evolutionary psychology) on the subject.

Er, no.

[Al Swearegen]

When your sewer break, how many times will you have a woman come to fix it? What about when you need your high rise window washed? What about when you someone to build your home? Now it MAY be that the reason you do not see many women is because they are pressured not to and the over-representation of males in this area is due to discrimination.

That is one theory BUT I would hazard a guess that it has FAR more to do with the fact that men and women are different and make different choices when it comes to work-life decisions. Look I will even go one step further I will say that MOST of the women that rail against over-representation both have NOT EVER seriously considered working in the roles they say are over-represented by men (or roles over-represented by men generally) AND were it to be mandatory that THEY take on these roles or ANY women HAVE to take on these roles to make up numbers on some enforced representation tally, they would baulk.

I think MY theories have far more legs than the Patriarchial over-representation theory.

Progressivism is bullshit virtue signalling. It is all about feelings and no substance. "It's about social justice!".....really? Isn't it a whine by people that cannot embrace realities? Isn't it a disingenuous to cherry pick their offences without having to back their commitments with any reasonable alternatives? See it all sounds nice and reasonable and righteous until It has to stand up to actual reality. The fact is IF anyone wants to allow choice then the outcomes are reflected by choices and the outcomes good or bad are a result of the choices made. If a lady wants to be a teacher or a nurse, that is a choice and she is free to make that choice BUT she cannot then gripe if her husband earns more than her because he chose a field that pays more. They both had choices. She also has no reasonable leg to stand on if she makes broad claims about her female friends and colleagues about their lack of earnings if they by and large make less pay-centric choices.

It is not about social justice or righting a wrong.......it is a whinge.

Society sure as shit should not pander to this kind of unfettered bullshit.

This is my humble opinion.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I didn't think that Google was a particularly unsafe work environment. I mean there was that guy why got his arm stuck in a search engine, but Google managed to hush that up.

[Al Swearegen]

Nor, of course, did I say that Google was an unsafe workplace. In fact, it would require the comprehension of a chimpanzee to suggest that I was saying that. You are not a chimpanzee are you Minister of Silly Walks.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Hang on, let me check:

[Al Swearegen]

Hang on, let me check:

Makes sense

[Jack]

Actually, the number of whites at Google is about proportional to the general population. Asians are *gasp* overrepresented while other minorities are underrepresented. This is entirely explicable by culture. No racial discrimination there.

Women are arguably overrepresented too, given that few women find tech to be particularly interesting which was the whole point of his memo, which was backed up by the bulk of science (evolutionary psychology) on the subject.

Er, no.

This appears to agree with the first articles claim 80% male engineers, but that's also an accurate reflection of the hiring pool. Females represent 20% of engineers, and 20% people who even seek out engineering degrees. If females are or aren't innately inferior as engineers, and the reasons why they do or don't seek engineering degrees, is irrelevant. Promoting gender equality in a specialized field gets tricky when the qualified applicant base isn't equal, regardless the reason. It doesn't seem promote equality to expect 80% of engineers to compete for only half the jobs.

[El]

When your sewer break, how many times will you have a woman come to fix it? What about when you need your high rise window washed? What about when you someone to build your home? Now it MAY be that the reason you do not see many women is because they are pressured not to and the over-representation of males in this area is due to discrimination.

That is one theory BUT I would hazard a guess that it has FAR more to do with the fact that men and women are different and make different choices when it comes to work-life decisions. Look I will even go one step further I will say that MOST of the women that rail against over-representation both have NOT EVER seriously considered working in the roles they say are over-represented by men (or roles over-represented by men generally) AND were it to be mandatory that THEY take on these roles or ANY women HAVE to take on these roles to make up numbers on some enforced representation tally, they would baulk.

I think MY theories have far more legs than the Patriarchial over-representation theory.

Progressivism is bullshit virtue signalling. It is all about feelings and no substance. "It's about social justice!".....really? Isn't it a whine by people that cannot embrace realities? Isn't it a disingenuous to cherry pick their offences without having to back their commitments with any reasonable alternatives? See it all sounds nice and reasonable and righteous until It has to stand up to actual reality. The fact is IF anyone wants to allow choice then the outcomes are reflected by choices and the outcomes good or bad are a result of the choices made. If a lady wants to be a teacher or a nurse, that is a choice and she is free to make that choice BUT she cannot then gripe if her husband earns more than her because he chose a field that pays more. They both had choices. She also has no reasonable leg to stand on if she makes broad claims about her female friends and colleagues about their lack of earnings if they by and large make less pay-centric choices.

It is not about social justice or righting a wrong.......it is a whinge.

Society sure as shit should not pander to this kind of unfettered bullshit.

This is my humble opinion.

The tides may be starting to turn a bit on that, by the way:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/21/americas-manliest-industries-are-all-competing-for-women/

[El]

Also, brief but interesting article that discusses some of the legal issues including free speech and labor laws:

Google Memo Raises Questions About Limits Of Free Speech In The Workplace

Google moved quickly to fire the software engineer who criticized the company's diversity programs. The engineer, James Damore, told The New York Times he has a right to express his concerns and that he will likely sue Google over the issue.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

The software engineer who wrote a leaked memo titled "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" is out of a job at Google. The company quickly fired him after the memo criticizing the company's diversity efforts went viral over the weekend. The engineer, James Damore, told The New York Times he's considering legal action. NPR's Yuki Noguchi reports, the controversy raises complex questions about what employees can say at work.

YUKI NOGUCHI, BYLINE: What a person can or cannot say in the workplace is governed by a thicket of laws. It is not the case that First Amendment free speech rights extend to private workplaces. Employers have broad leeway in setting rules, but there are exceptions. Labor laws protect workers' rights to share complaints about working conditions. At the same time, anti-discrimination laws require employers to protect against a hostile non-inclusive work environment. Damore's memo potentially touches on both.

It first circulated over an internal Google message board, citing biological reasons why women might be less suited to work in tech. Google responded saying his views propagated harmful gender stereotypes and violated the company's code of conduct. So which law prevails?

WILMA LIEBMAN: It's always a question of line drawing.

NOGUCHI: Wilma Liebman is a former Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board. She says this case seems to pit labor law speech protections against anti-discrimination laws. Liebman says it's not legal for employers to require their workers to act respectfully or civilly toward one another because that is thought to limit disagreement and heated discussion among workers. Depending how it's worded, she says, Google's code of conduct might itself face problems, in which case, so would its justification to fire Damore.

LIEBMAN: So the question would be whether the particular rule under which he was discharged is considered to be unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act.

NOGUCHI: David Lopez looks at it another way. Lopez is former general counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces anti-discrimination statutes. He says Google could have found itself in legal trouble if it had not fired Damore.

DAVID LOPEZ: I think the company has an obligation to make sure that it does not have a hostile work environment for its employees.

NOGUCHI: According to reports, Damore says he had filed a complaint with the labor board before he was fired. Damore did not respond to requests seeking comment. Lopez says Damore's own memo might undercut any discrimination claim he might bring.

LOPEZ: Generally, the company views his comments as discriminatory and really contrary, I think, to the values of Google.

NOGUCHI: Jeff Hirsch teaches employment law at the University of North Carolina. He notes that labor law protects conversations between workers. So it matters whether Damore was trying to line up supporters to challenge a workplace policy or was simply venting his own frustrations.

JEFF HIRSCH: Just because something is about workplace conditions, doesn't mean it's always going to be considered protected.

NOGUCHI: Hirsch says Google also has a strong case to make in its defense of its business.

HIRSCH: You can at least understand where they're coming from - that they're worried about this getting out of hand and getting shellacked in the press and not ultimately hurting their bottom line.

NOGUCHI: In a letter to employees, Google CEO Sundar Pichai referenced a difficult balancing act the company faces. Quote, "people must feel free to express dissent," he wrote, "however, parts of the memo crossed the line." Yuki Noguchi, NPR News, Washington.

[Al Swearegen]

When your sewer break, how many times will you have a woman come to fix it? What about when you need your high rise window washed? What about when you someone to build your home? Now it MAY be that the reason you do not see many women is because they are pressured not to and the over-representation of males in this area is due to discrimination.

That is one theory BUT I would hazard a guess that it has FAR more to do with the fact that men and women are different and make different choices when it comes to work-life decisions. Look I will even go one step further I will say that MOST of the women that rail against over-representation both have NOT EVER seriously considered working in the roles they say are over-represented by men (or roles over-represented by men generally) AND were it to be mandatory that THEY take on these roles or ANY women HAVE to take on these roles to make up numbers on some enforced representation tally, they would baulk.

I think MY theories have far more legs than the Patriarchial over-representation theory.

Progressivism is bullshit virtue signalling. It is all about feelings and no substance. "It's about social justice!".....really? Isn't it a whine by people that cannot embrace realities? Isn't it a disingenuous to cherry pick their offences without having to back their commitments with any reasonable alternatives? See it all sounds nice and reasonable and righteous until It has to stand up to actual reality. The fact is IF anyone wants to allow choice then the outcomes are reflected by choices and the outcomes good or bad are a result of the choices made. If a lady wants to be a teacher or a nurse, that is a choice and she is free to make that choice BUT she cannot then gripe if her husband earns more than her because he chose a field that pays more. They both had choices. She also has no reasonable leg to stand on if she makes broad claims about her female friends and colleagues about their lack of earnings if they by and large make less pay-centric choices.

It is not about social justice or righting a wrong.......it is a whinge.

Society sure as shit should not pander to this kind of unfettered bullshit.

This is my humble opinion.

The tides may be starting to turn a bit on that, by the way:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/21/americas-manliest-industries-are-all-competing-for-women/

And? What does this actually say? See the thing is I could not care less. I will tell you why. Free marketplace is exactly that . Employers can employ whomever the Hell they like and reap the rewards or failures get from doing so. I think if you are hiring with any bent to appease a moral supposition rather than a business/financial one, you are an idiot BUT it is your business and you can do as you please.

Put in simplistic terms, if you manage a highrise window washing service and you get 100 applicants for 20 positions and of those 100 applicants 10 are women and you hire 10 women and 10 men, it may give you more social capital and you may feel a sense of moral sense of moving the Progressive barometer for women but effectively you have hired 100% of the applying women and 10% of the applying men. I do not feel that 100% of any race, gender or religion is better than another but Progressives like to view things in such ways. It may well boost the numbers and lay strong foundations or whatever the Hell else Progressives may think but I think it is BS.

At the end of the day I could not care less. The end result will be the same and those same companies will eventually be viewed as part of the oppressive patriarchal regime because in the long term despite any efforts I doubt they will ever reach any meaningful outcome parity of gender. The people whinging will NOT be the ladies in those jobs.