James Damore files class action lawsuit against Google.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

^^^

Well, since the first sentence is a lie... 

How are we expected to believe the rest of it??   

...did you read the rest of it?

I glanced over it.

What would be the point of reading it if the author is an unreliable narrator??

S/H/It can't even get the basic facts of what James Damore said correct.

[Jack]

Everyone shut up and get to work. Problem solved.

These are thoughtful, intelligent, well-educated knowledge workers. There is always going to be dialogue between them, the sharing of ideas both progressive and regressive.

Google is trying to manage that dialogue by providing a platform. Otherwise it just becomes something embedded within the company culture. The sort of thing that employees talk openly about until someone from HR enters the room.

Diversity hiring practices are a discussion matter for HR and hiring management, and discrimination or harassment is a discussion to be held with HR. If a company provides a platform and invites employee dialog about HR matters, then they deserve whatever they get. Firing people after inviting their opinion only creates unwritten rules about who is really allowed to contribute to the dialog. Employees only need to know the rules and the rules need to be clear. It doesn't matter what I think about co-worker's ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or how that impacts them having a job, unless I say something about it. If I shut up and do my job, then my opinions don't affect me or anyone else.

[odeon]

Everyone shut up and get to work. Problem solved.

These are thoughtful, intelligent, well-educated knowledge workers. There is always going to be dialogue between them, the sharing of ideas both progressive and regressive.

Google is trying to manage that dialogue by providing a platform. Otherwise it just becomes something embedded within the company culture. The sort of thing that employees talk openly about until someone from HR enters the room.

Diversity hiring practices are a discussion matter for HR and hiring management, and discrimination or harassment is a discussion to be held with HR. If a company provides a platform and invites employee dialog about HR matters, then they deserve whatever they get. Firing people after inviting their opinion only creates unwritten rules about who is really allowed to contribute to the dialog. Employees only need to know the rules and the rules need to be clear. It doesn't matter what I think about co-worker's ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or how that impacts them having a job, unless I say something about it. If I shut up and do my job, then my opinions don't affect me or anyone else.

This is scary on so many levels.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Everyone shut up and get to work. Problem solved.

These are thoughtful, intelligent, well-educated knowledge workers. There is always going to be dialogue between them, the sharing of ideas both progressive and regressive.

Google is trying to manage that dialogue by providing a platform. Otherwise it just becomes something embedded within the company culture. The sort of thing that employees talk openly about until someone from HR enters the room.

Diversity hiring practices are a discussion matter for HR and hiring management, and discrimination or harassment is a discussion to be held with HR. If a company provides a platform and invites employee dialog about HR matters, then they deserve whatever they get. Firing people after inviting their opinion only creates unwritten rules about who is really allowed to contribute to the dialog. Employees only need to know the rules and the rules need to be clear. It doesn't matter what I think about co-worker's ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or how that impacts them having a job, unless I say something about it. If I shut up and do my job, then my opinions don't affect me or anyone else.

Why would a company create a platform for discussing diversity issues, and then allow that platform to be used to promote views that are against company policy.

Providing a platform is a way for the company to have some degree of control over how these issues are discussed, and to intervene where employees are expressing attitudes that are damaging to company culture.

I know that in a place like intensitysquared where everybody loves unadulterated freedom of expression, that might sound like a nightmare. But it actually makes a lot of sense for a company to do that. Particularly when that company has a huge public profile and an image to maintain.

(I may be playing devil's advocate here - or maybe not).

[Jack]

Everyone shut up and get to work. Problem solved.

These are thoughtful, intelligent, well-educated knowledge workers. There is always going to be dialogue between them, the sharing of ideas both progressive and regressive.

Google is trying to manage that dialogue by providing a platform. Otherwise it just becomes something embedded within the company culture. The sort of thing that employees talk openly about until someone from HR enters the room.

Diversity hiring practices are a discussion matter for HR and hiring management, and discrimination or harassment is a discussion to be held with HR. If a company provides a platform and invites employee dialog about HR matters, then they deserve whatever they get. Firing people after inviting their opinion only creates unwritten rules about who is really allowed to contribute to the dialog. Employees only need to know the rules and the rules need to be clear. It doesn't matter what I think about co-worker's ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or how that impacts them having a job, unless I say something about it. If I shut up and do my job, then my opinions don't affect me or anyone else.

This is scary on so many levels.

Sometimes reality is scary. People who make their job this personal are the ones who end up being a problem.

[Jack]

Everyone shut up and get to work. Problem solved.

These are thoughtful, intelligent, well-educated knowledge workers. There is always going to be dialogue between them, the sharing of ideas both progressive and regressive.

Google is trying to manage that dialogue by providing a platform. Otherwise it just becomes something embedded within the company culture. The sort of thing that employees talk openly about until someone from HR enters the room.

Diversity hiring practices are a discussion matter for HR and hiring management, and discrimination or harassment is a discussion to be held with HR. If a company provides a platform and invites employee dialog about HR matters, then they deserve whatever they get. Firing people after inviting their opinion only creates unwritten rules about who is really allowed to contribute to the dialog. Employees only need to know the rules and the rules need to be clear. It doesn't matter what I think about co-worker's ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or how that impacts them having a job, unless I say something about it. If I shut up and do my job, then my opinions don't affect me or anyone else.

Why would a company create a platform for discussing diversity issues, and then allow that platform to be used to promote views that are against company policy.

Providing a platform is a way for the company to have some degree of control over how these issues are discussed, and to intervene where employees are expressing attitudes that are damaging to company culture.

I know that in a place like intensitysquared where everybody loves unadulterated freedom of expression, that might sound like a nightmare. But it actually makes a lot of sense for a company to do that. Particularly when that company has a huge public profile and an image to maintain.

(I may be playing devil's advocate here - or maybe not).

Then it's a trap, and people should recognize it as a such, shut up and do their work to avoid the trap. Sharing experiences of discrimination and harassment at work isn't a yammer topic, it's a discussion for HR and an attorney if needed. The article basically says the company is providing a platform that generates provocation and harassment, and these topics are generally heated and confrontational. Maybe is it a good thing, and they're not doing it very well.

[Arya Quinn]

Regardless of whether or not he's in the right, he's not going to win. Google's worth billions and they probably have a lot of experienced lawyers for this kind of thing. 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

A strong company culture is not achieved by having employees hunched over a computer and afraid to discuss the issues that affect how they interact with others at work and affect who gets hired.

Productivity is achieved in a tech company through cooperation and sharing of ideas and knowledge, not through simply piling so much work on every employee that they don't have time to think.

The fact is that there will be dialogue between employees. Much of that dialogue will have a negative impact on company culture. Providing a monitored platform for dialogue permits the company to correct negative trends in company culture. This can be partly achieved by ousting small-minded broflakes like Damore.

[odeon]

A strong company culture is not achieved by having employees hunched over a computer and afraid to discuss the issues that affect how they interact with others at work and affect who gets hired.

Productivity is achieved in a tech company through cooperation and sharing of ideas and knowledge, not through simply piling so much work on every employee that they don't have time to think.

The fact is that there will be dialogue between employees. Much of that dialogue will have a negative impact on company culture. Providing a monitored platform for dialogue permits the company to correct negative trends in company culture. This can be partly achieved by ousting small-minded broflakes like Damore.

Agreed. People will talk, regardless.

[Jack]

A strong company culture is not achieved by having employees hunched over a computer and afraid to discuss the issues that affect how they interact with others at work and affect who gets hired.

Productivity is achieved in a tech company through cooperation and sharing of ideas and knowledge, not through simply piling so much work on every employee that they don't have time to think.

The fact is that there will be dialogue between employees. Much of that dialogue will have a negative impact on company culture. Providing a monitored platform for dialogue permits the company to correct negative trends in company culture. This can be partly achieved by ousting small-minded broflakes like Damore.

Agreed. People will talk, regardless.

Jack wont talk about it at work, and certainly not in writing at work. Some lessons don't need to be learned the hard way.

[odeon]

A strong company culture is not achieved by having employees hunched over a computer and afraid to discuss the issues that affect how they interact with others at work and affect who gets hired.

Productivity is achieved in a tech company through cooperation and sharing of ideas and knowledge, not through simply piling so much work on every employee that they don't have time to think.

The fact is that there will be dialogue between employees. Much of that dialogue will have a negative impact on company culture. Providing a monitored platform for dialogue permits the company to correct negative trends in company culture. This can be partly achieved by ousting small-minded broflakes like Damore.

Agreed. People will talk, regardless.

Jack wont talk about it at work, and certainly not in writing at work. Some lessons don't need to be learned the hard way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it still the case in the US that you can be fired on rather short notice for just about anything? That the workers' rights are still in their infancy, comparatively speaking? In most of the EU, firing somebody is a lot harder which results in an environment where it is actually possible to criticise your employer.

[Jack]

A strong company culture is not achieved by having employees hunched over a computer and afraid to discuss the issues that affect how they interact with others at work and affect who gets hired.

Productivity is achieved in a tech company through cooperation and sharing of ideas and knowledge, not through simply piling so much work on every employee that they don't have time to think.

The fact is that there will be dialogue between employees. Much of that dialogue will have a negative impact on company culture. Providing a monitored platform for dialogue permits the company to correct negative trends in company culture. This can be partly achieved by ousting small-minded broflakes like Damore.

Agreed. People will talk, regardless.

Jack wont talk about it at work, and certainly not in writing at work. Some lessons don't need to be learned the hard way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it still the case in the US that you can be fired on rather short notice for just about anything? That the workers' rights are still in their infancy, comparatively speaking? In most of the EU, firing somebody is a lot harder which results in an environment where it is actually possible to criticise your employer.

Really don't know how it compares, but haven't thought of worker's rights here as lacking. Didn't view this as being about criticizing an employer, but rather saying the wrong thing at work and being offensive. When I talk at work, genually try to limit it to only talking about the work. It's easy to get sucked into conversations irrelevant to the actual work, and those are the types of conversations that can potentially cause conflict. I recognize my potential for offending other people, so there are certain topics off limits with co-workers. If it's not about the work, then it better be the weather.

[El]

A strong company culture is not achieved by having employees hunched over a computer and afraid to discuss the issues that affect how they interact with others at work and affect who gets hired.

Productivity is achieved in a tech company through cooperation and sharing of ideas and knowledge, not through simply piling so much work on every employee that they don't have time to think.

The fact is that there will be dialogue between employees. Much of that dialogue will have a negative impact on company culture. Providing a monitored platform for dialogue permits the company to correct negative trends in company culture. This can be partly achieved by ousting small-minded broflakes like Damore.

Agreed. People will talk, regardless.

Jack wont talk about it at work, and certainly not in writing at work. Some lessons don't need to be learned the hard way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it still the case in the US that you can be fired on rather short notice for just about anything? That the workers' rights are still in their infancy, comparatively speaking? In most of the EU, firing somebody is a lot harder which results in an environment where it is actually possible to criticise your employer.

Very much depends on the job type, too, and even the specific company*.  That said, I think there's also a discrepancy between what's technically legal and what's actually done, and there's a lot of space in between where shit is hard to prove.

*at my company it's amazingly difficult to get fired; if you know someone was fired, you know they REALLY fucked up, repeatedly and/or in a MAJOR way; this is a decidedly mixed blessing for all of us

[odeon]

I suppose there are various cultural differences to consider, too. Working in the UK is very different from working in Sweden, for example.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

It appears as if this lawsuit is DOA.

Youtuber Law, who is a pretty good neutral source of internet legal info, explains.