a********9
发帖数: 3813 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 USANews 讨论区 】
发信人: addadd9999 (haha99), 信区: USANews
标 题: 被fired的工程师告谷歌的理由太多了，随便就有三条
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Aug 8 13:52:22 2017, 美东)
Employment attorney, Dan Eaton, a partner with the San Diego law firm of
Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek, wrote an article for CNN before the firing
which gave three reasons why Google shouldn't fire, or possibly even
discipline Damore (who was unidentified when Eaton wrote this.)
Federal Law Allows Employees To Talk About Working Conditions
Eaton points out that employees are allowed to talk amongst themselves about
working conditions. This is why your boss can't ban you from sharing your
salary with your co-workers. Google went through a different nightmare last
year when employees started collecting and sharing salary information.
But, working conditions aren't limited to salary discussions. The purpose of
his essay was to talk about what he perceived as a need for change in the
company. He shared it internally, that is with his co-workers. In other
words, this just might be a protected activity.
You Can't Fire Someone for Political Views--In California
In most states, political views aren't protected in the workplace, but in
California they are. Love his views or hate them, they are definitely
political in nature. Attorney Eaton writes:
An employee does not have free reign to engage in political speech that
disrupts the workplace, but punishing an employee for deviating from company
orthodoxy on a political issue is not allowed either. Brown [Google's Vice
President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance] acknowledged that when she
wrote that "an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in
which those with alternative views, including different political views,
feel safe sharing their opinions."
California law prohibits employers from threatening employees in order to
get them to change their political views.
The Engineer as a Whistle-blower
Damore claimed that some of Google's practices violate federal
discrimination laws. When we talk about affirmative action, federal law
allows you to hire the woman or minority candidate over a male or white
candidate if both are equally qualified. But, what it doesn't allow you to
do is hire a less qualified female or minority candidate. Damore believed
Google's policies were doing just that.
In order to be protected, "the engineer doesn't have to be right that some
of Google's diversity initiatives are unlawful, only that he reasonably
believes that they are."
Former Senior Google employee Yonatan Zunger, wrote that this engineer
should have been fired because his memo makes it clear that Damore was a
terrible engineer. I know nothing about computer engineering so I'll take
Zunger's word for it. Maybe this guy was terrible.
However, the problem with firing him now is that it is retaliation for the
memo. If Damore was on a PIP and this was his last ditch effort to save his
job, then, no, this memo won't protect him. But, if he was considered an
acceptable performer the day before he wrote the memo, then his engineering
skills can't come into play in this decision.
Damore has stated that he is looking into his legal options. I'm sure a
lawsuit will be forthcoming. |
t******l
发帖数: 10908 | 2 这个生物小哥被扫地出门的事，是有点问题。。。虽然小哥的戟文吐糟点确实很多，但
小哥也不应该就因为不同政见而被扫地出门我觉得，HR 再发一篇戟文互相批斗一下就
行了。 |
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 3 没戏。这家伙左右不是人。右逼以其人之道还之左逼只身。 |
n********g
发帖数: 6504 | 4 支持告狗哥。最好揭发出狗哥员工守则保护歧视女性的自由。
about
【在 a********9 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 USANews 讨论区 】
: 发信人: addadd9999 (haha99), 信区: USANews
: 标 题: 被fired的工程师告谷歌的理由太多了，随便就有三条
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Aug 8 13:52:22 2017, 美东)
: Employment attorney, Dan Eaton, a partner with the San Diego law firm of
: Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek, wrote an article for CNN before the firing
: which gave three reasons why Google shouldn't fire, or possibly even
: discipline Damore (who was unidentified when Eaton wrote this.)
: Federal Law Allows Employees To Talk About Working Conditions
: Eaton points out that employees are allowed to talk amongst themselves about
|
n*****s
发帖数: 6495 | 5 at will employment, can be terminated for any or no reason
这个可以用来做挡箭牌吗 |
t******l
发帖数: 10908 | 6 我个人无端猜测，狗歌生物小哥被扫地出门，狗歌可能更多的是基于商业利益的考虑，
而不是政治因素。
因为狗歌家摊子这么大，就算应聘者趋之若鹜，招马工和招女马工依然不仅是个事儿，
而且不是个小事儿。
否则的话，狗歌家不会搞那么多 recruiter 到处乱跑，而且 recruiter 都至少看上去
都是忙得比马工还忙。。。而且狗歌家也是著名的注重 interview 形象的，如果对
interview process 有微词，狗哥大概率给 2nd chance。。。当然 2nd chance 也不
是说放你水过，但至少让人再爽一次（当然也可能是再被虐一次，但总之是个现实世界
可以的折中）。
我估计狗歌内部肯定算计了一下，把生物小哥扫地出门万一惹上官司，损失多少美刀。
。。但如果在宇宙中心女马工心目中的的招工形象受损，派 recruiter 蝗虫去修补形
象，需要多少美刀。。。狗歌老大看了两个内部估计数字后面分别有几个零，不说啥了
。。。挥了挥手说，给那生物小歌两瓶茅台，好聚好散，将来官司随意。。。然后让狗
联社发个生物小歌扫地出门的新闻，安慰一下宇宙中心女马工们受伤的心灵，这茬千万
别搞砸了。
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: 没戏。这家伙左右不是人。右逼以其人之道还之左逼只身。
|
k*****a
发帖数: 7389 | |
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 8 不是这个意思。这傻叉说的话太傻逼了。左逼肯定是对他恨之入骨。而右逼现在是要搞
Google，用的理由是你不够左，这个傻叉的就是例子，你如果不开除他就说明了你的确
不够左。这傻叉的说法和说黑人劣等一样，根本不会受到啥言论自由的保护。
【在 t******l 的大作中提到】
: 我个人无端猜测，狗歌生物小哥被扫地出门，狗歌可能更多的是基于商业利益的考虑，
: 而不是政治因素。
: 因为狗歌家摊子这么大，就算应聘者趋之若鹜，招马工和招女马工依然不仅是个事儿，
: 而且不是个小事儿。
: 否则的话，狗歌家不会搞那么多 recruiter 到处乱跑，而且 recruiter 都至少看上去
: 都是忙得比马工还忙。。。而且狗歌家也是著名的注重 interview 形象的，如果对
: interview process 有微词，狗哥大概率给 2nd chance。。。当然 2nd chance 也不
: 是说放你水过，但至少让人再爽一次（当然也可能是再被虐一次，但总之是个现实世界
: 可以的折中）。
: 我估计狗歌内部肯定算计了一下，把生物小哥扫地出门万一惹上官司，损失多少美刀。
|
t******l
发帖数: 10908 | 9 生物小哥文章的一个硬伤，确实时字里行间里存在很大的 over-generalization 的嫌
疑。
要避免 over-generalization，方案一就是统计分布和个案问题，花开两朵必须各表一
枝。表多表少你可以讨论，但显著漏表一支咋也会被质疑字里行间的 over-
generalization。
或者方案二就是像俺一样 AIME qualifiers / USAMO
qualifiers 男女比例数字定量拿出来，甭管是 5：1 还是 10：1，然后注明一句这不
是要 gender quota，而是符合不符合大众的 common sense。这样最多也是争议定量数
字是不是合理，精确度有多少。但底线是不被质疑 over-generalization 还是保住不
失。
但生物小歌不仅以上的正道不干，还去 over-generalize race vs gender。。。这个
在联邦最高法院里，一个是 strict scrutiny 另一个是 intermediate scrutiny，联
邦最高法院判例都说这俩不完全是一回事，生物小歌的文章里还去 over-generalize
这俩 race vs gender。。。这生物小歌的戟文确实没法不让人吐糟啊。。。智力是硬
伤我觉得。
是要搞
你的确
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: 不是这个意思。这傻叉说的话太傻逼了。左逼肯定是对他恨之入骨。而右逼现在是要搞
: Google，用的理由是你不够左，这个傻叉的就是例子，你如果不开除他就说明了你的确
: 不够左。这傻叉的说法和说黑人劣等一样，根本不会受到啥言论自由的保护。
|
n********g
发帖数: 6504 | 10 他把娇滴滴女生的胸和虎肉比。得出结论是男女生理构造不同。女人的胸没有男人大。
按照狗哥的规定狗粮要和胸挂钩。所以女人拿的少是合理的。
【在 k*****a 的大作中提到】
: what did he say?
|
n********g
发帖数: 6504 | 11 狗哥在弯曲女生裙里有个屁形象。连出了名美貌不用面试的月光姐都不去领那鸡肋狗粮。
【在 t******l 的大作中提到】
: 我个人无端猜测，狗歌生物小哥被扫地出门，狗歌可能更多的是基于商业利益的考虑，
: 而不是政治因素。
: 因为狗歌家摊子这么大，就算应聘者趋之若鹜，招马工和招女马工依然不仅是个事儿，
: 而且不是个小事儿。
: 否则的话，狗歌家不会搞那么多 recruiter 到处乱跑，而且 recruiter 都至少看上去
: 都是忙得比马工还忙。。。而且狗歌家也是著名的注重 interview 形象的，如果对
: interview process 有微词，狗哥大概率给 2nd chance。。。当然 2nd chance 也不
: 是说放你水过，但至少让人再爽一次（当然也可能是再被虐一次，但总之是个现实世界
: 可以的折中）。
: 我估计狗歌内部肯定算计了一下，把生物小哥扫地出门万一惹上官司，损失多少美刀。
|
t******l
发帖数: 10908 | 12 当然其实军版撕鼻也是 over-generalize，比如 东baby 问题。
但这一来是明显撕鼻找乐行为。第二这就一句话也不可能面面俱到。
这个生物小歌的沙比不是仅仅撕几次鼻，而是在狗歌发言吃饭厅而不是军版下水道撕鼻
。。。不是因为仅仅 over-generalization 一句发言，而是写了两千字不止的戟文都
结尾了还 over-generalize。
【在 t******l 的大作中提到】
: 生物小哥文章的一个硬伤，确实时字里行间里存在很大的 over-generalization 的嫌
: 疑。
: 要避免 over-generalization，方案一就是统计分布和个案问题，花开两朵必须各表一
: 枝。表多表少你可以讨论，但显著漏表一支咋也会被质疑字里行间的 over-
: generalization。
: 或者方案二就是像俺一样 AIME qualifiers / USAMO
: qualifiers 男女比例数字定量拿出来，甭管是 5：1 还是 10：1，然后注明一句这不
: 是要 gender quota，而是符合不符合大众的 common sense。这样最多也是争议定量数
: 字是不是合理，精确度有多少。但底线是不被质疑 over-generalization 还是保住不
: 失。
|
t******l
发帖数: 10908 | 13 你这是瞎扯，狗歌公司福利待遇工作环境还是很不错的。
至于月光，那就是个老邢狼坊的浪舞，狗歌家面试的机会都不会有。当然月光会马上贴
出一堆狗家面试的照片，但基本大伙儿都当看电影就是了。
肋狗粮。
【在 n********g 的大作中提到】
: 狗哥在弯曲女生裙里有个屁形象。连出了名美貌不用面试的月光姐都不去领那鸡肋狗粮。
|
