[HN Gopher] Alphabet's Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid In...
___________________________________________________________________
Alphabet's Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation
Author : SuperKlaus
Score : 193 points
Date : 2020-01-10 19:14 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| neonate wrote:
| http://archive.md/uZkcU
| ycombonator wrote:
| Is there a database of all sexual abusers who have been let go ?
| stopads wrote:
| It's pretty wild that he was there since 2002, he's practically a
| founder.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| He specifies that he was there over 20 years, prior to the
| company being incorporated, and only joined full-time in 2002.
|
| That being said: David Drummond is a terrible person[0], who
| only has been there this long because of Larry Page and Sergey
| Brin's protection, because they are terrible people too[1][2].
| The way Google's highest executives have treated women is
| disgusting and inexcusable. And while Drummond may not be
| getting an exit package, he sold off $200 million in stock this
| past year.
|
| Evil is still very, very good business.
|
| [0] https://medium.com/@jennifer.blakely/my-time-at-google-
| and-a...
|
| [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-
| employees...
|
| [2] https://fossbytes.com/larry-page-andy-rubin-150m-sexual-
| hara...
| jakobegger wrote:
| > After our son was born, I received a call from HR notifying
| me that one of us would have to leave the legal department
| where David was now Chief Legal Officer (...)
|
| This sounds like the worst possible policy I can think of.
| Get pregnant from your boss, and HR kicks you from the team!
| How does that help anyone?
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| I wonder what they would have said if her response had
| been, "OK, David can leave. I'm fine right here." It's
| hardly like they could fire her for refusing to leave her
| job after her boss knocked her up. Unfortunately all these
| kinds of hypotheticals that come up in these situations are
| impossible to test, because the person without power always
| has too much on the line to stand up and fight.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > Get pregnant from your boss
|
| There isn't much anyone can do to prevent disaster after
| this.
| im3w1l wrote:
| It's not a punishment, it's to prevent nepotism and moral
| hazard. I think normally they will try to place you in the
| same role in some other project but that may not have been
| possible in this case(?)
| unapologetic wrote:
| No, it's punishment.
|
| It's not down out of cruelty, it's done out of greed.
| He's more important, so even though he should absolutely
| 1000% be the one on the chopping block, she gets forced
| to sales. Then he uses the financial hardship and
| promises from him to get her to quit.
|
| How to tidy up a disastrous bit of professional
| misconduct in just a few easy completely sociopathic
| steps.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| The way you implement that is by proactively asking for a
| transfer _before_ the relationship comes to light. If you
| don 't do that, this is essentially proof that you were
| seeking to abuse the situation in some way hence
| penalties (on the supervisor, see my side comment) are
| very much appropriate.
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| > How does that help anyone?
|
| It helps the boss, of course.
| ProAm wrote:
| They knew the relationship was against company policy from
| the get go, what did they think was going happen? Two
| people made a poor decision and have to live with the
| consequences?
|
| > aware that our relationship was in violation of Google's
| new policy which went from "discouraging" direct-reporting-
| line relationships to outright banning them.
| unapologetic wrote:
| He forced the consequences onto her.
|
| None of these men will ever actually face consequences.
| They are all obscenely wealthy and well connected.
| ProAm wrote:
| What did he force onto her?
| lanstin wrote:
| From the article, he lied and as a consequence of the lie
| extended a sexual relationship with a person. Then when
| his actions (among other things) had created a new human,
| he behaved in a way most people recognize as badly. This
| narrative clearly depicts a despicable person. If you are
| happy with a lot of powerful institutions being
| controlled by and for despicable people, then by all
| means, there's no issue. However, it's a common trend for
| despicable people to run institutions into the ground
| rather than create a happy institution that ends up
| realizing the "transform humanity for the better" vision
| that so many profess.
| unapologetic wrote:
| Well she's stuck raising the son of an emotionally
| abusive sociopath.
|
| Besides that he pressured her into quitting with promises
| of financial support, then left her with the baby and
| refused to pay.
|
| I can't even comprehend the type of person who doesn't
| see the cruelty of this man. She trusted the wrong
| person, that doesn't justify his behavior.
| ProAm wrote:
| I agree hes probably a terrible person, but I just dont
| see where he is abusing his power at Google. He didn't
| pressure her into a relationship, he didnt force himself
| upon her, didnt threaten her job if she didnt cooperate,
| he didnt pressure her into leaving, she even says so in
| the article. These both sound like people of poor
| judgement, I just dont see the abuse people are trying to
| levy.
|
| > so I quit Google, signing whatever documents they
| required because likewise, I wanted to protect him
| d1zzy wrote:
| > Well she's stuck raising the son of an emotionally
| abusive sociopath.
|
| She decided to have a child and she decided to raise
| them. These are choices she made. He decided he doesn't
| want to take part in raising his son.
|
| It sounds like you want her to get all the pros and him
| all the cons in this situation. But their decisions have
| both pros and cons for both of them. Her decision means
| she gets to have a family/child (at the cost of the
| work/money needed to raise a child). His decision means
| he's a bad father who will his son will likely always
| hate but it has its financial advantages.
|
| > Besides that he pressured her into quitting with
| promises of financial support, then left her with the
| baby and refused to pay. > > I can't even comprehend the
| type of person who doesn't see the cruelty of this man.
| She trusted the wrong person, that doesn't justify his
| behavior.
|
| Yes, he's a cruel liar. Probably most people would be if
| given the opportunity (yes I'm a cynic and I don't
| believe in natural/native human kindness) but I'm not
| trying to make excuses for him. From the article he seems
| like a terrible person. But so what, that's not illegal.
| In the end what are we trying to achieve by pointing this
| out?
| lanstin wrote:
| There are people who aren't cruel liars and who manage to
| make their companies truly great and beloved. "Don't do
| what is illegal" is not "don't be evil" and being evil
| will make it harder to organize the worlds information,
| and harder to get a long sustained effort from others to
| help with that task.
| southphillyman wrote:
| >Besides that he pressured her into quitting with
| promises of financial support, then left her with the
| baby and refused to pay.
|
| California doesn't have child support? If he's not in his
| child's life he's a scumbag but at the very least I'm
| assuming the child is getting a very generous financial
| contribution.
| rstupek wrote:
| From her blog post she did eventually get a custody
| arrangement which requires he pay substantial (in her
| words) child support.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Both people knew it was wrong, but Larry and Sergey's
| best buddy got promoted to become one of the most
| powerful executives on the planet and paid hundreds of
| millions of dollars, and the woman got pushed out of her
| job and left to support their kid herself.
| ProAm wrote:
| She was forced out because it was against company policy.
| She wasnt forced out of google, but to a different
| department. And she voluntarily quit google, she was
| never fired. It's a sad story, but it's just adults
| making their own decisions that don't work out.
|
| > so I quit Google, signing whatever documents they
| required because likewise, I wanted to protect him
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| And David wasn't forced out for violating company policy
| because...? He's a man? He's Larry and Sergey's friend?
| ProAm wrote:
| No one was forced out, HR said one of them had to leave.
| We dont know anything beyond that she was the one to
| change departments. She wasnt fired.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| > She was forced out because it was against company
| policy
|
| > No one was forced out
| sokoloff wrote:
| She worked for him _in the legal department_. If she 's
| asked to change departments, what's someone presumably
| trained and skilled in law going to do? Start coding? Run
| a product team? Do sales?
| ProAm wrote:
| Right, she had affair with her boss at a company where
| there was a clear policy against it. What was she
| supposed to do? Maybe think ahead and realize this is a
| bad idea, OR realize there are potential consequences for
| making said decisions. Regardless when google found out
| they did not fire her, they gave her a chance to continue
| employment at the company. I dont know what her
| qualifications were but if she managed to get hired at
| google I would imagine she could also find work
| relatively easily outside of google.
|
| >aware that our relationship was in violation of Google's
| new policy which went from "discouraging" direct-
| reporting-line relationships to outright banning them
| vkou wrote:
| During manager training done by any lawyer worth their
| salt, it is drilled into you two hundred times that if
| you start a relationship with a subordinate, _you_ have
| to declare this relationship to HR, you have to move
| jobs, and that you may be personally liable for any of
| the legal fallout that comes with workplace relationships
| /allegations of harassment/allegations of nepotism.
|
| It seems that the execs don't get the same kind of
| training that line managers get. Or, perhaps, they are
| protected from the consequences. One set of rules for me,
| another for you...
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The right way to implement a policy like that is to say
| that supervisors are not permitted to have relationships
| with their subordinates. That way, if such a relationship
| develops against the rules, it's clear upon whom the
| consequences should fall: the supervisor.
|
| Supervisors get more money and power from the organization
| than their subordinates, so it's fair for the organization
| to have higher expectations for the behavior of the
| supervisor than the subordinate.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Supervisors also have more skin in the game so, quite
| trivially, making the supervisor responsible also means
| it's inherently easier to enforce that policy! The fact
| that they'd try to shift that burden onto the subordinate
| just tells you how much they care about following the
| rules, i.e. not at all.
| TallGuyShort wrote:
| Agreed, but a bigger factor is the power differential,
| IMO: the boss has the higher need to maintain at least an
| image of impartiality, and it's harder for the
| subordinate to resist advances knowing that the giver is
| key in deciding when they can and can't get time off, pay
| rises, etc.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Great point.
| nostrademons wrote:
| Google had one that said exactly that when I joined in
| 2009, but that post-dates the alleged affair(s) here, so
| I wouldn't be surprised if it was introduced directly
| because of this.
|
| Drummond wasn't the only one engaged in such shenanigans,
| too - I can think of at least half a dozen executives
| (including both founders) who engaged in relationships
| within their reporting chain.
| rdtsc wrote:
| Oh wow.
|
| > David would go for months or even years at a time
| completely ignoring my pleas to see his son -- not even so
| much as a text to us, despite living about a mile away.
|
| I can see not having the desire to be with her and break up
| the relationship, but abandoning his child and not seeing
| them for years at a time is downright evil.
|
| It's so strange to hear how Google touts itself to be at the
| forefront of inclusivity and tolerance, and here their
| executive acting this way for decades and nobody does
| anything.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| What is "evil" about not wanting to see a child that you
| presumably didn't want to begin with? A woman with an
| unwanted pregnancy can abort. Men don't have that option.
| But that doesn't obligate them to an emotional bond with
| the child.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Read the article - he wanted the son until he didn't, and
| then he peaced out.
| vanusa wrote:
| Okay - "evil" may have been a touch too strong.
|
| I'll go with "scummy and reprehensible".
|
| And: "deeply at odds with the ethical standards that
| Google once claimed to stand for (not that we ever took
| them seriously when they said those things)."
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| I can endorse scummy and reprehensible.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| Do we really want companies firing employees for personal
| morality issues that have zero bearing on their ability
| to do their job?
| andrewprock wrote:
| No, we don't. But we _do_ want companies firing employees
| for personal morality issues which have bearing on their
| ability to their job.
| defen wrote:
| > What is "evil" about not wanting to see a child that
| you presumably didn't want to begin with?
|
| The child doesn't get a choice about being brought into
| the world, so your desire or intent to produce a child is
| irrelevant. If you don't want to father a child, don't do
| anything that could reasonably lead to producing a child.
| If you father one anyway, that's on you. To deliberately
| alienate yourself from your child in that way, especially
| when you have the wealth and resources he does, is evil
| in my opinion.
| d1zzy wrote:
| > The child doesn't get a choice about being brought into
| the world, so your desire or intent to produce a child is
| irrelevant. If you don't want to father a child, don't do
| anything that could reasonably lead to producing a child.
| If you father one anyway, that's on you.
|
| That's on a man no more than it's on a women if she gets
| pregnant and the previous agreement was that the guy had
| to use condoms and he didn't. Otherwise what you're
| saying is "if you don't want to get STDs or have kids
| never have sex". Luckily that's not how the law works.
| rayiner wrote:
| People routinely get pregnant despite using hormonal
| birth control. (Condoms are even less effective.) The
| purpose of sex is having kids, and unsurprisingly humans
| are very good at conception. If you don't want to have
| kids, don't have sex.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| >If you don't want to have kids, don't have sex.
|
| How do you square this with your claim in a sister
| comment of "by virtue of their right to control their own
| bodies can abort a baby before it is born"
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| And yet, we generally accept that women have the right to
| an abortion regardless of their willfully chosen actions
| prior. How do you square the two positions? Note that I'm
| not arguing that the man has a right to absolve himself
| of financial responsibility.
| rayiner wrote:
| There is nothing that needs to be squared. People are
| responsible for the predictable consequences of their
| actions. We hold women and men equally accountable when
| their having sex produces a child.
|
| The fact that women, by virtue of their right to control
| their own bodies, can abort a baby before it is born,
| doesn't change the analysis for either. Both are still
| responsible for a baby that is born. The fact that the
| woman has additional options to avoid the consequence
| doesn't absolve the man of responsibility (both to
| provide financial support and to be a father). Women may
| have many reasons for not aborting a baby. (Maybe they
| even believe it's morally wrong!) But if you take action
| that predictably may result in an outcome, you don't get
| off the hook because someone else had the power to avert
| the outcome at a later stage and chose not to. Both
| people are responsible.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| >The fact that the woman has additional options to avoid
| the consequence doesn't absolve the man of responsibility
|
| I disagree. Having more options does in fact alter the
| level of responsibility.
| defen wrote:
| An abortion doesn't result in a person so it's not really
| comparable. My understanding is that the vast majority of
| surgical or medical abortions occur due to either 1)
| grave risk to the mother's life 2) serious genetic
| defects or malformities in the fetus or 3) well before
| viability (during a time when spontaneous abortions are
| also common)
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| Basing a principle of rights or duties based on
| contingencies (live birth or not) seems dubious. If the
| mother has a right to decide against the burden of a
| child, the father should as well (all things being
| equal). Granted, all things aren't equal, but the
| financial obligation seems sufficient to fulfill a duty
| to the living child. Besides, why should we force contact
| when the father doesn't want it? I don't see that as
| benefiting the child.
| rayiner wrote:
| > If the mother has a right to decide against the burden
| of a child, the father should as well (all things being
| equal).
|
| This is your false premise. Nothing about fairness
| requires the law to give someone additional rights to
| offset someone else's intrinsic advantages. Neither men
| nor women have a "legal right to decide against the
| burden of a child." If either has a child, they're on the
| hook for it. The law doesn't need to give men an
| additional _legal_ right to "make up" for the fact that
| women can terminate a pregnancy by exercising their
| natural right to control their own pregnancies.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| I'm talking about what should be the case, i.e. what is a
| moral right or duty. Legal concerns just add extra
| complication that are tangential to my claims.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| > The people in Google's legal department were very close
| and in 2004, at my birthday party at the W in San
| Francisco, David reserved a suite to host an "after
| party." It was there, that night he told me how he wanted
| more children. I urged to him to have one with his wife
| but he demurred and said that would never happen because
| he was estranged from her, which admittedly I already
| knew -- he was the only married one in attendance without
| his spouse.
|
| The kid was, in fact, David's idea from the get-go. He
| lamented at a party to a then-just-coworker about how
| badly he wanted more children. Of course, whether or not
| that was just his move to try to get a woman into an
| affair with him or not, we have no way of knowing.
| throwaway490194 wrote:
| Yes they are terrible people too. But "the way they have
| treated women"? ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS? The women who
| participated in these extra-marital affairs are every bit as
| evil!
| lawnchair_larry wrote:
| Nah, women are victims with no agency, men are predators.
| Get with the times!
| throwaway490194 wrote:
| LOL. They're BOTH narcissists and narcissism is genetic
| so the baby she popped out will be a narcissist as well.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Holy crap, that is some story.
| [deleted]
| onetimemanytime wrote:
| Well, she thought that he'd marry, and stay faithful to her.
| She knew the deal, should be happy with child support...the
| rest is bitter grapes
| jacquesm wrote:
| You clearly did not read the linked article.
| onetimemanytime wrote:
| I did but I don't take her comments after the
| disappointment at face value. How dare a married,
| billionaire cheater not settle down with her but continue
| to sleep with other women?
|
| She was an adult that entered in a consenting
| relationship with a married man (I can guess why), she
| admitted so much. Google policy or not, is irrelevant
| since both sides knew the deal.
| unapologetic wrote:
| It's not irrelevant, it's a blatant abuse of power.
|
| This guy is clearly a pretty sick sort of predator.
|
| > How dare a married, billionaire cheater not settle down
| with her but continue to sleep with other women?
|
| He basically got her fired and then bailed on her and
| their son. He refused to pay child support despite being
| a millionaire and is basically in an abusive relationship
| with her still.
|
| It's disgusting. It's the sort of behaviour that should
| ruin your personal and professional life completely.
| onetimemanytime wrote:
| _> >This guy is clearly a pretty sick sort of predator._
|
| Maybe he was the prey. You cannot refuse to pay child
| support, it's one option you do not have. Play hard ball
| in response to stuff etc maybe, but you will pay in the
| end.
|
| She should have named her price upfront. All consensual
| and he is a d*ck and a moron in a sense, as a
| billionaire, he could have used his pocket change and
| made her happy $$ wise. Now he gets bad press.
| ProAm wrote:
| Yes, this is a woman who entered a relationship and it
| didnt work out. Ive definitely read it and this is not a
| #metoo story. He didnt force himself up on, he didnt take
| advantage of her, he didnt threaten her, he didnt demand
| she date him, it's about dating someone at work when
| there are clear rules around it. No one said she had to
| leave the department, but that one of them would have to
| leave. It's a tragically sad story, especially for the
| child, but this was two consenting adults in an adult
| relationship that was full of bad choices.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Well, then maybe you read the story but did not
| understand it. That's fine with me, but I _did_ read the
| story and that is not my takeaway at all.
|
| For starters, there is a clear abuse of power here with
| one party being the senior person at the company
| suggesting that things will be 'ok' when clearly there
| was a plan all along to create a situation of asymmetry
| and dependency, followed up with a lot of _very_ mean and
| manipulative action.
|
| Besides using the child as leverage against the mother
| there is a clear - and continuous - act in the self
| interest of the dominant party, more wealthy, still
| employed and willing to use every dirty tactic in the
| book and a couple I'd never even seen before against the
| other.
|
| Utterly revolting and not simply 'two consenting adults
| in an adult relationship full of bad choices'. That's
| victim blaming at its worst.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| I don't get this "abuse of power" angle at all. Having a
| relationship with a subordinate is not an abuse of power.
| Insisting that your job rests on a relationship is an
| abuse of power, but without evidence that happened (and
| it seems like it didnt), there's no abuse. This idea that
| a power differential invalidates a relationship is
| nonsense.
|
| The fact is, people spend half or more of their waking
| hours at work. You spend more time with your colleagues
| than you do your own family in many cases. Relationship
| are going to happen. We need to learn how to deal with it
| rather than try to codify rules against it.
| rayiner wrote:
| > This idea that a power differential invalidates a
| relationship is nonsense.
|
| Why? Seems pretty sound to me.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| Because power differentials do not invalidate consent?
| Power differentials do not indicate coercion and people
| are fully capable of consenting even in the presence of
| power differentials. We've gotten to the point where we
| equate _potential_ for abuse with abuse. Its a little
| ridiculous.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| "One of us needs to leave. If you leave, I'll take care
| of you financially, since I'm making far more money
| here".
|
| "Oh, you left, thanks. Oh, that financial help? I changed
| my mind about that".
|
| It's possible to be abusive in a myriad of ways.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The abuse of power is that he maneuvered her into a
| position of dependency, then bailed out and used the fact
| that she was now dependent on him against her.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| Maneuvered implies intent. How do you know that was his
| intention from the start?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Well, it certainly didn't happen by accident. Fathers
| should support their kids, period.
| ProAm wrote:
| An abuse of power? They had an affair, how was that a
| plan to create a situation of asymmetry and dependency?
| How did she not know this was a bad idea all along? Did
| she think a person willing to cheat on a spouse was going
| to be a good person down the road?
|
| > David and I began an affair shortly after that night
| and we were together for years.
|
| She made a bad choice in life. She had an affair with a
| married man that worked in her department, when she knew
| such a relationship was against company policy. No one
| said she had to leave the department, only that one of
| them had to.
|
| Everything that happened after, while terribly cruel, is
| not anything you dont see frequently when a relationship
| falls apart that involves children. It's very sad story
| but I am not victim blaming anyone, they are both at
| fault. But they both willingly went into this situation
| with their eyes open knowing full well what the
| consequences could be.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Do you think he got the same phone call saying one of
| them had to leave?
| unapologetic wrote:
| This situation is fucked up on multiple levels.
|
| You don't punish the subordinate. Given his level, he
| should have been out.
|
| Instead they transferred her from legal to sales and her
| performance tanked because it was a job she was in no way
| qualified to do.
|
| He got her to quit (and sign a bunch of forms) promising
| to support her, then bailed.
|
| He refused child support and after she sued, he started
| using threats against her kid to fuck with her.
|
| This is a woman who got into a relationship, then
| realized that not only was the guy a complete psycho but
| the company had his back because he's the important one.
|
| The rot at google is very real. Top down too.
| ProAm wrote:
| He did not get her to quit, she made that choice herself
| because she wanted to protect him. She made that choice.
| Yes he is a terrible person, yes possibly psycho and this
| story sucks but no one forced anything.
|
| > so I quit Google, signing whatever documents they
| required because likewise, I wanted to protect him
| lanstin wrote:
| Is rape the only thing that companies should fire people
| for? A pattern of relationships like this is quite likely
| to be very bad for Google, both in terms of settlements
| and in terms of lost morale and acceptance of shitty
| behavior instead of working together on the great common
| project. The question isn't "forced" it's "why is firing
| the subordinate done instead of firing the habitual
| asshole when it's clearly in the companies interests to
| fire the habitual asshole." And the answer to that
| question makes it plausible that Google has been
| protecting bad people at the cost of their idealistic but
| achievable missions.
|
| Also, she may have made that choice, but also he "got"
| her to quit - not sure if you've been in a relationship,
| but both things can be true. Someone can influence you to
| make a bad choice. The responsibility for that bad choice
| then exists in both people.
| ProAm wrote:
| She wasnt fired. And she quit on her own volition.
|
| I can't speak to a pattern of bad behavior because I just
| dont know more than this story and the one she posted
| about. He absolutely sounds like human garbage, but her
| story isn't a #metoo story. There was no abuse, no abuse
| of power, no forcing anything.
|
| > so I quit Google, signing whatever documents they
| required because likewise, I wanted to protect him.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| ... because he had promised her financial support and if
| he also lost his job, that would go away.
|
| And then he withdrew / refused support, that he'd agreed
| to, in writing.
|
| Yes, it's not all black and white, but it's close to
| willfully obtuse to see a timeline of events and then
| fall back to a definition of "well, he didn't hold a gun
| to her head/use physical violence so it wasn't really a
| forced situation".
| ProAm wrote:
| I agree he's a horrible person, but all those things have
| nothing to do with Google and his position at Google or
| her position at Google. Those were relationship decisions
| they made on their own. They both made horrible personal
| decisions, but it doesn't involve google.
| freepor wrote:
| A true all-star in his profession. Managed to protect one of the
| most unethical businesses in technology history from any
| substantial legal/regulatory consequences. His tenure at Google
| is comparable to OJ Simpson's unforgettable 1973 season for the
| Buffalo Bills.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Earlier / dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22013436
|
| This is (for obvious reasons) getting multiple submissions. The
| CNBC article seems the most comprehensive to date:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22014115
| Fnoord wrote:
| That post from earlier received no discussion, so it isn't a
| dupe (does not count as such).
| vl wrote:
| > Last year, a committee of independent directors from Alphabet's
| board hired a law firm to investigate its handling of allegations
| of sexual misconduct and inappropriate relationships by current
| and former executives as part of its legal defense against
| shareholder lawsuits over its handling of the matters, according
| to documents viewed by The Times.
|
| Let's sure hope they investigated Sergey and Larry too, unlike
| them, at least this guy got married to his office romantic
| interest.
| vkou wrote:
| > Let's sure hope they investigated Sergey and Larry too,
| unlike them, at least this guy got married to his office
| romantic interest.
|
| One of them, at least.
|
| Another one, whom he had a baby with, was allegedly pushed out
| of the firm.
| claudeganon wrote:
| They both "stepped back" shortly after the announcement of this
| investigation, so it seems likely they were also examined.
| zepto wrote:
| There is nothing toxic about Google's culture. These are normal
| events in any organization of this size. They are just as
| focussed as ever on organizing the world's information and making
| it universally accessible.
| narag wrote:
| I can't see any visible clues, but my sarcasm-O-meter just
| exploded.
| throwaway17_17 wrote:
| Curious, are the downvotes on this comment for the comment
| which I assumed was sarcasm, or for the fact that a non-
| qualified sarcastic comment is of a type of discussion HN rules
| discourage?
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Oh gross. Why can't powerful men behave themselves? Makes me
| grateful I'm not a powerful man.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > Why can't powerful men behave themselves?
|
| They can behave themselves equally as well as not-powerful men,
| but they're just in more of a spotlight.
| d1zzy wrote:
| I think it's more than that, powerful/rich people men are
| going to have more access to (consensual) sex than poor men.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| But if it's consensual, then they _are_ behaving
| themselves.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| That's a low bar. Consensual does not mean ethical or
| palatable to shareholders and the public.
| throwaway17_17 wrote:
| At the rates of return Alphabet experiences, along with
| such a large share percentage held by a 'smallish' group
| of founders/early supporters, many of whom are apparently
| credibly stated to have engaged in very similar behavior,
| I doubt there will much pressure from shareholders. It is
| doubtful, but if this was the straw that broke the
| regulation-impasse-camel's back, Drummond makes a good
| scapegoat for current leadership.
| johnhughesco wrote:
| sucks to be poor, brah.
|
| why you heff to be poor?
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Consider all of the powerful men who aren't forced out of their
| positions.
| lanstin wrote:
| An argument that is less powerful with each passing decade.
| duxup wrote:
| I thought his relationships were pretty much known... for a long
| time by everyone?
|
| I swear I remember folks publicly noting these relationships.
| [deleted]
| pinopinopino wrote:
| Good, more mayhem for Google. I don't mind see them burning a
| bit. Hopefully the EU forces them to split up soon too. I have
| had my share of monopolist corporations playing moral compass.
| rvz wrote:
| The multiple scandals, trip-ups, investigations and blunders at
| Google sounds very eligible to be turned into its own theatrical
| melodrama set.
|
| In this rehearsal, the CLO has already been "off script" for many
| years and the "directors" have told him that he isn't getting his
| $50m golden parachute this time. Instead, he leaves with nothing
| and takes an Uber back home. No travel expenses paid.
| gumby wrote:
| No $50M for him.
| dlp211 wrote:
| Yes, the $150MM in stock he's unloaded over the past quarter
| will have to suffice.
| loganfrederick wrote:
| I really liked Ben Horowitz's new book "What You Do Is Who You
| Are". However, the only passage that I disliked and stood out to
| me is when he defended David Drummond for his ability to thrive
| at Google for a long time despite the corporate culture changing.
|
| This was after Drummond was called out publicly for abandoning
| his kid he had with a subordinate:
| https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/10/25/report-alphabet-c...
|
| I am sure he's made a lot of people money, but it's not like
| Google couldn't find a great legal chief who also wasn't a
| terrible person.
|
| Edit: First article I linked to was paywalled, so here is the
| underlying story: https://medium.com/@jennifer.blakely/my-time-
| at-google-and-a...
| pinewurst wrote:
| This is the same Ben Horowitz who defended illegal option price
| fixing and other ethically dubious behavior in his last book.
| I'll probably get penalized for this, but achieving success is
| not equivalent to being a role model.
| loganfrederick wrote:
| In Horowitz's defense (on a the options pricing matter,
| hopefully not taking this thread too far off course), I
| thought he had explained his position on options pricing
| reasonably: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/how-ben-
| horowitz-avo...
| tmpz22 wrote:
| > "HR told me that Sergey's response to it was, 'Why not?
| They're my employees,'" Ayers said. "But you don't have
| employees for f---ing! That's not what the job is."
|
| Ooooof. That shatters the "Early on Google's culture was
| great!" narrative...
|
| [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-
| employees...
| Aqua wrote:
| That's not how business works.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| The idea that business cares only about profit is just plain
| wrong. The law people think of is almost never relevant. Each
| year, millions of business decisions are made knowing full
| well that it will cost a bit of money, not bring in any (or
| even good PR), but is the decent thing to do.
|
| As but one example: Google once gave us money for a non-
| profit event, in no way related to their business, with
| explicit instructions not to mention them.
| seibelj wrote:
| If your anecdote is true then how do you know that?
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Because they were involved in it??
| GhettoMaestro wrote:
| On the basis of your extreme pedantry, please consider
| killing yourself. You would be doing the world a massive
| favor.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| I called them and asked for money. See my use of the word
| "us".
|
| So, yes, maybe they did it because they knew I'd be going
| around using them as an example of altruism in business,
| 12 years later.
| minikites wrote:
| And then the shareholders punish them:
|
| https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/29/15471634/american-
| ai...
|
| >American Airlines agreed this week to do something nice
| for its employees and arguably foresighted for its business
| by giving flight attendants and pilots a preemptive raise,
| in order to close a gap that had opened up between their
| compensation and the compensation paid by rival airlines
| Delta and United.
|
| >Wall Street freaked out, sending American shares
| plummeting. After all, this is capitalism and the capital
| owners are supposed to reap the rewards of business
| success.
|
| >"This is frustrating. Labor is being paid first again,"
| wrote Citi analyst Kevin Crissey in a widely circulated
| note. "Shareholders get leftovers."
| loganfrederick wrote:
| You're correct, that's not how companies usually make their
| personnel decisions. But one would think more companies would
| factor in PR-risk as a real financial risk. But Google being
| Google economically-speaking, this still probably isn't a
| material event.
| shawnz wrote:
| There's also the risk of employees not being able to work
| effectively if they don't feel safe/comfortable in their
| work environment.
| dmix wrote:
| So it is in fact very much how business works... between
| bad PR and company cultural issues. This stuff matters.
|
| Not to mention businesses have customers and investors
| who care about these things.
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| I would assume there is extensive child support that would more
| then compensate? (Article is paywaled, so I don't know the
| details).
| rayiner wrote:
| I'm pretty sure money doesn't compensate someone for growing
| up without a father.
| qroshan wrote:
| Steve Jobs also abandoned his kid. He created a $1 Trillion
| company.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Exactly. Success as a business person has nothing to do with
| success as a moral or ethical person. In fact it's probably
| easier to be one when not being the others.
|
| Being good at business does not make you a "good person".
| oooogaboooga wrote:
| He likes dem white women.
| bhaile wrote:
| Interesting comment from Bill Maris from Axios.
|
| Bill Maris, who founded Google's venture capital arm and reported
| directly to Drummond before quitting in 2016, tells Axios...
|
| "The news of David Drummond leaving Google today brings to mind a
| quote from one of my most favorite creatures. 'At an end, your
| rule is. And not short enough, it was.' I had been asked in the
| past why I left Google in 2016, and I have never really commented
| on that. David Drummond is the reason I left Google. I simply
| could not work with him any longer. It's that simple. We have
| very, very different ideas about how to treat people, and this
| was a long time coming."[1]
|
| [1]https://www.axios.com/alphabet-david-drummond-
| departure-7572...
| godzillabrennus wrote:
| I met Bill years ago and he was insanely helpful to me at the
| time. Google lost an incredible person when he walked away.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| huh.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/10/alphabets-legal-chief-is-lea...
|
| > Drummond is also a board member of private equity firm KKR &
| Co. L.P.
|
| KKR is the PE firm well known for destroying the companies they
| buy, for their benefit ... and not for their LP's benefit.
| Dastardly.
| lacker wrote:
| These sexual misconduct investigations at Google are really
| finding some critical stuff. At this point my guess is that it is
| related to the Larry and Sergey resignations, and we will
| eventually hear information that reflects poorly on them
| directly.
| outside1234 wrote:
| Haven't we already? Sergey was banging everything that moved at
| one point.
|
| ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-
| employees...
| [deleted]
| thrwn_frthr_awy wrote:
| We've heard it already. They literally had a "masseuse room"
| where Sergey would have sex with employees inside the Google
| building.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| This phrasing is a bit misleading. It makes it sound like
| Sergey had designated a room exclusively for sex with
| employees and called it the "masseuse room." To be precise,
| Google's offices include private massage rooms in which
| employees can get professional massages. Sergey allegedly had
| sex in one or more of these rooms.
| thrwn_frthr_awy wrote:
| > It makes it sound like Sergey had designated a room
| exclusively for sex with employees and called it the
| "masseuse room."
|
| Yes, it does sound like that. I'd advise all people in
| leadership to avoid conduct that could be interpreted this
| way.
|
| Edit: Thank you jacquesm for fixing my freudian slip :)
| jacquesm wrote:
| Interrupted? I think you meant 'interpreted'.
| celticninja wrote:
| Both are apt.
| pinewurst wrote:
| Quote from link above: "HR told me that Sergey's response to
| it was, 'Why not? They're my employees,'" Ayers said. "But
| you don't have employees for f---ing! That's not what the job
| is."
| m0zg wrote:
| I might be wrong, but I don't think there's any law that
| forbids having consensual sex with employees. It's
| unethical if they're his direct reports, sure, but I don't
| think it's illegal. I'm sure if I had _fifty billion
| dollars_, I'd have to fight off women like zombies in a
| movie even though I'm already married.
| ellard wrote:
| Consent is murky at best when there's a large power
| discrepancy between two co-workers. See: everything
| that's been going on with Hollywood in the past couple of
| years
| johnhughesco wrote:
| Did it occur that the employee might be attracted BECAUSE
| of the power discrepancy?
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| Sort of: "I 'want' to have sex with him because I don't
| get to decide not to have sex with him and keep my job"
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| It turns out money and power are standard features of
| attraction to women generally.
| cdumler wrote:
| Consent requires no coercion, meaning that both parties
| are fully informed of all relevant information and both
| are in a legal capacity to do so. It is guaranteed that
| employees are not in a position to be fully informed
| because they will not have the same access to company
| information and employee resources.
| damnyou wrote:
| Yes, it's probably not illegal, but it should still cause
| the exec to be fired.
| d1zzy wrote:
| He's not an exec, he's a founder (which together with
| Larry and Eric controls over 50% of shareholder voting
| power). He'd have to fire himself.
| nostrademons wrote:
| There's no criminal law against it, but it opens you up
| to civil suits from aggrieved parties (who can be either
| participants in the affair or bystanders who feel they
| were given a raw deal because of the relationship).
| Hiring, firing, and performance management is supposed to
| be based on your performance at doing your job, not
| because your boss dumped you and now dislikes you. Sexual
| harassment and discrimination suits are both relatively
| easy to document and tend to be viewed sympathetically by
| juries.
| m0zg wrote:
| You're assuming there are "aggrieved parties". To the
| best of my knowledge nobody was "aggrieved" by Sergey at
| least. He probably had them sign something before the
| "massage" or else I'm sure we'd see some lawsuits.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying sexual harassment
| in any way. But it's not "harassment" if it's wanted and
| consensual, and it's not _automatically_ unethical if the
| employee is not in his chain of command or even if they
| are, if they aren't forced into it, and there's no
| punishment for declining. If they make advances on their
| own and are merely not turned down (see e.g. Rosenberg,
| who IIRC wasn't in his chain of command), that's
| stretching the definition.
| nine_k wrote:
| This is reasonable, but it's very hard to be outside the
| sphere of influence of a company's top officer, even if
| you are formally not a direct report. At the very least,
| it is risky for that top officer, because it would be
| hard to shake off any accusations of coercion, were they
| brought up. And, of course, actual coercion becomes much
| easier, within certain range.
| nostrademons wrote:
| The "aggrieved party" doesn't have to be a party within
| the relationship. _Anyone else in the org_ can make a
| case that their career opportunities were impeded by the
| existence of a superior /subordinate relationship within
| their reporting chain. People in a romantic relationship
| are assumed to not be impartial when it comes to things
| that may affect their romantic partners, which means that
| it's pretty easy to make a case that an executive's
| decisions were biased by the affair in a way that may
| harm your career. So if you were Rosenberg's _teammate_
| and she got placed on a hot project like Google Glass
| while you were passed over for the position, you could
| make the case that your career was harmed because she 's
| sleeping with the head of Google X.
| m0zg wrote:
| No aggrieved parties stepped forward. And you can make
| whatever "cases" you want, but if no one was "aggrieved"
| you don't really have a case.
|
| >> you could make the case that your career was >> harmed
| because she's sleeping with the head of Google X
|
| Funny how otherwise "progressive" people automatically
| assume that the only reason women would sleep with their
| boss is to advance their careers. The romantic component
| doesn't factor into it at all.
|
| Thankfully, simply making a case is not enough under US
| law. You have to prove it as well. Best I can tell
| Rosenberg did not experience any meteoric career rise.
| Nor would there be any way to accomplish that without
| drawing attention: Sergey is not in charge of promotions,
| committees are.
|
| In fact, as an ex-Googler, I'm not sure Sergey was in
| charge of _anything_ at Google for the past 15 years. He
| had his hobby projects, but he was as checked out as a
| founder can really be. He's literally probably there for
| the dating pool. :-)
| nostrademons wrote:
| I'm also an ex-Googler, and was at Google when the
| Rosenberg affair broke. Sergey was nominally head of
| Google X (the reporting org that Google Glass was in) at
| the time. Whether he was actively doing anything other
| than boning his employees is another matter; I had a
| number of friends in X (including in Glass) and his job
| largely seemed to be to cheerlead various X initiatives
| at the time.
|
| And the role of HR and legal is to _minimize_ the company
| 's risk. Just because the risk doesn't materalize doesn't
| mean the risk wasn't there. The way sexual harassment
| claims usually play out (if both parties have competent
| lawyers) is that the company pays out a significant sum
| of money and then both sides sign non-disclosure
| agreements and waivers to further liability. The point
| isn't to go to trial, the point is that the threat of
| facing a sympathetic jury incentivizes both parties to
| work out a settlement.
|
| There was one very obvious aggrieved party in to the
| Brin/Rosenberg affair in Hugo Barra, Android's VP and
| spokeperson and Rosenberg's ex-boyfriend who quit to head
| Xiaomi's international efforts right as the affair broke.
| Presumably Google gave him a generous severance package
| to not disparage or sue the company, which is why you
| haven't heard him disparage or sue the company.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| There _is_ a potential criminal risk if a relationship
| can be construed as nonconsensual, coerced, or quid pro
| quo.
|
| More generally, there's a tremendous _civil_ liability,
| both personally to the principles involved _and_ the
| firm, through such activity. A liability which may be
| entirely independent of the apparent (or actual)
| consensuality at the time, and which might be filed by
| non-participants (e.g., other employees perceiving sexual
| favouratism or discrimination).
|
| A principle function of a corporation is as a risk-
| externalising, and limiting, legal structure. (This is
| literally stated in some forms of organisation, as with
| an LLC: limited liability corporation.) The principle job
| of management and oversight is to maximise the reward-to-
| risk ratio.
|
| Company founders openly and documentedly treating the
| employee pool as their personal coital resource is a risk
| in the extreme.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| The next line is really illustrative of whose interests an
| HR department serves.
|
| >"'Oh my God, this is a sexual harassment claim waiting to
| happen!' That was my concern," she recalled
| sokoloff wrote:
| Sure, but in this case, stopping the behavior that is
| likely to lead to harassment claims is aligned with both
| the company's and the employees' interests.
| johnhughes wrote:
| Larry Page used to "date" Marissa Meyer. You make what you want
| to make of Meyers meteoritic rise at Google
| johnhughesco wrote:
| Larry used to "date" Marissa Meyer. More like FOB
| johnhughesco wrote:
| Why is stating facts downvoted on this crappy website?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-01-10 23:00 UTC)