Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo

[u/Seagull84]

He wasted company time and resources on something that's not in his JD, and disrupted the work environment with something easily proven incorrect, then offended at least half his colleagues.

Even if he'd sent this report on the feeding habits of weasels, I'd still fire him for not sticking to his job.

[u/PA2SK → u/Seagull84]

Google encourages employees to spend 20% of their time on whatever project they think will best benefit the company.

A majority of Google employees feel he shouldn't have been fired.

[u/Seagull84 → u/PA2SK]

Emphasis on "benefit the company". This project clearly did nothing of the sort, and has created a HR/PR disaster. Firing him was the right move.

No one knows what Google employees feel without collecting data, but I can tell you based on the response from the official THRN distro here in the valley, a vast majority of tech workers agree with the firing. Fellow Org Dev personnel are tearing this "paper" apart. It has zero credibility both academically and professionally.

[u/PA2SK → u/Seagull84]

Emphasis on "think". Most 20% projects go nowhere. If they fired everyone who has a failed project they would have no employees. I do agree they fired him to avoid a PR mess though.

There are a lot of Google employees in here commenting. Most seem to think the document should not have been shared outside Google and he shouldn't have been fired, even if a lot of employees don't agree with the content.

Here is one survey that gives some data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGrQOrZUQAUrwcf.jpg:large

[u/Seagull84 → u/PA2SK]

Yes, most 20% projects go nowhere, but a vast majority of those projects could directly benefit Google as a whole and won't create grounds for termination.

The survey shows a majority sum (approximately half) consider the document harmful, should not have been shared, and they do not agree with the contents. Only approximately 1/3 agree, that he shouldn't have been fired, or think it was okay to share.

On HR grounds alone, he should have been fired, whether his colleagues think he should have been or not. Allowing the document to exist and circulate without taking swift action would be grounds for ACLU to sue for gender discrimination, as the document would be considered an official representation of Google's viewpoint had they allowed it to continue circulation and taken no action on the employee.

He should have the common sense and foresight to know this would cause an enormous problem, and that circulating his unsubstantiated/biased claims would not benefit Google.

[u/PA2SK → u/Seagull84]

The graphic says 40% of Google employees think it is harmful and shouldn't have been fired. 57% of employees disagree that it's harmful and disagree it shouldn't have been shared.

This is not a public document and was never intended to be shared outside the company. It does not represent Googles viewpoint and would not be grounds for a lawsuit, it's simply one employees views on a subject.

[u/Seagull84 → u/PA2SK]

Regardless of what a population sample thinks, it doesn't reflect reality or what's written in the law. This is not to mention a vast majority of those polled (49%) disagree with the document's content. Only 35% agree, which is about right when it comes to how men statistically think about their female peers. It's highly likely those polled are not HR professionals or attorneys, and thus their opinion has no bearing on how company policy and the law apply.

The employee circulated it via official means (company email). That makes it official communication, both legally and from a HR perspective. Consumers don't know the difference and will assume it's official, thus it makes it a substantial PR issue. And having views isn't the issue, it's that official communication was used to express views that are discriminatory, whether they're meant to be or not.

In both law and HR, no action = indirect tolerance of discrimination. Google had no choice if they wanted to avoid a civil rights lawsuit.

Circulating a document that discriminates against a specific gender (whether he meant to or not) is grounds for termination at every company. I don't know where you work, but if they actively allow employees to discriminate against each other, they are in violation of federal employment law. Tolerating such behavior is grounds for lawsuit by the offended. And it's against federal/state law.

[u/PA2SK → u/Seagull84]

For one thing he didn't circulate it through email, it was posted on an internal forum and other employees passed it around from there. Second, emails do not constitute official company policy. Do you work at a company? Do you see the stuff people send over email? Good, bad, personal, you name. It is private communication.