Correct. But the reason Google is in deep doo doo is the 1st Amendment. Simple as it can be, and the underlying basis of the lawsuit. Of course, an internal memo creates complexity and hurdles for the plaintiff’s attorney. But that can be overcome by reference to prior high court cases which address the same issue.
Of course. The underlying point is employment discrimination. The freedom of speech issue is used to produce evidence of discrimination among two groups of employees. Watch and learn, junior. Watch and learn.
How do you discriminate against an opinion? So when Agent says he would never hire a Liberal, do you support him? I have never seen you criticize him for discrimination when he has made those statements in the past.
January 10, 2018 at 2:46 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
8
0
Do you have experience with matters in the court like this? If not I would not tell others to watch and learn (or call them junior if you do not know them) as you do not have first hand experience.
January 12, 2018 at 8:55 am
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Like or Dislike:
1
6
@helpingnoone:
I received yesterday, but temporarily misplaced, a copy of statute which addresses this issue, from Connecticut. I will locate it and post the actual wording, which seems like it is adopted from another state with a similar / exactly same statute on protection of employees from discharge for exercising their 1st Amendment rights. There are a few reasonable restrictions on what types of free speech in the workplace are protected by this statute. But I won’t try to recall them from a quick reading yesterday amidst other distractions.
Thus, I’m ignoring YOUR meaninglessly and arrogantly imposed requirement that I must have first hand experience,… junior.
There ya go. Read it carefully. There will be a quiz on it, later, in a CA court.
January 12, 2018 at 2:04 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
CT law does not mean CA law, so there will be no quiz Polar. There may be a test on CA’s current law, but not the one in CT.
January 10, 2018 at 3:55 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Can we fire all gay people who state in a memo they are biologically born this way or say that being gay has something to do with discrimination against them?
If you read this guy’s memo, all he said is that people should be careful to assume that there must be discrimination based on the disproportionate amount of women at google in certain fields. He was fired for his political beliefs, regardless of the 1st amendment or not, it’s wrong.
This is one of many who pointed out that the amount of women with degrees matching google matched the percentage of women to men in google, thus stating that there is a possibility that the disparity has nothing to do with sexism.
If this is not a reason for the government to step in, I would ask what the hell is the point of worker protections? Didn’t you just tell me that it would depend on worker protections? Oh, I’m sorry, unless you’re conservative and say something unpopular, then we weigh it differently right Ron?
Google has a serious problem, this is discrimination and should be considered as such.
He made clear the point I just made: You won’t be able to survive in the Tech industry unless you are a leftist, and the comment from the Google higher up of the rest of the tech industry agrees with us, proves the point.
Agree and conform, or get out of the tech industry.
Thanks, bob. I agree the pivotal issue is discrimination.
There is also the possible use by the plaintiff’s attorney of a CA statute, if it exists, that parallels the CT statute I received yesterday from an associate, which codifies protection against employers’ actions against employees who exercise their 1st amendment right – in the workplace or elsewhere (I can’t recall this last detail from my skim of the statute yesterday). I’ll find it and later post the exact wording here, FYI.
There is no guarantee that the conditions imposed are met by the plaintiff, but it seems this helps his case immensely if they are met.
Of course, there must be a CA Statute that parallels this one for CT, but I don’t have the time to look for it. Anyone who wants to find it, go for it!
January 12, 2018 at 1:44 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Here are the classes protected from discrimination. Find me “Opinion” or “Ideology”.
You’re on the wrong side of this debate and you know.
I will ask again: Should he have been fired?
January 12, 2018 at 3:02 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
I already answered that question. but, if you need the answer again…Not if it was solely because he is a Conservative and expressed a Conservative opinion. However, since neither Ideology nor Opinion are protected classes, I don’t believe he has a discrimination case.
Maybe he can get a job working for Agent since he only hires Conservatives.
January 12, 2018 at 3:41 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Hello bob, why are you telling someone that they know they are wrong when this whole topic is currently opinion based. I say that due the fact we do not have the states regulations that, although you do not care, mean more than your opinion on this. If it is a legal practice he should be fired. This is not a black and white scenario, it is a delicate gray area. Let’s wait and see how this plays out instead of saying things like that.
January 10, 2018 at 5:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
He wasn’t a dumba$$. Google started initiating programs that were themselves divisive.
This guy was very well spoken, read some of it sometime:
“Suggestions
I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:”
And among those are:
“Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.”
“Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).”
If anything, he’s talking about a portion of the firm that is being highly oppressed by Google’s policies.
And more on him calling out both sides. It’s very clear this was well written, and Google over reacted. This shows they are very likely creating a hostile work environment by the way.
If this gets out of hand, people on the right side will be entirely unrepresented at Google, and there will always be enough liberals to fill the spots. Should we just remove any conservatives from tech companies? It’s pretty clear political ideology needs to be added to protected classes, for one, and for two, that there needs to be a law that can cover this issue in one way or another.
“Google’s biases
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.
Left Biases
Compassion for the weak
Disparities are due to injustices
Humans are inherently cooperative
Change is good (unstable)
Open
Idealist
Right Biases
Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is dangerous (stable)
Closed
Pragmatic
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors. “
If I were to have a choice in this I would not pick this guy to be the plaintiff even though he is absolutely correct in his assertion. My daughter is relatively high up in Google and she has to toe a committed ultraliberal line to remain employed. Google is a shop of group think and shedding of personal political belief. While the concept is not unusual in business it is taken to extremes at Google so downstream you can expect other employment & personal liberty suits.
A true Conservative would not want the government telling a private enterprise how they should run their business, including hiring/firing decisions. Then he/she can go find a job in an environment more conducive to their political views..
I recall certain IJ posters making comments that they would never hire a Liberal because of their views.
In regards to a true conservative: You don’t know what conservativism is.
In regards to this particular issue it is a problem, and also, this is not quite what you’re alluding to. What the guy said was not a political view, it was seen as such and he was fired for social justice essentially.
If that is not nipped in the bud, it will grow even further. If you want my personal opinion here? And this is conservative, contrary to your idiotic commentary conservatives did support the civil rights agreement and they made one first, in 1957 which provides protections for exactly this type of scenario:
Discrimination should be expanded to not being fired for your religious or political views, so long as you are fulfilling and succeeding in your roles at work. This man’s commentary should not have had him fired, and it is seriously dangerous if it continues. It is a threat to the stability of society. He CANNOT in his field go to a workforce (stem) which does not hold these false stand points on women in the STEM field, and as I said, the point he made was pushing for expansion beyond the availability of quality educated members (there are less women with Stem degrees) would mandate hiring women without stem degrees or less experience, thus literally harming men, In a way, this is discrimination they are engaging in, preferred treatment to women as a class, despite facts, and this man contradicted those and was fired for it. This is absolutely not appropriate.
Read above, how was this a political issue? Did you see why he wrote it?
Google is obsessed with seminars about unconscious bias and lecturing their employees about sexism. They do it again and again and again. They have programs to push women into fields, regardless of education. They have programs to get women education more so than men, and this person is opening up debate on a matter which Google has made clear everyone has a voice in it, they have a history of taking input from the left on such matters, it’s why the guy wrote the memo for God’s sakes.
It’s ironic that he puts in the memo about tolerance and the risks of authoritarian types of belief systems at google, and then is fired by the company which has seminars about these same things, because he advocated for tolerance of the right, and being open to the possibility that perhaps the programs are going to far for women in the company.
@Ron; irony isn’t involved here, unless you consider a Liberal Organization censoring the 1st Amendment rights of a worker. Excuse me; I meant ‘workers’. Tolerance, and all that BS Kumbaya talk from liberals goes out the window when you criticize a liberal and they have no defense for their hypocritical actions or words.
In an attempt to sound smart, you’ve done the opposite.
Show me where “opinion” is a protected class within labor laws and we can begin to have a discussion on workplace discrimination in this case.
January 10, 2018 at 4:05 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
“Show me where “opinion” is a protected class within labor laws and we can begin to have a discussion on workplace discrimination in this case.”
Is opinion a valid reason to fire when it doesn’t affect work?
If the goal here for these businesses is to stop a political movement, through stopping the ability of those people to survive and making it dangerous for them to express ideas, especially on a topic they asked for input regarding, you believe this should be fair game and doesn’t at all impede the ability for one’s free speech?
Seriously, how dare you. If there was ever a time to defend conservatism it would be now, but you refuse, don’t you? Just so you can have an attack at hypocrisy against conservatives. How, freaking, dare you! Conservatives are humans and deserve to be treated as such. You’re breaking your own standards you hold, just to be able to call out other people. I know your positions on this. You have made them clear. Everyone here knows you would not support this and would comment if it was a liberal fired for say stating the ACA might benefit the company in a company meeting and being fired.
January 10, 2018 at 4:33 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
This is to bob not you Polar. Why do you say how dare someone when talking about a not protected class. It is your opinion that now is the time to defend this, but not everyone has to like it. With you saying “how dare you” is with your argument. Conservatives are people and should be treated as people. What about the other side who is constantly labled as snowflakes or a different derogatory term sometimes used. Managers can have their opinion out of work, but since the memo was internal it is reasonable to assume it did affect the work force. Your last statement “if it was a liberal…” is also weird because one person put down a group of people essentially and your statement does not polarize any part of the workforce. Please try again bob.
January 10, 2018 at 4:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
“This is to bob not you Polar. Why do you say how dare someone when talking about a not protected class.”
Not a protected class according to? I’m glad to know you’re a lawyer on the matter. They may very well be protected from making this memo if it was in direct response to work activities. You don’t have to be a protected class to be protected from replying to a boss.
“It is your opinion that now is the time to defend this, but not everyone has to like it.”
No point to this comment. This is your attempt of calling me immature, to which I say screw you. When I passionately say we should act, I don’t need to hear this comment, it isn’t related to debate on whether we need to act. Please note: My screw you, is EXACTLY EQUAL to your commentary to me. So don’t come back with the whole “oh you insulted me” fall back.
“With you saying “how dare you” is with your argument. Conservatives are people and should be treated as people. What about the other side who is constantly labled as snowflakes or a different derogatory term sometimes used.”
I am talking about consistency. Ron right now is going against his own beliefs to not protect and stand up for something (worker protections) which he just debated with me regarding a few days ago. He has contradicted himself BECAUSE he sees conservatives as hypocrites and lesser human beings. That was the message behind this. I’m dealing with him. I don’t need “whataboutism” from an immature brat.
“Managers can have their opinion out of work, but since the memo was internal it is reasonable to assume it did affect the work force.”
It most certainly is not, especially if you read it. The memo was in response to, and only said we should keep in mind the amount of women in the google positions matches the amount of graduates with the proper credentials, this may simply be that in the current climate women are simply not getting into the field. It did not, as this article wrongfully tries to state, claim that women inherently didn’t want to go into Stem fields or were less capable. He even said that may change as society changes.
“Your last statement “if it was a liberal…” is also weird because one person put down a group of people essentially and your statement does not polarize any part of the workforce. Please try again bob.”
He did not put down a group of people, and the if it were a liberal it would apply.
YOU try again. I do not tolerate the sleazy debate tactics you just attempted. It’s not worth my time.
January 10, 2018 at 4:49 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
I should add one word to this
HIS. I am talking about an individual’s actions. Whenever your father came down on you for your actions, did you constantly divert to something else, or how others did?
What Ron just did plainly contradicts his own beliefs for an ah ha against the other side. We just debated worker protections. I’ll move this to Muslims. If a Muslim said he didn’t feel comfortable with women at work during this meeting due to his religion, would it be ok to protect him despite the fact that this actually would cause discomfort in the group as you mentioned last?
Which argument are you going to take? What is legal (as you attempted) or what causes discomfort? Whichever you can right?
I see through that crap.
I started my argument with whether this was good on the long term, and we should take action to prevent it. A protected class shouldn’t be the trigger. In this scenario, it’s very clear what happened was wrong, end of story.
While it may not be freedom of speech, it might fall under creating a hostile work environment, which you actually alluded to and were slightly right regarding without realizing it. I triggered this against my Wife’s work. There are many states that don’t allow this. Firing someone for expressing opinions that you asked for in open debate, could indeed be creating a hostile work environment.
I don’t care much about who is a protected class and who isn’t being the trigger. The trigger should be what is best, and in this scenario, what I said above may be the best trigger to go by, and may already exist.
“I am talking about consistency. Ron right now is going against his own beliefs to not protect and stand up for something (worker protections) which he just debated with me regarding a few days ago. He has contradicted himself BECAUSE he sees conservatives as hypocrites and lesser human beings. That was the message behind this. I’m dealing with him. I don’t need “whataboutism” from an immature brat.”
January 10, 2018 at 5:02 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Bob, it was worth your time if you typed that response. Ron can be somewhat hypocritical at times. There are a lot of people on here that can be hypocritical frequently so thank you for pointing that out. Your “how dare you” was unnecessary, and now it seems somewhat immature but I did not believe so before. Your “if you read it” does not apply. Have you talked to everyone at Google to ask if it made anyone feel uncomfortable under a protected class (gender being one). Political beliefs are not covered under federal law (talk to someone in HR about covered classes or do diligent research) currently, but this situation could bring to light that Political belief is a covered class meaning both sides. I would love to talk about this more, but I have to say please be a little more respectful (no screw you but don’t say it back to me again kind of thing).
January 10, 2018 at 5:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
“Bob, it was worth your time if you typed that response. Ron can be somewhat hypocritical at times. There are a lot of people on here that can be hypocritical frequently so thank you for pointing that out.”
The last one isn’t relevant. On this issue he is a hypocrite. You said the last point to attempt to thank me while calling me out. Not a wise move. On the first item: It isn’t worth my time. I don’t need your first comment, and that one is indeed actually immature. Using expressions like that should be expected and should not be the focus of the retort. It’s useless. His argument is very terrible, and the expression seeks the highlight that fact as well as being true. I shouldn’t have to dismiss idiots, but I do indeed have to. Others here could fall for simple arguments. While simple arguments are not worth my time, they are often fallen for. I’m out of his class on this.
“Your “how dare you” was unnecessary,”
No it wasn’t. Calling someone’s actions abhorrent is the only major deterrent and way to make someone realize something they did was ghastly immoral.
“and now it seems somewhat immature”
Only if you have an absurd standard of speech, which would then make certain methods of societal growth impossible. Again: Condemning abhorrent behavior in society should be done, it has a purpose.
“but I did not believe so before.”
Because you’re acting irrational.
“Your “if you read it” does not apply.”
Yes it does, because he referenced people feeling uncomfortable, and it is clear he thinks it mocked capability, it did not. If something is proven to be reasonable, the fact that some people reacted to it does not in itself make it an unreasonable comment, also, if they did feel uncomfortable they could have then talked about it, instead of cutting him out and firing him. That encourages a hostile workforce, and I believe may be illegal, if not immoral, and causes more discomfort than expressing numbers to show that something may not be sexual harassment at work. In fact, I find it is likely making more people feel uncomfortable that Google is spreading commentary that women might be getting discriminated against, because they don’t have higher roles, to men. Yes, you read that right. Many men feel this is totally not true, and look at this as a threat that women will get roles they did not earn. That’s a problem. We shouldn’t have fragile egos and fire over either side.
“Have you talked to everyone at Google to ask if it made anyone feel uncomfortable under a protected class (gender being one).”
If facts made them feel uncomfortable, as soft as they were, then I don’t need to talk with anyone.
“Political beliefs are not covered under federal law (talk to someone in HR about covered classes or do diligent research)”
I already explained why they should be, but also, note that I mentioned that creating a hostile work environment could very well be covered under law. We are talking a separate law.
“currently, but this situation could bring to light that Political belief is a covered class meaning both sides.”
I don’t care about the latter of the two, and already emphasized it should be both. This is you basically virtue signaling, showing you are mostly about how words are used than you are about concepts.
“I would love to talk about this more, but I have to say please be a little more respectful (no screw you but don’t say it back to me again kind of thing).”
No. What you just did was degradation of it’s own class. I will talk how I talk. I didn’t say screw you to you, and you just applied that as such and preemptively mocked my personality and reply. That’s not acceptable. Quite the contrary, you will apologize for that, before we speak further, and will treat me as rationale. If we instead start on this end of the spectrum, I will constantly throw in defenses, and that is what they are. Make your choice.
January 10, 2018 at 5:51 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
I do see where you addressed that point now. I apologize for missing that. You did say screw me, “if this is your attempt of calling me immature, to which I say screw you” which is why I said your earlier statement was immature. I apologize if that upset you but the way you talked to me demanding an apology to reopen discussions is absurd, when talk to me in a similar matter. I do not apologize that we have similar ways in which we communicate, but I do apologize that it came across the wrong way. My last thing was not an immature dig at your but it was me trying to point out what I did not want to happen because there is no reason to say those things on a platform like this. My personality has been shown here more and more because I point things like that out more. Bob have a good night, but I do not want to discuss things further with you. Maybe in a different post sometime.
January 11, 2018 at 9:14 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
I don’t vote on this site, but if I did, I’d give you (helpingout) many up-votes for keeping a level-head, not getting emotional, and for the tone and content of your reply to bob.
January 11, 2018 at 4:15 pm
Whynotbob? says:
Like or Dislike:
7
1
Bob, why did you request an apology when you called helpingout an immature brat and told them “screw you” at one point? Do you know who that is or are you just personally attacking on this platform multiple times? Helpingout kept their cool when you personally attacked them, so do not be so hypocritical (especially with that)
THAT ^ should give liberals supporting Goo-gul something to ponder…. despite the fact it’s a CT statute which I was advised of recently…. because there is almost certainly a similar statute in CA.
January 10, 2018 at 4:38 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
“Can we agree that both Conservatives and Liberals will change their views on certain issues when it fits their narrative?
I may be the only one who sees both ideologies as hypocrites.”
No, we can’t, because you always use that to your benefit, and like now, you try to shrug it off when you yourself are clearly being inconsistent on this particular issue. We are going to focus on this issue, not derail to when others have done what you just did.
Ideologies themselves by the way are no hypocrites.
Your biggest flaw is a refusal to stick to an ideology, or to acknowledge one for what it is, because you want to call them all equally flawed. I won’t allow that weakness in debate. If you owned a company you would fail for the same reason. Not all sales methods are equally as good, not all politics are equally as bad, and when contradictions occur, they are not all for the same reason.
“Your biggest flaw is a refusal to stick to an ideology, or to acknowledge one for what it is, because you want to call them all equally flawed.” That is because I don’t have a re-defined ideology. It is dynamic and includes both Conservative and Liberal viewpoints, depending on the issue.
Of course you don’t want to see it that way because you would rather pick a fight than find common ground.
That is what makes you a bully.
January 11, 2018 at 9:41 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Correction: pre-defined ideology
January 12, 2018 at 9:12 am
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
@Ron; there is no common ground on such a polarizing incident.
January 12, 2018 at 9:42 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
It was a general response to a general statement.
In my opinion, he should not have been fired if it is because he is a Conservative, and should have some legal recourse.
Do you agree with Agent or anyone else who refuses to hire any Liberals?
January 12, 2018 at 12:08 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
I only agree this statute in CT code should have a parallel statute in CA;
@Ron; read the CT statute carefully…. it has conditions that also cover the question you posed…. i.e. ‘interference with company goals’. Do you not understand that qualifier?
January 12, 2018 at 12:25 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
you’d be laughed out of court with this link. “here’s CT law. there is probably likely obviously something kind of similar maybe in CA, but I’m presenting the CT for this CA case”
January 12, 2018 at 1:30 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Polar,
So, by your logic, if one state’s statutes legalize marijuana, all other states need to honor that.
I really do not care what happens in this case, to be completely honest. I just wanted to point out the irony of a “Conservative” not respecting a private organization to exercise their free market employment rights.
You never did answer my question: Do you agree with Agent or anyone else who refuses to hire any Liberals?
January 13, 2018 at 12:33 pm
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Nope; you’re both wrong. There is a similar statute in CA. Goo gul it, oooooop! Bing search for it.
January 15, 2018 at 10:30 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Then cite the CA statute, not CT. I will NOT do your research for you.
January 10, 2018 at 3:57 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
“Ironic that a Conservative is turning to the government (courts) because his employer exercise their free market rights.”
Ironic that you then drop your worker protections beliefs because you believe conservatives are hypocrites, the victim is a sacrificial lamb. You don’t care about the victims. You never did. You care about points.
Regardless, this type of protection is not a free market issue. Most conservatives argue that the civil rights bill has merit. Is that against the free market?
Labor protection laws are not all the same, and this type of protection law for a skilled worker is not a free market inhibitor. It would only be to allow employees to speak their mind without being fired. I think surely you should support such a thing, but again, people are sacrificial lambs to you.
What are my worker protections beliefs? Since I have never expressed them here, I will be very interested in hearing what you know to be my position. Be sure to quote me to support your upcoming dissertation.
Political speech is not protected in the workplace. Discrimination because of race is but just being white with conservative political views doesn’t seem like a case that will go very far or have much merit. So, it will be interesting to see how this lawsuit will be treated and how far it will go. My prediction is that it will be thrown out.
And yet political speech at the opposite side of the political polar spectrum IS tolerated in Google’s workplace. Ask former workers! You have no clue as to what they do and assume this is an isolated incident. The plaintiff’s attorney is likely to obtain a list of former employees via subpoena, and then, let the show begin! There will ensue dozens of depositions of conservative ex-employees allowed to speak freely, absent the threat of employment-related retaliation.
Pure Capitalism and free market principles would say this is OK, Are you now a Socialist?
January 10, 2018 at 1:42 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
In addition, it is the government that dictates what is discrimination from a legal standpoint.
January 10, 2018 at 2:55 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
The type of discrimination you are talking about is not protected under federal law. Regardless if the other side is tolerated, since it is not protected its legal for the private enterprise.
January 10, 2018 at 3:59 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
“In addition, it is the government that dictates what is discrimination from a legal standpoint.”
You know what he meant, and you would yourself argue against something that was not considered discrimination which should be.
This is a poor argument for the topic at hand.
You’re bad at debating Ron. Stop the horrible tar, and why don’t you tell us what you think should happen and why?
January 11, 2018 at 8:24 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“Stop the horrible tar, and why don’t you tell us what you think should happen and why?”
I think we should have a pre-litigation committee that consists of legal scholars who specialize in labor law. They would review such matters to determine if there is enough merit to pursue a case, based on existing labor laws. Then we can avoid wasting more court time, resources and taxpayer money.
January 10, 2018 at 8:20 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
“Liberals are tolerant”. One of the great lies of our times. This is a great example of how people, all people everywhere, look to tell themselves that they are somehow superior to other people while being completely blind to their own faults. (Read the actual lawsuit filed by Damore. Shockingly consistent bias against white men and conservatives at Google, actions if done against any other group would be condemned universally by liberals.)
Google (irony) “liberal bias against Log Cabin Republicans”. You will be amazed at the massive discrimination – by liberals – against gay people who are conservative.
Now tell me: where are the liberals with principles to shout that one down? Nonexistent . Any of you lefties want to step up now? Doubtful.
While you correct that Liberals are not as tolerant as they profess, neither are Conservatives. That is why we have the current state of division in this country.
Question: Should anyone be tolerant of intolerance, discrimination or hate? That question goes to both sides.
Obviously. I have been called a racist 3 times since Trump was elected. My son was Hispanic, my girl friend is from the Middle East, I have friends of all types, including gay friends who died of AIDS.
But because I voted for Trump (actually, I voted for the working class), I am a racist.
When the left discriminates against gay people because they are conservative, as you would find if you took the time to search it, the fraud that is leftism becomes apparent.
I would not call you a racist because you voted for President Trump. As I would hope you would not judge me or anyone else based on for whom they have voted.
As long as people continue to judge others based on their voting record or ideology instead of their character, we will always be divided.
if you continue to paint with a broad brush as you did in your post, your ignorance will override your reasoning and keep you narrow minded. That is also bad for all.
“As long as people continue to judge others based on their voting record or ideology instead of their character, we will always be divided.”
People should be judged based on their ideology. Their ideology, or rather acting on it, is acting out of those ideals when it comes to voting.
When someone has bad ideology, it should be contested, not simply put into a box with all other ideologies being called equal and the same.
“if you continue to paint with a broad brush as you did in your post, your ignorance will override your reasoning and keep you narrow minded. That is also bad for all.”
You can indeed acknowledge trends without being narrow minded. You only said this just now to dislodge his criticism of the left by the way.
There is indeed an inherent difference between the left actually doing something in colleges, and as part of their party, and it is taught to kids and played out, and general racism. General racism isn’t linked to a party and isn’t encouraged in schools etc, whereas let’s say a woman isn’t a feminist, the liberal left will attack based on that, universally, as well as in schools, the educated will do it even more. The more educated you are, the more on the left you are, the more likely it will occur. The same applies to Google’s actions.
Making judgment is crucial, avoiding it is ignorant.
Like it or not, your judgement should be questioned. Like it or not, it can be wrong.
And I already know your reply “and so can yours”
That is actually divisive, not as if that’s bad. Dividing and making assumptions and figuring out what is what, leaves what is good remaining. Without the division, and the wedge pushing the bad away from the good, (ideals) it would become mush. Much like you are. You’re a product of the failed philosophy that destroyed the millennial generation. You’re not the cure. You’re the disease. You don’t need to call anyone here narrow minded.
January 11, 2018 at 5:18 pm
neutral says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Bob, I believe Ron was referencing the voting record and not just ideologies in general. Everything is subjective and no side is absolutely right on everything (or even most things. Do not assume people are saying things to discredit others, this is an opinion which is not a fact. Do not put down a whole generation because you are, I will admit this is an assumption based on the way you speak about the younger generation, older and have different ideologies than them, it only increases the perception of you being narrow minded because these ideas “ruined” the millennial generation which is only your opinion and promotes people being narrow-minded on a whole generation which is unfortunate.
January 12, 2018 at 12:58 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
“Bob, I believe Ron was referencing the voting record and not just ideologies in general.”
Nope, he said voting record OR ideology INSTEAD of character. Ideology is a PART of character. I am not highlighting these angrily, I am highlighting them with precise purpose of the verbiage used and what it means.
“Everything is subjective and no side is absolutely right on everything”
Wrong. SOME things are subjective, there are objectively better ideologies than others. It is dangerous to take the position that all ideologies should be subjective and equal. It is less dangerous to say some are worse than others. This allows ideologies to grow. Your methodology does not. This is social justice and lip service you are engaging in right now.
“(or even most things. Do not assume people are saying things to discredit others, this is an opinion which is not a fact.”
With Ron, this is his methodology. He’s shaming the guy who just said he’s called racist. This is a part of political platform. Schools have begun teaching Trump won based on white supremacy. My point here is that the backlash he just mentioned of being called racist is due to highly educated liberals, liberal professors, liberal politicians, and liberal media. No one on the right in any of those fields teaches anything equivalent about the left.
“Do not put down a whole generation because you are, I will admit this is an assumption based on the way you speak about the younger generation, older and have different ideologies than them, it only increases the perception of you being narrow minded because these ideas “ruined” the millennial generation which is only your opinion and promotes people being narrow-minded on a whole generation which is unfortunate.””
It’s not an opinion. There was a direct setup to destroy the millennials. It worked. It is not all, but there are differences among the generations. It does not destroy progress to point this out, again, it destroys progress to refuse to acknowledge it. It is not an opinion on those differences. They can be debated and SOME are subjective, the vast majority are not, and are being talked about openly everywhere. Millennials plain do debate how I have mentioned in the past, and Ron just engaged in it. When you pay attention, age is very clear from the writers here, do you deny this point?
Why? Why is it obvious to tell?
There are differences. That’s why.
Millennials are indeed a destroyed generation, and his attack was a millennial based method of attack. Regardless, that was one sentence of my point, and you put a full section of your post to it. That is also a millennial method of attack. You took it to a philosophical everyone has opinions debate, and didn’t in fact make anything move forward, while somehow also saying my ideology was the one that should be questioned, so, evidently, not all ideologies are the same yes?
I have no idea how millennials have ZERO self reflection.
What’s your age? Millennial, correct?
January 12, 2018 at 1:00 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
“Wrong. SOME things are subjective, there are objectively better ideologies than others. It is dangerous to take the position that all ideologies should be subjective and equal. It is less dangerous to say some are worse than others. This allows ideologies to grow. Your methodology does not. This is social justice and lip service you are engaging in right now.”
I should note this it true is you objectively take a part of an ideology, and then break down why it is wrong.
Arguing an entire ideology is bad is less appropriate, but even then, sometimes merited if the case is made on an objective basis.
Just because something has multiple different aspects and opinions, it does not mean it is solely subjective. This is a common error in the youth.
January 12, 2018 at 1:24 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Ideology is what you believe
Character is how you live your life.
If you think judging one more on their beliefs than actions, then you are the problem.
“Actions speak louder than words (beliefs)”
January 12, 2018 at 1:49 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Hello again bob. I could no longer sit here and read you bash a whole generation from a completely subjective point of view. Here is an article that may help you see a different perspective on the millennials that are ruined. If you have that point of view that they are a destroyed generation, you are part of the problem that needs to change in the United States. http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20171003-millennials-are-the-generation-thats-fun-to-hate
Besides Ron is right that ideology is what some people believe in, there are societal “norms” that tend to dictate a wide group of people’s beliefs. To you their ideology is wrong, but that can also goes the other way. Your point if you objectively look at something and then decide what is wrong, is the main problem with your argument. I say this due the fact that you judge the ideologies on your experiences in life.
January 12, 2018 at 8:02 am
alexjonesisakook says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
I guess the alternative is just don’t express ANY political views at your job Keep your head down, work HARD, treat others with respect, and I guarantee you won’t have a problem. Personally, I don’t care what someone’s political beliefs are in the workplace, as long as they do a good job and are a good teammate. In fact, I’d rather not know.
Read the details in the lawsuit. There are multiple outrageous examples of bias against conservatives and white men.
If black men and liberals were being attacked, and one employee had the courage to speak out, that employee’s firing would be a national outrage. And he would be a hero in the press!
But discrimination against white people? Conservatives? (Just keep your head down, chicken little.)
“I guess the alternative is just don’t express ANY political views at your job Keep your head down, work HARD, treat others with respect, and I guarantee you won’t have a problem.”
In this scenario, that isn’t an alternative. Google is essentially doing unconscious bias meetings, and one side of google, the conservative side is being oppressed from assault from the other on idiotic political beliefs. They are asked to give input, then they are fired for doing so.
They have programs which push ethnicity and women to the lead in benefits and courses etc. There is no stay silent option on this one. It is only political in that these are opinions. Google is the one that is putting them in the workforce. The ones who should “keep their head down” I guess you could also keep your head down as a black man or gay man right?
You would advocate for that? If white people were pushed to the front of all the special programs in the company?
That’s ok right?
You’re missing the point. It is only a technicality that this man’s memo could be called fired for political beliefs. He RESPONDED to the actual integration of political beliefs that became a system within Google. Google needs to remove this. It’s NOT part of work. Unconscious bias training is NOT PART OF WORK. Do you engage in it? Would you be ok with a program that sought out a woman for a managerial position before a man to balance out the numbers? Which pushed women to the front on that basis? As a side note women do tend to do better in colleges which are also pushed to benefit women. This means that the woman will always get the job with Google, as they will likely have more social justice courses included in their GPA, and google will say well look, they have equal grades!
Google needs to hear back on this. The option here is not put your head down. This memo was the perfect reply.
Bob, I have been expecting that the left will accuse you of bullying them like they usually do. What I get out of this discussion is that if a person is Conservative, they are told to keep their head down and not make any waves. Liberals have been trying to stifle free speech for quite a while. One look at UCal Berkely would tell us what the agenda is when they don’t let Conservatives speak there and start rioting and burning at the mere suggestion they let a Conservative speak.
When inference becomes fact…
I don’t believe being a dumba$$ is a protected class.
Correct. But the reason Google is in deep doo doo is the 1st Amendment. Simple as it can be, and the underlying basis of the lawsuit. Of course, an internal memo creates complexity and hurdles for the plaintiff’s attorney. But that can be overcome by reference to prior high court cases which address the same issue.
The 1st Amendment only protects your speech from government prosecution.
Of course. The underlying point is employment discrimination. The freedom of speech issue is used to produce evidence of discrimination among two groups of employees. Watch and learn, junior. Watch and learn.
How do you discriminate against an opinion? So when Agent says he would never hire a Liberal, do you support him? I have never seen you criticize him for discrimination when he has made those statements in the past.
Do you have experience with matters in the court like this? If not I would not tell others to watch and learn (or call them junior if you do not know them) as you do not have first hand experience.
@helpingnoone:
I received yesterday, but temporarily misplaced, a copy of statute which addresses this issue, from Connecticut. I will locate it and post the actual wording, which seems like it is adopted from another state with a similar / exactly same statute on protection of employees from discharge for exercising their 1st Amendment rights. There are a few reasonable restrictions on what types of free speech in the workplace are protected by this statute. But I won’t try to recall them from a quick reading yesterday amidst other distractions.
Thus, I’m ignoring YOUR meaninglessly and arrogantly imposed requirement that I must have first hand experience,… junior.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_557.htm#sec_31-51q
There ya go. Read it carefully. There will be a quiz on it, later, in a CA court.
CT law does not mean CA law, so there will be no quiz Polar. There may be a test on CA’s current law, but not the one in CT.
Can we fire all gay people who state in a memo they are biologically born this way or say that being gay has something to do with discrimination against them?
If you read this guy’s memo, all he said is that people should be careful to assume that there must be discrimination based on the disproportionate amount of women at google in certain fields. He was fired for his political beliefs, regardless of the 1st amendment or not, it’s wrong.
This is one of many who pointed out that the amount of women with degrees matching google matched the percentage of women to men in google, thus stating that there is a possibility that the disparity has nothing to do with sexism.
If this is not a reason for the government to step in, I would ask what the hell is the point of worker protections? Didn’t you just tell me that it would depend on worker protections? Oh, I’m sorry, unless you’re conservative and say something unpopular, then we weigh it differently right Ron?
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/i-confronted-google-about-its-liberal-groupthink-at-a-shareholder-meeting-heres-what-happened-next/
Google has a serious problem, this is discrimination and should be considered as such.
He made clear the point I just made: You won’t be able to survive in the Tech industry unless you are a leftist, and the comment from the Google higher up of the rest of the tech industry agrees with us, proves the point.
Agree and conform, or get out of the tech industry.
This is not ok.
Thanks, bob. I agree the pivotal issue is discrimination.
There is also the possible use by the plaintiff’s attorney of a CA statute, if it exists, that parallels the CT statute I received yesterday from an associate, which codifies protection against employers’ actions against employees who exercise their 1st amendment right – in the workplace or elsewhere (I can’t recall this last detail from my skim of the statute yesterday). I’ll find it and later post the exact wording here, FYI.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_557.htm#sec_31-51q
There is no guarantee that the conditions imposed are met by the plaintiff, but it seems this helps his case immensely if they are met.
Of course, there must be a CA Statute that parallels this one for CT, but I don’t have the time to look for it. Anyone who wants to find it, go for it!
Here are the classes protected from discrimination. Find me “Opinion” or “Ideology”.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/
You’re on the wrong side of this debate and you know.
I will ask again: Should he have been fired?
I already answered that question. but, if you need the answer again…Not if it was solely because he is a Conservative and expressed a Conservative opinion. However, since neither Ideology nor Opinion are protected classes, I don’t believe he has a discrimination case.
Maybe he can get a job working for Agent since he only hires Conservatives.
Hello bob, why are you telling someone that they know they are wrong when this whole topic is currently opinion based. I say that due the fact we do not have the states regulations that, although you do not care, mean more than your opinion on this. If it is a legal practice he should be fired. This is not a black and white scenario, it is a delicate gray area. Let’s wait and see how this plays out instead of saying things like that.
He wasn’t a dumba$$. Google started initiating programs that were themselves divisive.
This guy was very well spoken, read some of it sometime:
“Suggestions
I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:”
And among those are:
“Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.”
“Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).”
If anything, he’s talking about a portion of the firm that is being highly oppressed by Google’s policies.
And more on him calling out both sides. It’s very clear this was well written, and Google over reacted. This shows they are very likely creating a hostile work environment by the way.
If this gets out of hand, people on the right side will be entirely unrepresented at Google, and there will always be enough liberals to fill the spots. Should we just remove any conservatives from tech companies? It’s pretty clear political ideology needs to be added to protected classes, for one, and for two, that there needs to be a law that can cover this issue in one way or another.
“Google’s biases
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.
Left Biases
Compassion for the weak
Disparities are due to injustices
Humans are inherently cooperative
Change is good (unstable)
Open
Idealist
Right Biases
Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is dangerous (stable)
Closed
Pragmatic
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors. “
If I were to have a choice in this I would not pick this guy to be the plaintiff even though he is absolutely correct in his assertion. My daughter is relatively high up in Google and she has to toe a committed ultraliberal line to remain employed. Google is a shop of group think and shedding of personal political belief. While the concept is not unusual in business it is taken to extremes at Google so downstream you can expect other employment & personal liberty suits.
Ironic that a Conservative is turning to the government (courts) because his employer exercise their free market rights.
He’s following the law, what other remedy do you suggest Ron?
A true Conservative would not want the government telling a private enterprise how they should run their business, including hiring/firing decisions. Then he/she can go find a job in an environment more conducive to their political views..
I recall certain IJ posters making comments that they would never hire a Liberal because of their views.
Can’t have it both ways.
You remember ONE poster saying that.
In regards to a true conservative: You don’t know what conservativism is.
In regards to this particular issue it is a problem, and also, this is not quite what you’re alluding to. What the guy said was not a political view, it was seen as such and he was fired for social justice essentially.
If that is not nipped in the bud, it will grow even further. If you want my personal opinion here? And this is conservative, contrary to your idiotic commentary conservatives did support the civil rights agreement and they made one first, in 1957 which provides protections for exactly this type of scenario:
Discrimination should be expanded to not being fired for your religious or political views, so long as you are fulfilling and succeeding in your roles at work. This man’s commentary should not have had him fired, and it is seriously dangerous if it continues. It is a threat to the stability of society. He CANNOT in his field go to a workforce (stem) which does not hold these false stand points on women in the STEM field, and as I said, the point he made was pushing for expansion beyond the availability of quality educated members (there are less women with Stem degrees) would mandate hiring women without stem degrees or less experience, thus literally harming men, In a way, this is discrimination they are engaging in, preferred treatment to women as a class, despite facts, and this man contradicted those and was fired for it. This is absolutely not appropriate.
In other words: This could lead to hiring quotas, and I’m sure that is the goal from the leftists engaged in it.
That’s not ok.
I recall years ago that you on the left said hiring quotas would never come as a result of liberal actions. Do you still stand by that?
When it comes will you admit you were wrong?
Read above, how was this a political issue? Did you see why he wrote it?
Google is obsessed with seminars about unconscious bias and lecturing their employees about sexism. They do it again and again and again. They have programs to push women into fields, regardless of education. They have programs to get women education more so than men, and this person is opening up debate on a matter which Google has made clear everyone has a voice in it, they have a history of taking input from the left on such matters, it’s why the guy wrote the memo for God’s sakes.
It’s ironic that he puts in the memo about tolerance and the risks of authoritarian types of belief systems at google, and then is fired by the company which has seminars about these same things, because he advocated for tolerance of the right, and being open to the possibility that perhaps the programs are going to far for women in the company.
@Ron; irony isn’t involved here, unless you consider a Liberal Organization censoring the 1st Amendment rights of a worker. Excuse me; I meant ‘workers’. Tolerance, and all that BS Kumbaya talk from liberals goes out the window when you criticize a liberal and they have no defense for their hypocritical actions or words.
In an attempt to sound smart, you’ve done the opposite.
Can we agree that both Conservatives and Liberals will change their views on certain issues when it fits their narrative?
I may be the only one who sees both ideologies as hypocrites.
Please focus on DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE. That will guide you on this lawsuit.
Show me where “opinion” is a protected class within labor laws and we can begin to have a discussion on workplace discrimination in this case.
“Show me where “opinion” is a protected class within labor laws and we can begin to have a discussion on workplace discrimination in this case.”
Is opinion a valid reason to fire when it doesn’t affect work?
If the goal here for these businesses is to stop a political movement, through stopping the ability of those people to survive and making it dangerous for them to express ideas, especially on a topic they asked for input regarding, you believe this should be fair game and doesn’t at all impede the ability for one’s free speech?
Seriously, how dare you. If there was ever a time to defend conservatism it would be now, but you refuse, don’t you? Just so you can have an attack at hypocrisy against conservatives. How, freaking, dare you! Conservatives are humans and deserve to be treated as such. You’re breaking your own standards you hold, just to be able to call out other people. I know your positions on this. You have made them clear. Everyone here knows you would not support this and would comment if it was a liberal fired for say stating the ACA might benefit the company in a company meeting and being fired.
This is to bob not you Polar. Why do you say how dare someone when talking about a not protected class. It is your opinion that now is the time to defend this, but not everyone has to like it. With you saying “how dare you” is with your argument. Conservatives are people and should be treated as people. What about the other side who is constantly labled as snowflakes or a different derogatory term sometimes used. Managers can have their opinion out of work, but since the memo was internal it is reasonable to assume it did affect the work force. Your last statement “if it was a liberal…” is also weird because one person put down a group of people essentially and your statement does not polarize any part of the workforce. Please try again bob.
“This is to bob not you Polar. Why do you say how dare someone when talking about a not protected class.”
Not a protected class according to? I’m glad to know you’re a lawyer on the matter. They may very well be protected from making this memo if it was in direct response to work activities. You don’t have to be a protected class to be protected from replying to a boss.
“It is your opinion that now is the time to defend this, but not everyone has to like it.”
No point to this comment. This is your attempt of calling me immature, to which I say screw you. When I passionately say we should act, I don’t need to hear this comment, it isn’t related to debate on whether we need to act. Please note: My screw you, is EXACTLY EQUAL to your commentary to me. So don’t come back with the whole “oh you insulted me” fall back.
“With you saying “how dare you” is with your argument. Conservatives are people and should be treated as people. What about the other side who is constantly labled as snowflakes or a different derogatory term sometimes used.”
I am talking about consistency. Ron right now is going against his own beliefs to not protect and stand up for something (worker protections) which he just debated with me regarding a few days ago. He has contradicted himself BECAUSE he sees conservatives as hypocrites and lesser human beings. That was the message behind this. I’m dealing with him. I don’t need “whataboutism” from an immature brat.
“Managers can have their opinion out of work, but since the memo was internal it is reasonable to assume it did affect the work force.”
It most certainly is not, especially if you read it. The memo was in response to, and only said we should keep in mind the amount of women in the google positions matches the amount of graduates with the proper credentials, this may simply be that in the current climate women are simply not getting into the field. It did not, as this article wrongfully tries to state, claim that women inherently didn’t want to go into Stem fields or were less capable. He even said that may change as society changes.
“Your last statement “if it was a liberal…” is also weird because one person put down a group of people essentially and your statement does not polarize any part of the workforce. Please try again bob.”
He did not put down a group of people, and the if it were a liberal it would apply.
YOU try again. I do not tolerate the sleazy debate tactics you just attempted. It’s not worth my time.
I should add one word to this
HIS. I am talking about an individual’s actions. Whenever your father came down on you for your actions, did you constantly divert to something else, or how others did?
What Ron just did plainly contradicts his own beliefs for an ah ha against the other side. We just debated worker protections. I’ll move this to Muslims. If a Muslim said he didn’t feel comfortable with women at work during this meeting due to his religion, would it be ok to protect him despite the fact that this actually would cause discomfort in the group as you mentioned last?
Which argument are you going to take? What is legal (as you attempted) or what causes discomfort? Whichever you can right?
I see through that crap.
I started my argument with whether this was good on the long term, and we should take action to prevent it. A protected class shouldn’t be the trigger. In this scenario, it’s very clear what happened was wrong, end of story.
While it may not be freedom of speech, it might fall under creating a hostile work environment, which you actually alluded to and were slightly right regarding without realizing it. I triggered this against my Wife’s work. There are many states that don’t allow this. Firing someone for expressing opinions that you asked for in open debate, could indeed be creating a hostile work environment.
I don’t care much about who is a protected class and who isn’t being the trigger. The trigger should be what is best, and in this scenario, what I said above may be the best trigger to go by, and may already exist.
“I am talking about consistency. Ron right now is going against his own beliefs to not protect and stand up for something (worker protections) which he just debated with me regarding a few days ago. He has contradicted himself BECAUSE he sees conservatives as hypocrites and lesser human beings. That was the message behind this. I’m dealing with him. I don’t need “whataboutism” from an immature brat.”
Bob, it was worth your time if you typed that response. Ron can be somewhat hypocritical at times. There are a lot of people on here that can be hypocritical frequently so thank you for pointing that out. Your “how dare you” was unnecessary, and now it seems somewhat immature but I did not believe so before. Your “if you read it” does not apply. Have you talked to everyone at Google to ask if it made anyone feel uncomfortable under a protected class (gender being one). Political beliefs are not covered under federal law (talk to someone in HR about covered classes or do diligent research) currently, but this situation could bring to light that Political belief is a covered class meaning both sides. I would love to talk about this more, but I have to say please be a little more respectful (no screw you but don’t say it back to me again kind of thing).
“Bob, it was worth your time if you typed that response. Ron can be somewhat hypocritical at times. There are a lot of people on here that can be hypocritical frequently so thank you for pointing that out.”
The last one isn’t relevant. On this issue he is a hypocrite. You said the last point to attempt to thank me while calling me out. Not a wise move. On the first item: It isn’t worth my time. I don’t need your first comment, and that one is indeed actually immature. Using expressions like that should be expected and should not be the focus of the retort. It’s useless. His argument is very terrible, and the expression seeks the highlight that fact as well as being true. I shouldn’t have to dismiss idiots, but I do indeed have to. Others here could fall for simple arguments. While simple arguments are not worth my time, they are often fallen for. I’m out of his class on this.
“Your “how dare you” was unnecessary,”
No it wasn’t. Calling someone’s actions abhorrent is the only major deterrent and way to make someone realize something they did was ghastly immoral.
“and now it seems somewhat immature”
Only if you have an absurd standard of speech, which would then make certain methods of societal growth impossible. Again: Condemning abhorrent behavior in society should be done, it has a purpose.
“but I did not believe so before.”
Because you’re acting irrational.
“Your “if you read it” does not apply.”
Yes it does, because he referenced people feeling uncomfortable, and it is clear he thinks it mocked capability, it did not. If something is proven to be reasonable, the fact that some people reacted to it does not in itself make it an unreasonable comment, also, if they did feel uncomfortable they could have then talked about it, instead of cutting him out and firing him. That encourages a hostile workforce, and I believe may be illegal, if not immoral, and causes more discomfort than expressing numbers to show that something may not be sexual harassment at work. In fact, I find it is likely making more people feel uncomfortable that Google is spreading commentary that women might be getting discriminated against, because they don’t have higher roles, to men. Yes, you read that right. Many men feel this is totally not true, and look at this as a threat that women will get roles they did not earn. That’s a problem. We shouldn’t have fragile egos and fire over either side.
“Have you talked to everyone at Google to ask if it made anyone feel uncomfortable under a protected class (gender being one).”
If facts made them feel uncomfortable, as soft as they were, then I don’t need to talk with anyone.
“Political beliefs are not covered under federal law (talk to someone in HR about covered classes or do diligent research)”
I already explained why they should be, but also, note that I mentioned that creating a hostile work environment could very well be covered under law. We are talking a separate law.
“currently, but this situation could bring to light that Political belief is a covered class meaning both sides.”
I don’t care about the latter of the two, and already emphasized it should be both. This is you basically virtue signaling, showing you are mostly about how words are used than you are about concepts.
“I would love to talk about this more, but I have to say please be a little more respectful (no screw you but don’t say it back to me again kind of thing).”
No. What you just did was degradation of it’s own class. I will talk how I talk. I didn’t say screw you to you, and you just applied that as such and preemptively mocked my personality and reply. That’s not acceptable. Quite the contrary, you will apologize for that, before we speak further, and will treat me as rationale. If we instead start on this end of the spectrum, I will constantly throw in defenses, and that is what they are. Make your choice.
I do see where you addressed that point now. I apologize for missing that. You did say screw me, “if this is your attempt of calling me immature, to which I say screw you” which is why I said your earlier statement was immature. I apologize if that upset you but the way you talked to me demanding an apology to reopen discussions is absurd, when talk to me in a similar matter. I do not apologize that we have similar ways in which we communicate, but I do apologize that it came across the wrong way. My last thing was not an immature dig at your but it was me trying to point out what I did not want to happen because there is no reason to say those things on a platform like this. My personality has been shown here more and more because I point things like that out more. Bob have a good night, but I do not want to discuss things further with you. Maybe in a different post sometime.
I don’t vote on this site, but if I did, I’d give you (helpingout) many up-votes for keeping a level-head, not getting emotional, and for the tone and content of your reply to bob.
Bob, why did you request an apology when you called helpingout an immature brat and told them “screw you” at one point? Do you know who that is or are you just personally attacking on this platform multiple times? Helpingout kept their cool when you personally attacked them, so do not be so hypocritical (especially with that)
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_557.htm#sec_31-51q
THAT ^ should give liberals supporting Goo-gul something to ponder…. despite the fact it’s a CT statute which I was advised of recently…. because there is almost certainly a similar statute in CA.
“Can we agree that both Conservatives and Liberals will change their views on certain issues when it fits their narrative?
I may be the only one who sees both ideologies as hypocrites.”
No, we can’t, because you always use that to your benefit, and like now, you try to shrug it off when you yourself are clearly being inconsistent on this particular issue. We are going to focus on this issue, not derail to when others have done what you just did.
Ideologies themselves by the way are no hypocrites.
Your biggest flaw is a refusal to stick to an ideology, or to acknowledge one for what it is, because you want to call them all equally flawed. I won’t allow that weakness in debate. If you owned a company you would fail for the same reason. Not all sales methods are equally as good, not all politics are equally as bad, and when contradictions occur, they are not all for the same reason.
“Your biggest flaw is a refusal to stick to an ideology, or to acknowledge one for what it is, because you want to call them all equally flawed.” That is because I don’t have a re-defined ideology. It is dynamic and includes both Conservative and Liberal viewpoints, depending on the issue.
Of course you don’t want to see it that way because you would rather pick a fight than find common ground.
That is what makes you a bully.
Correction: pre-defined ideology
@Ron; there is no common ground on such a polarizing incident.
It was a general response to a general statement.
In my opinion, he should not have been fired if it is because he is a Conservative, and should have some legal recourse.
Do you agree with Agent or anyone else who refuses to hire any Liberals?
I only agree this statute in CT code should have a parallel statute in CA;
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_557.htm#sec_31-51q
@Ron; read the CT statute carefully…. it has conditions that also cover the question you posed…. i.e. ‘interference with company goals’. Do you not understand that qualifier?
you’d be laughed out of court with this link. “here’s CT law. there is probably likely obviously something kind of similar maybe in CA, but I’m presenting the CT for this CA case”
Polar,
So, by your logic, if one state’s statutes legalize marijuana, all other states need to honor that.
I really do not care what happens in this case, to be completely honest. I just wanted to point out the irony of a “Conservative” not respecting a private organization to exercise their free market employment rights.
You never did answer my question: Do you agree with Agent or anyone else who refuses to hire any Liberals?
Nope; you’re both wrong. There is a similar statute in CA. Goo gul it, oooooop! Bing search for it.
Then cite the CA statute, not CT. I will NOT do your research for you.
“Ironic that a Conservative is turning to the government (courts) because his employer exercise their free market rights.”
Ironic that you then drop your worker protections beliefs because you believe conservatives are hypocrites, the victim is a sacrificial lamb. You don’t care about the victims. You never did. You care about points.
Regardless, this type of protection is not a free market issue. Most conservatives argue that the civil rights bill has merit. Is that against the free market?
Labor protection laws are not all the same, and this type of protection law for a skilled worker is not a free market inhibitor. It would only be to allow employees to speak their mind without being fired. I think surely you should support such a thing, but again, people are sacrificial lambs to you.
bob,
What are my worker protections beliefs? Since I have never expressed them here, I will be very interested in hearing what you know to be my position. Be sure to quote me to support your upcoming dissertation.
“At-will” employment, which is just about all I’ve ever experienced, is a free market principle.
Political speech is not protected in the workplace. Discrimination because of race is but just being white with conservative political views doesn’t seem like a case that will go very far or have much merit. So, it will be interesting to see how this lawsuit will be treated and how far it will go. My prediction is that it will be thrown out.
And yet political speech at the opposite side of the political polar spectrum IS tolerated in Google’s workplace. Ask former workers! You have no clue as to what they do and assume this is an isolated incident. The plaintiff’s attorney is likely to obtain a list of former employees via subpoena, and then, let the show begin! There will ensue dozens of depositions of conservative ex-employees allowed to speak freely, absent the threat of employment-related retaliation.
Since when are against a private enterprise not having freedom and liberty from the government?
DISCRIMINATION in the workplace is different from govt involvement.
Pure Capitalism and free market principles would say this is OK, Are you now a Socialist?
In addition, it is the government that dictates what is discrimination from a legal standpoint.
The type of discrimination you are talking about is not protected under federal law. Regardless if the other side is tolerated, since it is not protected its legal for the private enterprise.
“In addition, it is the government that dictates what is discrimination from a legal standpoint.”
You know what he meant, and you would yourself argue against something that was not considered discrimination which should be.
This is a poor argument for the topic at hand.
You’re bad at debating Ron. Stop the horrible tar, and why don’t you tell us what you think should happen and why?
“Stop the horrible tar, and why don’t you tell us what you think should happen and why?”
I think we should have a pre-litigation committee that consists of legal scholars who specialize in labor law. They would review such matters to determine if there is enough merit to pursue a case, based on existing labor laws. Then we can avoid wasting more court time, resources and taxpayer money.
“Liberals are tolerant”. One of the great lies of our times. This is a great example of how people, all people everywhere, look to tell themselves that they are somehow superior to other people while being completely blind to their own faults. (Read the actual lawsuit filed by Damore. Shockingly consistent bias against white men and conservatives at Google, actions if done against any other group would be condemned universally by liberals.)
Google (irony) “liberal bias against Log Cabin Republicans”. You will be amazed at the massive discrimination – by liberals – against gay people who are conservative.
Now tell me: where are the liberals with principles to shout that one down? Nonexistent . Any of you lefties want to step up now? Doubtful.
Craig,
While you correct that Liberals are not as tolerant as they profess, neither are Conservatives. That is why we have the current state of division in this country.
Question: Should anyone be tolerant of intolerance, discrimination or hate? That question goes to both sides.
Obviously. I have been called a racist 3 times since Trump was elected. My son was Hispanic, my girl friend is from the Middle East, I have friends of all types, including gay friends who died of AIDS.
But because I voted for Trump (actually, I voted for the working class), I am a racist.
When the left discriminates against gay people because they are conservative, as you would find if you took the time to search it, the fraud that is leftism becomes apparent.
I would not call you a racist because you voted for President Trump. As I would hope you would not judge me or anyone else based on for whom they have voted.
As long as people continue to judge others based on their voting record or ideology instead of their character, we will always be divided.
if you continue to paint with a broad brush as you did in your post, your ignorance will override your reasoning and keep you narrow minded. That is also bad for all.
“As long as people continue to judge others based on their voting record or ideology instead of their character, we will always be divided.”
People should be judged based on their ideology. Their ideology, or rather acting on it, is acting out of those ideals when it comes to voting.
When someone has bad ideology, it should be contested, not simply put into a box with all other ideologies being called equal and the same.
“if you continue to paint with a broad brush as you did in your post, your ignorance will override your reasoning and keep you narrow minded. That is also bad for all.”
You can indeed acknowledge trends without being narrow minded. You only said this just now to dislodge his criticism of the left by the way.
There is indeed an inherent difference between the left actually doing something in colleges, and as part of their party, and it is taught to kids and played out, and general racism. General racism isn’t linked to a party and isn’t encouraged in schools etc, whereas let’s say a woman isn’t a feminist, the liberal left will attack based on that, universally, as well as in schools, the educated will do it even more. The more educated you are, the more on the left you are, the more likely it will occur. The same applies to Google’s actions.
Making judgment is crucial, avoiding it is ignorant.
Like it or not, your judgement should be questioned. Like it or not, it can be wrong.
And I already know your reply “and so can yours”
That is actually divisive, not as if that’s bad. Dividing and making assumptions and figuring out what is what, leaves what is good remaining. Without the division, and the wedge pushing the bad away from the good, (ideals) it would become mush. Much like you are. You’re a product of the failed philosophy that destroyed the millennial generation. You’re not the cure. You’re the disease. You don’t need to call anyone here narrow minded.
Bob, I believe Ron was referencing the voting record and not just ideologies in general. Everything is subjective and no side is absolutely right on everything (or even most things. Do not assume people are saying things to discredit others, this is an opinion which is not a fact. Do not put down a whole generation because you are, I will admit this is an assumption based on the way you speak about the younger generation, older and have different ideologies than them, it only increases the perception of you being narrow minded because these ideas “ruined” the millennial generation which is only your opinion and promotes people being narrow-minded on a whole generation which is unfortunate.
“Bob, I believe Ron was referencing the voting record and not just ideologies in general.”
Nope, he said voting record OR ideology INSTEAD of character. Ideology is a PART of character. I am not highlighting these angrily, I am highlighting them with precise purpose of the verbiage used and what it means.
“Everything is subjective and no side is absolutely right on everything”
Wrong. SOME things are subjective, there are objectively better ideologies than others. It is dangerous to take the position that all ideologies should be subjective and equal. It is less dangerous to say some are worse than others. This allows ideologies to grow. Your methodology does not. This is social justice and lip service you are engaging in right now.
“(or even most things. Do not assume people are saying things to discredit others, this is an opinion which is not a fact.”
With Ron, this is his methodology. He’s shaming the guy who just said he’s called racist. This is a part of political platform. Schools have begun teaching Trump won based on white supremacy. My point here is that the backlash he just mentioned of being called racist is due to highly educated liberals, liberal professors, liberal politicians, and liberal media. No one on the right in any of those fields teaches anything equivalent about the left.
“Do not put down a whole generation because you are, I will admit this is an assumption based on the way you speak about the younger generation, older and have different ideologies than them, it only increases the perception of you being narrow minded because these ideas “ruined” the millennial generation which is only your opinion and promotes people being narrow-minded on a whole generation which is unfortunate.””
It’s not an opinion. There was a direct setup to destroy the millennials. It worked. It is not all, but there are differences among the generations. It does not destroy progress to point this out, again, it destroys progress to refuse to acknowledge it. It is not an opinion on those differences. They can be debated and SOME are subjective, the vast majority are not, and are being talked about openly everywhere. Millennials plain do debate how I have mentioned in the past, and Ron just engaged in it. When you pay attention, age is very clear from the writers here, do you deny this point?
Why? Why is it obvious to tell?
There are differences. That’s why.
Millennials are indeed a destroyed generation, and his attack was a millennial based method of attack. Regardless, that was one sentence of my point, and you put a full section of your post to it. That is also a millennial method of attack. You took it to a philosophical everyone has opinions debate, and didn’t in fact make anything move forward, while somehow also saying my ideology was the one that should be questioned, so, evidently, not all ideologies are the same yes?
I have no idea how millennials have ZERO self reflection.
What’s your age? Millennial, correct?
“Wrong. SOME things are subjective, there are objectively better ideologies than others. It is dangerous to take the position that all ideologies should be subjective and equal. It is less dangerous to say some are worse than others. This allows ideologies to grow. Your methodology does not. This is social justice and lip service you are engaging in right now.”
I should note this it true is you objectively take a part of an ideology, and then break down why it is wrong.
Arguing an entire ideology is bad is less appropriate, but even then, sometimes merited if the case is made on an objective basis.
Just because something has multiple different aspects and opinions, it does not mean it is solely subjective. This is a common error in the youth.
Ideology is what you believe
Character is how you live your life.
If you think judging one more on their beliefs than actions, then you are the problem.
“Actions speak louder than words (beliefs)”
Hello again bob. I could no longer sit here and read you bash a whole generation from a completely subjective point of view. Here is an article that may help you see a different perspective on the millennials that are ruined. If you have that point of view that they are a destroyed generation, you are part of the problem that needs to change in the United States. http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20171003-millennials-are-the-generation-thats-fun-to-hate
Besides Ron is right that ideology is what some people believe in, there are societal “norms” that tend to dictate a wide group of people’s beliefs. To you their ideology is wrong, but that can also goes the other way. Your point if you objectively look at something and then decide what is wrong, is the main problem with your argument. I say this due the fact that you judge the ideologies on your experiences in life.
I guess the alternative is just don’t express ANY political views at your job Keep your head down, work HARD, treat others with respect, and I guarantee you won’t have a problem. Personally, I don’t care what someone’s political beliefs are in the workplace, as long as they do a good job and are a good teammate. In fact, I’d rather not know.
Read the details in the lawsuit. There are multiple outrageous examples of bias against conservatives and white men.
If black men and liberals were being attacked, and one employee had the courage to speak out, that employee’s firing would be a national outrage. And he would be a hero in the press!
But discrimination against white people? Conservatives? (Just keep your head down, chicken little.)
Fine, call me chicken little because I personally wouldn’t voice my political views at work. Feel better? Good, let’s move on.
Would you speak up if your company was discriminating against blacks? Liberals? Whites? Conservatives?
I think you answered the question already.
“I guess the alternative is just don’t express ANY political views at your job Keep your head down, work HARD, treat others with respect, and I guarantee you won’t have a problem.”
In this scenario, that isn’t an alternative. Google is essentially doing unconscious bias meetings, and one side of google, the conservative side is being oppressed from assault from the other on idiotic political beliefs. They are asked to give input, then they are fired for doing so.
They have programs which push ethnicity and women to the lead in benefits and courses etc. There is no stay silent option on this one. It is only political in that these are opinions. Google is the one that is putting them in the workforce. The ones who should “keep their head down” I guess you could also keep your head down as a black man or gay man right?
You would advocate for that? If white people were pushed to the front of all the special programs in the company?
That’s ok right?
You’re missing the point. It is only a technicality that this man’s memo could be called fired for political beliefs. He RESPONDED to the actual integration of political beliefs that became a system within Google. Google needs to remove this. It’s NOT part of work. Unconscious bias training is NOT PART OF WORK. Do you engage in it? Would you be ok with a program that sought out a woman for a managerial position before a man to balance out the numbers? Which pushed women to the front on that basis? As a side note women do tend to do better in colleges which are also pushed to benefit women. This means that the woman will always get the job with Google, as they will likely have more social justice courses included in their GPA, and google will say well look, they have equal grades!
Google needs to hear back on this. The option here is not put your head down. This memo was the perfect reply.
Bob, I have been expecting that the left will accuse you of bullying them like they usually do. What I get out of this discussion is that if a person is Conservative, they are told to keep their head down and not make any waves. Liberals have been trying to stifle free speech for quite a while. One look at UCal Berkely would tell us what the agenda is when they don’t let Conservatives speak there and start rioting and burning at the mere suggestion they let a Conservative speak.
This coming from someone who would not even hire a Liberal.
Historically speaking… IMHO…
“Right to Work” was a conservative response to “Unionization for Workers Rights” liberal mantra.