Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-09-2018, 08:38 PM
 
18,073 posts, read 18,754,030 times
Reputation: 25191

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Male and White..... To reiterate Google and other tech companies are seeking to diversify their workforce which currently is mostly White/Asian males. The primary reason for that is White/Asian males make up the bulk of people with degrees in those fields. To create diversity they would necessarily have to discriminate against White/Asian males.
I was referring to the "conservative" part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-09-2018, 09:13 PM
 
Location: 89434
6,658 posts, read 4,733,584 times
Reputation: 4838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Google, Yahoo, Twitter, Facebook, MSN, etc all censor conservative views. They get away with it because they are private companies run by far Left zealots.
But if someone runs a conservative website and tries to censor leftists, they will be screaming "you're attacking the first amendment".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2018, 11:23 PM
 
Location: Free From The Oppressive State
30,226 posts, read 23,649,798 times
Reputation: 38582
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Conservative is not a protected class. The rest is. Should be interesting to watch what occurs.
Quote:
Plaintiffs bring this individual and class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class and subclasses defined as all employees of Google discriminated against (i) due to their perceived conservative political views by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action (“Political Class Period”); (ii) due to their male gender by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action (“Gender Class Period”); and/or (iii) due to their Caucasian race by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action (“Race Class Period”) (Political Class Period, Gender Class Period, and Race Class Period referred to collectively, as “Class Periods”). These violations also subject Google to claims for violation of California’s Business and Professions Code section 17200
et seq.
You don't have to be a "protected class" to face discrimination, and no, it's not okay in the state of CA.
Quote:
Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees due to their perceived conservative political views violates California Labor Code section 1101 and 1102
et seq.
I mean, it's IN the lawsuit. Try actually READING it before throwing out what you think you know...

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ectionNum=1101
Quote:
Labor Code - LAB
DIVISION 2. EMPLOYMENT REGULATION AND SUPERVISION [200 - 2699.5] ( Division 2 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )

PART 3. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES [920 - 1138.5] ( Part 3 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )


CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )


1101.

No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

...1102.

No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
(Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.)
You know how long that took me to find that in the lawsuit and then find the actual code? Less time than it took you all to read the posts on here and argue with me about them including the Conservative discrimination. So, are we all done arguing over your false assumptions about whether or not trashing on them for their political views is legit or not?

http://www.businessinsider.com/conse...alleges-2018-1

Quote:
Employees at Google who express "conservative viewpoints in politically-charged debates" may find themselves blacklisted by managers at the company, alleges an explosive new lawsuit.

And by blacklisted, that means their names may appear on actual lists, the suit contends.

Google employees who identify as conservative say they have complained to HR and senior management about the blacklists.

These allegations are part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of fired Google engineer James Damore that seeks to represent white males and conservatives who feel like they've been the target of discrimination.

...one manager wrote on one internal forum, "I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever."

Another manager wrote in another, "I keep a written blacklist of people whom I will never allow on or near my team, based on how they view and treat their coworkers. That blacklist got a little longer today."

The lawsuit cites another post from another hiring manager that said, "If you express a dunderheaded opinion about religion, about politics, or about ‘social justice’, it turns out I am allowed to think you’re a halfwit... I’m perfectly within my rights to mentally categorize you in my [d*ckhead] box... Yes, I maintain (mentally, and not (yet) publicly)."...
ALL of those, with emails and messages as proof, are in the first 1/4 of the lawsuit...surely you can all read at least that much.

Google is very much in violation against these people not just because they were white and male, but because they were "perceived" as Conservative. One of the plaintiffs isn't even a Conservative, but they trashed him anyway because they THOUGHT he was. (You can find that out if you READ the lawsuit.)

And while a lot of what was said by managers and Directors looks very similar to what we see from liberals right here on this forum....you can't do that crap at work.

Last edited by Three Wolves In Snow; 01-09-2018 at 11:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 12:48 AM
 
1,239 posts, read 508,244 times
Reputation: 922
The dude was not fired for having conservative viewpoints, he was fired for being a piece of ****.

Can't believe so many if you are so excited about this. Any idiot can file a lawsuit. This is going nowhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 01:34 AM
 
Location: Scottsdale
2,072 posts, read 1,630,443 times
Reputation: 4081
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Male and White..... To reiterate Google and other tech companies are seeking to diversify their workforce which currently is mostly White/Asian males. The primary reason for that is White/Asian males make up the bulk of people with degrees in those fields. To create diversity they would necessarily have to discriminate against White/Asian males.
As a Native American, I oppose Affirmative Action which has a multitude of problems. Its roots go
back to the era of President Nixon as a social control policy to impede inner city riots while ostensibly
portrayed as a program to help "diversify" the work force. Nixon was blatantly racist and the policy
was never meant to truly help minorities. It typically angered whites as well due to claims of reverse
discrimination. So, Affirmative Action did not really help minorities or whites in terms of demographic
impacts - it just created tension. Even this hyper-liberal Democrat turned against Affirmative Action
once he found its original roots.
Affirmative action: It’s time for liberals to admit it isn’t working.

With that said, I still believe Silicon Valley is very, very AGEIST. Mr. Damore is right to complain
about a flawed diversification policy IF it does indeed resemble Nixon's original root form. But still,
I cannot help but conclude that, given the current pattern of hiring, Damore would have still
been "tossed" aside after hitting age 35 by Silicon Valley's hyper-aggressive AGEISM.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...ite/479468001/

To be fair to the women who complained about Damore (which some did), if there was sexual harassment
or gender discrimination, that would have to be examined. But I do not know the true details of
what had transpired. It just appears he wrote an internal opinion on work issues that became public
and angered coworkers in the process. However, the legal due process will get to the heart of the
matter.

So, is Damore a sophisticated, technical version of "Harvey Weinstein" or just an Anti-Affirmative
Action Zealot whose ideas were misunderstood, misdirected, or inappropriate? They'll find out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 02:32 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
8,278 posts, read 6,256,657 times
Reputation: 6681
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Conservative is not a protected class. The rest is. Should be interesting to watch what occurs.
Depends.

If the state of employment has laws protecting political beliefs (like CA) in their statutes, then yes discriminating against those holding conservative viewpoints is violation of a protected class.

To address you other statement. No I don't believe that Google intent was 'evil'. However the HR/Diversity quagmire they've created for themselves (and this started a while ago, I remember the atmosphere changing), while not intentionally evil doesn't remove the argument that it may be evil. Wrong and evil are not orthogonal, what is evil is the retention of policies that have been identified as potentially trans-legal while berating the identifiers of those policies. For a company built on logic and rational thought, to ignore such warnings and attacking the messengers is just mind blowing. It's demonstrably irrational and illogical to do so. Further it also propagates a belief within the employees that there is a subclass who are open to retaliation just for their inherent qualities. Which on its face is precisely the kind of belief diversity and equality programs were created to correct.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules • Infractions & Deletions • Who's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 02:40 AM
 
4,534 posts, read 4,918,789 times
Reputation: 6327
Have to admit this part of the suit made me chuckle (see the footnote)

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,823,970 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Depends.

If the state of employment has laws protecting political beliefs (like CA) in their statutes, then yes discriminating against those holding conservative viewpoints is violation of a protected class.

To address you other statement. No I don't believe that Google intent was 'evil'. However the HR/Diversity quagmire they've created for themselves (and this started a while ago, I remember the atmosphere changing), while not intentionally evil doesn't remove the argument that it may be evil. Wrong and evil are not orthogonal, what is evil is the retention of policies that have been identified as potentially trans-legal while berating the identifiers of those policies. For a company built on logic and rational thought, to ignore such warnings and attacking the messengers is just mind blowing. It's demonstrably irrational and illogical to do so. Further it also propagates a belief within the employees that there is a subclass who are open to retaliation just for their inherent qualities. Which on its face is precisely the kind of belief diversity and equality programs were created to correct.
The issue I see is can this be creating a hostile work environment sure to what he released too. I mean yes these are views but he wasn't fired for having those views. He got fired for How he expressed those views or the harassment claims
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 09:05 AM
 
1,239 posts, read 508,244 times
Reputation: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
The issue I see is can this be creating a hostile work environment sure to what he released too. I mean yes these are views but he wasn't fired for having those views. He got fired for How he expressed those views or the harassment claims
His own evidence does a really good job of proving that for google.

If I had to guess, he wrote the complaint himself. A good lawyer would not have included most of those screenshots, especially when he seems to have carefully chosen when to include quotes/screenshots, and when he neglected to.

I wonder if Google gets this kicked on Summary Judgement, or if he just tries to settle ASAP (not that Google will necessarily go for that).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2018, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
8,278 posts, read 6,256,657 times
Reputation: 6681
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
The issue I see is can this be creating a hostile work environment sure to what he released too. I mean yes these are views but he wasn't fired for having those views. He got fired for How he expressed those views or the harassment claims
Hostile work environment cuts both ways. Yes someone espousing strongly right opinions, may be creating a hostile work environment and should be censured if proven to be. That said the content of the filing contains a great deal of information that could demonstrate a hostile work environment exists for those of a different opinions than google mainstream.

When I was there it was predominantly Libertarian/An-Cap with some social conscience (it's not exclusive). But after around 2005, the culture began to shift, and a lot of engineers jumped ship to other companies or start-ups, me being one. I still have friends and former colleagues there, and while they're forever trying to tempt me back, I wouldn't like the environment, I'm type A get the ball over the line at any cost, and I'm not sure how I'd mix with a more 'culturally sensitive' GOOG. That's not to say I'm a bigot, or prejudiced, but completely evaluate solely on merit, regardless of any intrinsic factors.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules • Infractions & Deletions • Who's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:45 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top