Google has fired an employee who wrote an internal memo blasting the web company’s diversity policies, creating a firestorm across Silicon Valley. James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” He said he’s “currently exploring all possible legal remedies.” The imbroglio at Google is the latest in a long string of incidents concerning gender bias and diversity in the tech enclave. Uber Technologies Inc. Chief Executive Officer Travis Kalanick lost his job in June amid scandals over sexual harassment, discrimination and an aggressive culture. Ellen Pao’s gender-discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in 2015 also brought the issue to light, and more women are speaking up to say they’ve been sidelined in the male-dominated industry, especially in engineering roles. Earlier on Monday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent a note to employees that said portions of the memo “violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” But he didn’t say if the company was taking action against the employee. A Google representative, asked about the dismissal, referred to Pichai’s memo. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social Hmm, so Google fires someone because they are honest, reasoned and their arguments, and are completely supported by research.
No, Google fired someone because he's a dumbass. Send a company-wide email complaining about ANYTHING and you'll likely be fired by any private company. Now if he was a federal employee, he might get away with mass whining, but employers in the private sector dont usually put up with such foolishness.
Lol, no it doesn't. There are federal avenues one can follow if you have labor complaints, but nobody protects you from getting fired for sending an unauthorized company-wide email. If theres a Google union, he could file a grievance. That's about it... except for creating another internet 15 min of fame.
It was an internal memo, sent only to a few managers. But other employees at the company kept circulating it.
ROFLMAO! Yes it does! Section 7 of the labor relations act states that it is illegal to: "Threaten employees with adverse consequences if they engage in protected, concerted activity. (Activity is "concerted" if it is engaged in with or on the authority of other employees, not solely by and on behalf of the employee himself. It includes circumstances where a single employee seeks to initiate, induce, or prepare for group action, as well as where an employee brings a group complaint to the attention of management. Activity is "protected" if it concerns employees' interests as employees. An employee engaged in otherwise protected, concerted activity may lose the Act's protection through misconduct.)"
Misconduct is the key word. Using company equipment to badmouth the company is never a good idea. Cant speak for all states, but Texas is a right to work state. Which means you can be fired for any reason, barring discrimination issues. All large companies like Google have company regulations and processes for complaints. You have to play within the rules and he didnt. Grounds for dismissal. For any snowflakes who think its ok to protest the hand that feeds you, time to grow up. The real world doesnt work that way.
We will see what comes of it. Apparently he has a leg to stand on. Whether or not he will prevail is still an open question. One opinion I read is that if the judge allows the suit to proceed, Google will settle very quickly to avoid adverse publicity. Wired reports that he has a fair amount of support among other Google engineers who are using the same internal bulletin board. Has the nerd worm turned? Will Google fire them all, do you suppose? https://www.wired.com/story/internal-messages-james-damore-google-memo/ And some female employees are staying home, being too upset to come to work and confirming one of Damore's contentions that women don't handle stress very well. How long can they do this before Google has to let them go? This will all be very interesting.
He didn't clearly violate company rules. They just interpreted that what he wrote was "advancing harmful gender stereotypes in the workplace", which is kind of vague. The memo he wrote was more in response to company policy and explaining why the accusations of discrimination against female employees at the company were unfounded, because people were equating unbalanced outcomes to direct evidence of unfair discrimination. The most expansive interpretation of that cited company policy would effectively silence one side of the aisle in this controversy. Of course I believe female employees should be treated equally at Google, and that a company should be able to fire someone for any reason. But you don't see an odious double standard? Especially since California is not a right to work state, and there are endless reasons on the state's law books you are not allowed to fire somebody or discriminate against them for this or that. I imagine even the people on the company's board can't even openly discuss these issues, about what type of policies the company should implement.
Elaborating on what I mean by that double standard, it's a "if you fire someone for a reason I don't like, you're going to get in big legal trouble, but if I fire someone for a reason you don't like, that's completely okay, because, in any case, you believe a business should be able to fire their workers for any reason" situation. One side of the political aisle is basically demanding extraordinary legal protections, while the other side is too diffident to ask for the counterpart to these types of employment protections, because the whole idea of these protections goes against their principles. I'm trying to think of an analogy to be better able to explain this. Maybe a bunch of people in wheelchairs with paralyzed legs playing a game against a bunch of people who don't have any arms. The people in wheelchairs get together and decide to make a rule in the game that anyone can hit someone else with their arms. The team that doesn't have any arms could ask for an additional rule change that kicking other people would be ok, since that would only be fair. But they don't, because they don't believe any physical attack should be allowed. So basically as a result, only one side ends up being permitted to play dirty. (If that analogy makes any sense) I don't know, maybe someone else can outline this concept I am trying to convey more clearly and eloquently than myself. Wish I could think of an appropriate metaphor.
It was sent to management and was said in a format of constructive criticism, not bad mouthing. There can be no way to interpret his actions as meant to insult or give the company bad publicity. A leader should seek constructive criticism and seek to address concerns in a rational manner. These people are not the owners of the company. They are running the company for the shareholders. That means they should focus on work and less on enforcing ideology.
