> What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?

Nothing, but that's not what this is. For a variety of reasons, people are reluctant to report incidents through official channels. This is an unofficial and anonymous channel. It's a way to make people aware that yes, things are happening, even if no official action is taken. I hope it makes people more aware.

My experience has been that for a sanity check a discussion with a trusted colleague in a different department is worth a lot. If XY is genuinely concerning then that person will say "yeah, I've found that, too, and it's really concerning". What's with the need for a formal shame list and for establishing an Akashic record?

My understanding from the article was that it doesn't name the offenders. (The one exception being the Alphabet CEO from a public meeting.) To me, that precludes it from being a "shame list."

I like how submissions are anonymous. Back in USSR an anonymous tip was a good way of getting rid of your annoying neighbours or rivals.

Another convenient thing was that with an anonymous complaint the burden of proof lay solely on the accused, who had to protest his innocence without even being able to face the accuser. But we are half-way there anyway, aren't we?

As has been mentioned elsewhere - names aren't mentioned in the list.

Also even with anonymity although such a system maybe open for abuse, so that people can implicate innocent people, the potential to allow actual victims to speak up who wouldn't otherwise seems worth the risk

This reminds me of the whole metadata collection scandal/argument, because this is what is being shared - metadata. Just because you don't name a person directly, does not yet imply anonymity.

Another observation - the article states that people aren't "usually" named. I don't see anything preventing the peoples names appearing later on, as this thing develops.

As far as I can tell, it's run for employees by employees. If it ever starts doing more harm than good, it will just stop. People have to want to submit and want to read it.

So I don't see this as management sponsored spying, just employees wanting more transparency. To highlight what actually goes on.

I believe the point with the 'usually' was that the only one who had been named was Eric Schmidt from a open meeting.

Yeah, the anonymous accused get sent straight to the gulag.

"What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?"

on what evidence/grounds?

None needed, California is an "at-will" employment state -- you can be fired for any legal reason or none at all.

From what I understand from my sister who's a lawyer at a tech firm in LA, firing people in California is harder than firing people in the UK.

that's my point. without evidence, firing people for "sexual harrasment" just opens up can of worms.

Isn't there that famous quote "Praise in public criticize in private."?

Seems apt here.

> What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?

because they might be innocent? why is a person's employer a better arbitrator than the legal system? firing someone based on implications is deeply problematic. that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made.

Just a few questions:

- Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal?

- Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10?

- Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint?

- Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct.

- A company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?

> Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal?

They can fire an employee for any reason they want to in an "at will" state, so your question isn't cogent to begin with. Whether or not it should be done is contextual and I can't answer in the abstract. The way you frame your question here is designed to be a rhetorical trap though, and I don't appreciate that.

> Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10?

Remember, I'm discussing ethics not laws here. Yes, I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is a good ethical stance almost always. Your hypothetical isn't cogent here. Decisions must be contextual and your contrived example lacks context is is constructed so as to advance your (poorly concealed) agenda. Another rhetorical trap. I expect good faith discussion here and you're demonstrating bad faith.

> Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint?

Liability is a matter of the civic code and is a legal question, and remember, we're discussing ethics not law. Your contrived example here is once again lacking context so it is unanswerable as presented and yet another example of you attempting a rhetorical trap.

> Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct.

"I hope you don't think". Your constructions here are insulting to me. Nothing but leading questions, contrived examples, begging the question and other rhetorical tricks. If you have a position of your own you should state it directly and not assume I will be tricked or trapped by you.

> company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?

yes to both. an implication of harassment should result in a fair process to determine the truth bounded by the context of the situation and the interests of all the involved parties. FAIR PROCESS is the key portion of the last sentence. My objections have always been to UNFAIR PROCESSES and are not a defense of harassment.

I'm sorry you took my post as a rhetorical trap, it wasn't intended as such.

You stated that "that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made." Which to me comes across as rather absolute, your response has made it clear that that wasn't entirely true, so my apologies for misunderstanding you.

From your comments here though, it sounds to me that you consider an HR investigation an unfair process, would that correctly characterize your view?

To be clear, I do believe your stance is untenable, but that doesn't mean my statements are in bad faith, these questions are more or less the reasons that I believe that the stance that "companies shouldn't fire people before they're found guilty of a crime" is an untenable stance (and s/companies/universities or other organization/ for a broader conversation).

I don't think that an organization can hold itself to the ethical bar you think is proper without causing itself (and its constituents) a level of inconvenience that is too great. For a society or government, where membership is not voluntary, that is necessary, but for groups whose members are free to leave (for whatever definition fits the group), it doesn't work.

You can't simultaneously have a group that people will want to voluntarily join in and one that protects abusers.

I do believe that it is very unusual for an HR investigation to be a fair process. HR is primarily tasked with protecting the company from legal liability first, and with resolving employee disputes second, and with finding out the truth as a distant third (so distant as to be not-on-the-map).

I'm not an absolutist but I do have a high standard of ethics when it comes to disciplinary action that can affect a person's livelihood and reputation (and thus future employment prospects).

There is an unfortunate trend in our society right now for the justice of the mob. The loudest and most aggrieved mob tends to exert its "authority" (as such, it's illegitimate but is authority none the less) against those who stand accused of a moral transgression. This has created the atmosphere of a moral panic which leads to numerous false accusations. It's a troubling circumstance.

Given the troubling circumstances we find ourselves in I find it important to advocate for higher standards of discourse, ethics, and institutional conduct because the natural tendency otherwise becomes a race to the bottom combined with CYA behavior.

I don't think my advocacy for high standards of ethics in institutional authority is untenable though. I think we have reached a place where we need new solutions because HR isn't cutting it because it is not intended to nor should its mandate be expanded to cover this kind of stuff.

If workplace harassment is as pervasive and problematic as it seems to be (at some companies) then a separate function for handling those issues fairly would be my preference. I'm also, however, deeply concerned that we are seeing a slip into a transgressions-driven-dialogue and the moral panics and kneejerk reactions we see all over social media, and particularly on college campuses, is beginning to become normalized in the workplace as well. That would be a tragic outcome.

>This has created the atmosphere of a moral panic which leads to numerous false accusations. It's a troubling circumstance.

Why do you believe this to be the case? From my perspective, I've seen very few examples of false accusation (certainly not enough to call them "numerous") and many more examples of actions that go unpunished.

Really I think that's what defines the core of our difference in view. You seem to believe that there is some great number of false accusations flying around, and further that these false accusations are causing innocent people great harm. On the other hand, I see many instances of people who should be punished for actions that are unacceptable go completely without consequence. Can you see why, from my perspective, I don't see our current situation as tragic, and indeed see it as a vast improvement over the past (which had an even greater number of unpunished actions).

to be clear, I don't believe the moral panic has set in at private employers yet in the way it has in the university, but I see more and more steps in that direction every day and the YAG mailing list is too close for comfort, in my opinion. It's one moderator slip-up away from becoming noxious.

As a very recent graduate, my same comments apply, more or less, to universities.

as someone with more years and perspective than a very recent graduate, I would encourage you to consider your critics more seriously and reflect on why so many people are deeply disturbed by what is going on in the academy right now.

>as someone with more years and perspective

Wasn't it you who said we should speak in good faith. I prefer not to be patronized.

I asked you a question, which applied equally to universities as workplaces, that could be summed up as "As someone who has recently been at a university, and is currently in a workplace, I am aware of many more (perhaps orders of magnitude more) instances of abuse that goes unreported or unpunished as compared to instances of people being falsely accused of things. Given that, why should I take your concerns seriously, other than your wisdom and perspective?" You avoided it. Its difficult to take your concerns seriously when you avoid explaining them.

Or in other words, I have anecdotal evidence that a lot of harassment goes unreported, and similarly anecdotal evidence that relatively few accusations are false ones, and anecdotal evidence that in many cases, being forced out or punished for perceived harassment won't actually have a lasting negative impact, and certainly won't be life-ruining. Actual data tends to agree with me. If, as I believe, for every 1 false accusation of something, 10 instances of that thing go unreported, why should I stand for focussing resources on providing additional (and perhaps unnecessary) protections to the 1, when at the same time there are 10 victims, and perhaps 10 assailants, who go without justice and punishment, respectively?

> What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment

You'd get sued for wrongful termination if you go around firing people based on mere implication.

Not everything that creates a negative environment is a fireable offense, and the folks who the burden of that behavior falls on don't generally want to get folks fired unnecessarily. Creating a discussion of "Hey, can we not do this" is a better solution to a lot of issues than reporting things to an opaque body that takes the approach of "Is this exposing us to a lawsuit, if so, fired. Otherwise, do nothing"

> factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized.

I think this is a very wrong-headed way to go about self-criticism. It shouldn't be about loyalty to a party, it should be about recognition of faults and how to improve them. This is how I envisage worker control of production should be like, anyway. We should have a culture of criticism and self-criticism, in my opinion, because it does not necessitate meanness or humiliation.

It's actually a pretty widely-recognized cult tactic. People are grouped together for shaming sessions where they confess failings and are berated for them.

It's nominally about bonding and seeing that everyone has failings, but as you point out that doesn't get problems solved. In practice, it creates social pressure to confess errors (you don't want to act superior to those around you), plus top down pressure ("confess or we'll say it for you"). It also creates investment (if this was all for nothing, why'd I humiliate myself?) and vulnerability (if I leave, they can tell everyone what I said!) And, of course, the degree of shaming can be tailored to cut down people doing too well.

It's a terrifyingly effective thing, and the state communist version looked remarkably similar to the cult version. I don't think it's something you'd do if you actually wanted to help people or improve process, though. The best cultures of self-criticism seem to be the ones that criticize in abstract, sorting out what happened and why publicly but not aiming at individuals.

I don't think such meetings ought to aim at individuals, in fact this is what I wanted to avoid, rather it would be good to talk about processes in general, and to admit faults like that; I think this would be a much clearer way of making progress than to start a blame game or criticise people covertly, which usually ends up festering and turning into hate. I think people should be open about themselves, and constructively criticise. And again, I don't see why that ought to necessitate meanness.

Criticising in abstract I think leads to a passive-aggressive culture, which I don't think it's right at all. The point of the meetings would be that everyone is involved, there's no secrecy, and that the meetings are perhaps optional, or at least participation in them is optional. I think a social pressure to confess errors may be a good thing at times, though I admit there's a lot of variation in how it could go.

It's strange that I've been downvoted three times on my comment, but only have one reply. Such is the way of HN.

The main lesson of aircraft safety culture should be that you can have an enquiry to establish what happened, or an enquiry to find out who's to blame - but not both, since once you start assigning blame there's a motive to conceal or destroy evidence.

> no secrecy

This is a nightmare for the person who's percieved underperforming due to unavoidable health issues that they've discussed with their manager/HR but would prefer to keep secret.

> social pressure to confess errors

This turns into bullying very quickly.