Because it's 20 people out 12,000 and I (we) have no idea what it is they were fired for exactly. We don't know the context, the exact infraction, and how it was dealt with initially. I can't even tell if that rate is high, average or low when compared with any other company of similar size who would create a special sexual-harassment probe to investigate itself.

>"Because it's 20 people out 12,000"

What are you suggesting by this, that there is an acceptable margin for unacceptable behavior?

>We don't know the context, the exact infraction, and how it was dealt with initially."

We do know the context, the context was an investigation into sexual harassment conducted by an outside law firm.

We know that 31 people are in counseling/training and another 7 were given warning as a result of the investigation. So by comparison the incidents with these 20 were determined to be serious enough that they warranted termination instead of counseling or a warning.

>I can't even tell if that rate is high, average or low when compared with any other company of similar size who would create a special sexual-harassment probe to investigate itself."

I think the fact that 58 people (20 + 31 + 7) needing to be addressed retroactively instead of proactively at the time of the complaint is a pretty good indication there might be a large problem.

> 20 out of only 12,000 is a huge number

12000/20 = 0.001666

.17% is not a huge number.

I suspect that 12k is ubrs world wide FTE these firings are coming from the head office in CA so its actualy a higher %

And in IR 20 serious cases warenting firing Is a lot (I do have hears of dealing with serious cases) I would expect given 20 firings there will be a lot more who are allowed to leave with compromise agreements.