Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a misconduct claim

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by AareyBaba on Thursday October 25, 2018 @03:12PM (#18303658)

Every manager in California has to do mandatory 2 hour harassment prevention training every two years where such behavior is specifically called out as unacceptable. So he would have known this was wrong.

The irony is that this mandatory sexual harassment training was signed into law by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger a couple of years after he had been fornicating with his house maid.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by commandlinefan on Thursday October 25, 2018 @04:56PM (#18304516)

The problem is - what I see here is that a woman made a claim that a man did or said something that might have constituted harassment. As any employer ought, Google started investigating. Also, as any employer ought, they didn't go public about the claim, seeing as how that's a violation of everybody's privacy. They investigated, didn't find enough evidence to discipline the accused (or maybe they did, but that's also not, nor should it be, public). Independent of all of this, they made a payout that they were contractually obligated to pay out. Yet with the outrage machine in full gear, it's getting more and more like the only thing any company can do to avoid criticism is to not only terminate without investigating immediately when a claim is filed, but to also include "no accusation" clauses in all of their contracts so that they can default on their obligations essentially at whim. And it seems like most everybody on there thinks that's a good idea.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by geofft on Thursday October 25, 2018 @05:42PM (#18304828)

> Independent of all of this, they made a payout that they were contractually obligated to pay out.

Why did they make this payout and this contract? In other words—what benefit to Alphabet was it in exchange for?

Not damaging the reputation of the company is a common clause in severance agreements. I bet that not being retroactively found to have violated company policy is also common. Would it be in Google's interest to pay out the severance if the employee were found to have stolen corporate secrets?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by ru999gol on Friday October 26, 2018 @03:10AM (#18307337)

> And it seems like most everybody on there thinks that's a good idea.

I think that probably almost anyone is aware of the danger that a system like that, its just that everyone is deliberately ignoring it and weighing it against the PR storm. Its pretty much universal, to throw due process out the window is something that a vast majority of people want to do after any heinous crime committed, something politicians also always exploited.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by stale2002 on Thursday October 25, 2018 @09:33PM (#18306079)

> Also, as any employer ought, they didn't go public about the claim, seeing as how that's a violation of everybody's privacy

How is talking about things that happened to you a violation of anybody's privacy?

It is prefectly reasonable to talk about true events that happened to you, especially in a interview, and to even use names.

The truth is the Truth, and your interactions with someone that you are interviewing should not be treated as private.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by lawnchair_larry on Thursday October 25, 2018 @10:46PM (#18306375)

Having an affair is not the same thing as sexual harassment bu any stretch, so there is nothing ironic about that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by umichguy on Friday October 26, 2018 @09:08AM (#18308805)

Came here to say that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by packetslave on Thursday October 25, 2018 @04:14PM (#18304198)

fornicating

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by bsder on Thursday October 25, 2018 @04:35PM (#18304364)

To be fair, I had to look it up to realize that the word implies that both parties are unmarried.

In today's parlance, "fornicate" generally is just a synonym for sexual congress.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by mikeryan on Thursday October 25, 2018 @05:33PM (#18304764)

Wait now I'm confused. Fornicate means Have sexual intercourse with someone one is not married to.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fornicate

Seems the original use was accurate no?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by braythwayt on Thursday October 25, 2018 @05:50PM (#18304874)

Welcome to English as it is spoken, vs, English as it is defined.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by dragonwriter on Thursday October 25, 2018 @11:20PM (#18306511)

Er, except the actual cited definition matches use (there is an uncited definition upthread that doesn't, but that definition of just a poor definition, since definitions aim to describe use.)

[ Parent | on HN ]