Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ...
by lawnchair_larry on Thursday October 25, 2018 @11:23PM
(#18306523)
I think the fact that you refer to Bill and Melinda as a case of “banging the help” says a lot about your understanding of decent human relationships and is probably why you are failing to see the nuaunce that applies to many of these situations. If your understanding of relationships is that simple, then it’s not surprising that you think there is a simple solution.
It also seems a little insulting to imply that women have no agency, but I’ll let them decide if they want to be offended.
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ...
by wpietri on Friday October 26, 2018 @11:34AM
(#18310195)
I am not referring to Bill and Melinda Gates. I am referring to the broad problem.
I am not denying human relationships are nuanced. I am proposing a very simple rule, one that many companies already have on the books, because a) the deep ambiguity is managerially untractable, and b) as we see in many examples including this article, more nuanced rules are easily interpreted to let powerful men off the hook.
I am not implying women have no agency. There's nothing in this rule about men and women, or even about straight relationships. If you are inferring that women have no agency, maybe that's you.
Please provide evidence for your claim that it's illegal to fire someone for banging the help. In an at-will state, people can generally be fired for any reason or no reason as long as some specific employee protection isn't violated. I have worked at companies, including a publicly traded company, that have rules like that, and the didn't see any problem with it.
You're right that there could be a lawsuit. People can sue for anything. But it's much more likely that a company will see a lawsuit for failing to protect employees from predatory managers and execs. So if lawsuits are the problem, then this rule would be a huge help in reducing the total number, as well as the PR risk.