The problem here is the "it costs more to do the right thing" is a bad argument.

If you have a serial harasser, who is just paid off to leave quietly, then you just ensure that he gets to go off and do the same thing again. And be richer.

How about instead of giving him $90 million, you give that to his victims in exchange for them not making claims against him? The result is approximately the same, but at least you're giving money to the victim rather than the criminal.

>If you have a serial harasser

Except Rubin was never accused of being a serial harasser that I've seen. He was terminated for having sexual relations with a subordinate.

He was not "terminated for having sexual relations with a subordinate". From the article:

> Google gave Rubin a reported $90 million exit package in 2014, following an investigation into an allegation that he had coerced another employee to perform oral sex on him. That investigation reportedly found that allegation to be credible.

I completely agree. My comment was actually saying I think it is often cheaper to do the right thing (even if it means spending more money initially).

Ah!

To verify my reading (oh text communication :D)

Companies often say "court is more expensive than Y" because that's a directly measurable thing, and simply ignore the actual long term costs. Much like elected officials :-O

[edit: wtf typing :D)