> Is there a known metric that shows how profitability increases after a given percentage of harassed workers?

Oh my goodness yes. Getting sued? Public relations? Decreased productivity from a hostile work environment? These all affect the bottom line.

Seriously, for the love of all that matters in this universe: Take this notion that any company operates on a moral compass and throw it in the garbage. None of them do. Period. End of story. Some companies are better than others. Some leaders (read: HUMANS) do have a genuine sense of good that they make every attempt to instill into the culture of their organizations. That's amazing. I love to see that.

But this only happens when (1) the organization is already financially solvent and (2) the acts of good will won't cause the company to become financially insolvent. Which means the best companies are MOTIVATED by a moral compass, but they operate on a financial one.

This Google case is especially fucking hilarious, to watch some people in these comments (not you, but others) try to justify Google's actions under the banner of a desire to create a safe workplace. Bullshit. They only enacted these policies after a massive number of their employees walked out on their jobs, the public pressure was mounting, and they let known assholes leave on their own accord with, as you say, a golden parachute. Google is easily the most morally dubious company out there.

> Google is easily the most morally dubious company out there.

I mean, I might have put some tobacco, arms, oil, coal, chemical, and surveillance companies up there. Particularly since I don't see them leading the way on harassment, inequity, diversity, or any of the other things Google is being criticized for. It sort of seems as though they have all the same issues plus body counts. But perhaps I've missed the news, are Gazprom and Saudi Aramco famous for how well they handle sexual harassment claims?

Your point about corporate ruthlessness is a solid one, but putting Google at the head of that list seriously undersells the problem. It's worth remembering how bad things are, and how bad they can get.

Hell, now that I'm thinking of it, I'd put Chiquita higher up on the list than Google. They never actually got over the bad old days in Honduras, they were caught funding and directly arming Colombian terrorists in 2004.

I did use the word "dubious" on purpose. There are certainly more strictly evil companies out there, but the moral ground Google operates on is the definition of Dubious. Its shaky and doubtful. They're self-righteous about their morality, dating back to their classic motto "Don't Be Evil", but startlingly few of their actions, especially those directly related to their products, ever feel in line with this now tossed-aside motto. In other words, they're managed by a handful of children with Computer Science degrees and relentless ambition; the moment something goes wrong they throw up their hands and yell "we're solving problems no one else has attempted" without any introspection that maybe the problem wouldn't even exist if they didn't.

But that's not really an option for any company. So they continue on.

It absolutely furthers the goal of maximizing profit. Arbitration is faster, cheaper, and typically benefits the company. It benefits the company by:

- Giving opposing counsel less time to request information/dig through the requested information to find evidence against you because the timeline is expedited compared to a typical court trial.

- The company selects the arbitrator. How often does a company need to select an arbitrator? Not infrequently. How often does the employee seeking damages need to select an arbitrator? Almost never. If the arbitrator wants more future work who do you think they're more likely to side with? Do you think they're more likely to award damages against the company at the high end of the spectrum or the low end of the spectrum?

- Limited PR costs. How many "big" arbitration cases have you ever heard of in the press? Not many I would guess. How many "big" court cases have you heard of in the press? Bad PR can cost the company a lot in terms of the bottom line but also opportunity costs. It's difficult to measure but there are certainly some talented people who will think twice about joining the company after recent PR.

>How did their support of sexual misconduct in the past further the goal of maximizing profit? Is there a known metric that shows how profitability increases after a given percentage of harassed workers?

To look at the issue from the amoral, profit-maximizing perspective...

It's not that the harassed workers are a benefit; they are indeed a cost, in terms of lower productivity and legal risk.

Rather, it's that the difficulty of pushing back against the high-paid harassers is a cost, and insta-firing them (or even reprimanding them in a way that makes them want to leave) can hurt profitability because of the difficulty of replacing them.

And, though I shudder to say it, "being able to harass underlings" -- to some executives -- functions as a kind of non-monetary compensation.