Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 11 2017, @02:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the hurry-up-and-stop dept.

Google is struggling to discuss the recent diversity memo controversy internally:

Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, canceled a scheduled all-hands staff meeting—moments before it was scheduled to begin—meant to address concerns over a controversial essay published by former employee James Damore.

In an email to staff, Pichai explained that questions from employees had been leaked and that, in some cases, specific employees' identities were revealed, exposing them to harassment and threats. Instead of today's large-scale meeting, which was to be livestreamed to Google's 60,000 employees worldwide, smaller groups will meet sometime in the future.

"We had hoped to have a frank open discussion today as we always do to bring us together and move forward. But our Dory questions appeared externally this afternoon, and on some websites Googlers are now being named personally," Pichai said in the email.

Also at CNET.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @06:19AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @06:19AM (#552769)

    And when they are other qualified more candidates, the minority candidate shall be hired regardless. :P

  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 12 2017, @07:40AM (1 child)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 12 2017, @07:40AM (#552792) Journal

    My god, you are stupid, too stupid to work in my organization, which hires hundreds each year. OK, we will go to the Law:

    Mind you, if you read this, and you hold Federal Contracts, you may be liable irregardless (- did you see that? irregardless used properly?) for discriminatory employment practices, even if you or your family never owned slaves, you white privileged bastard:

    §60-2.10 General purpose and contents of affirmative action programs.

    (a) Purpose. (1) An affirmative action program is a management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity. A central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor's workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects. Affirmative action programs contain a diagnostic component which includes a number of quantitative analyses designed to evaluate the composition of the workforce of the contractor and compare it to the composition of the relevant labor pools. Affirmative action programs also include action-oriented programs. If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor's affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization. Effective affirmative action programs also include internal auditing and reporting systems as a means of measuring the contractor's progress toward achieving the workforce that would be expected in the absence of discrimination.

    https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3b71cb5b215c393fe910604d33c9fed1&rgn=div5&view=text&node=41:1.2.3.1.2&idno=41 [ecfr.gov]

    See? Equal opportunity. If you lose under such circumstances, I can only surmise that you are a substandard employee candidate. You see, it is no longer the case that no one was ever fired for hiring white. We are coming for your incompetence, whitey. Be prepared to compete on a level field without your white privilege! Sucks to be you.

    • (Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Saturday August 12 2017, @06:48PM

      by Hawkwind (3531) on Saturday August 12 2017, @06:48PM (#552927)
      To be clear, in California gender and/or ethnicity cannot be used as a tie-breaker. 41 CFR60-2 does not give cover for this type of preference, a mistake our legal office has to point out frequently. May be of interest to those in CA, Prop 209 allows affirmative action where:

      (e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_209 [wikipedia.org]
       
      Cheers