On the topic of the NLRB composition… Do you know where things stand regarding your anticipated stacking of the NLRB by the Trump administration? We hear that they have been slow with various appointments. Are the on the ball here, or is it still composed of Obama appointees? Or, can Trump only name new Board members when current members rotate off the Board on some timetable?
Basically, I’m interested in whether the climate in support of labor has already shifted abruptly, or whether there will be a more gradual transition.
On the topic of the NLRB composition… Do you know where things stand regarding your anticipated stacking of the NLRB by the Trump administration? We hear that they have been slow with various appointments. Are the on the ball here, or is it still composed of Obama appointees? Or, can Trump only name new Board members when current members rotate off the Board on some timetable?
Basically, I’m interested in whether the climate in support of labor has already shifted abruptly, or whether there will be a more gradual transition.
There are 5 seats on the Board. Only 3 are occupied by 1 conservative and 2 donkeys. So, Trump does not have to wait for vacancies. He has 2 open seats he will fill with conservatives giving the Board a 3-2 conservative majority again.
The two appointees made it out of committee. Last week the Senate started the confirmation process. They should be seated by September.
Kaplan was confirmed last week. Emanuel had his hearing in committee. I believe it’s been sent to the full Senate, but most likely to be voted on after the recess.
Miscimerra’s term expires in December, so Trump will have to nominate a replacement, as I don’t believe he would want to continue.
Griffin’s term as General Counsel expires in I believe September or October. That will make the biggest difference.
Ironic that the solution is that we don’t allow that talk
No one’s preventing anyone from talking. He can say anything he wants. He just can’t do it on internal Google discussion forums and expect continued employment.
because it might hurt feelings.
Did you read the memo? To me it’s all about him getting his feelings hurt because he’s been criticized (“shamed” in his words) whenever he tries to discuss some of Google’s diversity policies. The manifesto is largely an expression of hurt feelings.
Read the first 3 or 4 pages. It gets kind of tiresome after that. Yeah no one is preventing anyone from talking. You will just loose your job if you do it. I suppose that is Google’s right but I don’t think they can describe themselves as open if they do so. Message sent, don’t talk about this sort of stuff.
Read the first 3 or 4 pages. It gets kind of tiresome after that. Yeah no one is preventing anyone from talking. You will just loose your job if you do it. I suppose that is Google’s right but I don’t think they can describe themselves as open if they do so. Message sent, don’t talk about this sort of stuff.
Read the whole thing. Lot of silly psycho-babble couched as “science,” with some genuine scientific references to give it patina of rigor.
What’s not clear to me is what specific harm he thinks has occurred to him in the past. It seems he’s tried to bring up gender issues and feels he’s been shut down and “shamed.” But he doesn’t give specific examples about what “shaming” is? Is that just no one agreeing with him? Or was formally punished in some way? Is he socially ostracized? Did someone pull pranks on him?
Maybe my mistake was reading first 3-4 pages of memo and the story about the CEO unhappy some female employees were talking about leaving unless something was done about it. I seems to me though that having a policy trying to increase diversity in some positions just for the sake of increasing diversity without taking into account other things isn’t always wise.
A little bit of social awareness would tell you this is not a good debate for a male to enter into at work, no matter how they carefully craft their argument. I’m guessing that google hires a few men who are not terribly socially aware.
An interesting question is what evidence would be sufficient to persuade you that there is some inherent difference that explains the gender disparity in tech. Even more interesting is what data would be sufficient to persuade a woman who works in tech of the same thing.
Interesting question, what would it take to convince women there is a difference whether or not it an inherent difference or self made.
Working in IT. Even in an organization with almost equal men/women and over 1000 IT staff members, Women/men seem to be distributed amongst groups in a non random pattern. I will find some women in the tech groups like DBAs, Unix administrators, network administrators etc. So no question women can do these jobs, but what I have found is more women gravitate to management positions and developer/analyst positions than the tech groups. And that men are far more likely to have these tech jobs. Have women done this to themselves through self selecting career choices, or have they been pushed to certain areas? perhaps for there own “good”. I.e. Organizations often have special tracks for women and minorities who they believe will rise high in the organization. They get pushed to positions that will set them up for other future promotions. Getting stuck in certain tech positions is unlikely to further their advancement.
So I think there are certainly differences in where men/women end up in IT, I’m not sure it inherent in the gender. it may be self imposed.
Pretty much. This article lays out lots of data points and references studies to back up plenty of his thoughts. I think the guy's major point though, is that after all of it, it comes down less to ability (despite differences) and more to interest.
He is an “at will” employee and the company believed his words hurt the company. He wasn’t looking for a legal remedy for what he was saying, it was just an opinion. If he felt what was going on was illegal, he would have tried to correct the situation through the justice system. He didn’t, he wrote an opinion piece. From what I’ve read, he didn’t cite any statutes or legal precedent. Besides, they don’t really need a reason to fire him other than to say he was no longer needed.
None of that is really relevant.
Can you please explain why these statements are not relevant?
Read the first 3 or 4 pages. It gets kind of tiresome after that. Yeah no one is preventing anyone from talking. You will just loose your job if you do it. I suppose that is Google’s right but I don’t think they can describe themselves as open if they do so. Message sent, don’t talk about this sort of stuff.
Read the whole thing. Lot of silly psycho-babble couched as “science,” with some genuine scientific references to give it patina of rigor.
What’s not clear to me is what specific harm he thinks has occurred to him in the past. It seems he’s tried to bring up gender issues and feels he’s been shut down and “shamed.” But he doesn’t give specific examples about what “shaming” is? Is that just no one agreeing with him? Or was formally punished in some way? Is he socially ostracized? Did someone pull pranks on him?
Nicely said, I agree with you.
I feel he is trying to frame his opinion as fact and when actually it is only a bunch of whining and “crying” on his part. Sounds to me like he needs to grown up a bit.