zlacker

> What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it.

They have a problem with their employer, and are being heard in the court of public opinion. Why is that "a bummer"?

I don't have a particular opinion on whether or not what they are doing is an effective way to accomplish their aims. But workers speaking out for any reason, ranging from unethical wage suppression to insufficient toilet breaks to disagreement with company policy, should always be cause for rejoicing.

Employers in the US hold a wildly disparate amount of power (with health insurance being tied to employment, and no social safety net) – so employees that speak out tend to help tilt that balance a very tiny bit back to the side of the employee.

>>quadri+(OP)
Yeah, that's a good question. I think that's why this case upsets me. I want to live in a world where, as another commenter put it, executives will think twice before taking actions that they know their employees won't like. Because they should know that employees have power, and a voice, and must be listened to.

In this case, there's no way the executives can sanely take the requested action. It'd be terribly damaging to their business. (I may be wrong about this, but it's what I would think if I were an executive).

So now if I'm an executive, I have to roll my eyes at the protesting employees. They lose credibility. I'll know that next time I do something they ask for, they'll just ask me for something I can't do.

That's what bums be out.

>>quadri+(OP)
> They have a problem with their employer, and are being heard in the court of public opinion. Why is that "a bummer"?

The court of public opinion doesn't have a good track record, for one. It's decisions are often based on fashion more than any kind of ethical principles.

A classic exploration of this phenomenon is contained in the novel The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe.

>>dnissl+Im
I haven't read that book. Can you provide some examples supporting the claim that the "court of public opinion" doesn't have a good track record?

>>o10449+Fr
> Can you provide some examples supporting the claim that the "court of public opinion" doesn't have a good track record?

Does the regular outcome of popular votes in favour of shafting minorities, restricting human rights etc. rather than general fairness and dignity for all persons regardless of background count?

>>o10449+Fr
Really all you need to do is google "twitter mob".

The most common cases involve people who did something bad, but where the punishment meted out was totally disproportional to the crime itself.

Justine Sacco is the classic case, who made a bad joke and had her life turned upside down.

Then you have the cases where people are so full of emotion that they get basic facts wrong.

James Damore is a good example of this, who many media outlets falsely claimed had written in his infamous memo that women were inferior to men in terms of software engineering ability.

Just go on twitter or facebook and take a look at how issues are being discussed. Even here on hacker news it's sometimes difficult to have sense making discussions because people are in such a rush to judgement.

>>o10449+Fr
Lynchings.

>>dnissl+VG
Uh, I read the James Damore memo, and that's what I got out of it. It's the classic groundwork for an argument of scientific sexism.

>>jacksn+7X
I'm guessing you got that impression by reading between the lines since he certainly did not say so literally. Since the memo is pretty short, could you go back over it and offer up a justification for that assertion? Is it possible that you rushed to judgement and heard what you wanted to hear?

>>dnissl+211
As I said, "It's the classic groundwork for an argument of scientific sexism". Yes, it's reading between the lines, but the implication is there and clearly intended to be there. Not only is he implying it, he is implying it using the exact same arguments that have been used in neuro circles for years. There is an explicitly sexist context for these arguments that is not present in the memo but which nobody making those arguments could have been completely unaware of.

>>dnissl+211
> I'm guessing you got that impression by reading between the lines since he certainly did not say so literally.

It’s called a dog whistle. Damore knew exactly what he was saying, who it would appeal to, and how to attempt to cover himself when the whole thing blew up in his face.

>>jlokie+PE
"Popular" votes often differ substantially from actual public opinion due to things like gerrymandering, the two-party system, absence of ranked-choice voting, voter suppression, and the the like.

>>rattra+Tf
To suggest that Github “can’t” end this contract is crazy talk. If a huge chunk of the company won’t do it, they must end the project.

>>paulco+w71
100% this.

>>paulco+w71
Who was he dog whistling to? The secret google cabal of sexist software engineers? This strong claim borders on conspiracy. It flies in the face of the fact that the memo was not originally posted for the whole company to see, but in response to a request for feedback on bias training.

>>dnissl+Si1
> The secret google cabal of sexist software engineers

Go back and read the comment threads here when the story broke. The population of sexist software engineers extends far beyond Google and isn’t a secret to anyone.

>>exolym+uI
Counterargument: stopping lynchings. Perhaps the problem is bigger than "what the public thinks at a given time" and that public opinion can be correct or incorrect given external circumstances?

>>jacksn+7X
The memo called into question the diversity effort's efficiency and methods, because it pointed out that it seems that the effort had no rational grounding, therefore it was succeeding at best as an expensive PR (or Corporate Social Responsibility) stunt and worst it hurts Google.

Does this sound like a truthful and faithful assessment to you?