What Google did not make public was that an employee had accused Mr. Rubin of sexual misconduct. The woman, with whom Mr. Rubin had been having an extramarital relationship, said he coerced her into performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013, according to two company executives with knowledge of the episode. Google investigated and concluded her claim was credible, said the people, who spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing confidentiality agreements. Mr. Rubin was notified, they said, and Mr. Page asked for his resignation.
Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years, said two people with knowledge of the terms. The last payment is scheduled for next month.
Mr. Rubin was one of three executives that Google protected over the past decade after they were accused of sexual misconduct. In two instances, it ousted senior executives, but softened the blow by paying them millions of dollars as they departed, even though it had no legal obligation to do so. In a third, the executive remained in a highly compensated post at the company. Each time Google stayed silent about the accusations against the men.
Great reporting by The New York Times – a story they’ve been working on for over a year.
So just to summarise this story: Andy Rubin and several other powerful men at Google have been either paid vast sums of money or given a high-paying job after being credibly accused of sexual harassment. This would be unbelievable if it wasn’t 100% in line with everything we know about the male-centric bro culture of the technology industry. This should be 100% unacceptable, and not only the men involved ought to be fired, but Larry Page should also be forced to resign.
Unless these acts have consequences – as opposed to millions of dollars in rewards – society will never get rid of pathetic little men like these.
Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years, said two people with knowledge of the terms.
We need shareholders to start suing the Boards of Directors who approve these payments. What right did the board have to give away $90 million of company resources to someone who should have been fired and, at most, gotten a severance check in line with company policy (typically something like a week per year of service in many companies)?
He wasn’t fire, he resigned (reportedly at Larry Page’s request). Because of his status as CEO of a former acquisition, he almost certainly had a lucrative exit package Google was obligated to pay. Unless Google chose to fire him they almost certainly had to pay it.
Yes, he could have been terminated for misconduct and that would probably have nullified it, but this definitely would have become public if it had gone that route – there is no way in hell he would have left quietly under those circumstances…
I’m not defending Google, but we do not know the whole story. Maybe the victim wanted to remain anonymous and just wanted him gone. If you fire Rubin, you lose control over him – he could do whatever he wanted including naming the victim and/or making up his own story with the media. You cannot keep the victim anonymous and just cut him loose with nothing – it doesn’t work that way.
All I’m saying is this was in 2014, which as far as this kind of thing goes was a completely different era. Seriously, a lot has changed in the last 4 years. Being outed as a women who filed a sexual assault complaint in 2014 in the valley was usually career ending. It is perfectly reasonable to think she might have wanted it to go the way it did…
Again, I don’t know shit, Google will have to explain the why, but they probably never will. I just think it might be a bit harsh to call for the torches and pitchforks here. Google could have behaved far worse, like just settling with the victim privately and burying the whole thing. Maybe give them a *wee bit* of leeway here is all I’m saying.
If everyone wants someone to witch hunt, Andy Rubin seems like a better candidate to me.
Edited 2018-10-26 03:35 UTC
The women chose to stay quiet on their part and NOT PRESS ANY CHARGES — why would a faceless company have to do their dirty loundry? The company let these men go and cut ties with them, that ought to be enough. It isn’t Google’s duty to fight a private matter between two individuals.
Your blind SJW ideology is the single downside of this website. It has got nothing to do with tech.
Edited 2018-10-25 18:03 UTC
Obviously not. But it would be nice.
Why? Google cannot take it to court for the claims to be verified. And without a proper court case there’s no place for Google to act as the executioner.
Edited 2018-10-25 18:07 UTC
They might know. And if they know….
And there is never anything wrong with being nice you know.
You know if you have the option.
No it wouldn’t. Sexual harassment accusations are generally messy cases of “he said – she said” with no real proof (but which can destroy the life of the accused anyway) and a corporation taking sides on this and acting as an unofficial judge (using their authority) would only make this worse.
Edited 2018-10-26 09:26 UTC
HURR DURR SJW HURR DURR
All the attention your comment deserves.
Yea, sure, because you have no take on the cold hard facts stated above, you resort to strawmanning the whole argument by grasping to a single word. But even that statement, you being a blind SJW, was accurate.
You’re absolutely right, Thom is a a total SJW.
We didn’t necessarily need an acronym to define ‘someone who is capable of being empathetic to the plight of others’, but call it what you will.
You forgot snowflake and libtard. You’re welcome!
“blind SJW ideology”!?!
What is your problem?
Oh, horseshit. These days, if you go public with such an accusation, it’s going to be all over the blogosphere in about 5 minutes, and all of these progressives will take your word for it, regardless of whether you have any credible evidence or not.
But let’s say it’s true and you were sexually assaulted by a powerful man; if you say nothing, chances are better than excellent that he’s going to do this to other women, and you’re going to stay quiet about it to save your own ass? If women are too scared to speak up, do you really think these men are ever going to stop, just because we ask them nicely?
I realize it’s a shitty situation to be in, but it’s likely this has happened to you because it has also happened to other women, who stayed quiet to save their asses as well, and maybe they would actually come forward and back you up if you bothered to say something.
Edited 2018-10-25 23:37 UTC
I don’t say that you are wrong, but you yourself highlight the troublesome parts. The parts that makes this go from clear-cut black-and-white to some really shitty storm of a lot of grays.
I don’t think anyone denies that going to the police and pressing charges is the right thing to do to stop the predator, but it is also hard to do. Or as you put it “a shitty situation to be in“…
Victim blaming is not the way to go. If the victims had nothing to lose by stepping forward we could perhaps be a bit harsher in our judgement. But if you risk losing your job, career, income and by extension your home etc, you will not find this an easy choice to make, even if it is the right thing to do.
Still, instead of focusing on the victims, why not looking at the predator and the company who let him go yet gave him lots of money and invested in his future company?
Also, remember that if you focus on the victims and their (non-)actions do you really these men are ever going to stop? Instead of scrutinizing the actions or non-actions of the victims, look at the perpetrators now that we know more and be critical to how they are handled.
Don’t know where you live, but if I witness for example domestic abuse, I can report it to the police, even if the victim is reluctant to do so out of fear of retaliation. It is also the right thing to do. So why shouldn’t it be the right thing to do for the company that terminates the contract?
I hope that you never are put in a situation where you are so scared that you refrain from doing the right thing. I think it destroys you as a person a little each time when you have to choose between doing right by your morals or your person. No one should have to go through that, and certainly not blamed for having to choose.
Edited 2018-10-26 14:21 UTC
I guess it comes down to a choice you have to make – save your career or save other people from being assaulted. If you choose the former, and I or someone I loved happened to be one of their future victims, you damn well better believe I’m holding you partially responsible.
Do you think that victim blaming makes it more or less likely that victims of abuse will come forward? Or more or less likely that abusers will be held to account?
And this is why victims choose not to come forward. Not only do they put themselves in harms way with regard to the abuser. They also need to defend themselves from people like you, blaming them. Even if they come forward, someone will claim that they didn’t do it soon enough and others might have been harmed in the process.
The fact that they are wrestling with an impossible situation where there is no win, every choice leads to a loss, seem to go way past you.
I feel sad that there are people out there, with such a lack of empathy and blaming victims.
Edited 2018-10-30 14:13 UTC
To this case specificaly:
Something happened to start an internal investigation at google. I’d bet on the victim reporting it, or talking about it to someone who reported it.
The internal investigation ended with the conclusion “claims are credible”. Implying they found evidence? Now the real question is: Why were charges not pressed, by the firm itself?
Per the original story: “They were having an extramarital relationship”. Well…
Not defending anyone, just saying we don’t have the full picture, and probably never will.
So if I claim you molested me in 1984 they should fire you without me providing ANY evidence or proof? Gee sounds like a great way to get revenge on someone you don’t like….like say a woman who was having an affair with a man that refused to marry her?
I’m sorry but there really needs to be things like due process and facing one’s accuser, because we have seen what happens when you just automatically take their word without proof…mattress girl ring ANY bells? Duke Lacross light up any bulbs for ya?
And for those of you trying to bring your left/right political BS into this? Let me leave you with the words of the late great Bill Hicks…“I believe the puppet on the left shares MY beliefs, well I believe the puppet on the right has MY interests at heart…hey wait a minute there is one guy holding up both puppets!”
Shh… don’t pinch that raw nerve. The mattress girl fiasco always serves as a reminder to the “progressive” media of what can happen to the credibility of a media outlet if they decide to take sides on a sexual assault case, aka if they decide to take the view of the accuser at face value and run with it.
BTW the same can happen to a corporation. If a corporation acquires the reputation of firing talent willy-nilly based on mere accusations then they will have a harder time acquiring quality talent in the future. Which is why Google wisely chose to not take any sides in the case described in article. Sometimes it’s a choice between losing (aka being viewed as protecting accused people by the progressive media and the Thoms of this world) and losing badly (what happened to the Rolling Stone with the matress girl fiasco)
Edited 2018-10-26 14:11 UTC
Where did this come from? Are you replying to someone elses post?
I never said anything about firing someone without evidence or proof.
Also, I object to victim blaming (which has surfaced a couple of times already in this thread) as I see it as a blatant attempt to try to draw the attention away from the perpetrator.
Yes, this does have everything to do with tech, as it reflects on the prevailing workplace culture in a lot of Silicon Valley tech companies. You’d understand that if you weren’t blind and projecting.
While I’m disturbed by the trend of “guilty until proven innocent” that I associate with what you call blind SJW ideology, in this case…. You’re a moron.
Google found the claims credible enough (probably by consulting their in-house advertising profile on Rubin) that they decided to show one of their better-known creative minds to the door.
The fact that they paid him enough money that he doesn’t have to work again for the rest of his life instead of referring what is obviously a criminal issue to the police, is disturbing, but completely expected, from a large corporation who values their stock and their bottom line more than their values.
It also means that “do no evil” left the building a long time ago. Calling one of the most well known brands on the planet “faceless” is misleading, to say the least.
The fact that you are totally lacking in empathy for what appears to be a cover-up of a documented case of sexual assault and a criminal act, is also disturbing.
maybe not give him 90 million dollars though.
Let’s phrase it differently.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that a member of the board of directors was caught being flagrantly racist to another member of staff, say a secretary. That’s grounds for lawsuits and dismissals straight away.
Here’s some examples of this happening:
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-competen…
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/netflix-nword-jona…
https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/huge-business-fallout-as-fam…
How is it that we live in a world where racial abuse is tolerated less than sexual abuse?
I really ask why the need for such extrapolation ‘male-centric bro culture? Pathetic Little men?’
Let’s ask some very basic simple questions.
1. Do people in power sometimes abuse their power? The answer is obviously yes.
2. Do people in power often protect each other. Anyone who has worked for a corporation knows that they do. They’ll do it for any number of reasons, much less sexual assault.
3. Is there something about ‘male centric bro culture?’ that makes this unique? I doubt that. Whatever the distribution is, women abuse their power along the same lines as men. It might not be 50/50, but its not 99/1 either. I just did a quick google.
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/female-teachers-the-sex-offender…
I know personally of a few people are in this exact spot of being coerced into sexual relations by female superiors. My own friend works in trades and he has to ‘perform’ for the dispatcher, or she won’t give him shifts
Perhaps the problem is simply people in power abusing that power and has little to do with being men or women or bro-culture or tech or anything like that.
Edited 2018-10-25 19:02 UTC
The whatabouts about women sometimes being in positions of power and abusing it are off-base because the case at hand is an actual man abusing power, and getting rewarded for it instead of fired. The only purpose a whatabout has is to illogically short-circuit a moral imperative to give vile actions what they deserve. Cross the bridge with the immoral powerful woman when you get to it – there are a lot of other bridges in this industry which is famously male-dominated.
I’d say a culturally-conditioned blind eye is showing.
it’s not a whataboutwoman. it’s about taking a case of a male in power abusing it and extrapolating that to bro culture or whatever.
this is google. a huge corporation. it’s not a drunken frathouse where u can blame some party culture. as to letting him go easily, that’s what execs do for anything. every exec ive had that got let go ‘left for personal reasons’ and probsbly with va nice package even though we all suspect there are other reasons.
Edited 2018-10-25 22:31 UTC
You haven’t read the article haven’t you? This isn’t just about one man or just one incidence.
You are correct that it is about abusing power. And since men are much more often in power than women this is mostly a male problem.
The problem here is that even when the weaker person is believed and the stronger person gets punished the punishment is done in a way to hide everything bad that happened so it can, will, and has happened again. And in this case the stronger person got rewarded financially in a way that would normally not have happened just so everything would stay hidden
I’d agree, but I might disagree with who has the blind eye.
Google is a corporation, beholden to their stockholders. “Bro culture” has nothing to do with it– if a woman at Google acted as Mr. Rubin did, then Google would have done the same thing (although they wouldn’t have paid as much, but that’s another topic). The bottom line is to not affect the stock price, therefore, you hush things up.
Not because you’re misogynists– but because you’re terrified of losing money from your stocks.
Assuming this is sexism, racism, or any other form of -ism is sloppy thinking. It’s slapping a label on something, because once you’ve labelled it, you don’t have to do any deep thinking.
Saying “but women do the same thing!” is true, but doesn’t make them (or the men) any less guilty, and doesn’t change the corporate instinct for self-preservation.
While you sit back and blame “bro culture”, Google, along with the other major tech companies, continues to exploit tax loopholes, hire ever increasing numbers of H1B “contract” employees, while lobbying Congress to raise the limits– and thanks to Citizens United, they can buy all the politicians they need for their agenda.
United we stand, divided we fall– and society hasn’t been this divided in my lifetime.
Are we talking about rape rape or consensual blow job rape here?
I’m just a bit confused with all those rape-cases falling apart left, right and center…
I guess you just didn’t read that part where google found the accusations credible.
Google finding something credible doesn’t even come close to it being true.
Do I have to remind you of the rape-accusations against Assange, the duke lacrosse case, or Lucia Evans vs. Harvey Weinstein?
The list of rape-accusations that fall apart as soon as a real judge comes close is realy long.
I remember an interview with a female police officer here in austria, where she stated that 80% of rape-accusations are false.
80% huh? Well the exact number is hard to get, but just the tiniest bit of research would show it is generally believed to be around 5%. About 16 times as few as you make it out to be. So instead of “4 out of 20 accusations are true”, which you believe, you should be thinking “19 out of 20 accusations are true”.
(several sources inside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape)
Don’t know about the other cases but the Assange case isn’t just empty accusations. Must I remind you that Mr. Assange willingly hid instead of facing the accusation(s)? This after accepting to return to Sweden for later questioning?
With that said Google finding something credible means nothing in itself, it just means they think something could have happened. As the people involved say they had a relationship and were together in a room at the time that’s obvious.
Those women were tweeting after the “rape” how great the sex with Assange was.
Making up numbers is fun. Here’s one I just made up to match yours: 80% of Australians are rapists.
You misogynistic asshole are saying that at least 60% of all australian women are rapists?!?!?
How dare you!
Anita Sarkeesian shall haunt you in your dreams!
:p
Credibility is irrelevant here. What matters is evidence. Credible accusation vs. credible defence. He said, she said – and to that we cannot respond. We most certainly cannot punish. That would be grave injustice.
Edited 2018-10-27 06:25 UTC
Did you verify the story or are you just accepting it on blind faith in NYT?
Aren’t you for liberty to start mobs?
I am against the liberty to start mobs. I was wondering whether NYT had any actual evidence since I have lost my faith in the news.
How can you, limiting the liberty of others like that?!…
She is certainly no victim. In a hotel room with a married man!. She (and he) should be apologising to the wife who the sleazebag bloke was cheating on! This is like the #MeToo crowd who chose to get down and dirty to boost their careers – but then got buyer’s regret and cried victim. I have no sympathy for any of them. None!
Whether they should apologize or not to the cuckold is completely out of our sphere. But I agree that the story is not of “simple” harrassment when it involves a continued relation and consensual meetings in hotel rooms, most likely not to discuss work.
But what *could* of easily happened is she met him to talk – break it off – whatever, he said ‘don’t *** with me’ I can break you and your career. Now do what I want or I’ll make your life hell.
Just because she had an affair with him in the past doesn’t mean she loses all rights to say no in the future.
You’d be surprised how many men think that even WITHIN a relationship or marriage, they have the RIGHT to have sex with their wife/girlfriend.
Yeah, no, you don’t.
If you don’t have the right to sex in a marriage, how can it be that sexual neglect is a sufficient reason for a divorce?
In it’s strictest form, that’s probably largely a relic of older times; when you also essentially owned your wife; surely you don’t want to go back to those days. Anyway, you probably noticed that divorces without pointing out the blame are a thing now…
No person ever has the right to sex with another person!
Not on a date, not in a relationship, not in a marriage, not even with a “paid professional”. Everyone always has the right to say no.
Of course there are certain expectations. When I walk up to a stranger and whisper something “sexy” the reaction is probably very different compared to me doing the same thing after spending a nice evening with my partner. However, if my partner indicates no interest that means “no party of two”. This might be surprising, annoying or feel unfair….deal with it!
…and if this happens often there is probably something going on and it is time for a series of serious talks, some outside help, or maybe a divorce indeed.
If the above wasn’t entirely obvious, I hope it is now because there really is no wiggle-room there.
Simple comparison: If your partner doesn’t want to talk with you, you cannot force them. The next day it might be different and if it stays that way a divorce is surely an option.
“after being credibly accused of sexual harassment. This would be unbelievable if it wasn’t 100% in line with everything we know about the male-centric bro culture of the technology industry. ”
*accused* is key word. We don`t know if that`s what really happened. I know very well how people can lie even to excuse themselves for things that now they regret.
Many here are very quick to judge … too quick.
What do we really know?
Two adults went to a hotel room.
That is all we know for sure.
It is not about what a reporter at NYT thinks, or what Google as a employer may believe – they do not have all the facts and all the knowledge.
Nor do we.
So because of some accusations, everyone at Google needs to be fired?
“male-centric bro culture”, “get rid of pathetic little men”
Can we be sure that is the case here?
Where does all this hate come from?
Summary: Google grew fast, and the policies lagged reality for a bit as leaders too time to realize the implicit power they wielded.
The way I read it was the Google leadership doing what they considered to be fair based on them thinking broadly everyone are adults – remember Melissa and Page briefly dated, when the company was small.
Then the leadership slowly coming to realize that actually everyone isn’t equal in the company and even if you don’t explicitly wield it, simply by holding a position of power in a company means any sexual approach to a junior member of staff comes with it an unpleasant implicit threat about their career.
Now the evidence that came out in Rubins divorce suggests he is a controlling person and he may well have been explicit – Google certainly seemed to think
what happened – even with his contribution to Google – meant he should leave.
Note Rubin actually he had a 150 million stock grant and they decided to give him only 90 million of that after they asked him to leave – a 60 million cut – however that’s not such a good story.
So in summary, they always tried to do the right thing – and they gradually realized that meant realizing in companies not everybody is equal in terms of power and those in power have a particular responsibility not to abuse it – either directly or indirectly and so they have become increasingly hard line – not because they are SJW, but because that’s what’s fair.
“pathetic little men”
This is a dangerous way of looking at these men. They are not pathetic nor little. They are powerful, predatory men, devoid of respect for their fellow humans. They know they can wield their power to get whatever sick satisfaction they want and be sure they won’t get burned too badly if it leaks out.
Who are “they”?
Are “they” all the same?
How do you know?
And how do you know the truth in this case here?
Are you judge and jury?
Perfect step functions require infinite energy. The whole guilty until proven innocent thing is an inevitable overshoot to any real world system correction. It is going to result in a different kind of abuse and lives ruined, but less abuse overall. The anti SJW thing is an oscillation in the reverse direction but cannot reverse the overall correction. Be tolerant of that as you can’t make it go away either, even on OS News.
I have zero interest if he/she was married or not, if they were under same division or not and all that stuff.
It means nothing not me. Many, if not all, relationships start and die with people you have around you. Many do it kind of graciously (as possible, of course), some not, just like marriages.
The only thing that really matters is if one part, at some point of the relationship or start of it, used unfair pressure to have what he/she wanted, if so, prosecution and legal liabilities are more than deserved, but there needs to exist evidence and duo process.
Also, I have seen too many misinterpretations and/or malicious intent on real life to be comfortable with only a claim that someone mistreated some other.
Edited 2018-10-26 18:26 UTC