Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 2 Nov 2018.
Not appropriate in the slightest, dude. Have the weekend off.
Well darn. Now I'm curious what was said.
It doesn't particularly surprise me, but it does disappoint me that forced arbitration is both legal and considered binding. But then in the US contract law seems to trump (heh) even criminal law, which is bizarre.
Whilst there is apparently an issue there, the Andy Rubin case seems to me to be pushing an illicit but consensual affair in amongst cases of actual sexual harassment and that seems wrong and unfair. Whilst details are thin, the line 'with whom he had been carrying out an affair' implies an existing sexual relationship. Who hasn't coerced a girlfriend into various sexual deeds in various locations?Why he specifically would have been allowed to go in the way he did was probably because whilst the relationship was against company policy, there was 'legal' no wrong doing. As such they asked him to go pending the ensuing divorce battle which may drag google through the mud a little.
Err... Given the definition of 'coerce', I'd hope the answer was "nobody has done or would do that."
Ah... I thought it was just a synonym of persuade, like he'd just done a Mrs Doyle impression. That makes things very different. I'll continue with much lunch of 2 armadillos.
And no, I have definitely not done that.
As 'consensual' as any "X with your boss or bosses boss and so on" can be. Even if there has been no impropriety, there is no way to prove it was not a factor, hence why 'no fraternisation' clauses are common.
I probably don't look at it in the same way others might as I was technically my girlfriends manager when we got together
Forced arbitration in the US is to keep unscrupulous opportunists from abusing the court system. You can probably guess how many people sue for a million dollars because their boss winked at them, or they tripped over a potted plant.
It's sad that it takes a walkout to raise awareness of this, but often it requires someone to stand up and say "no, this is not okay!" before anyone really starts to take notice. Just like with #MeToo and so on. The sooner it's stamped out of the industry, the better.
Yeah, it's BS. I was raised by my mother only from the age of 7 and even though she's not very vocal about sexism it's still BS. I've never understood it myself. I guess a part of that is my autism (where I see everything level, equal...) and part that I was raised by just my mother and she did a sterling job where most men would have failed. Mentally and emotionally women are the stronger sex. There is just no doubt.
Unless attorneys have suddenly become cheap to hire I do not agree with that in the slightest. Particularly in the US the deck is heavily stacked against the rights of the worker when it comes to legal disputes, allowing this kind of contract is simply to enforce the silence of the aggrieved and reinforce the control of those in charge.
If anything Google's statement underlines the hypocrisy of the situation, they are happy to investigate and fire employees over sexual harassment, but only the ones lower down the corporate ladder and thus beholden to the forced arbitration contract. Neither the alleged victim nor the alleged perpetrator gets an actual shot at representation in this scenario, Google just makes it's mind up and both sides aren't even allowed to talk about it.
I find that rather despicable.
I never said it was fair. I know an attorney that has met several people that turned suing into a career, and I knew one as well. They tend to think if they don't win, they don't have to pay their legal fees.
Separate names with a comma.