That's for the courts. Not for me hiring my executive team. I have enough damn headaches as it is; I don't need someone coming in and causing more. Especially because, let's be honest here, there's not exactly a shortage of people that could do that job.
It's not just for the courts: I do believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Why? Golden rule: given a role reversal, I would like the same consideration.
Please note that the "headache" this seems to have caused is purely an external optics one. Not sure how great of a team you would have if you cut off members at first sign of issues.
Maybe the sort of dysfunctional mess Uber seems to have.
Internal, not external, optics are vastly more important in a company.
That's a good point. Thanks for bringing it up so I can clarify my position :)
It's not about calling one person a liar vs the other. Rather, it's about accepting that there are multiple sides to every story. Without an unbiased third party, it devolves into he said/she said.
If formal charges aren't brought forward (which would allow for more facts/third party analysis), then why should one person be denigrated? Should a hint of an accusation, sourced by third parties, be enough to fire someone over? If so, what does that firing actually solve?[0]
Anyway, I understand this is a trigger issue, esp. after Susan's post, but to over-react is as bad under-reacting: you want to fix the problem, and you can't do that when you are busy scapegoating.
[0] I'm talking about this specific case, not sexual harassment cases in general.
Your two sides dodge is the same thing used by sexual harassers: oh, well, if it wasn't on video, then I guess opinions differ!
This is more than a hint of an accusation: Google HR investigated, and found some evidence to create a belief that Amit acted improperly enough to warrant termination. That's far from a foregone conclusion (how many execs are fired for sexual harassment? Not many.)
Google found the allegations credible and was prepared to fire him until he resigned. That seems like "guilty" to me, and certainly something you need to mention to a new employer, if only to avoid stories like this one.
There's a big difference between guilty and "Google found it credible". The latter could mean almost anything, but presumably as he denied it there wasn't actual film of it happening or any other hard evidence. Bear in mind, a big part of feminist/SJW culture is to never disbelieve a 'victim': literally, to make an accusation is to automatically be credible unless there's clear evidence you made it up.
Expecting a guy who clearly believes he was let go due to an unfounded malicious accusation to tell every future employer about it seems extreme. He obviously expected that Google would not leak his personnell notes, apparently that was a mistake.
You don't have to throw feminism under the bus in order to recognize that there's a difference between a claim that's credible and a claim that's true.
> Expecting a guy who clearly believes he was let go due to an unfounded malicious accusation to tell every future employer about it seems extreme.
Sorry, but not at the SVP level. You are a semipublic face of the company and its culture, and it's in both your and the company's interest for them to know about these things to be able to get out in front of revelations like this.
That's not what the story says happened. The story says, according to their anonymous sources, Singhal was about to be fired over the harassment incident, and Google instead allowed him to leave gracefully.
I read the story. I don't see how that contradicts what I said. He was effectively let go: told he could resign with dignity or be fired, same result in the end.
You: "Accused of a crime he didn't commit, he escaped into the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by feminists and SJWs, he survives as a soldier of fortune"
"However, to say that an allegation must be reported when taking a new job is pretty harsh"
If you are an executive, who is expected to be the face of the company, yes, yes you should disclose anything at all that could look bad to the company.
Version 1 was our primary product for 16 months. It still has customers using it at suite.staffjoy.com. We are helping some of those customers run the software on prem during the shutdown.
Wasn't trying to cast aspersions/take anything away: I think it's great that you are open sourcing anything. Kudos.
I was just pointing out that this infrastructure might have been great to start, but you guys moved to a very different, in terms of architecture , v2.
There are a bunch of competitors and SMBs very much care about the price tag so 100s of dollars is a massive stretch[0].
Note that this alleviates the pain of the staff, not the business ie vitamin for the entity paying for it, but pain killer for their part-time workers.
But, I do agree pricing is out of whack. I would probably try to charge directly based on the number of staff managed (eg: $1/staff member/month).
[0] I run a startup selling to SMBs in the service sector. Upfront dollar amount is a massive hurdle. However, upsells/elastic pricing based on users is easier.
While this particular incident is the action of the one nutter, 63m people voted for Trump despite his anti Muslim, anti Mexican, etc. rethoric & his alt-right team. So I'd have questions about what the opinion of the entire country actually is. If I were a person of colour/muslin faith I'd be even more reluctant.
I agree with your opinion. Why visit a country that elected a President that completely opposes immigrants coming into his country? USA's President has made it very clear that the country doesn't want any immigrants. I know that he's facing a lot of backlash and most people here would say that they're not with the same view as Trump, but guess what? Trump calls the shots for at least the next 4 years. It is extremely saddening, but the United States government is officially showing immigrants the finger.
I don't feel it is valid because it is rather nonsensical to group an entire country of 300 plus million into the same teaspoon of, at most, a handful of mentally insane killers.
It's not about saying everyone or even most people in the US are racist. It's about considering whether a visit would be marred by the current miasma of (institutional?) racism/anti-immigrant sentiment.
For example: would you, as a US citizen, choose to visit Iran vs going somewhere else?
This is one of the benefits of being a founder with YC/well-connected VCs.
Even if you burn though millions without figuring out a market, you will land on your feet (if you are on the executive team). Your employees? Not so much.
My words may sound negative, but my point is: most people who are working at startups should seriously consider starting one instead.
*should start one or join a late stage startup who is still offering equity
N=1, but a friend has done this twice as a product manager with joining late stage startups, getting a decent amount of equity/stock and then the company has IPO'd.
I agree with your point though, the risk/reward for most early employees who are not part of the founding team is not worth it. You'll work just as hard as the founders with a fraction of a fraction of the payout compared to the founders
Should he have disclosed it? Of course, because that would have lessened the impact when it did come out.
Maybe he thought it was over and done with. And, since it was an allegation vs proven maybe he didn't want to muddy waters.
However, to say that an allegation must be reported when taking a new job is pretty harsh. Innocent till proven guilty surely?
>> "Uber execs found out about the situation after Recode informed them of the chain of events between Singhal and the search giant this week."
Punish the person responsible in Susan's case. If anything, this feels like a person's career was taken down due to a witch hunt.
To me, this action by Uber's executive team is not one of cleaning house: it shows a lack of spine.