back to article Alphabet promises to no longer bung tens of millions of dollars to alleged sex pest execs who quit mid-probe

Google will no longer pay top execs fat severance packages not only if they are fired for sexual harassment but also if they leave mid-investigation into their behavior, it announced on Friday. “We’re building on our current practice of prohibiting severance for anyone terminated for any form of misconduct, and expanding the …

  1. Robert Grant

    A similar situation unfolded when its chief legal officer David Drummond decided to leave in January. Jennifer Blakely, who was a senior contracts manager in Google's legal department, said in a blog post in August last year she had an affair with Drummond back in 2004 when he was still married. A few years after Blakely gave birth to their son, Drummond left their relationship and later married a woman who had left Google and then rejoined the biz.

    How is that similar to the previous example?

    1. bonkers

      I agree, it is not at all the same thing.

      The JB case looks like "love affair" - with no hint of coercion or direct (reporting) authority.

      OK it was possibly a poor judgement on her part, and immoral on his, but these things happen - and are genuinely consensual - which puts them in quite a different league to the "sex-pest" complaints.

      We must be mindful of the fact that 30% (according to google) of relationships start at work - and it would not be fair to break this important process.

      Hell, look at Bill Gates as a test case.

      So, coercion has to be one of the critical tests, complaint another.

      1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge

        Inappropriate relation between a manager and a subordinate in the same chain of command.

        In the USA it is enough to start lawsuits, whether it was consensual or not, because Puritans...

      2. CrackedNoggin Bronze badge

        The constraints are only on superior-subordinate relationships, which a subset of that 30%. (But you knew that.)

        Bill Gates story is anecdotal evidence for your argument, but obviously contrary anecdotal evidence also exists. Bill Gates is not your average manager.

        The problem is that lesser managers may and sometimes do barter power for sex - e.g., making sex a prerequisite for promotion. That's injurious both to all employees and the company because it is not an efficient criterion.

        When you say "complaint", do you include the employees who didn't get promoted because they didn't respond positively to their bosses come on? And what about the plain/ugly women who never get hired because they don't fir in with the harem. Also, waiting for "complaints" becomes expensive - lawyers aren't cheap. Just look at FOX news.

        Your single point is not invalid, but it is not the complete picture. Perhaps an intermediate solution such a filing a request for a personal relationship exemption? That would put a damper on the most egregious cases.

        1. bonkers

          @CrackedNoggin

          I've rowed back somewhat (see above) - I take your points also.

          I guess it can't be easily codified - which was my point about Bill and Melinda - any hard rules that would catch "monumental shit" above, would catch B+M also.

          It's beyond my simple commentard analysis, there are loosely-defined quantities like decorum and professionalism (as mentioned in the piece) at the heart of it..

          The truth is, authority and seniority do require you to act appropriately, you are in a position of trust, and the remuneration reflects this.

          Here in the UK you can be debarred as a solicitor, or struck-off as a doctor, for a single "driving over the alcohol limit" offence, in your private time.

          Probity, they call it, and it covers pretty much anything that might bring the profession into disrepute, even a series of "honest" adulterous affairs - god forbid if they were employees also.

          So, two cheers for Google, well done - even if a bit late.

          It's all in stark contrast to the recent Facebook whistleblower case, where the rare charge of "bringing the company into repute" was brought...

    2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Indeed. Not only is this perfectly consensual, but the guy had shares. That is his property and he can do whatever he wants with them.

      The first affair is the issue, and what I would like is an explanation on how Google waited until now to decide to not pay tens of millions to top execs under suspicion of sexual misconduct. I'm sorry, I'm just a lowly programmer, but if are suspected of sexual harassment or misconduct and there is an inquiry ongoing, if you decide to bail and I'm the CEO, you're on your own and I won't give you a single cent.

      Bailing out like that is a clear sign of guilt. There is no reason to shower a guilty person with money.

      1. Robert Grant

        I agree, although given the money involved it's likely he was pushed.

      2. Helcat

        "Bailing out like that is a clear sign of guilt. There is no reason to shower a guilty person with money."

        I agree its wrong to shower the guilty with money, but bailing isn't a sign of guilt: I've know people bail when accused because they had more to lose if they stayed (and the work environment was hostile towards them), while the guilty had more to gain (there not being enough evidence to sack them being the main one, so they can claim they were innocent when they do leave), so I'd suggest it's the reverse. That's why companies pay people off: It gets rid of the guilty quickly, and is an apology to the innocent.

        Not ideal: You want the innocent to remain but the guilty to go, but how can you achieve that if it's just one persons word against another's, and meanwhile you've the rumour mill turning the work place toxic?

        And if the accused is innocent? What was the motivation for the accusation? And that's what people tend to miss.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          in such cases, paying out the guilty is frequently cheaper than paying off the legal claims of the innocent

          it's all about money in the end. Companies take the expedient path, not the "right" one

    3. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      "How is that similar to the previous example?"

      OK, similar's not the right word -- I've tweaked the piece. The article glossed over the details (I've added a few in) but Drummond's professionalism was called into question WRT relationships with women subordinate to him in the org chart.

      From Blakey's blog post...

      "In October of 2008, still living together, David and I attended a dinner in Palo Alto with other Google employees, many from the legal department. During dinner, our babysitter called to say our son was sick so I went home and David said he would be right behind me. Several hours later that same evening, I received a call from Chris Chin, the Associate General Counsel and a friend, who told me that David had taken two other women who worked for him in the legal department to San Francisco.

      "I didn’t understand. Our son was very sick and I panicked so I called him several times but he didn’t answer his phone. Finally, I sent him a text message asking him when we could expect him home. He responded, 'Don’t expect me back. I’m never coming back.' And he didn’t."

      C.

      1. bonkers

        Re: "How is that similar to the previous example?"

        Right... many thanks for the update. It's a tricky one isn't it!

        The guy is obviously a monumental shit - and it is a similar case since it relies on elements of "hierarchical coercion" and certainly an unpleasant predatory aspect.

        I accept that consent is not an absolute defence, nor complaint a requirement - in fact I utterly disagree with my previous post, which is a bit embarrassing - but hey, that's what incisive journalism can do to you.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How about

    Not employing overpaid psychopaths?

    1. IGotOut Silver badge

      Re: How about

      Wouldn't leave many at the top.

    2. a_yank_lurker

      Re: How about

      Sexual predators are one type of psychopath. But since psychopaths have morals or ethics they fit right in with the others. And most companies are run by psychopaths.

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: How about

        Are people generally confusing psychopaths with sociopaths?

        Most management are the latter rather than the former as the personality traits are generally well rewarded.

      2. Caver_Dave Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: How about

        Hi Yank Lurker,

        In the UK we call it crazy paving not psycho path

  3. Warm Braw

    A few years after Blakely gave birth to their son

    That's an unusually long gestation period.

    1. Oliver Mayes

      Re: A few years after Blakely gave birth to their son

      It's Google, the fetus was probably in beta until they decided to end support and the pregnancy had to finish up quickly.

  4. macjules

    Alphabet has promised to spend $310m on programs

    Seems that is the way that they all run these days.

    1) Praise the pest and not the victim.

    2) Get found out.

    3) Set up a special programme with lots of money funding it because you got found out.

    4) Do absolutely fuck all about the culture of sexual or other harassment In the workplace..

    © IBM, Facebook, Apple, Alphabet etc etc. ad nauseam.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Alphabet has promised to spend $310m on programs

      Not to mention that what the policies, statements and programs might say, the truth on the ground is usually quite different. eg see "Mission Statements"

      1. macjules

        Re: Alphabet has promised to spend $310m on programs

        And the lovely "Whistleblower Protection" clause in employment contracts now.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Realistically if someone quits mid-probe and they discontinue said probe then if they have a severance payment in their contract for such situations then Google will have to pay them. They'll find some way round it anyway.

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Not if it's company policy

      As that forms part of the employment contract.

      The point of such policies is to ensure they actually complete the investigation, instead of grabbing the money and running before their reputation is affected.

      That said, internal investigations like these almost always fail because the managers usually scare any witnesses into silence.

      I know three people who told me they suffered sexual misconduct at work. One pushed for an investigation... Which said there wasn't enough evidence to even give the perpetrator a written warning - so she resigned.

      The other two resigned to escape it, they didn't think there was any point in even formally reporting it as it was clear the company would not censure him.

      I think he is still a top manager there, and I would not be surprised if he has other victims.

      There is a general problem, common to most, possibly all companies that underlings tend not to be believed.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not if it's company policy

        I just don't see how they can continue an investigation when the person being investigated no longer works for the company. They should of course continue the investigation but it's not a court, they can't force a former employee to cooperate. Likewise they can't punish them. As for the pay off they could put it into company policy which is a good idea but if the contract has a pay off and they haven't been found guilty what grounds do they have to withhold it? As you know yourself this is how these people are they'll find a way round it they always do. Question is how do you actually fix it?

        1. Helcat

          Re: Not if it's company policy

          If it's a criminal act then it should be with the police already.

          As for punishing them: It could be put into the contract that if there's an open investigation at the time the person leaves, they can face clawback on payments to cover fines/penalties etc. However, any such investigation would have to be time limited, and any such clawback subject to tribunal to make sure it's not abused.

          Am liking that idea, but it would need a bit of work, obviously.

      2. tonyyaman

        Re: Not if it's company policy

        well then the woman should get together and give him a good kicking and should call the cops

      3. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Not if it's company policy

        "I think he is still a top manager there, and I would not be surprised if he has other victims."

        I'd suggest the victims name and shame, but I'm sure he'd attempt to sue them into the ground with the full backing of the company

        One company I worked for had just about every female employee very quickly quit under a new manager for similar reasons - but a hell of a lot of male employees (including me) bailed out too because he was simply awful to work under

        By the company realised what was going on they'd lost 80% of the department staff

  6. Eclectic Man Silver badge

    Complaining is a dangerous business

    The main problem with internal complaints seems to be that the person complaining is at a lower level in the hierarchy, and therefore less valued, less trusted and less powerful than the person complained about. More senior management has to admit to making a mistake in hiring / not noticing the bad behaviour of the person complained about - who they almost certainly know a lot better than the complainant.

    The only time I made a formal complaint about a 'colleague' putting undue pressure on me to, shall we say, 'interpret national security regulations in a way that allowed them to save money', but which was IMPO (in my professional opinion) wrong, I was put through the wringer, and a year later he got promoted. He was senior to me (although in a different management chain) and one of the 'money people'.

    In my experience businesses are feudal organisations, not democracies or meritocracies, and they rely on people appointing people they like who just happen to be able to do the job.

    If you want a genuinely independent investigation you have to go outside the organisation. I remember thinking when seeing a film or TV program about someone who discovers corruption in their organisation and 'tells the boss' - who invariably turns out to be the biggest villain of them all, they should really take the evidence / bribe money or whatever to the local tax office and say "my colleagues seem to be getting illegal payments, and I just thought you might like to check whether they are paying the correct amount of tax on them. Here are mine, you'll find everyone's fingerprints on them."

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      Re: Complaining is a dangerous business

      Whistleblowers do need to be aware of the 'Snowden Laws'. If you take on someone of sufficient size, then there is always the risk of you not coming out the other end in good shape.

      Snowden took on Uncle Sam and they didn't like being told that their systems were a POS security wise.

      Try doing that to shall we say a more unscrupulous organisation and... you fill in the blanks.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Steve Davies 3 - Re: Complaining is a dangerous business

        Do you really believe US is one of those scrupulous organizations ? Just asking.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Steve Davies 3 - Complaining is a dangerous business

          "Do you really believe US is one of those scrupulous organizations ? Just asking"

          Do you really believe US isn't the worst one of those scrupulous organizations ? Just asking

          FTFY

  7. Trigun

    I can see why you might want a system like this, but surely it can be abused? You want to get rid of someone, but it'll cost a fortune to get rid of them? Easy: get (pay) someone else to make a dodgy accusation and you get to investigate and more importantly decide on the issue.

  8. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    The foreseeable consequence: someone leaves under investigation, is cleared, sues and takes them for a bundle.

    Second foreseeable consequence: investigations pressured to come up with the "right" answer whatever the facts.

    Third foreseeable consequence: someone leaves under investigation, investigation comes up with the "right" facts, leaver sues, proves that the "right" facts weren't right and takes them for the biggest bundle yet.

  9. o p

    not always like this

    In my small company complaints of sexual harassment allowed us to get rid of an ineffective lead dev. He spent years doing .. really not much .. his competences were clearly below average, but he stuck on the job because he was "a dev" and because management would not easily accept they did not hire the right person.

    Thanks to reports of his misconduct he was swiftly dismissed and his former team is now much more productive. And no, we didn't pay any kind of "bonus" .

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: not always like this

      If said dev had been highly effective and done the same or worse misconduct, do you think they would still have been fired?

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't get why huge corporations always looking to shave costs in order to improve the bottom line, offer such obscene golden parachutes.

    Are these top level execs that much the prima donnas that they won't sign on or stay on without these clauses. Is there any other job or profession where this is common practice?

    Some one told me this is a result of the board of directors for these companies giving themselves fat remuneration increases and this is pay back to the top admin staff for supporting that and not calling it into question, so we end up with a self reinforcing loop. Is that true?

    1. Cliffwilliams44 Silver badge

      Because that's how the Executive Musical Chairs works. These guys swoop into a company, most times one with serious problems, Create all kinds of fancy sayings and meaningless programs, don't do anything to really fix the underlying problems, most times make things worse than before they arrived, leave after 3-4 years, get a massive payout and then move on to the next unfortunate company.

      In 30 years working in Corporations I have yet to see the so called "Savior CEO" actually save anything.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Me I stopped reading

    just after the words Alphabet promises. My eyesight could be better used somewhere else.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like