Damore’s Google suit proves Worstall’s Law

“Every organisation will, in the end, be run by those who stay awake in committee”

Worstall’s Law.

Google:

Damore, who was fired in 2017 after writing a controversial memo about gender and technology, alleges in the lawsuit that white, male conservative employees at Google are “ostracized, belittled, and punished”.

The lawsuit claims that numerous Google managers maintained “blacklists” of conservative employees with whom they refused to work; that Google has a list of conservatives who are banned from visiting the campus; and that Google’s firings of Damore and the other named plaintiff, David Gudeman, were discriminatory.

Yup, another organisation being taken over be the committecrats.

30 comments on “Damore’s Google suit proves Worstall’s Law

  1. The more telling attribute is their extreme politics. Google is determined to rip itself apart in indulgent student politics. The irony is that their wealth depends on the white and East Asian males who built and designed the software which allowed them to become dominant, yet they are the targets of the Ultras, deliberately encouraged by management.

  2. The way I heard it, Google facilitates this behaviour:

    Google’s internal company systems allowed employees and managers to maintain a “block list” of other employees with whom they did not wish to interact. For example, if A adds B to her block list, B is not able to look A up in the company directory, communicate with A through the internal instant messaging system, view A’s contact information or management chain, or see A’s posts on internal social media. A and B would not be able to work together constructively on an engineering project if either person blocked the other.

    If true, this is the most blatant form of constructive dismissal I’ve ever heard of, and it’s not just a few bad managers, it’s systemic, actively enabled by the top brass.

    Amazing to think these shiny tech firms could be worse than a 1970’s closed shop, but I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that a corporate culture which infantilises its staff with bean bags and toy rooms should turn into a playground.

    Bring back the shirt and tie mob of old IBM.

  3. Odd how the snowflake left are attracted to successful IT businesses like flies to sugar.

    Trouble is, unlike the people who actually built up the business and created the wealth, most of them don’t want to actually work to further the business’s objectives; they want to use the business to further their own objectives.

    Leeches.

  4. I reckon the more egalitarian a company pretends to be, the more oppressive it inevitably is.

    The old-school quasi-tyrannical model of managing employees via authoritarian hierarchy is a lot more honest than the passive-aggressive pretend equality of the modern silicon valley cult.

    “But look at how informal and zany we are!” insists the beady-eyed bugman, as he spies on your browsing history to determine your political affiliations.

  5. Worstall’s law, Worstall’s fallacy, I’m loosing track.

    Anything else you’ve put your stamp on, Tim?

  6. I think it was the Countenance blogger who pointed out ‘oh- so this is why Google only innovates by buying companies now’.

    Apparently there’s a bit in there where they call out Google for having a watchlist of ‘badthinkers’ that are to be physically removed if someone invites them on the Google campus for lunch, etc.

  7. Sometimes, the ones who pay attention can be the ones who keep an organisation working. Tonight I was the only person at our parish meeting to say: excuse me chair, the applicant (for co-option) does not qualify as his residence and place of work are outside the village boundary.

  8. Richard

    “Odd how the snowflake left are attracted to successful IT businesses like flies to sugar.”

    Yes, it is. Perhaps the ex-hippies and utopians who were involved with the internet in its early days have left a pernicious cultural legacy…

  9. “For example, if A adds B to her block list, B is not able to look A up in the company directory, communicate with A through the internal instant messaging system, view A’s contact information or management chain, or see A’s posts on internal social media.”

    Impending data protection law means a lot of companies are looking at options like this.

    @Anon,

    Didn’t you just stop the organisation from working?

  10. Impending data protection law means a lot of companies are looking at options like this.

    Eh, no. No, they aren’t.

  11. For example, if A adds B to her block list, B is not able to look A up in the company directory, communicate with A through the internal instant messaging system, view A’s contact information or management chain, or see A’s posts on internal social media.

    So the world’s most powerful corporation is run along the lines of the Hindu caste system, with Untouchables and everything.

  12. Not sure that I have ever wanted to see the contact chain of any correspondent. But reply all would tell me a lot
    These are the people who joined the police rather than going to university back in the days before university was the default option

  13. “Internal posts discussing the debate around diversity at Google, such as a meme of a penguin with the text “If you want to increase diversity at Google fire all the bigoted white men”, are filed as an appendix to the lawsuit under the heading “Anti-Caucasian postings”.”

    The problem is, they’re the people who get shit done in software (OK, and some bigoted Chinese and bigoted Indian men too). I’d rather hire someone who thinks women should be chained to the sink or bed than a woman. On average, he’s going to get the job done better than a woman will.

    Google have way too many women programmers. It’s not far off the ratio you get in government where they can carry lots of passengers.

  14. Google’s internal company systems allowed employees and managers to maintain a “block list” of other employees

    This is utterly insane. How to companies whose entire existence is INFORMATION work if people can stop others from communicating with them?

    Google appears to be a juvenile asylum.

  15. Google has so much money that the trivial losses of a few billion here and there in waste, inefficiency and lost opportunities won’t be noticed. The day they make an operating loss is the day these parasites are shown the door.

  16. @Mr Black – if they start losing money, you’d hope they’d “fall back on their core competencies”. But I suspect they’ll double down. Because Diversity Macht Successful. Or something.

  17. Private company. Their dollar, their choice of what’s playing on the jukebox. But a delight if liberals fall foul of the same anti-discrimination laws they’re so keen on. And if Google win & set a precedent, free rein for companies to avoid having to employ the f***ers.

  18. Back in the early noughties, I did a lot of consultancy work for Nokia. They were a nice bunch, hiring bright people and continuing to grow at a spectacular (for a large company making physical products) rate.

    Their problem was that the key skill of a manager was to be able to double the staff numbers within their area of responsibility each year. When the downturn hit them and they needed to reduce costs, they had no clue how to go about it, and central management had no effective mechanisms to make it happen.

  19. It’s fascinating just hope far down the rabbit hole they’ve gone. Some of the stuff this has turned up is truly beyond parody.

    Google is a company that held an internal event where people who identify as ‘yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin’ and an ‘expansive ornate building’ lecture staff about respecting ‘plural identities’.

  20. @SS2,

    Oh yes they are. I could (but obviously won’t) name four, not IT companies, including one of which I am an executive, and regularly have my gast flabbered at the tales my DP consultant tells, of what her other clients are doing.

    Whether anything this drastic legally needs to be implemented only time and the courts will tell. GDPR is absolutely causing massive headaches. So you are wrong. Candidly.

  21. Compare and Contrast Carrie Gracuie and Damore. Both are getting on fine in their little bubble, thinking that they are appreciated. Then they both find they are part of a group suffering negative discrimination by their employers. So Damore sets about trying to reform the organisation through the proper channels, writing internal memo, getting feedback, revising the memo, suggesting legal ways to increase the %age of women instead of the illegal practices by Google’s HR, speaking at internal conference etc. so he gets sacked despite politely informing the sacker that is illegal.
    Carrie Gracie makes a media storm embarrassing her employer.
    The liberal establishment support Gracie and denounce Damore

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.