Google Reportedly Paid Andy Rubin $90 Million After He Allegedly Coerced Sex From Employee (theverge.com) 286
The New York Times has revealed new details on the circumstances that surrounded Andy Rubin's departure from Google in 2014. According to the report, Google "investigated sexual misconduct claims against Rubin, which revolved around an incident in which he allegedly coerced another Google employee into 'performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013,'" The Verge reports. "Despite reportedly finding the claims credible -- to the point that Page decided Rubin needed to go -- Google gave him a $90 million exit package. The last $2 million of that agreement will be paid out next month." From the report: Before that payout, and during the initial stages of its investigation in 2014, Google awarded Rubin "a stock grant worth $150 million." The move gave Rubin, at that time a highly-valued executive at the company, major financial incentive for sticking around after he'd moved on from Android to focus his efforts on a robotics unit. The Times says it's unclear whether Page or Google's leadership committee knew about the misconduct allegations when they approved that huge grant. But they certainly did when reaching the $90 million figure as Rubin headed out the door, and Page offered public praise for Rubin in announcing his departure. After he left, Google proceeded to invest in his VC, Playground Ventures. And the company even allowed him to delay paying back a $14 million loan it'd given him "to buy a beach estate in Japan." In a statement to the New York Times, Google said: "[W]e investigate and take action, including termination. In recent years, we've taken a particularly hard line on inappropriate conduct by people in positions of authority. We're working hard to keep improving how we handle this type of behavior."
UPDATE: Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent an email to employees Thursday in response to the report, saying 48 employees have been fired for sexual misconduct over the last two years.
UPDATE: Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent an email to employees Thursday in response to the report, saying 48 employees have been fired for sexual misconduct over the last two years.
I doubt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Android is Google spyware on top of Java (but don't call it Java - Oracle keeps suing us) on top of Linux on top of busted ass Qualcomm hardware that for some reason prevents us from updating anything running on it after Qualcomm cuts off support.
Don't worry guys, Project Fuchsia will fix it all!!!
Andy Rubin? (Score:2, Insightful)
Literally.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
$4.32 Billion (Score:2)
Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent an email to employees Thursday in response to the report, saying 48 employees have been fired for sexual misconduct over the last two years.
That's a lot of lottery winners!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Thanks for the comment. Was going to say, at Google they pay you $90 million to engage in "sexual misconduct"--nice euphemism for coercing a coworker to suck your dick--and then leave the company. Remember Google: where it pays to force sex out of your coworkers.
10% cut (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'm not saying he offered the victim 10% to make the complaint, but that would certainly be one way to get seed funding for a new start-up venture.
You don't spill the blood of kings (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
What was he going to do if they didn't pay? Sue, and air all his dirty laundry?
Having said that it's possible that the victim was unwilling to testify on Google's behalf, so would have been advised to settle. Often victims don't want what happened to be public because it can make it hard to get another job. That's just happened in the UK with Philip Green, a couple of the accusers supported not making his name public for fear of ruined careers.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha your post is currently at +4 troll. I'm rooting for 5 since I've not seen one of those in ages.
And about Philip Green: couldn't have happened to a nicer man. He's a skeezy bastard and I hope he gets taken down for something (i.e.losing his knighthood) because he richly deserved it. He got to keep it only because it was better for the pensioners he screwed to receive half their pension (with sir green keeping his title) than for them to receive nothing.
He still ended up hundreds of millions better off e
Re: (Score:2)
The moderation system is completely fucked up at this point. I'm not even sure how we move forward.
It seems in hindsight that this thing with Green was almost inevitable. What are the chances that someone who acts like that in public isn't even worse in private? Sadly I'm sure he won't be the last.
Example #65,535 (Score:2)
Reminds me of that line from M*A*S*H (Score:2)
"Fair is fair, Henry. If I nail Hot Lips and punch Hawkeye, can I get $90 million?"
I'm paraphrasing, of course.
Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even so greedy, I'll take half that money and no blowjob necessary.
Should I care? (Score:5, Insightful)
What am I supposed to believe "coerce" means in the context of this article?
Does coerce mean a promise to buy her a nice dinner later?
Does coerce mean threatening to chop her head off with a dull axe?
Interesting an article that goes on and on about golden parachutes, emails and extraneous drama involving unrelated people providing a history of who fucked who would pay lip service to the most critical aspect of the underlying story in a manner that offers no substantive information about the actual topic of the article to the reader.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmkay. So if a right-winger is involved, it's raah feminism, #WeBelieveSurvivors, Handmaid's Tale!
As soon as it's a left-winger, you start debating the meaning of "is"?
If we could harness hypocrisy for clean energy, we would solve global warming tomorrow.
Re: (Score:3)
Mmkay. So if a right-winger is involved, it's raah feminism, #WeBelieveSurvivors, Handmaid's Tale!
As soon as it's a left-winger, you start debating the meaning of "is"?
If we could harness hypocrisy for clean energy, we would solve global warming tomorrow.
These misunderstandings are common among individuals who elect to stop taking their meds without direction from medical professionals. Never even used a hash tag, spoken about "feminism" or believing. It's all in your head.
It's not like my question is secret information surely the people investigating this and perhaps the media reporting this story have contextual information that directly answers my question.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering his much higher position in the company, even a polite "request" could easily be seen as harassment due to the potential for retaliation. Unless the article is lying, "coerced" is a term that implies more than just a request; it would have to include some direct or clearly implied threat.
If he offered her a promotion for sex, that would count as sexual misconduct and harassment. Since the term "coerced" is used, I assume threats of some sort were involved.
Of course if the source is simply lyi
Don't be evil??? (Score:4, Funny)
Wow...a forced blowjob AND $90 million. When Google says they take a "hard line" on sexual misconduct, I wonder if they mean what we're supposed to think they mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Applaud all you want. You've obviously never spent so much as a moment thinking about how much legal firepower even a couple of million dollars would bring to bear on a relatively open/shut case of sexual harassment.
It's obviously not your money on the line, or you'd be seriously pissed off that Google didn't go to war...which would have been a hell of a lot cheaper.
Hope That Blowjob Was Worth It (Score:2)
Guess he considered blowjobs from coworkers... essential.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Coerced? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Coerced? (Score:5, Informative)
Legally yes, but a boss is not entitled to even attempt to convince an employee to engage in a sex act or allowed to participate in a sex act with a willing and consensual employee in most businesses. It is a conflict of interest. People are supposed to get raises for work performance not because they will suck a dick for it.
Actually, legally no, though it's civil liability rather than criminal. And the legal issue is not conflict of interest. Coercion is implicit when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties, even when both parties claim the relationship is consensual. A hypothetical example would be, oh, say the President of the United States and a White House intern.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying now, that in this day in age...you are no longer able legally in any way, to date within the company??
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In this day in age you have to be absolutely pants on head retarded to even THINK about pursuing a romantic relationship with a co-worker (If you're male. Women it seems will get a bit of a pass here.)
And if you've managed to attract the attention of a female co-worker; be afraid, be very afraid -- in fact you might as well resign as you're one spurned advance away from a career ending false #meToo moment. (hyperbole? perhaps).
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Paranoia in (moderation) is a healthy human instinct evolved for a good reason though. The simple fact is that realistically all it would take is a whiff of impropriety and you're fucked.
For every relationship that ends up in marriage, there's what.. 10-15 others didn't work out so well? When dating a co-worker, or you know, going down that path, the odds are definitely not in your favor. But true, it does occasionally work out.
But the sad truth though is given the many, many avenues of meeting people --
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Fired? Pre-2015 you'd probably just have a reputatio
Re: (Score:2)
The simple fact is that realistically all it would take is a whiff of impropriety and you're fucked
That's flat out not true.
But the sad truth though is given the many, many avenues of meeting people -- trying to fish off the company pier is probably the worst out of all of them.
Also just plain wrong. If you hit on your immediate co workers, then yes that's a recipe for disaster. Or if you treat the company like a speed dating event and systematically ask out everyone who's got a pulse and not physically glu
Re: (Score:3)
Rarely. Women have sex drives and an individual woman might even have a greater sex drive than an individual man but in light of recognizing and making things comfortable for these individuals we have started to forget the generality that the typical man has by an order of magnitude a stronger drive than the typical woman remains generally true.
Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you. Ha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Easier to blame feminism and #metoo than to look at yourself I guess.
What's really sad is that this belief stops guys improving themselves or getting any help.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not completely unsympathetic to the incels... Trans folk have similar issues sometimes. ContraPoints did a video about it, where she noted the similarity between how incels think that the geometry of their head is an impossible to overcome barrier and how say trans women think that aspects of their bodies will prevent them from ever reaching the feminine ideal they want.
On the other hand it's inexcusable that it quickly becomes about hatred and loathing. That's not helping anyone, least of all themselve
Re: (Score:2)
Ok yes, there are several different things going on. The original concept of once I'm not unsympathetic to. Some people have trouble dating for various reasons andthat sticks and they want a sympathetic ear and community and that's fine.
In principle.
Unfortunately, it's become an incredibly nasty community dedicated to hating women as much as possible and no small part of it actually involves cheering on mass murder. That I have no sympathy with.
The body image thing, so that's a thing. It also has several as
Re: (Score:2)
Getting dates and getting laid is relatively easy.
Its the consequences NOW with a weaponized #metoo that threatens to ruin your life you you piss a girl off these days...whether you've slept with her or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Unfortunately, it's become an incredibly nasty community dedicated to hating women as much as possible and no small part of it actually involves cheering on mass murder. That I ha
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the problem. This is the statement of an extremist and how he stereotypes and characterizes everyone who disagrees with him. Of course the only thing disagreeing with him means is an argument for preserving due process in a nation which has as it's most sacred legal concept "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you replied to the wrong post beast what you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote. Nah just kidding.
Here's a tip from the pr
Re: (Score:2)
Where in this conversation did "difficult" to date women come into play?
I'm not going to do your reading for you. If you follow the thread it becomes entirely clear. However you have to read what both myself and AmiMojo wrote in it's entirety going back quite a bunch of posts, something I'm confident you won't do.
Getting dates and getting laid is relatively easy.
Not for everyone I guess otherwise there wouldn't be whole communities of people will can't and an entire industry devoted to helping/extracting mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually can't be arsed to even look up three comment of mine you're replying to. Your comment is so astoundingly generic that it's clear you're not remotely interested in discussing in good faith, instead you will simply splat down your talking points regardless of how well they fit.
You have also as I predicted angrily refused to provide any evidence for your claims about me.
speaking your views should not prevent you from pursuing or continuing your career or hobbies or otherwise live your life unless i
Re: (Score:2)
I characterized comments you made and quoted them. What claims, about you specifically, am I supposed to be providing evidence for?
"Anyone should be allowed to express an opinion unless it's an opinion you don't like (I.e. An opinion about something someone said). Sorry dude, that will never fly with the first amendment."
You are simply taking what I said an pretending I said the opposite. I am opposing rules that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, just only within your own rank. Date a coworker? Sure. Date your boss or your underling? Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just only within your own rank. Date a coworker? Sure. Date your boss or your underling? Nope.
What if he/she gets promoted? Have you to break up your relationship? Should a company not promote employees enganged with other employees?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean to tell me that merely ASKING a chick lower on the totem pole than you out for a date, no pussy grabbing or anything truly physical, would be against federal law?
SHit, if I was a CEO in a company, I'd never talk to a woman period....its just too fucking screwed up and scary these days with this crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Well duh. If I was the CEO of a company, I wouldn't date anyone in that company. You're just asking for bad things.
But I'd also understand that If I WAS asking someone in the company out, there would be that underlying "I can fire you" threat behind it, even if I didn't mean it. So back to not asking anyone in the company out.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't fire them, you have your buddy from the chamber of commerce hire them away from you (hopefully with a decent raise). Then you START the relationship in ernest.
If you find out that two employees are fucking, you arrange an opportunity for the less valuable one. Before it blows up in your face.
Re: (Score:2)
A hypothetical example would be, oh, say the President of the United States and a White House intern.
Nope. Hillary Clinton - the most intelligent person in the world - says that's not true, because Lewinsky was "an adult." So, that settles that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You make an excellent point, because accidentally killing someone's rosebush is exactly like forcing someone to have sex with you. Maybe even worse!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Coerced? (Score:5, Informative)
Coercion is implicit when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties, even when both parties claim the relationship is consensual.
I call bullshit. Citation please. We're not talking about statutory rape here.
NO citation necessary. IF the boss is trying to get a person who works for him to do something personal and not business related (sexual or otherwise) it is considered improper and subject to civil litigation. If it's a sexual favor being proffered for say a good review, retaining one's job or some such, epically if the "victim" is a woman, willing or not, you can bet her lawyer will have THEIR way with you and your company for allowing it.
I'm telling you, DON'T date where you work. Even as peer to peer. It's hardly ever a good idea and rarely works out well for anybody involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm telling you, DON'T date where you work. Even as peer to peer. It's hardly ever a good idea and rarely works out well for anybody involved.
I'm coming to the conclusion that your advice is excellent for anyone who believes it. In other words of the nuance of such situations is lost on you (and many of us do find such things difficult) then you're better off steering clear because you're much more likely than average you mess up bad.
I do however know several long term married couples who met at work. I d
Re: (Score:2)
Do what you wish. I'm just saying that in my view, the chances for a bad crash and burn are high and the chances of success are low, so like I advise not buying lottery tickets, I advise not to date people from work.
Personally, I've seen budding relationships at work and only one resulted in an enduring situation, and they where on totally different programs when it started. Every other relationship was a messy crash and burn and usually ended up having ugly consequences for the people involved and someti
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, if you're not able to navigate those kind of situations then then best advice is certainly to not try to. My happily married friends who met spouses at work would certainly disagree with you.
You're correct that the potential for badness is high if you do something stupid (actually thinking now I have seen that, it looked stupid at the time--dating a close co worker's's subordinate--and it imploded messily). Dating someone outside your department has much, much less potential for disaster.
But yo
Re: (Score:2)
But your me too complaints are just overblown. I don't know anyone and have never then heard of anyone who had their career ruined simply for dating at work.
Really? Al Franken wasn't railroaded for a PICTURE, even though he didn't touch her and she didn't know about the joke? I think he was. It was sophomoric crude humor but it wasn't assault.
Then there is the whole Kavanaugh debacle, where, 30 years later, claims where being made, unsubstantiated claims, that nearly derailed the guys career...
#MeToo is a serious risk to young professionals. It's a good idea to protect yourself from such claims by being as circumspect and as far above reproach as you can
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs are easy (for typical /.ers), relationships aren't (for anybody).
Date that person (outside your report chain) from work, go ahead. But find a new job when you _start_ (or don't do it).
Keep your inner dog in check, if it isn't worth changing jobs for, just don't do it.
If you own the business, talk to someone you know that runs another. Arrange a good opportunity for your prospect, before you start sweating up the sheets with her.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought this was an instance of Poe's law. Having seen your other posts, it's appears more likely that you're serious.
I would say that the advice of "never date at work" would be a very good idea for you to follow, since I think with your current views you're likely to fuck up badly otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
What am I serious about? Are you sure you can figure that out? Is there a point to my rants?
Well on a whim I had a look at your posting history. As far as I can tell you're deadly serious about never ever writing a post which demonstrates any hint of insight or a point. It is actually sort of impressive. My best guess is you're testing the slashdot mod crowd you see if you can maintain a positive karma without ever making a contribution to a discussion or expressing an opinion of any sort. That's actually
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you DON'T charge the president with anything while he's in office, you impeach them first. Also, Clinton was roundly condemned for this behavior by Republicans, while Democrats largely tried to ignore the whole thing, so for a president it boils down to politics, at lest in Clinton's case. Really, the #MeToo thing is just another political ploy anyway, but that's another debate.
Also, the difference with Clinton was by the time Monica could have made a claim, the whole thing was blown sky high in the
Re: (Score:2)
For everyone other than Bill Clinton (and Harvey Weinstein) it was already as you describe in the 90s.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. If someone feels like that is the case, real or imagined, anything the boss has said or done, including watching the employee is highly dangerous. It doesn't matter if there is any validity to the feeling or not.
But what if you own a porn studio? (Score:2, Funny)
Sucking dick is literally part of the job description for certain employees.
Re: (Score:3)
a boss is not entitled to even attempt to convince an employee to engage in a sex act or allowed to participate in a sex act with a willing and consensual employee in most businesses.
This is a matter of common corporate policy, but by no means is this a law.
Re: (Score:2)
People are supposed to get raises for work performance not because they will suck a dick for it.
Maybe it was Andy Rubbin one out?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was considered consensual by Monica Lewinsky. She's continued to say so even decades later.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "coerced"? "Coerced" as in he forced an employee to give him a blowjob or "coerced" as in he convinced an employee to give him a blowjob? There is a huge difference between the two. If it's the latter definition, then there is no issue. Adults can do what they want.
And when that sex act gets implicitly linked to your continued employment or career progression? As it would be with your boss? It's sketchy, at the very least.
Don't have sex with people that you have power over. How complex is that? What happened to independent adults coming (heh) together consensually? If you have life-altering power over another human then they aren't ever going to have the chance to make an independent decision. A 'no' could mean consequences for their actual livelihood -- how is that h
Re: (Score:2)
wtf?
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't consider it a pretty good offer? It's way higher than the going rate for a BJ even from a very high-priced call-girl... so I hear.
Re: (Score:2)
So they should have turned to an outlet like the Gateway Pundit or the Washington Times to write the story instead of the New York Times?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Fifth Amendment applies to the HR groups of corporations? Since when?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is, they're using fancy American military tech with the support of American military personnel.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
On the one hand they aren't SJW enough, they gave the guy $90M even though he sexually assaulted someone.
Sexual assault? Who said anything about assault? What evidence is this characterization based upon?
Re: (Score:2)
Coerced sex is sexual assault... At least it is here, maybe in the US there is a different legal term for it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're applying different standards to different people. Social Justice rules are for the little guys. The big shots get to do whatever they like.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is that "SJW" though? Aren't SJWs famous for going after the rich and powerful?
It's almost as if that term is just a meaningless pejorative.
Re: (Score:2)
Google leadership doesn't need to embrace 100% of the ideology to act like SJWs. There were Jews who fought for Hitler and I don't think they were okay with death camps.
You can define SJW however you want. To me, an SJW is someone in favor of minority and women's privilege to the point of irrationality. The reason it's "social justice" and not simply "justice" is because they don't actually want that. Justice means equality before the law and that prevents them from giving minorities and women extra privile
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If there is no agreed definition of SJW, no identifiable group or traits that we can use to make a determination, then the phrase is meaningless.
I've noticed that in almost every case where the phrase is used it's about vague claims of irrational behaviour rather than specific incidents. Often it's just speculation about what might happen in the future, were such people to actually exist.
It's the ultimate straw man. It both labels your opponent, instantly enraging many listeners and poisoning the well, and
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed that in almost every case where the phrase is used it's about vague claims of irrational behaviour rather than specific incidents. Often it's just speculation about what might happen in the future, were such people to actually exist.
It's more than that. It also used like:
1. AmiMojo is a well known SJW
2. SJWs literally support murdering men. I'm sure I read that somewhere. Or I made it up, but it sounds like it's true, so it is.
3. Therefore AmiMojo literally supports murdering men
I've had a lot
Re: (Score:2)
For some people it seems that imagining you did something is the same as you actually having done it... Which is something they frequently claim that SJWs do.
In fact I've noticed a pattern. Anything they claim an SJW is doing is almost certainly what they themselves are doing. Their own minds work that way, so they assume everyone else's do too.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had a lot of similar claims made about me. When I demand for sort of evidence like a link to where I ever said such a thing, I get angry, evasive responses.
Funny how you say that about other people. The last 3-4 times I replied to your posts you responded with childish insults.
Re: (Score:2)
You can claim that, but I think most people already have a good idea of what "SJW" refers to.
In our society, there's a group of people who hate white people. There's another group that hates men. And there's a group that don't care about due process. These groups overlap, and the intersection is what I call SJW. You can give it a different name, I don't really care. But those people exist.
Re: (Score:2)
You can define SJW however you want.
And that is the definition of "SJW" in a nutshell.
Re: (Score:2)
For years now I've been secretly looking forward to eventually being promoted to Lord-Emperor of All Capitalism with my rare superpower of having conscious control over where my boner and hands go. It's only a matter of time until my ascendancy.
Fear not, for I will be a kind and generous god, I will build a humane prison system for the teeming masses of men serving jail time for sex crimes, and fund scientific efforts to develop some drug or gene therapy to allow them to gain control over their hands and bo
Re: (Score:2)
Try being a grown-ass man rather than a 16 year old horn dog (assuming you're a dude). Most of us are capable of keeping instincts in check day to day because we are in control of ourselves. That's one of the things you learn as you grow up.
And ultra-left? WTF? It takes a perverse kind of stupidity to call one of the largest monuments of present day capitalism "ultra left". Unless of course you have absolutely no idea what the left even is, never mind the hard left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like complaining and stating you are afraid due to an unsuccessful event that happened in the 80s?