"She said he* invited her to Burning Man, an annual festival in the Nevada desert, the following week.
Ms. Simpson went with her mother and said she thought it was an opportunity to talk to Mr. DeVaul about the job. She said she brought conservative clothes suitable for a professional meeting."
Regardless of who, inviting an interviewee for a week-long vacation/party is a huge red flag. These things should be reported immediately. It's so sad that humans are conditioned to a social hierarchy and will seldom do anything that might bring the rage of a higher status person. In my short career, I saw too many attempts by C-level suits to build their own little harems (and most were successful in that by the way)
Not to mention that he described his relationship with his wife as polyamorous during the interview. I can't imagine a scenario where this would be even remotely appropriate to discuss.
It’d be kinda weird to talk about that with coworkers, let alone during an interview. The sexual habits of my coworkers is not an open area of discussion.
I personally view that as a sexual proposition, it’s a way of saying “I’m available”.
Polyamory isn't simply about sex, it just means you can find love with more than one person.
I think if you can say you have a wife, which implicitly tells your sexual preference and explicitly tells your legal family situation, then it's okay to add that you also have girlfriends or boyfriends as well.
>Polyamory isn't simply about sex, it just means you can find love with more than one person.
Completely disagree. Every person I know who identifies as poly has their own definition of what that actually means, and many of them do not include "love" in their definition.
Honestly, a lot of my coworkers don’t really talk about their singular partners either.
I maintain that discussions of such nature have to clear a “need to know” bar at work. There’s a lot of discussions about my relationship I’d be perfectly willing to have with friends that I would not discuss at work.
Regardless, you absolutely should not be mentioning your relationship status in any way during an interview. Single, married, poly, whatever.
If you are an interviewer and you go by Mrs., then you are already mentioning your relationship status. This is such a low bar to jump over that I feel it is safe.
This. Saying this during an interview should mean the same day termination for the interviewer. Of course that's not the case for people with power or influence in the company like this guy.
Burning Man is like the pilgrimage to Mecca for a lot of SV cultists. Saying no to an invite would mark you as a heretic who's just not a good 'culture fit'.
I think you'd be surprised. There are plenty of people who wear cargo shorts and t-shirts (not rangers) all week. Those are the people actually building art and maintaining the infrastructure. A lot of the time you can tell someone's ability to give back by their costuming effort.
Yeah that's the opposite of what would he regarded as good interview clothes. And to be so ignorant as to what BM is, says enough about the naivete of the person
How about your naivete for thinking that is what i meant...
Her naivete thinking that any meaningful job interview would happen at freaking burning man such that it would include conservative clothing as a requirement.
>What Google did not make public was that an employee had accused Mr. Rubin of sexual misconduct. The woman, with whom Mr. Rubin had been having an extramarital relationship, said he coerced her into performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013, according to two company executives with knowledge of the episode. Google investigated and concluded her claim was credible, said the people, who spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing confidentiality agreements. Mr. Rubin was notified, they said, and Mr. Page asked for his resignation.
> Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years, said two people with knowledge of the terms. The last payment is scheduled for next month.
this is respectable of Google imho. There is no need that the whole world knows the details about this 'performance'. A bit low of the New York Times. But of course, sex sells.
The "parachute" has nothing to do with the sexual harassment claim. I don't get why, even if Rubin were guilty, one should cancel the other. Should they ask back his salaries as well? Take his house?
'victim'? For me this term should be reserved for grave situations; what shall I say, what sometimes unfortunately now happens in Germany with knives maybe? The reward is for building Android. For such a successful platform the sum is more than justified, don't you think? In a way I feel Rubin is also a 'victim', Clinton didn't get fired back then.
Are you seriously saying that sexual coercion is justified by how successful your mobile OS is? Holy crap! Please don’t ever - and I mean please in the most violent way possible - come near my daughters.
I said that there are different degrees of 'victims' and that there is an over-use of 'victim'. I didn't speak about Rubin as I don't know the details and neither did I speak about justification.
(No need for personal attacks. Some friendliness would help not to split society/politics/discourse)
> Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years, said two people with knowledge of the terms. The last payment is scheduled for next month.
This appears to be original research on behalf of the journalist, with no citation. What evidence do they have to support it? They don't even claim an anonymous source "with knowledge of the contract".
Slightly offtopic: My friend's Mum went to the Woodstock festival in the 60's. When I asked her about it, she said she only went because she thought it would be like a craft fair.
Ms. Simpson went with her mother and said she thought it was an opportunity to talk to Mr. DeVaul about the job. She said she brought conservative clothes suitable for a professional meeting."
*Not Andy Rubin