Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judges Reinstate Charges In Google Age Discrimination Suit

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the oldies-but-goodies dept.

Google 291

theodp writes "A California appeals court has reinstated former Stanford prof Brian Reid's age-discrimination suit against Google, ruling that a lower Court erred in siding with Google and rejecting Mr. Reid's claims. From the Court Decision (PDF): 'We conclude that Reid produced sufficient evidence that Google's reasons for terminating him were untrue or pretextual, and that Google acted with discriminatory motive such that a factfinder would conclude Google engaged in age discrimination.' As side notes, helping Reid make his case is CS Prof Norman Matloff, while Google's actions are being defended by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati of pretexting-was-not-generally-unlawful fame."

cancel ×

291 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I dislike this result (-1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867207)

As a geek, I like to be in favor of strong employment laws that give the government full audit power over every corporation's decision to fire any one whatsoever. However, I don't like when it gets used against good guys, like Google.

Hey, at least I'm honest about my favoritism.

Re:I dislike this result (4, Insightful)

secPM_MS (1081961) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867533)

Why do you call Google the good guys? Judge them by their actions, not by their words. Judge everybody by their actions, not by their words. While it has been 30+ years since I met Brian, he is really really really bright. One of the biggest problems in the computer / software space is that most of the practicioners tend to dismiss the highly experienced people as old fogeys. As a consequence, they keep repeating the mistakes of earlier generations of developers in different guises. I have experience if a few disciplines beyond SW. SW is more subject to snake-oil miricale claims than any other engineering / (hard) scientific field I know and it shows in the results. The amazing thing is how thoroughly they believe it. The information presented in the article suggests that Google is probably guilty of age discrimination, which is a federal offense. I have no sympathy for them. Other SW businesses should review their internal biases as well.

Re:I dislike this result (2, Insightful)

mckinnsb (984522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867649)

*clap* Thank you. Being "young" has nothing to do with "being good at computers". Thats a cultural stereotype that is absolutely bunk, probably stemming from comments from people like Bill Gates, stating that "there is no good hacker over the age of 13." Being a hacker involves open mindedness-thats what hes talking about, because a child has an open mind. Open mindedness, however, doesn't always yield positive results unless you are a) lucky or b) experienced, especially in computer science/information technology. This dude deserves every penny he gets from them. Cultural eugenics d.n.e progress. btw, im 23

Re:I dislike this result (4, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868051)

as someone who's a bit on the 'more experienced' level (ok, so I'm older middle age...) and who applied for a job at google, I can DEFINITELY say that from my perspective, there is age discrimination. very clearly. I saw it during several (I did have a few) interviews there.

the questions were 'schoolboy' quizzed. its been decades (literally) since I had to recreate a search or sort algorithm by hand. and you know what? for the field I'm in (network management) I have not HAD to re-do existing algs. not once in my career! we usually BUILD on existing ideas, not waste time re-doing perfectly good wheels.

when I answered 'I'd search for some sample code or an existing idea, then take parts of it and use what makes sense' they didn't like that answer! when they asked me math (arithmetic) style questions, I said I'd find a calculator and punch in the data. in other words, I know HOW to get the answer but I rarely (these days) walk around with literal data floating around upstairs. I keep POINTERS to data, not data. isn't that the better way? it surely has served me well enough in my 20+ years in the field.

the whole strategy of their interviews are all wrong! ALL wrong. they might work great for the snotnose college hire, but its completely wrong for us seasoned pros.

google is simple NOT setup for older guys. I saw it when I was there on campus for the live interviews and I sensed it all thruout during my phone screens.

they don't value thinking skills as well as they seem to value rote data recall, which clearly favors the young and those who very recently finished school and have it the algs still recallable line-by-line in their heads.

Re:I dislike this result (4, Insightful)

BrianRoach (614397) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868443)

I don't work for google, so please don't try and say that I do.

Your argument is that of a strawman. You claim they are discriminating based on age because ... you can't recite from memory what others could. You may not like that they want you to do so, but that's their choice and criteria.

I know quite a few folks who have interviewed at google, and a couple who were offered jobs. The interview is the same for everyone. It's very similar at Amazon.com as well, BTW, if you're interviewing for a senior position. One of my friends made sure to cram for about 2 weeks prior to his Amazon interview for this reason. He actually said it was the hardest interview process he ever went through.

And I'm not talking about 20-somethings straight out of school - I'm past the half-way point myself and so are most of the people I associate with (Well, except for some of the "kids" I work with these days, LOL).

- Roach

Re:I dislike this result (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868645)

Fwiw, I was a senior engineer at amazon... And while I worked with some great people I also worked with some morons. As the years passed we were forced to ignore the old hiring rules and increasingly pressured to hire lame candidates because they knew a mgr or director. And during that time much of the real talent left the company.. It ceased to become a fun place to work.

Re:I dislike this result (5, Insightful)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868699)

You claim they are discriminating based on age because ... you can't recite from memory what others could. You may not like that they want you to do so, but that's their choice and criteria.

The point he is making, which I concur with since I too am a rather succesful in the realm of IT member of the older-fart generation, is that the ability to recall useless trivia from memory is not a criterion for selecting useful employees, but a method of screening for "snotty nosed kids" as he put it. Most people with any sort of technical achievments in any scientific discipline or even a craft trade will readilly confirm that an ability to locate information and use it effectively is far more important then memorizing it verbatim, which is what schools are all about (and wrongess of which approach versus its ease of managment for the teachers is another discussion alltogether).

So yes, if that are Google's "choice and criteria" then the lawsuit is quite justified indeed.

One of my friends made sure to cram for about 2 weeks prior to his Amazon interview for this reason. He actually said it was the hardest interview process he ever went through.

See above. Your very use of the word "cram" blows away any pretenses about the process of that selection. Ask an accomplished architect or industrial engineer or a world-class surgeon with, say, 30 years of practice what was the last time he or she "crammed" anything.

Re:I dislike this result (4, Insightful)

BrianRoach (614397) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868967)


Again, you may not like how they are doing things, and that is a very valid opinion ... but what does it have to do with "age discrimination" ?

I don't know if you interview anyone for your company or have done so lately, but I do and have to tell you ... this sort of process really helps more in the opposite direction than the one being described in terms of filtering.

There are a LOT of folks who were employed during the boom who really don't have a solid foundation and have no clue about sorting, hashing, etc. Stuff that I consider pretty basic knowledge if you're interviewing to be an engineer. While we don't look for hard code examples from memory, but we do expect that the concepts are there, readily available in memory, and able to be drawn out on a whiteboard. You'd be amazed at how many people can't do that.

I agree on principle that knowing how something works and where to go to get the specifics is every bit if not more important than being a walking textbook, but that's not what they've decided (right or wrong). It's their company, they can do that.

But saying that it's "age discrimination" is silly IMO.

- Roach

You need to polish your interview skills grandpa (1)

mdozturk (973065) | more than 6 years ago | (#20869031)

Those questions in an interview isn't about being smart or knowing something. It just shows if you are prepared or not (just like the SATs, GRE etc). "Snot-nosed" college kids don't like those questions either, just their college consolers told them the rules of the game and they came prepared.

Re:I dislike this result (1)

smurfsurf (892933) | more than 6 years ago | (#20869129)

I agree that this kind of interview does not look like it finds the best candidates. The questions should be about (past) work behaviour in specific situations. You have to be able listen to the answer and close your eyes and see the candidate working on the job you offer.

No network guy writes sort algorithms, that kind of question is simply stupid.

Yet, this is only proof Google has a bad interviewing process, not that it has an age bias. Which does not mean that Google does not have one, it is just not proof of one.

Re:I dislike this result (1)

19061969 (939279) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868893)

At my interview, I was told that my age (I got my PhD as a mature student) might be a problem. I was in my mid 30s at the time. Curiously, the interviews seemed to go okay until my details went before a committee and then I was slapped down real quick. It was just as well because I was told that in this field, the job was fairly routine and uninspiring donkey work. Instead, I got a position at a university that wasn't as well paid, but has sure been fun because I've been able to lead my own research.

Re:I dislike this result (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#20869105)

Your argument is that of a strawman. You claim they are discriminating based on age because ... you can't recite from memory what others could. You may not like that they want you to do so, but that's their choice and criteria.

Not exactly.

He's not saying they are necessarily intentionally filtering out based on age, but rather the specific criteria is *inherently* biased against age. We all may have been taught how to do a binary search or implement a quicksort or heapsort and when I graduated university those algorithms were in my head, like any good student.

But not any more. I still have my textbooks, I still understand them, I still use them for reference, and I could still write the algorithms if I had to from scratch; well quicksort at least; I wouldn't know where to start on a heapsort anymore without at least glancing at a text to get my bearings. But in the real world you just use a library quicksort 99% of the time.

And I was actually tasked to implement one I'd probably start from an existing source code example rather than waste time writing one from scratch.

The number of people who can implement a quicksort or heapsort from scratch out of their head is definately going to be a rapidly decaying curve as you plot from 'just graduated to nearing retirement'.

And unless the argument can be made that being able to do that (from scratch out of your head) is somehow relevant to the job you are applying for, it would seem to serve little real purpose, intentional or not, of biasing against older applicants.

The trouble is, they probably do want people who =understand= these algorithms, who can estimate the time/space complexity of a given task, etc. And the ability to demonstrate a quicksort is at least in the right ballpark to screen for that. It might not be the best question to probe for the capabilities they really need and want, but most interview processes I've seen are biased against people who are qualified even ideal for the job.

From the technical screening at google to the honesty screening at the local mall retail job, they all reject people who are qualified and even ideal for the job.

On that tangent -- I recall a friend who failed one of those 'honesty tests' apparently because she was honest -- she'd said she "probably wouldn't rat out on a fellow employee she observed using their employee discount to purchase something for their girlfriend/boyfriend". Sure it was the 'wrong' answer, and she knew it, but she figured it was an honest one, and that -she'd- rather hire someone who was genuinely honest rather than someone who simply 'knew' how to pass an honesty test.

Yup (1)

smcdow (114828) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868463)

'nother middle-aged-Google-applicant here: I concur, although I didn't make it past the phone screen.

Re:I dislike this result (1)

BuckBundy (781446) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868591)

I'll second this. And this is not just my opinion - there was a similar discussion on one of the Java mailing lists regarding the Google interview process.
Several senior level developers expressed the same experience. At the end of the discussion (which included few G employees) it was generally acknowledged that that what Google does, but that's their business after all.
As someone put it in "they can chose the way to shoot themselves in the foot". Buck

Re:I dislike this result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868621)

yeah,
I had the same experience, allthough I'm still at the university.

I had to do explain the merge sort algo. Other questions were like, where are static variables saved and why (stack, heap), notify/wait.

After all they don't care about your culture at all. The only thing that counts is that you speak english, that you are young (every seen older people in their videos? I didn't.), and that you can blindly repeat stuff you once read at university. Hell you could even use google for the google interview (I think that's what they want you to do ;))

 

Re:I dislike this result (2, Insightful)

darkvizier (703808) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868641)

That's not age discrimination. If they are looking for specific qualities for their workforce that you don't meet, that's not their fault. Whether it's intelligent of them to rule out a large number of capable and qualified individuals, well that's another matter. Practicality and legality are two separate ballparks.

Re:I dislike this result (1)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868781)

the questions were 'schoolboy' quizzed. its been decades (literally) since I had to recreate a search or sort algorithm by hand. and you know what? for the field I'm in (network management) I have not HAD to re-do existing algs. not once in my career! we usually BUILD on existing ideas, not waste time re-doing perfectly good wheels.

Some universities are just handing out degree certificates in Computer Science, without teaching the students the fundamental theory, "Oh, it's in a standard template library, you don't need to learn the algorithm, just the function calls"

We have those tests in the UK, things like: "How would remove an element from a double linked list?" or "How would you tell if there is a loop in a linked list?"

Or "What is your favorite book on C++?"

Then the recruiters do their Alan Sugar impersonations, "We can get graduates to that work. What can you do that graduates can't do?"

Re:I dislike this result (2, Interesting)

stry_cat (558859) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868825)

I keep POINTERS to data, not data. isn't that the better way? it surely has served me well enough in my 20+ years in the field.
Yes and no. For doing a job of implementing something (doesn't have to be a computer network, but could be building widgets), you way is the best. However for what Google wants, it is entirely wrong. Google wants people who can develop new things. To do that you've got to completely understand your area of "expertise" and keep it all in your head.

For example you said:

its been decades (literally) since I had to recreate a search or sort algorithm by hand. and you know what? for the field I'm in (network management) I have not HAD to re-do existing algs. not once in my career! we usually BUILD on existing ideas, not waste time re-doing perfectly good wheels.
They want a new search algorithm. They don't want you buidling on something that already exists. Googlging to find how to write a new algorithm ain't going to cut it. You need to have that in your basic skills.

This is not age discrimination. Your skills just do not match what they need.

Re:I dislike this result (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868945)

"they might work great for the snotnose college hire,"

I worked there and no, it really doesn't.
The interviews at Google, with extremely rare exceptions, are simply pissing matches. You're there to be impressed by how clever the interviewer is, not to prove why you're qualified for the job. Which goes a long way to explaining why Google itself has never produced anything really interesting. Check for yourself, all the cool stuff was purchased and brought in. As for the founding idea, it already existed and without the fortuitous tie to purchased ad services, would have sunk under the weight of no revenues.
Google is a run like a club house, not a business, and the frontline maagers I worked with, and I worked with a lot of them in many different groups, quite frankly could not find their ass with both hands.
And this could be attributed to sour grapes but remember, I actually worked there. Once I realized how quickly my skills were deteriorating in that environment I found a real job with some true software pros. The irony of the whole thing being, those who have not gotten the job there and are serious about their profession are better off having been snubbed.
Oh, and for the good engineers in Google, and there are quite a few, they're very sorry about the way you were treated. It's frustrating for them too.

Re:I dislike this result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20869153)

A friend of mine had pretty much the same experience with Google when he interviewed there. They asked him to solve a programming problem, and he sketched out some pseudocode to do it. He gave his answer to them, along with the Big-O performance, and said, "That's not terribly performant, but you wanted a quick answer, and that will work every time."

They glanced over it, said, "Well, that doesn't perform very well, now, does it?"

They asked him how he'd improve performance, so he took back his paper, reworked it, and gave it back to them. They glanced back over it and said, "Right, so that would be the optimal solution, wouldn't it?"

The whole interview went more or less like that... quiz show style interview questions, and when he didn't regurgitate the correct algorithm from Knuth's books, he was chastised for it. Forget the fact that he could derive performant algorithms. Who'd want to hire that skill?

Re:I dislike this result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868151)

One of the biggest problems in the computer / software space is that most of the practicioners tend to dismiss the highly experienced people as old fogeys. [...] The information presented in the article suggests that Google is probably guilty of age discrimination, which is a federal offense. I have no sympathy for them. Other SW businesses should review their internal biases as well.

Yeah, it's too bad that Google's bias against old people prevents them from hiring the highly experienced people in the field. I mean, think how much better off they would be if they were willing to hire people like Ken Thompson [wikipedia.org] and Vint Cerf [wikipedia.org] .

Oh, wait...

Vint Cerf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868373)

Vint Cerf is a joke, he's been flogging his minor role for decades. He's like Zsa Zsa Gabor or Paris Hilton for the IT world - a celebrity, but for reasons that barely have any relevance and certainly without contributing a novel thought in decades.

Good marketing tool, though.

I'm tired of age discrimination. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20867571)

I'm fifteen and I suffer from a lot of age discrimination when looking for work. Most employers don't dare tell why they won't hire me. Others just say flat out that they are discriminating against me. My grandmother has the same problem. She was fired from her teaching job after she hit 84 for her age.

Stop discriminating!

We really need government affirmative action to stop the age discrimination.

Re:I'm tired of age discrimination. (4, Funny)

jefu (53450) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867831)

I'm fifteen and I suffer from a lot of age discrimination when looking for work.

The good news is that that will get better for you in the next few years.

The bad news is that it will eventually get worse again.

Re:I'm tired of age discrimination. (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868765)

Not hiring a 15 year old isn't age discrimination, it's following the law [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I dislike this result (1)

andreyw (798182) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867751)

...aaaand that literally makes you the definition of a tool.

Wahh. But Google said, that they do no evil! It must be true!

Re:I dislike this result (2, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867895)

As a geek, I like to be in favor of strong employment laws that give the government full audit power over every corporation's decision to fire any one whatsoever.

There is nothing "geeky" about your preference, it is just plain foolish. Implementing it will lead to companies holding on to underperforming employees (think Wally) for fear of government audits and other legal problems. It already happens (Wally did threaten the PHB with a lawsuit once), but, at least, the burden of proof is on the complainer... It would be both unfair and unproductive to make companies justify their firing decisions.

Imagine yourself having to file a form with the government, when you wish to switch a babysitter or the cleaning person. And why stop there? Should not your decision to switch from one supermarket to another by subject to audit? What if your reasons for switching are discriminatory — maybe, you are doing it, because you didn't like the cashier — because she is too old?

Contrary to many people's perception, there is no difference in principle between employers and the rest of us — we all participate in the market, buying something and selling something. Attempts to make the sellers of labor into a special group have no basis in fairness or legal principles — they are all purely vote-winning measures. In a typical democracy there are far more employees (sellers of labor) than others, so laws favor them to a large degree, fairness or not.

Re:I dislike this result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868107)

Attempts to make the sellers of labor into a special group

Make? Labor has always been a special group. When labor is in demand, all we get is "bawwww! I have to pay more for my labor, someone save me from the free market!" and the government jumps in to do whatever it can to save their paying constituents. When labor goes undemanded, all we get is "cry me a river and go get a job, it's your own fault nobody wants to hire you".

Re:I dislike this result (1)

durdur (252098) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868985)

> Contrary to many people's perception, there is no difference in principle between employers and the rest of us

I disagree. Employers have the power to fire and hire, and a lot of control over work conditions while you're hired. So a few checks and balances in favor of the workers is not a bad idea. There was a time when the U.S. didn't have this, or not much: then, we had child labor, 14-hour workdays, and company cops to bust your head if you complained. Not to mention discrimination.

Re:I dislike this result (2, Insightful)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867965)

There's a typo in your message, I think you meant

"As a fascist, I like to in favor of strong employment laws that give the government full audit power over every corporation's decision to fire any one whatsoever."

There ya go and for once, 'fascist' will be used accurately)

Re:I dislike this result (1, Insightful)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868217)

Flamebait? Cm'on! Strong laws that give the government full audit power over corporations hiring practices? That's almost the definition of fascism and especially Mussolini's corporativismo. Open a fucking history book before you moderate.

Re:I dislike this result (3, Informative)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868319)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Fascism#Quotations [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Italian_fascist_corporativism [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manifesto_of_the_Fascist_Struggle [wikipedia.org]

Fascism has a meaning, it does not just mean "uncool". It's a political doctrine with a precise ideology. And ideology that the original poster embraces in this context.

Typical wetware pump and dump. (5, Informative)

rs79 (71822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868851)

"As a geek, I like to be in favor of strong employment laws that give the government full audit power over every corporation's decision to fire any one whatsoever. However, I don't like when it gets used against good guys, like Google."

Brian was hired about a year before Google went public and beefed up the org chart (which helps for an IPO) because looks great on paper: invented the firewall, altavista, the PAIX, Scribe (which begat sgml which begat html) and quickly rose up the ranks to be director of engineering or vp of ops or something fairly high up. His only written review was glowing. Very very shorly before Google went public he was fired for "not fitting in with Google's youthful culture" thus saving Google from granting his significant stock options.

That's what it's really about: the money.

Even Gates and monkeyboy havn't done anything this capricious and arbitrary with employees as far as I can tell.

Net result: Google more evil that Microsoft, much as it pains me to say it.

Suck on that, fanboy.

ageism (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867225)

Sounds like The Office last night.

Re:ageism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20867357)

Some times a bro gotta ride the bull, amirite?

Discrimination != Do No Evil (1, Redundant)

queenb**ch (446380) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867557)

I guess "Discrimination" against people doesn't fall under the heading of "Do no evil" - the official Google motto.

2 cents,

QueenB

Re:Discrimination != Do No Evil (1)

SIIHP (1128921) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867833)

I guess "until proven in a court of law" doesn't apply when you want to trot out a snide cut at Google, huh?

pretextual! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20867347)

> untrue or pretextual

Wow! I've been on the internet since it was pregraphical. But pretextual! That must have been a really long time ago. No wonder they fired him for being old.

Re:pretextual! (4, Insightful)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867615)

Wow! I've been on the internet since it was pregraphical. But pretextual! That must have been a really long time ago. No wonder they fired him for being old.
Another sign of being too old is if you remember 'do not be evil', which has now been replaced with 'do not be generally unlawful'.

Google Age (1)

Flagran (556301) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867375)

I am the only one who read "Google Age" like "Space Age"? I think it's about time we've moved on.

Google to become 'Convicted discriminator'? (2, Insightful)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867435)

"'We conclude that Reid produced sufficient evidence that Google's reasons for terminating him were untrue or pretextual, and that Google acted with discriminatory motive such that a factfinder would conclude Google engaged in age discrimination.'"

So much for "Do no evil" (of course, Google has acted contrary to that self-righteous and self-congratulatory credo for years now. Looks like in the future slashdotters will be able to refer to Google as 'convicted discriminator' in each and every Google story. :p

No, I guess you're new to how court works (1)

SIIHP (1128921) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867923)

"Looks like in the future slashdotters will be able to refer to Google as 'convicted discriminator' in each and every Google story."

I suspect that Google would actually have to be convicted first.

I guess that minor detail eluded you in your eagerness to rush to judgment.

I guess you're new to reading (0, Flamebait)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868979)

Looks like you need help with your reading comprehension skills, as my post clearly indicated speculation on future events.

Examine the title of my post:
"Google to become 'convicted discriminator?"
Note the "to become"; that implies future events. Note the '?'; that implies speculation. The combination suggests speculation on future events.

Examine the sentence you quoted:
"Looks like in the future slashdotters will be able to refer to Google as 'convicted discriminator' in each and every Google story."
Note the "Looks like"; that suggest speculation. Note the "in the future" and "will be"; those suggest future events. Combined, they suggest speculation on future events.

See how that works?

BTW, according to the court's words, "We conclude that Reid produced sufficient evidence that Google's reasons for terminating him were untrue or pretextual, and that Google acted with discriminatory motive such that a factfinder would conclude Google engaged in age discrimination.", Google is indeed heading down the path to "conviction". Sure, the path could change, but attacking me for speculating that conviction is in the offing is baseless.

Of course the term "conviction" doesn't apply to civil cases, but that never stopped slashdotters from using that word for civil cases in the past, now has it? ;)

Re:I guess you're new to reading (-1, Troll)

SIIHP (1128921) | more than 6 years ago | (#20869095)

"Looks like you need help with your reading comprehension skills, as my post clearly indicated speculation on future events."

Guy, you can fuck off because no it didn't. I like how you tried to turn your flamebait into "specualtion" after I and others called you on it, but no dice. You were making declarative statements so save that "speculation" garbage for someone else.

"Of course the term "conviction" doesn't apply to civil cases"

Except age discrimination is both a civil AND criminal act. Get it now? Criminal means "conviction". Get that too?

Anything else you want me to show you you're wrong about little fella?

Re:Google to become 'Convicted discriminator'? (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867929)

In fairness, Google hasn't been convicted yet (even by Slashbot standards of "convicted"), just had their previously accepted request for dismissal overturned.

You might want to look to the stories here on "Single Mother With Lupus Defeats RIAA!!!" to see how to spin dismissal rulings.

What is evil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868007)

Google obviously doesn't consider age descrimination to be evil (probably seeing it as being good for business and hence good for the economy and hence in direct service to the greater good).

So they are still holding true to their motto.

Though perhaps it should be clarified as follows:

Do none of what Google considers evil.

Re:Google to become 'Convicted discriminator'? (2, Informative)

KiahZero (610862) | more than 6 years ago | (#20869039)

No. The court held that summary judgment was inappropriately granted, because there is a material question of fact regarding whether or not Google engaged in illegal conduct. In other words, if a jury were to believe everything Reid presented, and make reasonable inferences from that evidence, they could reasonably conclude that Google engaged in age discrimination.

Any tech life after 50? (2, Interesting)

xzvf (924443) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867439)

I just turned 40 and am a well paid system administrator. Is it really feasible to work in technology past the age of 50? It's harder to keep up with every new tech and some of the buzzwords of today are really annoying. Most social networking sites feel like reality TV.

Re:Any tech life after 50? (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867459)

One word: cyborg

Re:Any tech life after 50? (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867859)

I just turned 40 and am a well paid system administrator. Is it really feasible to work in technology past the age of 50?

I'll let you know when I get there! Seriously, if we older tech guys want to stay in the business and are performing well, then I don't think age should be an issue. For this, having some kids is an advantage, they're helping me ride the wave of new technology and even stay out ahead of it a little. And BTW, happy birthday!

Re:Any tech life after 50? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868811)

For this, having some kids is an advantage, they're helping me ride the wave of new technology and even stay out ahead of it a little.

Huh? What does having kids have to do with the newest in network administrator or programming? Its not like an iPhone is something you really need to worry about much in either of those cases.

Re:Any tech life after 50? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868049)

Is it really feasible to work in technology past the age of 50?

Yes, if you're employed at a government agency. Depending on the agency, you'll probably always be a bit behind the "bleeding edge" of tech advances, but they won't fire you just because you were so rude as not to die young.

Re:Any tech life after 50? (1)

blackbearnh (637683) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868227)

Well, I just turned 45 and I consider myself (as a senior software engineer) to be at the top of my game. I've made a point of (selectively) keeping up with the latest. I taught myself Rails this summer, and I've spent the last 3 weeks learning Salesforce.com coding for work. I don't think it's age that pushes people out of the industry, it's failure to stay current. If you get cozy with whatever you're doing right now, and don't keep your skills fresh, you're certain to age out of the industry.

James

(Who just learned he's eligible for AARP membership in 5 years. Dinner at 4PM, here I come!)

Re:Any tech life after 50? (1)

BrianRoach (614397) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868263)

It's harder to keep up with every new tech and some of the buzzwords of today are really annoying

The buzzwords have always been annoying.

As for the former part of your statement, er, no, it's not ... and that may be why there's no tech life for you after 50.

(While this reply is somewhat tongue and cheek ... keeping up with the tech really is part of the job. You don't have to be proficient in everything, but having at least a familiarity with what's going on in your industry is essential IMHO. And I'm not a young whippersnapper by any means.)

- Roach

Google evil? (1)

Big Nothing (229456) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867501)

I might not agree with the conclusion, but I've found this article [wordpress.com] to be a worthwhile read.

Ageism is stupid, but can make sense (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867509)

Disclaimer: I am a believer in nearly an absolute right of freedom of association, so I support the right to fire employees for stupid reasons including racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, failure to keep kosher/halal, etc.

At 54 he may be a real asset to the company in other areas of the company that aren't bleeding edge. He may be the sort of guy you want working on some very difficult, but not sexy, problems like getting better performance out of their products. Just because his ideas aren't new, doesn't mean that he is useless. To the contrary, his experience may be worth several times the vision of a young employee.

The IT industry deserves its problems. It deserves to have to deal with labor shortages if it is young to be a cult of youth. No other industry treats its senior engineers with as much contempt as much of IT. No mechanical engineering outfit in their right mind would trade a person with 30 years of solid experience for a whipper snapper or two with vision, but no experience. It would be product suicide.

So, do we now add this to the growing list of how Google is becoming evil? I don't see how you can avoid it.

Re:Ageism is stupid, but can make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20867953)

The IT industry deserves its problems. It deserves to have to deal with labor shortages if it is young to be a cult of youth. No other industry treats its senior engineers with as much contempt as much of IT. No mechanical engineering outfit in their right mind would trade a person with 30 years of solid experience for a whipper snapper or two with vision, but no experience. It would be product suicide.

Here in Redmond, we call it "Vista."

I see how you can avoid it (1)

SIIHP (1128921) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868035)

"I don't see how you can avoid it."

Well, you could wait until they're actually convicted of something, that's one way.

What's with you people and your obvious desire to hate on Google? Is it really that hard to avoid making dubious claims of "evil" behavior until the case is actually made?

Re:Ageism is stupid, but can make sense (5, Insightful)

MrSenile (759314) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868057)

Being an IT professional, I'll tell you right now this isn't just Google.

This is the corporate mindset.

The upper management look at the bottom dollar on how to make money.

And regardless of how ugly it is, on paper, IT are a cost. Never a profit.

Remember, I'm IT. I know just like any other IT professional, that what we save a company in revenue is enormous. We maintain the systems, prevent outtages, and are a total invisible entity until something goes wrong (tm). But most of the time, we're ignored. Why? Because we do our job, we do our job well, and people who make money can continue to make money.

If we went by the RIAA method of cost, then we could argue that each IT professional is worth a few hundred million dollars. Because it's our expertise that is saving the company that much in lost revenue every year, as a blanket possibility.

Unfortunately, the RIAA method of cost isn't used by the business department. The only go for immediate dividends. They look at the long scope project plan and how much revenue they will be generated. To date, I have hardly ever seen a business plan that takes potential loss into account with any budget they write. Ever.

This is why they can easilly determine that firing the 'old codgy 20+ year expert' who makes his 100K year for a green out of college eager beaver for 40K year saves the company 60K, PLUS BENEFITS, a shot.

Looks really good on paper.

Of course, in that year, they lose more money than the 60K in training, mistakes made by this individual, downtime on servers, misappropiations of resources and applications, etc etc.

But that never shows on paper. Regardless of the loss, they'll just point to the 60K saved. And when the company inevitably has a SAN outtage, drive failure, OS crash, DDoS attack or other miscreant attack/damage, they'll put this person on probation, fire off other high end professionals who weren't at fault, maybe lay off the manager in charge of the department. And then, wow, look how much MORE money we saved? We're doing great!

Long as the chair boards are happy and the investors get their cash, frankly, they don't give a damn about the IT professional, and that's always going to be the case.

Welcome to industry gentlemen.

Why not? (1, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867531)

Why can't a non-government institution be allowed to choose their employees however they see fit?

Re:Why not? (1)

secPM_MS (1081961) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867573)

Because the federal government passed a law saying that you could not discriminate against an employee of certain grounds. That's why.

It is also good business.

But the federal law carried real penalties and it should be enforced far more vigorously.

Right to exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868873)

And also the Federal government gives corporations the very right to exist, period. Without those provisions in the Constitution, corps would not exist, and there would only be private individually owned, and partnership commercial entities.... come to think of it, that would probably be a good thing, since the owners could then be held more liable for their misdoings.

Re:Why not? (2, Informative)

onion2k (203094) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868063)

If they chose them based entirely on their merits like 'best qualified', 'most passionate', 'willing to work for the least money' then that'd be fine. The problem arises when an employer uses an irrational reason to choose between two perfectly capable candidates. Age, especially in a compsci job, is not a factor that stops someone doing the job well. Equally factors like race, gender, and disability don't necessarily stop someone doing a good job. So why rule out people based on any of them?

Discrimination laws actually help companies. If they discriminate and turn away the best person because they fail to meet some ludicrous and irrelevant target like "is the candidate white?" or "is the candidate under 30?" the company is going to suffer as a result. Employers need protecting from themselves.

Re:Why not? (1)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868167)

Because it entrenches existing priviledge and prevents people of the 'wrong sort' being able to work their way up to better things. It permanently disenfranchises the old, female and minority workers from getting a fair chance at a job they have the skills to do, in a country which prides itself on supposedly being fair, just, and given all an equal chance to rise on merit.

As a question, it's right up there with 'why should I be forced to let blacks into my restaurant?'

Go Mods!! Woohoo!! Parent is awesome!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868335)

Why can't a non-government institution be allowed to choose their employees however they see fit?

"Hire him? Hell no. He's a Nigger!!"

When did the mods here become complete fucking morons?

Re:Why not? (1)

DavidHumus (725117) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868537)

Ah, the feckless ignorance of youth.

Of course corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want because they are always good and fair. Like the company that fired my father-in-law shortly before he vested in the corporate pension plan so they wouldn't have to pay what they owed him after years of working there. This was before age discrimination laws and are part of the reason we now have them.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868751)

Indeed.. Why should a company accept a woman, a black guy, a muslim or (gasp) even a jew?

Re:Why not? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868947)

Because to do otherwise would keep minorities unemployed?

Or, should you be able to hire a kid to work in a factory? After all, thier little hands might be able to reach in and grap whatever is jammed and keeping the machine from working..

Re:Why not? (2, Insightful)

2short (466733) | more than 6 years ago | (#20869103)


Because formation of a civil society is a trade off. Corporations can't just do whatever they want. In exchange, corporations can exist. We let the owners of an institution almost entirely off the hook from any responsibility for what that institution does, or what debts it incurs. Nobody has any personal liability deriving from most things a corporation does, which is a fabulously useful thing in terms of ever getting even good things done, but don't you think it's reasonable for society to expect some trade-off in return. Is it really such an odious responsibility that we forbid corporations from firing people for stupid reasons, like being black or old?

Firing someone (2, Informative)

hernyo (770695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867543)

By the way, what reasons are accepted for firing someone? In the European Union firing an employee is very hard because of the EU's strong social laws. But we know the US is a capitalist country, so how about the US?

Re:Firing someone (2, Informative)

daeg (828071) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867675)

Depends on the state. Florida, for instance, is an at-will state. I can fire my staff for no reason at all other than I felt like firing them. Sure, they could collect unemployment. Or I could find some minor detail, for instance, them using too many sick days. Employment agreements/handbooks are a mile thick now, detailing a hundred different things that lead to termination. Other states make it harder.

For your reference (2, Informative)

SIIHP (1128921) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867995)

You still can't discriminate if Florida. I know this from personal experience (dealt with a ton of ADA claims in a previous job) so, no, even in Florida age discrimination is illegal.

The difference is, you don't have to give cause. So you could fire someone, give no reason, and the onus would be on them to make a case for discrimination.

Re:Firing someone (2, Informative)

Anonymous Meoward (665631) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867765)

By the way, what reasons are accepted for firing someone?

None.

Employers often circumvent discrimination litigation here by forcing us to sign "at-will' employment agreements before getting hired. The company reserves the right to discharge you at any time for any reason whatsoever.

The only protections are those mandated by federal law. You can't be fired for being female, or black, or Jewish, for example (if you can prove in a court of law that this is in fact what happened, heh heh). But on the other hand, if your manager thinks you smell like moldy cheese, or thinks your name has one Z to many, you can in theory be let go without consequence.

Re:Firing someone (2, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867969)

I can understand why a person would not be in favor of at-will employment laws, but keep in mind they also protect the employee to the extent that he can resign at any time without penalty by his employer. This should render any non-compete "agreements" useless, as they are not contracts and the employment is still at-will. Of course, this doesn't mean your hostile ex-employer won't try to haul you into court to prove it.

Re:Firing someone (1)

hernyo (770695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868143)

In most European countries the employee can resign without any reason (well 2 weeks after noticing the employer), but the employer must have a very good reason for firing someone. In most cases it takes companies months to fire someone, in some cases they can't even do it.

In some countries (Sweden, as far as I know) if you hire someone who has just graduated from university and this is his first workplace, you CAN NOT fire him for 18 months.

Just as a note, employees get 20 to 30 paid holiday days per year, depending on the country. Plus national holidays.

Re:Firing someone (1)

perkr (626584) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868491)

In some countries (Sweden, as far as I know) if you hire someone who has just graduated from university and this is his first workplace, you CAN NOT fire him for 18 months.

That is just completely untrue. If anything, in Sweden you are more likely to be fired when you are hired as a new graduate because companies has to fire the latest employees before the older ones (at least if they have signed a union agreement, and most companies have done just that).

And yes I am Swedish.

Re:Firing someone (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20869059)

You don't need at-will employment laws to give employees the right to leave without penalty. States without (and from my what HR manager tells me, more and more states are abandoning at-will) you need an actual reason to let someone go. Which is how it should be. If I'm doing a good job, but my manager or someone else just doesn't like me, why should they be able to fire me? Likewise, if my company is not doing a good job (no raises, too much overtime, etc.) why should I not be allowed to leave?

Re:Firing someone (1)

kevmatic (1133523) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867827)

Varies from State to State. Some (only a few, I think) require a good reason.

I live in Pennsylvania, and here you can fire anyone for any reason at all. Or no reason at all.

Having a valid reason, however, DOES make a difference: it makes a difference between the government classifying the firee as Laid Off or Fired. If you were fired for a good reason, your unemployment compensation could be shafted or eliminated. Good luck on trying to get unemployment if you were fired for stealing, job-searching on the job (big no-no), abusing company property, etc.

And the PA Unemployment office WILL check with your former employer to make sure you didn't lie on your forms. Of course, the decision can be appealed and a hearing held.

If a company fires to many people for stupid reasons, their taxes will increase, because the the government has to pay more unemployment.

Re:Firing someone (1)

fast penguin (910736) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867869)

Not an USAian, but I know California has strong employment laws (this depends from state to state however).

With regard to the European Union, I can tell you that Portuguese employment laws are weak. Or rather, I wouldn't know because the judicial system here is close to non-functional. It takes years to take a case to the end, so people just fall back for the unemployment subsidy. With regard to "strong social laws", American medics perform all the time trials for new drugs or procedures here because it takes too much time to have the permission of the FDA on the States.

Why do you idiots try this moronic garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868507)

"Not an USAian"

What the fuck is a "USAian"?

Did you mean to type "American" and didn't realize your mistake? Or did you want to look like a fucking idiot?

Because you do.

I don't have a problem with discrimination (0)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867559)

As long as the government is not the one discriminating, or intentionally sponsoring the discrimination. And no, I'm not white.

Re:I don't have a problem with discrimination (4, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868633)

As long as the government is not the one discriminating, or intentionally sponsoring the discrimination. And no, I'm not white.

Let me fix that for you:

"I don't have a problem with discrimination as long as I am not the one being discriminated against."

There that's more like it.

This is an old story (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867561)

.nt

53 is not old for an academic job, you are young (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20867683)

At Stanford tenured people retire after 70. Two of my neighbors are Stanford professors and over 80, they both retired at 70+, but still go every day to work, publish lots of scientific papers, have research grants and hire other people to work for them, etc. Sure thery dont receive salaries from Stanford anymore but otherwise they are like any tenured Stanford employees retired or not, have nice offices, unrestricted accounts, secretaries, etc.
The guy should have stayed at Stanford. He wanted big money from Google and got what he deserved.

Re:53 is not old for an academic job, you are youn (1)

andreyw (798182) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867787)

He didn't get what he deserved. You don't ever deserve discrimination.

Fuck Google.

A warning for the youngsters who did the firing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20867961)

Time flies, in no time you'll be 54 too and get fired for being too old(?).

We percieve the passage of time exponentially (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868259)

Why? because we percieve the ratio between a time interval and your current lifetime. Remember, when you were only 4, a year felt like an enormous amount of time, it was 25% of your lifetime. A year feels much shorter whewn you are 30 (1/30 of your lifetime) and even shorter when you are 54 (1/54)
In general d(perception of time) ~ dt/t, that is perceived time ~ ln(t), or t = exp[Ct. (perceived time)]. That is, the phyisical time increases exponentially with the percieved time.

Young people who fire old people just because they are old, beware! Because of this exponential law in no (perceived) time you'll be old too and get fired.

Wow Google is like every other 1337 companey (4, Insightful)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#20867709)

Go figure - someone who runs around saying "I'm cool I'm good I'm hip" is really just a bottomline driven corporate husk.

Culturally fit (3, Insightful)

hernyo (770695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868011)

It seems that besides being a good engineer you have to be "culturally fit".

I kinda agree: a pessimistic or unsociable person could endanger the spirit and the enthusiasm of others. I would not like to work with a highly intelligent but depressive person, if his depression would affect my everyday mood. Not to mention if the guy is the PM.

On the other hand, I would be fucking upset for being fired because of not fitting into the company's social standards.

Re:Culturally fit (2, Insightful)

chrome (3506) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868123)

No, I think what they mean is that you should fit within the company culture. Not that you are culturally fit. An amusing concept thought it is.

Hands up all those who interviewed at Google, seemed to be going great then got told "no" because you weren't a fit, culturally?

*holds up hand*

I think its the standard corporate response to someone that they don't like. Its weasel speak for "One of our managers didn't like you but rather than just say that we'll say that you're not a good fit, culturally. When really you are. Hey, I liked you. I thought you would get in. But the manager of the department didn't think he could work with you. Sorry."

Meh. I'm so over Google. She won't return my calls and the second date was just a complete fizzle.

Shrug. (2, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868423)

It's as good a reason as any. I know whenever I interview someone, I try to get a feel for what they'd be like to work with. I'll pick a less qualified candidate with a better manner over a more qualified jackass. It's not just their output you have to consider...It's everyone's output.

Corporate culture is more of an ephemeral. They clearly want people to fit in and participate, and that's understandable. I think, however, that they need to be more up-front about it.

I work with a lot of people who are older than me, and it's definitely a drain. Not because they're any less competent, but more because there is enough of a generational disconnect that we can't really associate from a common viewpoint.

I don't think per se that Google is ageist, but I do think that they're cliquish and snobby, and like all such groups, rather than just saying, "Nothing personal, but you're not one of us" they invent a reason, in this case, the guy's age.

I agree with some of the above posters. The guy was an idiot to leave his university job. You chase the dollar signs, you lose.

discrimination (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868189)

Discriminating is the act of choosing among different possibilities. Google is discriminating against athletes by by hiring mostly good programmers instead of professional skateboarders. That what discriminating means: choosing.

Politicians have turned the meaning towards : discriminating on criterions we don't judge relevant to do the job. There are two problems with that.

- Mind your own business. If I hire someone to do a job, it's my money I am free to choose whatever absurd criterion I like. By hiring someone I am buying a service. Who are you to tell me to whom I can or can't buy that service.

- Firms generally know more about the relevant criterions than the lawmakers. Maybe Google employees are more productive if the age dispersion is small: they can relate more to each other and enjoy working there more. A firm that picks irrational criterion reduces its pool of potential applicant and end up having to pay higher wages, it might think twice before doing so. Another example that might have a lot of sympathy is that of a firm that would only hire handicapped people. It would be able to pay slightly lower wages since there is less competition to hire these workers and would save on the fixed costs of providing wheelchair access. If that company is not free to discriminate, the handicapped will have lower wages. If the government tries to ensure that handicapped cannot be discriminated against, all companies will have to pay the fixed costs which mean everyone's wage will eventually be lower and the price higher.

Re:discrimination (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868969)

Politicians have turned the meaning towards : discriminating on criterions we don't judge relevant to do the job. There are two problems with that.

Huh?

I've always heard it as "You can't be discriminated against based on race, age, sex, etc." this is the same as "You can't be eliminated from being chosen based on ...."

We labeled the act as "Racial Discrimination" or "Age Discrimination" these are nouns, and are used to convey "To be discriminated against based on race" or "To be discriminated against based on age". The jest being that "discriminate" is a verb and its meaning is as you said it was.

Discriminating is the act of choosing among different possibilities.

What's strange is that people believe that laws against discrimination is a new concept for the US. The founding fathers wrote the constitution on the basis that all men are created equal. Unfortunately it took admendments to make a more concise definition of what equal treatment means. And when further definition was called for, we lobbied for laws that give detail descriptions on what is legal and what is not.

As for your two problems... It sounds like the same reasoning behind the "Jim Crow" laws.

Age: the worst discrimination law ever (1)

netsavior (627338) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868297)

The law says that you cant discriminate against anyone because of their age... as long as they are over 40.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ( ADEA ) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age

I love the hard lower limit, it would be a shame to protect all people equally.

IMO it should eb ruled unconstitutional, but of course nobody under 40 votes, so that will never happen.

Money? (1)

Foolicious (895952) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868403)

Just throwing out an idea -- maybe companies "prefer" younger workers because they're cheaper? Don't know this to be all-encompassing, but I've found, anecdotally, that most 28 year olds, in most industries, makes less money than most 58 year olds. Don't lambaste me, but respond if you have evidence or other ideas.

Karma is a bitch (3, Interesting)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868523)

Don't worry, pretty soon Google will be getting old in Internet years and we will soon discriminate against it for a younger "more hip" search engine.

It all depends (1)

schiefaw (552727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20868579)

They said his ideas where old. If that is the literal truth, then Goggle probably did the right thing. The article also states that his co-workers thought he was a fuddy-duddy (stupid phrase), so it may be that he just didn't fit the culture.

I am getting to be one of the older employees of the places I work, but I come in with fresh ideas and I challenge the status quo. I don't care how old someone is, if they stop believing that things can be better they become useless.

yu0 Fail It? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20868869)

availAble to othe8s what to

One of the best policies ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20869083)

One of the best policies is used on the set of the TV show Scrubs. Bill Lawrence set it down before they got started. It's a "no asshole" policy. I could care less about someone's age, sex, orientation, race ...., but if they are an asshole they have to go. I guess if every company used that though unemployment would skyrocket and we would have a severe shortage of middle managers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>