8 ms·
Alphabet’s Chief Legal Officer Stepping Down Amid Investigation
- stopads 7y agoIt's pretty wild that he was there since 2002, he's practically a founder.
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoHe specifies that he was there over 20 years, prior to the company being incorporated, and only joined full-time in 2002. That being said: David Drummond is a terrible person[0], who only has been there this long because of Larry Page and Sergey Brin's protection, because they are terrible people too[1][2]. The way Google's highest executives have treated women is disgusting and inexcusable. And while Drummond may not be getting an exit package, he sold off $200 million in stock this past year. Evil is still very, very good business. [0] https://medium.com/@jennifer.blakely/my-time-at-google-and-after-b0af688ec3ab https://medium.com/@jennifer.blakely/my-time-at-google-and-a... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-employees-masseuse-room-2018-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-employees... [2] https://fossbytes.com/larry-page-andy-rubin-150m-sexual-harassment-lawsuit/ https://fossbytes.com/larry-page-andy-rubin-150m-sexual-hara...
- jacquesm 7y agoHoly crap, that is some story.
- jakobegger 7y ago> After our son was born, I received a call from HR notifying me that one of us would have to leave the legal department where David was now Chief Legal Officer (...) This sounds like the worst possible policy I can think of. Get pregnant from your boss, and HR kicks you from the team! How does that help anyone?
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago> How does that help anyone? It helps the boss, of course.
- snowwrestler 7y agoThe right way to implement a policy like that is to say that supervisors are not permitted to have relationships with their subordinates. That way, if such a relationship develops against the rules, it's clear upon whom the consequences should fall: the supervisor. Supervisors get more money and power from the organization than their subordinates, so it's fair for the organization to have higher expectations for the behavior of the supervisor than the subordinate.
- nostrademons 7y agoGoogle had one that said exactly that when I joined in 2009, but that post-dates the alleged affair(s) here, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was introduced directly because of this. Drummond wasn't the only one engaged in such shenanigans, too - I can think of at least half a dozen executives (including both founders) who engaged in relationships within their reporting chain.
- zozbot234 7y agoSupervisors also have more skin in the game so, quite trivially, making the supervisor responsible also means it's inherently easier to enforce that policy! The fact that they'd try to shift that burden onto the subordinate just tells you how much they care about following the rules, i.e. not at all.
- TallGuyShort 7y agoAgreed, but a bigger factor is the power differential, IMO: the boss has the higher need to maintain at least an image of impartiality, and it's harder for the subordinate to resist advances knowing that the giver is key in deciding when they can and can't get time off, pay rises, etc.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
- onetimemanytime 7y agoWell, she thought that he'd marry, and stay faithful to her. She knew the deal, should be happy with child support...the rest is bitter grapes
- jacquesm 7y agoYou clearly did not read the linked article.
- ProAm 7y agoYes, this is a woman who entered a relationship and it didnt work out. Ive definitely read it and this is not a #metoo story. He didnt force himself up on, he didnt take advantage of her, he didnt threaten her, he didnt demand she date him, it's about dating someone at work when there are clear rules around it. No one said she had to leave the department, but that one of them would have to leave. It's a tragically sad story, especially for the child, but this was two consenting adults in an adult relationship that was full of bad choices.
- jacquesm 7y agoWell, then maybe you read the story but did not understand it. That's fine with me, but I did read the story and that is not my takeaway at all. For starters, there is a clear abuse of power here with one party being the senior person at the company suggesting that things will be 'ok' when clearly there was a plan all along to create a situation of asymmetry and dependency, followed up with a lot of very mean and manipulative action. Besides using the child as leverage against the mother there is a clear - and continuous - act in the self interest of the dominant party, more wealthy, still employed and willing to use every dirty tactic in the book and a couple I'd never even seen before against the other. Utterly revolting and not simply 'two consenting adults in an adult relationship full of bad choices'. That's victim blaming at its worst.
- ProAm 7y agoAn abuse of power? They had an affair, how was that a plan to create a situation of asymmetry and dependency? How did she not know this was a bad idea all along? Did she think a person willing to cheat on a spouse was going to be a good person down the road? > David and I began an affair shortly after that night and we were together for years. She made a bad choice in life. She had an affair with a married man that worked in her department, when she knew such a relationship was against company policy. No one said she had to leave the department, only that one of them had to. Everything that happened after, while terribly cruel, is not anything you dont see frequently when a relationship falls apart that involves children. It's very sad story but I am not victim blaming anyone, they are both at fault. But they both willingly went into this situation with their eyes open knowing full well what the consequences could be.
- rdtsc 7y agoOh wow. > David would go for months or even years at a time completely ignoring my pleas to see his son — not even so much as a text to us, despite living about a mile away. I can see not having the desire to be with her and break up the relationship, but abandoning his child and not seeing them for years at a time is downright evil. It's so strange to hear how Google touts itself to be at the forefront of inclusivity and tolerance, and here their executive acting this way for decades and nobody does anything.
- hackinthebochs 7y agoWhat is "evil" about not wanting to see a child that you presumably didn't want to begin with? A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can abort. Men don't have that option. But that doesn't obligate them to an emotional bond with the child.
- oh_sigh 7y agoRead the article - he wanted the son until he didn't, and then he peaced out.
- vanusa 7y agoOkay - "evil" may have been a touch too strong. I'll go with "scummy and reprehensible". And: "deeply at odds with the ethical standards that Google once claimed to stand for (not that we ever took them seriously when they said those things)."
- hackinthebochs 7y agoI can endorse scummy and reprehensible.
- senordevnyc 7y agoDo we really want companies firing employees for personal morality issues that have zero bearing on their ability to do their job?
- throwaway490194 7y agoYes they are terrible people too. But "the way they have treated women"? ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS? The women who participated in these extra-marital affairs are every bit as evil!
- lawnchair_larry 7y agoNah, women are victims with no agency, men are predators. Get with the times!
- throwaway490194 7y agoLOL. They're BOTH narcissists and narcissism is genetic so the baby she popped out will be a narcissist as well.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dang 7y agoPlease keep the "terrible person" trope off HN. The online call-out culture is good for shaming and indignation, but it wrecks curious conversation. Here we want curious conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- whamlastxmas 7y agoDoes this extend to conversations about Trump as well?
- dang 7y agoTwo answers. First: sure it does. It's not about the person, it's about ourselves and what things like personal attacks do to the community [1]. The second answer is more pragmatic: in practice, it's much easier to simply ask "please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar" [2]. Everyone understands that. If we say "please don't do personal attacks" or "please don't do online shaming" about a major political figure, people mistake that for an expression of political support and object sharply. It's not worth the confusion, and I only have so much energy for explaining that it doesn't mean we're Trump supporters or communists or whatever. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20maybe%20you%20don%27t%20owe%20better&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20partisan&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- dredmorbius 7y agoEarlier / dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22013436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22013436 This is (for obvious reasons) getting multiple submissions. The CNBC article seems the most comprehensive to date: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22014115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22014115
- Fnoord 7y agoThat post from earlier received no discussion, so it isn't a dupe (does not count as such).
- dredmorbius 7y agoRight. I'd gotten a similar clarification from dang when I emailed mods. When I was posting the dupe/prior notes, there'd been about 4-5 submissions within an hour, and it seemed likely the story would continue to draw submissions. A challenge in that case is that no submission gains critical mass. A challenge of user-submission-based media aggregators.
- neonate 7y agohttp://archive.md/uZkcU http://archive.md/uZkcU
- vl 7y ago> Last year, a committee of independent directors from Alphabet’s board hired a law firm to investigate its handling of allegations of sexual misconduct and inappropriate relationships by current and former executives as part of its legal defense against shareholder lawsuits over its handling of the matters, according to documents viewed by The Times. Let’s sure hope they investigated Sergey and Larry too, unlike them, at least this guy got married to his office romantic interest.
- vkou 7y ago> Let’s sure hope they investigated Sergey and Larry too, unlike them, at least this guy got married to his office romantic interest. One of them, at least. Another one, whom he had a baby with, was allegedly pushed out of the firm.
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoLol downvotes. The google pr force is out tonight!
- claudeganon 7y agoThey both “stepped back” shortly after the announcement of this investigation, so it seems likely they were also examined.
- oooogaboooga 7y agoHe likes dem white women.
- lacker 7y agoThese sexual misconduct investigations at Google are really finding some critical stuff. At this point my guess is that it is related to the Larry and Sergey resignations, and we will eventually hear information that reflects poorly on them directly.
- outside1234 7y agoHaven't we already? Sergey was banging everything that moved at one point. ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-employees-masseuse-room-2018-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-employees...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- joering2 7y agoXoogler here; I haven't been close to the food chain to be there in person, but close enough to see photos from Managers/owners trips to Thailand, and believe me they were not going there to visit Temple of the Emerald Buddha. I seen photos that UK's the Sun would probably pay me seven digits for, but I was much younger and still wanted to live lawsuits free life. Fun times.
- zzzcarrot 7y agoDetails pls!
- thrwn_frthr_awy 7y agoWe've heard it already. They literally had a "masseuse room" where Sergey would have sex with employees inside the Google building.
- pinewurst 7y agoQuote from link above: "HR told me that Sergey's response to it was, 'Why not? They're my employees,'" Ayers said. "But you don't have employees for f---ing! That's not what the job is."
- pinopinopino 7y agoGood, more mayhem for Google. I don't mind see them burning a bit. Hopefully the EU forces them to split up soon too. I have had my share of monopolist corporations playing moral compass.
- dang 7y agoOk, but please don't post rage comments to HN. We're hoping for conversation here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- gumby 7y agoNo $50M for him.
- dlp211 7y agoYes, the $150MM in stock he's unloaded over the past quarter will have to suffice.
- booi 7y agohow do you live on only $150MM in this day and age?
- whamlastxmas 7y agoIf he's lucky he'll buy a house in the bay area with that
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rvz 7y agoThe multiple scandals, trip-ups, investigations and blunders at Google sounds very eligible to be turned into its own theatrical melodrama set. In this rehearsal, the CLO has already been "off script" for many years and the "directors" have told him that he isn't getting his $50m golden parachute this time. Instead, he leaves with nothing and takes an Uber back home. No travel expenses paid.
- jillesvangurp 7y agoPeople zoom in on the wrong things. What this person did is one thing. In a normal company that kind of thing results in a chat with your boss and ultimately some kind of resolution that probably involves people leaving the company. What happened here instead is years of this being the status quo with people looking the other way that really should not be. Even helping to cover this up; or even actively harassing people pointing out that this wasn't cool. Google is firing people who speak up and rewarding people who abuse their power & privilege. This person was very gently nudged out the door when he should have obviously been fired years ago. This kind of thing is a no-brainer in modern companies. You fuck around like that and you fail to keep it a secret, that's a career ending event. It's a failure of leadership right there. That leadership is still in place. The problem is still there.
- jiveturkey 7y agohuh. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/10/alphabets-legal-chief-is-leaving-the-company.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/10/alphabets-legal-chief-is-lea... > Drummond is also a board member of private equity firm KKR & Co. L.P. KKR is the PE firm well known for destroying the companies they buy, for their benefit ... and not for their LP's benefit. Dastardly.
- jeffrallen 7y agoOh gross. Why can't powerful men behave themselves? Makes me grateful I'm not a powerful man.
- stronglikedan 7y ago> Why can't powerful men behave themselves? They can behave themselves equally as well as not-powerful men, but they're just in more of a spotlight.
- d1zzy 7y agoI think it's more than that, powerful/rich people men are going to have more access to (consensual) sex than poor men.
- stronglikedan 7y agoBut if it's consensual, then they are behaving themselves.
- EForEndeavour 7y agoThat's a low bar. Consensual does not mean ethical or palatable to shareholders and the public.
- throwaway17_17 7y agoAt the rates of return Alphabet experiences, along with such a large share percentage held by a ‘smallish’ group of founders/early supporters, many of whom are apparently credibly stated to have engaged in very similar behavior, I doubt there will much pressure from shareholders. It is doubtful, but if this was the straw that broke the regulation-impasse-camel’s back, Drummond makes a good scapegoat for current leadership.
- johnhughesco 7y agosucks to be poor, brah. why you heff to be poor?
- zepto 7y agoThere is nothing toxic about Google’s culture. These are normal events in any organization of this size. They are just as focussed as ever on organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible.
- narag 7y agoI can't see any visible clues, but my sarcasm-O-meter just exploded.
- throwaway17_17 7y agoCurious, are the downvotes on this comment for the comment which I assumed was sarcasm, or for the fact that a non-qualified sarcastic comment is of a type of discussion HN rules discourage?
- 6nf 7y agoThe latter.
- zepto 7y agoJust to clarify, I’m not being sarcastic as such, but it is makes sense why people would consider that as a possibility. I have tended to interpret Google in the negative over time, but I have heard the kind of statement I expressed enough times that I honestly am not sure that it isn’t as true as the more negative reads are.
- dang 7y agoPlease don't do this here.
- loganfrederick 7y agoI really liked Ben Horowitz's new book "What You Do Is Who You Are". However, the only passage that I disliked and stood out to me is when he defended David Drummond for his ability to thrive at Google for a long time despite the corporate culture changing. This was after Drummond was called out publicly for abandoning his kid he had with a subordinate: https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/10/25/report-alphabet-clo-drummond-secretly-fathered-child-with-subordinate/?slreturn=20200010162407 https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/10/25/report-alphabet-c... I am sure he's made a lot of people money, but it's not like Google couldn't find a great legal chief who also wasn't a terrible person. Edit: First article I linked to was paywalled, so here is the underlying story: https://medium.com/@jennifer.blakely/my-time-at-google-and-after-b0af688ec3ab https://medium.com/@jennifer.blakely/my-time-at-google-and-a...
- Aqua 7y agoThat's not how business works.
- loganfrederick 7y agoYou're correct, that's not how companies usually make their personnel decisions. But one would think more companies would factor in PR-risk as a real financial risk. But Google being Google economically-speaking, this still probably isn't a material event.
- shawnz 7y agoThere's also the risk of employees not being able to work effectively if they don't feel safe/comfortable in their work environment.
- dmix 7y agoSo it is in fact very much how business works... between bad PR and company cultural issues. This stuff matters. Not to mention businesses have customers and investors who care about these things.
- freepor 7y agoA true all-star in his profession. Managed to protect one of the most unethical businesses in technology history from any substantial legal/regulatory consequences. His tenure at Google is comparable to OJ Simpson’s unforgettable 1973 season for the Buffalo Bills.
- duxup 7y agoI thought his relationships were pretty much known... for a long time by everyone? I swear I remember folks publicly noting these relationships.
- ycombonator 7y agoIs there a database of all sexual abusers who have been let go ?
- itronitron 7y agoI believe Medium was created for just that purpose.
- bhaile 7y agoInteresting comment from Bill Maris from Axios. Bill Maris, who founded Google's venture capital arm and reported directly to Drummond before quitting in 2016, tells Axios... "The news of David Drummond leaving Google today brings to mind a quote from one of my most favorite creatures. 'At an end, your rule is. And not short enough, it was.' I had been asked in the past why I left Google in 2016, and I have never really commented on that. David Drummond is the reason I left Google. I simply could not work with him any longer. It’s that simple. We have very, very different ideas about how to treat people, and this was a long time coming."[1] [1]https://www.axios.com/alphabet-david-drummond-departure-7572e49b-0f5b-4c72-95eb-24fce0cd82aa.html https://www.axios.com/alphabet-david-drummond-departure-7572...
- godzillabrennus 7y agoI met Bill years ago and he was insanely helpful to me at the time. Google lost an incredible person when he walked away.
- kcanini 7y agoI worked for Bill for about a year at GV. He was one of the friendliest managers I've ever met at Google. I randomly met Dave Drummond once at a coffee shop in Sausalito (I didn't know who he was at the time... he just commented on my Google shirt), and he gave me an inexplicably uncomfortable feeling.
- aluminussoma 7y agoI think it is a bad idea to say this about him without providing a concrete example on how he made you uncomfortable. I'm sure I have accidentally made someone uncomfortable before. Does that make me a bad person? I hope not.
- lostcolony 7y agoOf course it doesn't make you a bad person. In fact, there's a good chance you're a good person, and if you have accidentally made someone uncomfortable, it was through something they could easily put their finger on; you said something, you reminded them of something, etc. This doesn't sound like it's that. He does, after all, call it 'inexplicable'; literally unable to be interpreted or expanded upon. It was a 'gut' feeling, a combination of all the things you pick up quickly and instinctively, the summation of which is discomfort. That _also_ doesn't mean the guy is bad, or that it's necessarily fairly representative of him. Just that he gave the OP a feeling of discomfort.
- aylmao 7y agoIt's honestly more angering when figures like this think everyone else is dumb and will swallow the story that nothing is happening, it was just the right time to leave. This one is even worse, he's trying to sell himself as a wise leader leaving to see his pupils grow: > He said that it was the “right time for me to make way for the next generation of leaders” > In his farewell note, Mr. Drummond did not mention any of the claims. Really? At least mention the full context around your departure. Moreover, he tries to pull this one off: > “I know this company is in the best of hands, and I am excited for what the future holds for Google, for Alphabet and for me,” > His departure had been telegraphed in the last few months as he sold off most of his shares in Alphabet, unloading roughly $170 million worth of company stock from November to January. Come on. Drummond, you're leaving as consequence of the investigation around your misconduct. This is not an opportunity to try to squeeze idolatry out of. Just leave.
- H8crilA 7y agoThis is just standard corpspeak. All of that can be summarised to "k, bye".
- kjgkjhfkjf 7y agoOnce again, we must sadly admit that Google is a place where bad things occasionally happen, just like at every other company big and small.
- draw_down 7y agoCome on
- yibg 7y agoMaybe unpopular opinion but I would assume men in positions of power / wealth would be more likely to engage in these types of behavior. Romance / sex is a pretty primal thing for most people, in many cases limited by available options and / or consequences. It also tends to override the more logical parts of the brain. Having more options opened up, even if causing ethical issues I'm pretty sure will push a good percentage of men over. I have no idea what that percentage is, but I wouldn't think it is very small. I think if we dig hard enough we'd uncover a lot more of of these cases in many different companies.
- Aloha 7y agoI would assume people in positions of power / wealth are more likely to engage in these types of behavior.
- yibg 7y agoPossibly, but at least in the news it’s been primarily men. Could be just reporting bias. Would be interesting if there were actual numbers though.
- Aloha 7y agoI suspect its reporting bias by the victims, male victims of sexual harassment/rape are often not taken seriously.
- celticmusic 7y agoIn addition, many men don't consider a lot of behaviors as sexual harassment, and so think nothing of it.
- rossdavidh 7y agoIf we look at the behavior of alpha males vs. alpha females in other non-human mammalian species, it suggests that it is at least more common among alpha males. Not that it couldn't also happen with females.
- pacinoreads 7y agoToo bad the scum bag wasn't fired for not following the company's rules about not having romantic relationships with subordinates.
- ChuckMcM 7y agoNot one of my favorite people at Google. We had an interesting discussion about why Google, which was "transparent" about ranking and rating kept two variables about your performance secret which made it impossible to verify whether or not your bonus was in fact what they had promised you. Very annoying.
- radu_floricica 7y agoAm I the only one not thinking there's anything too outrageous in the article? I've also read the medium article by the ex. It paints the picture of somebody that definitely doesn't get top marks in family, but ... well... he's not that much different from the average american. A standard deviation, maybe? He met somebody else, separated from the wife, tried to make a new family, failed, went back to the wife. Makes me feel a bit sorry for everyone involved, but that's it. I really don't see a demon. If the bad part is moving the girlfriend in another department, everybody looks like they've been overly accommodating, honestly. Having the bosses's wife work in the same department is not fair to the other members of the team. "Hey, Bill, who do you think will get the big bonus this time? You or the bosses's wife?". The decision to be together was mutual - acting as if it wasn't is extremely insulting to her. Some consequences are positive and some negative, that's just life, and one is that they couldn't work together anymore. I can't see anything else. Alleged affairs? Not that many, not while in a committed relationship, and to be perfectly candid, not unusual if they happened. And given the current popularity of poly, possibly accepted by everybody. Definitely not loudly protested at the time. What did I miss that makes him the devil?
- dgacmu 7y agoHe's not the devil, he just makes it extremely hard for alphabet to claim any moral authority (or that it's really being serious) about the issue of executives facing any consequences for misbehavior. It's pretty awkward to simultaneously say "we will never have another Andy Rubin case" and have a chief legal officer who dated (and mistreated) a subordinate.