Like the difference between a penalty shootout and an actual football match :-)
Printable View
The progressives do nothing. They have already shown that when it comes to a choice between the risk of being called Islamophobic and compromising women's rights or gay rights, they'll do the latter every single time. Anything - ANYTHING - rather than be called racist.
Also, somebody has to pay for it and it's easier to twist a corporation's arm that it is to persuade millions of free individuals exercising personal, private choices based on their own homespun common sense; word-of-mouth from their friends and family and neighbours perhaps.
For instance, a veterinary physician's surgery will be festooned with ads for Pedigree Chum or whatever and I will be solemnly advised that it is the very best nutrition for my dogs. Not because the vet actually believes it, or even because it's true, but because Mars Incorporated pay him to say it. They contribute billions to their education, training and facilities and R & D in their field. They have been comprehensively bought by the Man.
But then, so has everybody else; we're all culpable :-\
He was always going to get the sack once the memo was leaked outside.
Regarding this link....I am reminded of an employee that wanted me to recommend him for promotion because, and I quote "all my friends (outside) have got promoted and I feel that I am being left behind" :dickhead:
Of course he was sacked because it was leaked; and to retain his services would be perceived to be condoning the said perpetuating of gender stereotypes.
The virtue-signalling twitterati would then give Google also sorts of **** on the internets (is this violence?) and the Google brand would be tarnished.
Oh what times, etc...
Once it becomes public it becomes a matter of public relations and gets a public relations solution. The corporation must come first and if the actions of an individual harms the corporation they have done something wrong.
Just as scientific research always seems to publish results that suit their funders and attract more funding.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course. The fella is just doing his job.
Well, I guess the question is whether he was sacked or paid off. Legal would have gone through each line of that memo and been consulted on the possibility of being sued. If he was sacked, they must believe that there is enough evidence to back their case. Paying off is always the easy option with little or no comeback but this bloke leaving effectively brings the whole topic to a close.
of course it is. You are removing someone from their role.
Whether it is dismissal with or without notice or via a settlement agreement, the end result is the same. Paying someone off is a commercial decision made to reduce financial and/or reputational risk to the organisation.
Many football managers are referred to as 'sacked', when in fact, they have been paid the value of the remainder of their contract.