“Essential founder and CEO Andy Rubin has taken a leave of absence from his new company for ‘personal reasons’ following a report on the circumstances of his 2014 departure from Google,” Sam Byford reports for The Verge. “According to The Information, Rubin left Google shortly after an investigation found that he had maintained an ‘inappropriate relationship’ with a woman who worked under him and filed a complaint to HR.”
“The woman who filed the complaint reportedly worked in the Android division run by Rubin, which would make any personal relationship between the two violate Google policy; the company requires employees to disclose such relationships so that one of them can be moved to another division,” Byford reports. “Rubin left the Android department in March 2013 to lead Google’s efforts in robotics, but the HR investigation is said to have taken place in 2014.”
Byford reports, “That investigation, according to The Information, concluded that ‘Rubin’s behavior was improper and showed bad judgement.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Improper behavior and bad judgement.
Andy Rubin is nothing more than a reactionary mimic, and not a very good one at that. – MacDailyNews, October 31, 2014
“Holy crap! I guess we’re not going to ship that phone.” – Google’s Android chief Andy Rubin, moments after Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone on January 9, 2007
Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
Here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
SEE ALSO:
Former Android head Andy Rubin leaving Google – October 31, 2014
Why Google really, truly, deeply hates Apple – May 30, 2014
Prior to Steve Jobs unveiling of Apple’s iPhone, Google’s Android didn’t support touchscreen input – April 14, 2014
Before iPhone, Google’s plan was a Java button phone, Android docs reveal – April 14, 2014
How Google reacted when Steve Jobs revealed the revolutionary iPhone – December 19, 2013
Apple to ITC: Android started at Apple while Andy Rubin worked for us – September 2, 2011
Ohh MDN – shut the fuck off.
Andy Rubin in a nutshell, not very clever and bad judgement is his trait. Now also a sex molester.
Now also a sex offender? What happened to a world where we were innocent until proven guilty? Any shite is said in the news and now he is a sex offender? Whenever something bad is said about Apple you have a critical mind and realize what you are reading is BS but you are so insecure about a third rate Also ran you deem the man as defiantly guilty of a sex offense? WOW
This is a HUGE sign that the common dude in the States has become immaculated. Dude I hope you either smile or fart in front of a feminist and get accused of rape, and everyone just deems you a sex offender, because hey you deserve is.
He was investigated and was already found guilty at google. Let me say that again for your critical thinking mind….
He was **investigated** and was already found **guilty** at google.
Plus he has left without a whimper of an objection.
Kharma! for stealing a rejected OS called Android from Apple.
Andy Rubin and Matt Lauer are today’s examples of “Be sure your sins will find you out.” (Numbers 32:23).
The Holy Bible: Now More Than Ever.™️
And yet Trump has 16 women who have publicly called him out and nothing is happening. I guess corporate Amurikuh does not care about anything else as long as they get a tax cut.
“Corporate Amurikuh” is where most of these problems are coming to light. There are about 62 million voters for whom the accusations of those women, the Access Hollywood tapes, and the Howard Stern interviews didn’t seem to matter.
That is the sickest part of America today. Every day people including MDN ignore principles in order to carry water for their chosen factions. Pathetic when simple common decency is a political football now too. A large number of Alabamans would support a child molester and something like 30% of Americans still support a self-proclaimed pussy grabber.
I cheer every time these assholes of any political party are disgraced and dethroned. So sad that others put their political party first.
“Inappropriate” behavior is a very broad spectrum. It basically can mean anything, and I don’t want to make light of some of the very serious circumstances under that spectrum.
That said, if “Inappropriate” in this instance means having a consensual relationship against company policy, then the company is overreaching their bounds. Compliance to such crap is nothing short of sycophancy.
Holy Google Apologist Batman!
Quite the contrary… Google should eff themselves over that stupid rule.
These company policies exist for real reasons:
(1) When one individual has considerable authority over another, it undermines the notion of “consensual relationship.” That is the basis for the statutory rape laws; 14-year-old girls do not have equal power with 32-year-old men, and cannot give an effective consent to sexual conduct with them.
Most states make it a crime for a teacher to “consensually” date even a student who has reached majority, and for a jailer to be “consensually” involved with an inmate. Many state bar associations will disbar a lawyer who becomes involved with his client. The US House of Representatives once impeached a President for matters related to being involved with an intern.
When an employer dates a subordinate, the line between “consensual” and “compelled” sex can become blurred. If a man with the influence of Harvey Weinstein or Roger Ailes warns someone that they will “never work in this town again” unless they come across, the victim will be inclined to believe them. As a famous American once noted, “When you are a star, they will let you do anything.”
That works on much less exalted levels, as well. If Google HR had become aware of the woman involved with Andy Rubin , one of them would have been transferred out of the Android division. Is there any doubt that it would have been the subordinate who had her career path blocked, and not the head of the division? It speaks volumes about just how “consensual” this relationship was that Rubin left the company.
Parenthetically, it is HR’s job to protect employees (and the company) from predatory supervisors, even if the employee never files a complaint.
(2) Even if, in a particular case, the relationship between supervisor and subordinate is completely consensual, there may be no way to prove it when the subordinate sues. She will not just be suing the supervisor, but the company. It will then either spend a lot of money on a settlement with a nondisclosure clause, or much more money defending the suit and getting tons of bad publicity even if the company wins in court.
So, between (1) and (2), the company is not overreaching their bounds by making and enforcing these policies.
Bullshit. Adult professionals ought to be able to be adult professionals.
Blurred lines, as you say, are not consensual. The company’s rights end at their door, enough already.
Please forgive my choice of words. It was not directed at you. Companies are intruding way too deeply in people’s lives.
Certainly, adult professionals ought to be able to be adult professionals. Adults ought to be able to avoid criminal conduct, too. Some of them don’t, which is why we have laws, police, judges… and workplace rules.
The problem with not having rules about sexual relationships between supervisors and their own subordinates is not just that a Harvey Weinstein or Roger Ailes might expressly threaten career consequences for an unwilling woman who refuses to play along. A lot of these sexual abusers/harassers aren’t that crude.
They just allow the implicit threat to hang in the air. Such men don’t need to tell a woman that he will never promote her, will never assign her meaningful work, and will never give her a decent reference unless she complies when he makes a pass at her. She understands how the world works, precisely because she is an adult. A high proportion of the victims are mothers (married or single) who have to support children as well as themselves.
The supervisor doesn’t need to say that she probably won’t be believed if she complains. It is obvious that higher management trusts him, because they put him into a supervisory position. They know him, not her, and will believe him, not her, if it comes down to one person’s word against the other’s. Precisely because she is an adult female professional, she understands that she may lose her job and be forced to change careers if she complains.
At best, they will transfer her to another part of the company where he is no longer in her direct chain of supervisors. He will go on with his career as if nothing happened, while she has to start over. Having been labeled a whistleblower without credibility, no other supervisor will ever trust her with responsibility or a promotion. When she leaves the company, it will be without good references or a substantial resume of accomplishments.
The subordinate knows all that already, so the supervisor doesn’t need to say it. Even if harassment is not his subjective intent, it is quite likely how she is going to perceive the situation.
Her consent to sexual activity may not be consciously coerced, but it is not actually voluntary, either. He may fool himself into thinking that his manly physique and debonair charm got her into bed, but she understands that it was merely the least bad of a number of horrible alternatives.
Then, somewhere down the line, he will tire of her and will find a way to get rid of her. She will then have nothing to lose, and will sue the company. They don’t get to defend the lawsuit by claiming that “the company’s rights end at their door.” He was their supervisor exercising power over her within the scope of his employment. They will lose, even if they “win” in court.
Only after I became an independent consultant was I free of this horseshit. The shenanigans remained, but the power relationship was equalised.
I think we can agree that coercion is deplorable. Sexual coercion most deplorable, to coerce compliance to a company policy that extends off hours and off premises is also deplorable.
“You want to make a lining? You must abide by this rule in all aspects of your life.” I understand that the Constitution stops at the employers door, not outside it. If I wouldn’t tolerate it from my government, why is it okay for an employer?
Simple answer: you don’t tolerate it from your government because you pay them and help select management that writes the rules. Your employer pays you, picks its own management, and writes its own rules. If you don’t like US laws, you can move. If you don’t like your employer’s policies, you can change jobs.
Secondary consideration: The United States Constitution gives us fairly substantial rights concerning equal protection and due process by the government. Most private actions have no such constraints.
Bottom line: Your employer can adopt policies that are designed to reduce its own exposure to lawsuits, and make compliance with those policies a condition of employment. If the policy were utterly unrelated to a legitimate company interest (like not getting sued), you would be absolutely right.
Well here’s a notion..from a liberal no less…
Personal responsibility. Yes, the recipient of the coercion should report it to the employer if it effects their job, and the authorities otherwise. Employees are not inherently liable or responsible to protect their employers beyond that.
Meanwhile there are other forms of coercion. I’ve worked with companies that were overzealous in their United Way Campaigns, down to following up with managers (me for instance) over which of their subordinates pledged or not. For donors above the 2% level, special events, etc. Contributing to company PACs, etc. All coercion.
For the record, I earmarked my UW contributions (for which I was encouraged to not really do that) and I flat out refused the PAC. I ended up firing that employer several years ago. Others were not so able…
If it was a consensual relationship, why did the woman file a complaint?
That was not made clear, and I prefaced with a great big if… If he coerced her, then all bets are off. That’s despicable.
What was discussed instead was company policy.
Oh come one folks… we all know women who are in a concentual relationship until that relationship sours… then it suddenly becomes harassment. Not every accuser is honest and not every claim of harassment is valid.
I had an employee who I knew was in a relationship with another. It was no big deal, until things got rocky. Then the allegations to HR came around and the whole thing got messy. Sometimes, real relationships or marriages hatch from inter-office romance. Sometimes it doesn’t. When it doesn’t, the famale often is in a position to weaponize the breakup to punish the male.
True. But in the workplace, a dominant male usually holds the weapons, and his libido compels him to use them to obtain sexual favours. We have all known this for centuries—that men are so artless and weak-willed that they need instruments of coercion to satisfy their carnal desires. Civilisation hasn’t subjugated or domesticated men at all, only turned them devious.
I’ve always thought that Rubin had an inappropriate relationship with Google.
HA HA HA!. That was funny!
However, in retrospect I think it should read…
“I’ve always thought that Google had an inappropriate relationship with Rubin”.
They are both bastards, but Google is the bigger bastard.