Google, Apple Call Workers' Race & Gender Trade Secrets

theodp writes "The Mercury News reports that Google, whose stated mission is to make the world's information universally accessible, says the race and gender of its work force is a trade secret that cannot be released. So do Apple, Yahoo, Oracle, and Applied Materials. The five companies waged a successful 18-month FOIA battle with the Merc, convincing federal regulators who collect the data that its release would cause 'commercial harm' by potentially revealing the companies' business strategy to competitors. Law professor John Sims called the objections — the details of which the Dept. of Labor declined to share — 'absurd.' Many industry peers see the issue differently — Intel, Cisco, eBay, AMD, Sanmina, and Sun agreed to allow the DOL to provide the requested info. 'There's nothing to hide, in our view,' said a spokesman for Intel. Some observers note it's not the first time Google has declined to put a number on its vaunted diversity — in earlier Congressional testimony, Google's top HR exec dodged the question of how many African-American employees the company had."

Comments

I'm pretty sure

[jra]

the EEOC and Congress will see it differently.

Wonder what *else* Congress will ask while they've got them on the stand...

Re:I'm pretty sure

[TheKidWho]

Google just doesn't want to be subjected to draconian and racist equal opportunity laws or quotas.

I'm pretty sure they are hiring people based on merit and technical ability, not race or color.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[RightwingNutjob]

In Soviet Russia they kept track of how many Jews people were hiring, just to make sure they stayed in line. Here they're trying to keep tabs on the Blacks. Good intentions be damned, this just doesn't smell good.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[jack2000]

Nothing good can come out of this, "equal opportunity laws" encourage slack and forced hires.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[Narcocide]

If I had mod points I would mod you up. Equal opportunity is flawed because it is based on a flawed assumption of equal aptitude. If you think about it just a little you'll realize how applying this at a business level instead of immediately at kindergarten level is doomed to do more harm than good.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[Ihmhi]

"Equal opportunity" in education (grants/scholarships/financial aid) is not necessarily flawed.

"Equal opportunity" in the workplace irrespective of the requirements is flawed. I shouldn't have to hire a less-qualified person of one particular ethnicity over a more-qualified white person because I have to fill a quota.

The Wayans Bros. did a brilliant episode on this subject where Shawn Wayans was hired at a prestigious company. Despite his qualifications in the field, all he did was sit at a desk all day to sharpen pencils because he was there simply to fill the quota so the company could continue to get federal contracts. Ultimately, he screwed over the company at the last minute by quitting - thereby not meeting their quota and thus not being eligible for government contracts.

If it were the other way around - if a company had to hire a certain percentage of white people - it would certainly bother me in numerous ways if I was hired based on my skin color/nationality rather than my ability. Aside from the fact that it brings one's own abilities and prospects as an employee in question ("Was I hired because I'm qualified or was I hired to fill a quota?"), it's also downright insulting. The only situation within which I wouldn't give a damn is if I were jobless and needed the money. Then I would be happy for any work whatsoever. (That, however, is a situation universal to every nationality/culture/ethnic group out there.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[GlassHeart]

No, "equal opportunity" in employment refers to the fact that it is illegal to discriminate against people of certain sex, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. It does not say that you should hire anybody other than your best applicant.

You are probably mixing it up with "affirmative action", which seeks to address historical injustice by bending over backwards for the wronged groups. In this case, because simply freeing the African American slaves still left their descendants at a severe disadvantage in the open market, society decides to give them preferential treatment.

All I'm going to say is that it's quite common for the successful to think that they did it all themselves, without thinking too much about whether they'd be where they are if they were born in a different color or socio-economic background.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[Dishevel]

We have seen equal opportunity here. Equal opportunity means that you research only the number. You do not look at why. You look at the number and regulate that. That is what equal opportunity is. It may not be what we wanted it to be but nonetheless it is what it is.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[Korin43]

There's a difference between "certain races are inferior" and "certain races are statistically more likely to not be qualified for certain jobs" (as a result of how education funding is related to a neighborhood's wealth, and white people tend to be richer than everyone else).

Re:I'm pretty sure

[Trepidity]

Google themselves go out of their way to claim how diverse their workforce is, though, and their PR shots often show a carefully selected diverse set of employees. If they really wanted to argue, "we pick the most qualified regardless of who that turns out to be", they could, but they're instead trying to argue that they have an exceedingly diverse workforce, and use that for both recruiting and general PR purposes. Yet, they don't want to give actual statistics on that, which makes one suspect they're lying.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[Korin43]

Don't you love how school funding works here? "Hey guys I have a great idea, it's called public education." "That sounds great.. you know.. as long as I don't have to pay for anyone else's schools. Can we make almost all of a school's funding come from the surrounding neighborhood? Oh and make sure the lines are drawn so we have clearly segregated rich kid schools and poor kid schools."

Re:I'm pretty sure

[ishobo]

Indians are Asian. I think you mean Orientals and Indians.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[Evil Shabazz]

Equal opportunity means that you check for racism first, before trying grand social experiments because of an assumption that certain races are inferior.

No one said anything about inferiority of races. Underperformance != Inherent Inferiority. You look for reasons in society's systems for racial under-performance because you start with the assumption that those races aren't inferior.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[FooAtWFU]

Please. This is Google. Money is not an object.... value is. Their goal is to pick the most cost-effective worker. For some jobs, yes, that's the inexpensive one, but for others you want someone who knows what they're doing.

Give them some credit.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[ishobo]

That is your problem, not mine. There is nothing wrong with the word oriental. The idea that it is a slur has happened within my lifetime. What is most odd is my Oriental friends, that live in the Orient, do not think of it as a slur. I often hear in the States that Oriental is seen as a way to denigate people from the Far East because it ignores unique cultures. Well, Asian is worse in that regard. Look at map, look at how many countries are on that continent. Political correctness run amok.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[bennomatic]

That's funny. You don't know anything about "equal opportunity laws", do you? What encourages slack is the old boys' network that allows people who are connected to get ahead while other people do al their work. How do you get connected? Well, it's often based on the color of your skin.

You don't even think you're racist, do you?

Re:I'm pretty sure

[severoon]

From what I see these days, equal opportunity is aiming at the wrong mark. The problem is no longer disparity between races, it's disparity between socioeconomic classes. Historically the issue certainly was race, and consequently there are more of the historically disenfranchised minorities in the lower class...but that doesn't change the fact. When discrimination happens today, it's more likely to be a response to the socioeconomic status than race.

To present a somewhat oversimplified example that nevertheless makes the point, in the '60s it would have been remarkable for a black Harvard graduate to be chosen for a position over a much less qualified white person (not impossible, not unheard of, but remarkable nonetheless). Today, it's remarkable when someone who's scrapped from a challenging background and hasn't quite risen to the same level of achievement is chosen over that same black Harvard grad of privilege, regardless of that person's race.

The culture of equal opportunity has made it politically expedient and very convenient to choose historically disenfranchised minorities today over the currently disenfranchised lower class.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[timmarhy]

"Equal opportunity means that you check for racism first, before trying grand social experiments because of an assumption that certain races are inferior."

that sentence there is EXACTLY why equal opportunity is a farce and people like you keep it alive. while the OP clearly stated certain groups, you tried to turn it into race. there are other groups of people denoted by other factors then race. he also stated if they weren't being hired due to a lack of skills, then they should have training directed to them, you turned it into an assumption of them being interior, again based on race.

I think people who push this EEO agenda are the ones hung up on race, not employers like google.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[h4rm0ny]

The States has serious issues whereby many actually do think that there is something wrong with a particular group but that if they keep changing words fast enough then they can outpace the prejudiced and keep ahead of them. Bollocks. You can see the progression with all sorts of terms - from negro to black to coloured to black to African-American and on again. (knew a black guy from Mozambique who hated how lots of people in the US called themselves African). Oriental to Asian. Cretin to Spastic to Retarded to Learning Disability. On and on, any word that some idiots have an issue with, another group takes it upon themselves to start condemning the word instead of the attitude. The correct response is to say that there's nothing fucking wrong with being black and saying someone is black is not an insult - just a fact if they are and a bizarre statement if they're not. Why should "Oriental" be an insult? Unless you think there's something wrong with being an oriental, then it's just a statement of fact. And if you change the words, then you're implicitly accepting that there is something wrong with being "oriental" and that you wish to disguise or gloss-over that fact.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[shutdown -p now]

Right. Nobody hires people because they have positive prejudices for them based on race, gender, religion, etc., over someone else for whom they have negative prejudices. It never, ever, ever happens.

It happens, but it's not widespread, and most importantly, it's not something you can hope to regulate without unreasonably impinging on fundamental rights, and/or blunt approaches such as racial quotas.

You would be amazed at how often people are caught red-handed with memos, emails, minutes and more where it's handed down from on high--or at least from the middle--that guidelines beyond the requirements for the job are communicated clearly to those in the position to do hiring.

In IT, yes, I'd be amazed. So far, aside from your vague "connection" hand-waving, you haven't provided any references. Care to find any story - anything - on an IT company that was found out to be discriminating based on race/ethnicity?

I see more middle class white men complaining around the water cooler about political correctness and hiring quotas.

Gee, who'd thought - maybe because they are the group being discriminated against?..

Re:I'm pretty sure

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Ah, now you're asking the correct question. What you do is you send government agents into companies, who then get full access to all materials, and get to dictate their terms to management. ... which will obviously result, as government interference always does, both in *more* racism and *more* power for government.

It's the perfect democratic policy. It appears to have good intentions, it has bad results, and results in more direct power for government officials, and as a bonus, results in more government officials. After all, pretty soon there will be negotiations about those required percentages, which means all races that don't want to be screwed will have to have a union-like internal government, obviously under control from Washington.

Why is bad results good for democratic policies ? Well quite simply, as their "anti-racist" policies result in more racism, they "clearly" show the need for more "anti-racist" policies, and more and heavier enforcement, resulting once again in more centralized government power.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[vlm]

"certain races are statistically more likely to not be qualified for certain jobs" (as a result of how education funding is related to a neighborhood's wealth, and white people tend to be richer than everyone else).

Intellectual counterpoint, Asians. From peasant to Dr/lawyer/engineer/dentist in one generation is basically normal, for them, for cultural reasons.

Physical counterpoint, Black folks. No matter how wealthy the white neighborhood, NBA and NFL are pretty much non-blacks need not apply. I won't respect the concept of equal opportunity quotas until the NFL starts asian recruitment quotas.

There is also a staggering confusion of class and wealth in America generally. My paternal grandparents were from a upper-middle/lower-upper background (based on education and attitudes), not surprisingly with a bit of motivation and hard work ended up in the executive class. They were NOT from a wealthy neighborhood whatsoever, having grown up dirt poor during the Great Depression. I suspect, now that we're in the Great Recession, my kids generation will be another generation like my grandparents. The amount of money in the wallet appears to have virtually no causation with having the right ideas in the head.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[elnyka]

Equal opportunity is not flawed... everybody should have the equal *opportunity* to work for Google. Should everybody actually get hired equally? No, absolutely not... that should depend entirely on aptitude, effort, suitability, etc.

For starters, there is some cognitive dissonance between these two things you said:

everybody should have the equal *opportunity* to work for Google.

and

Should everybody actually get hired equally?

You can't work on google equally if they don't get hired equally. Perhaps what you want to say is that everyone with the minimum requirements for a job should have a right to apply for that job. And this I totally agree.

As a minority myself, I got to say, indeed equal opportunity in many cases *is flawed*. It works in education. It levels the entrance (and playing fields) for ethnic groups that have historically been at a disadvantage (there is a racial component to this which makes the topic rather inflammatory *for some*, there is no way around it, and it's a topic better served with its own thread.)

It works in at work (no pun intended) as it makes it illegal to use race, ethnicity (and similar attributes) as factors in the hiring process. But that's about it.

But, as you have said, getting hired should strictly depend on qualifications. And this is where affirmative action is flawed.

I am a Latino, and do you know how many Latinos I've seen in engineering and science schools? Not that many, even perhaps in areas with a high % of relatively affluent Latinos like Miami-Dade County.

How many African American students I saw in engineering and science schools? Not that many either unfortunately. The number of African American IT/engineering colleagues I have had in the last 15 years is very small, almost dismal.

What are predominant groups studying and working IT/Engineering fields in the US? Non-Hispanic US-born Whites (the majority), and South Asians (India/Pakistan), Chinese and Eastern European immigrants (three minority groups.)

The problem certain (not all) minorities face in this respect are of a cultural nature and multi-variable. This is a problem to be fixed by the government, by minority leaders, and to a large degree, by the minorities themselves. It is in large part an ethos problem and lack of information and role models conductive to the pursuit of education in the engineering and science fields.

It is not up to corporations to execute social policies.

If the overwhelming majority of students in science and engineering fields *are not* Hispanics or African Americans, in proportions that are substantially smaller than their proportions with respect of the total population, then it is obvious to anyone that is not a retard (or a sensationalist politician), that overwhelmingly you will have a truckload of White and Chinese/South Asian people next to a miserably small number of equally qualified Hispanics and African American applicants.

Let me re-iterate this again: It is not up to corporations to execute social policies.

If I create my own software company, and in my hiring process I overwhelmingly get resumes only from white people or say, just 3% (a # I just pulled out of my ass for the sake of argument) from Hispanics and African Americans, and if race is not a factor in favor or against anyone, obviously then, my employees would be predominantly white.

Would that be my fault? Would the white dudes who got hired be at fault? My business is to make business and only hire those that qualify, independently of race.

And that's primarily a function of who applies, itself a function of who studies in science and engineering fields.

Unless we have evidence that google is doing racial profiling (do we actually believe that shit), the onus is on the government (local and federal) to investigate why certain mi

Re:I'm pretty sure

[stdarg]

Equal opportunity is not "you must hire x percentage of blacks", equal opportunity is "you may not refuse employment on the basis an employee is black". It's a very big difference.

I'm sure you're right but look at this bit from the EEOC manual on racial discrimination:

EXAMPLE 4
RACIAL STEREOTYPING OR BIAS

Charles, an African American, files a charge alleging that the employer, a retailer, used an interview to discriminate against him in favor of a less experienced White applicant. During the EEOC investigator’s discussion with the hiring manager, she notices that the hiring manager’s statements are peppered with comments such as “we were looking for a clean cut image,” and “this is a sophisticated upscale location . . . I have to make sure the people I hire have, you know, the ‘soft-skills’ we need.” Knowing that these statements could be reflective of racial stereotyping and bias,(39) the investigator evaluates the employer’s decisionmaking very carefully. The investigator interviews Charles’s most recent employer, who tells the investigator that “customers just loved working with Charles . . . he was one of our most effective and motivated employees.” The investigator also interviews the person hired and finds no basis for believing her “soft skills,” or her “image,” were any better than Charles’s. In addition, the investigator notices that, like the person hired over Charles, the rest of the staff also is White even though the qualified labor market is significantly more diverse. The investigator concludes that the employer rejected Charles based on racial stereotyping or bias.

The racial makeup of employees compared to the racial makeup of the applicant pool is definitely a factor, though not the only factor. In other words, if you don't have x percentage of blacks, that's a strike against you and adds weight to any claim of discrimination against blacks.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[stdarg]

Are you sure? From http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

In the 2004-05 school year, 83 cents out of every dollar spent on education is estimated to come from the state and local levels (45.6 percent from state funds and 37.1 percent from local governments). The federal government's share is 8.3 percent. The remaining 8.9 percent is from private sources, primarily for private schools. [ * * ] This division of support remains consistent with our nation's historic reliance on local control of schools.

Local funding is certainly a big part but state funding is the biggest and federal funding isn't insignificant. What's also hidden in these numbers is the fact that schools in poor areas get more of the state and federal funding than schools in rich areas. Of course, a lot of that money is wasted on special education and magnet programs, depending on your opinions of them... for instance, how is it helping poor kids to have a magnet program that buses in smart kids and puts them in their own insulated program within a larger dysfunctional school? Well, that just highlights the fact that increasing funding without changing how funds are allocated isn't going to have the effect you're looking for.

Honestly I'm surprised there are so many people left on Slashdot who haven't given up the funding argument and accepted that parental involvement and other environmental factors of the children have a lot more to do with performance.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[pha3r0]

Come now that's the problem with affermative action and equal opportunity both. They are great ideas and as a white male in his late 20's I feel sort of bad when I look around and see 80% of the jails filled with minorities. But then I realize something. I did not put them there. I feel kind of bad when I see the black men panhandeling at the grocery store. Then I realize, I woke up early for the last 5 years took a shower put on some respectable cloths and went either to work or to find work. I did not create that 40 year old wino that keeps asking me for 'jus a lil change bro'. If you feel sorry for them you help them I am to busy keeping my house and food on my table to give a rats ass about anyone who wont help themselves.

Say what you want about slavery, it was horrible but don't ever blame me or my people. Every man in this great country is free and equal. Every man in this great country is also responsible for his own well being.

It is high time we as Americans realize we can't make reparations for every bad thing that happens to everyone. Kids will die, people will hate you whether your black brown or poke-a-dot, and the sun will rise again.

Re:I'm pretty sure

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, "No affirmative action for black or Latino workers. They should hire the most qualified worker, unless that worker is a foreigner competing with me."

I have trouble taking complaints about affirmative action seriously from those bitching about H1B.

Translation

[base3]

Our numbers don't look very good. After all, didn't a Google executive pretty much tell us that if we've nothing to hide we've nothing to fear?

Of course they fought it.

[russotto]

Nothing good (from the perspective of the companies involved) could come from the release of the data. Only harm would be likely to result. If the data didn't show anything the Mercury-News could capitalize on for a story about those evil racist sexist tech firms, nothing at all would come of it; that's the best case scenario.

It's not the white males they're hiding.

[base3]

It's the H1Bs.

Re:It's not the white males they're hiding.

[Helen O'Boyle]

It's the H1Bs.

I don't think that's what's going on, because the government already makes H1B statistics available. They can't be hiding something that's already out there in plain sight. If you want to know how many H1B's have been granted to your least favorite employer, you can look it up! True, the statistics are a couple years behind the current year, but the statistics are THERE.

Take a look at Microsoft's for example, and take a look at the salaries offered (for those of you who know MS salary levels). And then factor in a good portion of Wipro and other Indian contracting firms requesting H1B's for positions in Redmond, as also likely working at MS. Given how desperate MS is for staff that they'd be importing that many workers, it doesn't make sense that there'd be more than 1-2% tech unemployment in this area, but there is. Still, I don't think that's what Google and Apple don't want others finding out.

Google/Apple/others MIGHT think (for example) that they're carefully crafting their image to every country they serve, and that a country hearing google only has 7 people on staff from that particular country might feel a bit put out and find reason to, maybe, make a search deal with a competitor who offers more employment to its countrymen. This would be the kind of logic that would lead someone to claim that divulging that information would be too much of a window into strategy.

Gender, I can't explain as easily. But one look around the annual Microsoft "MVP Conference" occurring in downtown Bellevue, WA this week (near MS) tells me that if they're primarily male, they're not the only ones. So I'm not sure why it'd be an issue, except that it could be as simple as preventing someone from being successful with the argument that, "If you divulged your gender mix, why won't you divulge your racial mix?".

Re:It's not the white males they're hiding.

[shutdown -p now]

If a person comes on H1-B, but with intent to settle down and get citizenship, is it really a "job lost to an alien"? Alien today, citizen tomorrow. Taxes still paid within the country, and H1-Bs don't even get all the benefits from that (e.g. they don't get Medicare etc, even though they pay taxes that go towards that).

Re:It's not the white males they're hiding.

[donscarletti]

Well, I am currently on a "Foreign Expert Visa" (essentially H1B) in the People's Republic of China. I have a job and are fending off plenty of job offers from Chinese companies wanting to hire skilled and experienced programmers and are willing to pay _more_ for a foreigner. With tech companies we're not talking about the "mill down the road where your daddy's daddy used to work" we are talking about companies with specialized knowledge requirements and a global sales market. The labor market that drives it has been global for a while now, the great tech companies you know were built on the hard work of a workforce from all over the world, while it used to be just places like Canada, Europe and Australia that would share a pool of skilled tech workers with the US, we now have India, Latin America and China contributing not only workers but jobs too. Sure, the tech company down your street is happy to hire a worker from India if he matches the criteria, but don't be too sure that an Indian company wouldn't hire you if you are _really_ better than the Indian guy hired in America.

The high tech labor market is global and has been since you were too young to work, stop bitching about it and take it as an opportunity to travel, n.b. chicks LOVE an exotic face telling them about adventures that happened growing up in places they have never seen.

Re:It's not the white males they're hiding.

[Nazlfrag]

You know what else doesn't apply to contractors? Equal opportunity hiring practices.

Despicable journalists

[DNS-and-BIND]

So, let me get this straight. A media company wages an 18-month lawsuit against private companies, trying to force them to disclose private data. The media company is doing this purely out of malice, as there is no good that can come from release of this data. On what planet is this sort of thing acceptable?

Oh, and if anyone says, "Journalists are a sort of magical, pure source of good in our society, white knights protecting the people," that attitude belongs back in the Cronkite era.

Re:Despicable journalists

[jra]

Yes, it does.

Shame we're not *in* that era.

I gather Russia is allowing immigration these days; see ya.

Re:Despicable journalists

[Jeff DeMaagd]

[quote]A media company wages an 18-month lawsuit against private companies[/quote]

I don't think that's true, it looks to me that the lawsuit is against the regulators, not the private companies themselves. The FOIA doesn't apply against companies directly.

Besides, because Google claims it is diverse on their own site, the only damage would come is if they're lying about it and the slide shows are just tokenism, all the photos appear to be of the same group of 20 or so people. Of which I would shed croc tears if it's an exposed lie.

Google's CEO said it best

[martin-boundary]

If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

What is Google hiding?

Re:Business Strategy?

[jra]

Well, let's be clear: "we're going to hire the smartest people, even if they're "white" and male" is *not* racist, but will probably get them in trouble anyway.

(As Carlin notes: "Indians are very dark 'white people'. What's that all about?")

Re:Why does race or gender matter?

[jra]

Well, the customary argument in favor of Affirmative Action -- which is what you're talking about there -- is "we need to help them along because their minority screwed them, going through primary school". Whether it applies in secondary education, it *certainly* doesn't apply in post-secondary, and I don't see that it applies on the job either.

That guy passed out on the floor of the burning house doesn't care that because you're female, you can't meet the weight-lifting requirements of the firefighter exam. He just cares whether you get him out.

Re:Trade Secret?

[PeanutButterBreath]

Google is basically stipulating that race and gender are influential in its hiring process. Seems like they've backed themselves in to a corner here.

Re:we MUST hide (and protect) our african american

[PeanutButterBreath]

I'm 35. My father was actively discouraged from pursuing a career in architecture by hostile highschool teachers (he now has a PHD in architecture). Based on a lot of replies (not yours), it takes more than a math genius to understand why there are still very few African American engineers. African Americans remain a numeric minority, only one generation (at best) removed from being told by their own teachers that they are too stupid to aspire to careers like engineering.

Hire based on qualifications

[iPhr0stByt3]

Black people have a different temperament than white people, women are sensitive and men are practical, and yes, younger people do learn faster, while older people have more wisdom. I'm sure there are some out there, but I have never met a black woman who likes working on computers... it's too nerdy ;-). Though we all have strengths to contribute, we are NOT all equal, so why should a commercial business be forced to hire equally? Hire based on qualifications and maximize peoples' strengths. Sorry if it doesn't look good on paper, but it benefits everyone.

Re:Why does race or gender matter?

[electrons_are_brave]

That guy passed out on the floor of the burning house doesn't care that because you're female, you can't meet the weight-lifting requirements of the firefighter exam. He just cares whether you get him out.

Relax, the guy passed out on the floor of the burning building will be saved! All firefighters have to pass fitness and strength testing. http://www.topendsports.com/testing/forces-fire-fighters.htm

What you seem to be saying is that ALL women should be excluded from firefighting just because MOST women couldn't pass the entry exams. Most men couldn't pass the exams either.

Sure, given the natural differences between the average man and woman, men will always outnumber women in jobs needing strength.

But you shouldn't apply infomation about the average man or women to every man or women. It's unfair and discriminatory

No: translation "leave us alone"

[bradley13]

I think it is much more likely that they want to just avoid a tangle with the regulatory agencies.

Google is now big enough that they will be asked "why don't you have exactly 0.03274% female black jewish mentally handicapped" employees, to reflect the population?

Hiring should be blind to race, gender, etc. - that is true equality of opportunity. The agencies don't see it that way - they play a numbers game, and it's worth a lot of effort to avoid this discussion, or at least to avoid having the discussion in public.

Cultural differences, why are people so oblivious?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

It's funny how few people realize that this attitude is actually a cultural trait :

it would certainly bother me in numerous ways if I was hired based on my skin color/nationality rather than my ability. Aside from the fact that it brings one's own abilities and prospects as an employee in question ("Was I hired because I'm qualified or was I hired to fill a quota?"), it's also downright insulting

This is all very protestant of you. You get what you deserve, and what you deserve is based on how much work you do, on how much value you produce for society.

Of course, most cultures see merit in other things. Even something as similar as a catholic, for example, would mostly agree, but would take offence at the implicit connection you draw between money (or value) and a person's worth, which he would consider very improper and very wrong. No, for you a person's worth is related directly to how much worth said (regardless, even, of how much work you put into producing that value, e.g. according to you a ceo who does almost nothing, resulting in a 50% rise in value is superior to one that works 14 hours a day and destroys 50% of the value of the firm, something most other Christian denominations would take offence at).

And that's just the beginning. A nazi, or a black panther, or a tamil tiger, or ... would take offence at your definition of value (like the GP). After all, value is first and foremost defined by how arian/black/"diverse" someone is. Anyone with white/black skin will obviously perform better than anyone with black/white skin. Anyone who claims differently is offensive, and should get beaten, or worse.

A communist would take offence at your implication that there is difference at all. Any difference in performance must be abolished by state decree, and the state is god, after all, doing otherwise would imply no "social justice". If you were hired for any reason other than "the party decided it", you should get fired on the spot. A person's worth is determined by how high one's position is in the communist party, and by nothing else.

A muslim would take offence at your failure to differentiate between the "master" and the "slave". Obviously depending on the job, it would be an insult to hire a muslim for it, e.g. garbage collection, or it would be an insult to hire a non-muslim for it, e.g. a police officer. Also, the job description would determine 100% the required gender of the person filling it. Women are not allowed in many jobs, and men are not allowed in others. Segregation must be enforced, in addition the superiority rules that sharia pushes, which must be respected, and muslims are superior, women inferior, and segregation a requirement from allah ("men are superior to women", quran, ch. 4, verse 34) ("muslims are superior to non-believers", repeated every 5 verses or so).

The list goes on. Just about all cultures (except that one sect of christianity and it's direct descendants) would not agree with your feelings at all. This is one of the things that makes them different.