Department of Labor Sues Google Over Compensation Data (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNNMoney: The Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against Google on Wednesday to get the Internet company to turn over compensation data on its employees. The data request is part of a routine audit into Google's equal opportunity hiring practices, which is required because of the company's role as a federal contractor. Google provides cloud computing services to various federal agencies and the military. Google is obligated to let the government access records that show its hiring doesn't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and more. According to the lawsuit, Google has repeatedly refused to provide names, contact information, job history and salary history details that the government has requested for its employees. The Labor Department is now requesting that a judge order all of Google's federal contracts canceled unless it complies with the data request. "Despite many opportunities to produce this information voluntarily, Google has refused to do so," Thomas M. Dowd, acting director for the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said in a statement. "We filed this lawsuit so we can obtain the information we need to complete our evaluation."

Comments

TFA missed two.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Google is obligated to let the government access records that show its hiring doesn't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and more.

Missed two biggies:

Age.
National origin.

Re: TFA missed two.

[ooloorie]

National origin can somewhat be described by race

Not even close. Being British, French, Spanish, or South African tells you little about the US notion of "race" or "ethnicity".

(And the fact that the US government even has official definitions of racial categories is an outrage.)

Re: TFA missed two.

[Anonymous Coward]

National origin can somewhat be described by race

Hah. I was born in Joburg and have been an American citizen more than 20 years. I'm white as the day is long but I mark "African American" everywhere I can. I'm sure they've got me lumped in with the blacks on the national rolls.

Re: TFA missed two.

[the_Bionic_lemming]

National origin isn't and shouldn't be considered unless there is a constitutional amendment.

Re: TFA missed two.

[dgatwood]

And bureaucrats everywhere are torn between the desire to chastise you for screwing up their numbers or praise you for being technically correct—the best kind of correct....

Re: TFA missed two.

[Pinky's Brain]

Hard to do affirmative action without defining race.

Re:TFA missed two.

[war4peace]

I guess those fit under "AND MORE".

Re:TFA missed two.

[silentcoder]

Presumably those could be covered under "and more" ?

Re: TFA missed two.

[silentcoder]

Don't be so sure. Hell South Africa managed to do appartheid without having race defined !
I'm not kidding you. They went through about 6 different attempts to define it in the early days - and ultimately settled on "you are a member of the race of which the community and culture accepts you as a member" - and had individual cases of dispute left up to judges who would rule when there were issues based on collecting a whole lot of personal data and witness statements from neighbours and the like.

In a few cases coloureds (the South African term 'coloured' means "mixed race" - it's more like what Americans once called "Mulatos") managed to cross the line and become legally white for example, and at least a few white people who lived in areas bordering coloured populations ended up being legally included in that race group. Oddly though there was the case of Johnny Clegg. Clegg was white-born in a Zulu area and fully and utterly adoped Zulu culture, and was accepted as a Zulu by the local tribe. Despite years of attempts though - he could never get legally classified as Zulu. Clegg is also one the best-selling musicians in the country's history so his case became very well publicised.

In 1986, in a desperate attempt to try and keep the system on life support the government instituted a number of reforms -believing they could keep the foundational appartheid system running if they curb the worst of it's excesses. These reforms got rid of several of the most racist laws and in some truly bizarre ways at times. For example it scrapped the immorality act (which prohibited sex or marriage across colour lines) but kept the group areas act - which meant that while you could now marry somebody of a different race, legally you and your new spouse could not live together !

But one of those reforms completely scrapped racial classification and definition. The 1986 election was the last true whites-only election in the country in fact, and had there been another appartheid election it would have been very hard to keep black people from voting since legally they didn't exist anymore. That they somehow managed to keep the segregation laws going while not legally classifying people at all made it all rather surreal - even by appartheid government standards. They also insituted a new tricameral parliament. The two additional houses of parliament had one which ruled over coloured affairs and one which ruled over Indian affairs (no representation for black's still - despite being 80% of the population) and they had no real power anyway as the white-chamber could veto any law they passed.
This was the beginning of the end of the system anyway. The government grew ever more paranoid and the country was effectively in a never-ending state of emergency. Always quite censorious and masters of propaganda it got stepped up to never before seen levels and even flagrant dishonesty - the government fought a ten year war in Angola while denying to the population that it was at war at all ! It was "just guarding the border of Namibia" it said... this was a bit of an open secret though - you can't have thousands of soldiers serving and coming home without some of them talking about where they really were.

That president P.W. Botha basically went crazier and crazier - and after a minor health-scare in 1989 the party essentially held a coup from the inside, claiming he had, had a severe stroke they removed him from office before he could wipe the shit from his eyes and gave the presidency to F.W. De Klerk who abolished all remaining appartheid laws, freed Nelson Mandela and all other political prisoners and announced a negotiation process to ultimately lead to elections in a unified South Africa where all could vote - all in his very first speech (February 29, 1989).

There was one last desperate attempt to ressurrect the system. In 1992 the rightwing parties (who held a considerable number of parliamentary seats) were clamoring that the National Party had no right to end the system, negotiate with the ANC (and other

Re: TFA missed two.

[Anonymous Coward]

"you are a member of the race of which the community and culture accepts you as a member"

And that is the real definition of race. Lots of people think race is genetic, but the one group that has near unanimous agreement that race is not genetic are actual geneticists. For example, Dr Craig Venter (founder of the Human Genome Project) says, "Race is a social concept, not a scientific one. We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world."

Turns out there is more genetic diversity within commonly defined racial groups than there is between them. An illustration of this fact:

In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim.
Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue

Another example is that it was only within the last 130 years or so that italians, germans, french, irish and even swedes were considered "white." Here's Ben Franklin expressing the commonly held beliefs of his time:

the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.
Benjamin Franklin, "Observations Concerning the Increasing of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, &c." (Boston: Printed by S. Kneeland, 1755)

Re: TFA missed two.

[ooloorie]

Hard to do affirmative action without defining race.

My point exactly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:TFA missed two.

[thunderclees]

New data reveals that 86% of the total H1B visas issued in 2014 for technology firms was used to hire IT professionals from India. The data accessed by Computerworld through Right of Information Act, reveals that a lion share of visas issued for computer jobs are claimed by Indians.

So obviously there is categorical information for national origin and the H1B programs need more diversity...

If CEOs insist that middle class Americans compete with cheap foreign labor, why not outsource the jobs of CEOs? If business is all about cost, they should be the first to volunteer.— Lou Dobbs, CNN financial correspondent and author of Exporting America (September 2004)

Re:TFA missed two.

[asylumx]

"and more." seems to cover all of that.

Re: TFA missed two.

[networkBoy]

Worked with a guy who was from South Africa, White as can be and ex apartheid cop (total asshat too).
He put down "African American" on all his stuff. For some reason the government drones didn't accept it... but he did have a good point:
He *was* African American, but he wasn't black, so if they wanted black they should have asked it.

About the only redeeming thing about the guy was the hilarity of him in government issues...

Re: TFA missed two.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should read Section (1) of the 14th Amendment again:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Doesn't require any such limitation, and Section (5) says:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So if Congress determines national origin is a factor in above, they can act.

Re: TFA missed two.

[david_thornley]

I'm a US citizen, and if I trace my ancestry back far enough it'll get to East Africa, like everybody else. Technically, since "African-American" is applied to people who've never been in Africa but have ancestors there, I count in a thoroughly pedantic and useless sense..

Re: TFA missed two.

[the_Bionic_lemming]

This only applies to citizens, not illegals.

Try again.

Re: TFA missed two.

[silentcoder]

All true. But do note that, just because something is a social construct rather than biological reality does not mean that it doesn't have a very real impact on people's lives.

Lots of things are purely social constructs but their impacts are no less real for it. Money for one.

Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[taustin]

Can't they?

Google, the company running the most all-pervasive surveillance system in all of human history, is fighting to protect their own privacy?

Not that I needed another belly laugh, after the last election, but dude, that's funny.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[WaywardGeek]

I've work for Google for 2 years now. Without a court order, why does the government get to have my name, contact info, salary history, and God knows what else? Google fights harder than any company I know of against government over-reach and invasion of privacy (though kudos to Apple recently, other than that NYT app in China thing). I don't know any details, and IANAL, but this feels to me like Google is looking out for our privacy rather than trying to hide hiring practices. Do you want to give your details to these investigators? Why not anonymize the data? I see almost zero non-anonymous data at Google. The government should learn a few of these tricks.

As for "all-pervasive surveillance", Google does collect huge amounts of data, but after two years of trying pretty hard to test Google's defenses against internal employee hacking, I have to give Google an A+. I can't help but to poke at every weakness I see - it's a personality flaw. I personally have not seen 1 byte of user data that I did not need to do my job, and I am easily in the top 1% of nosy Googlers. My son told me once, "You love to be evil for good". That's how I feel about testing defenses. There is always room for improvement, and I think we're trying hard to improve, but no other company on earth comes close to protecting user data like Google does today.

As for discriminating against women, older folks, etc... well, we're a company made up of humans, just like the rest. There's room for improvement. Before working here, I worked primarily in FPGA place and route algorithms, which is a field with AFAIK exactly zero women. Please let me know if I'm wrong, and managers don't count, I mean the actual algorithms geeks. I read somewhere that we only employ something close to 15% women in engineering/software jobs, but when I look around, I see closer to 30% women. It might just be my group, but I think we try pretty hard to expunge 1960's Star Trek inspired sexist attitudes. As a 53-year-old, I have to try pretty hard to try and eliminate unconscious biases - which is hard! I don't know of any other company that demands this of older engineers like me. It's a very good thing.

Anyway, I'm guessing you don't really know what goes on at Google, but this is Slashdot. Stating strong opinions about that which we know nothing about is what we do here...

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[LetterRip]

I've work for Google for 2 years now. Without a court order, why does the government get to have my name, contact info, salary history, and God knows what else?

It is a legal requirement to in order to get any federal contracts. As part of the contract they are required to prove compliance with equal opportunity laws. They have the contracts, so they are required to abide by the terms.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[tlhIngan]

I've work for Google for 2 years now. Without a court order, why does the government get to have my name, contact info, salary history, and God knows what else? Google fights harder than any company I know of against government over-reach and invasion of privacy (though kudos to Apple recently, other than that NYT app in China thing). I don't know any details, and IANAL, but this feels to me like Google is looking out for our privacy rather than trying to hide hiring practices. Do you want to give your details to these investigators? Why not anonymize the data? I see almost zero non-anonymous data at Google. The government should learn a few of these tricks.

Easy. The contract demands it. Google sells their services to the government (cloud services, it seems like). However, to do that, the government doesn't just go "Sign Up" for an account. They're actually not allowed to just use a solution without contest - they must procure the service through a competition.

So they put out a RFP for what services they need, and in those quotes, they then select a proposal and then send out a whole set of contract documents that you have to agree to. And one of those would to be provide a whole pile of personnel information on demand.

Since Google refuses to abide by the contract, the DoL has the right to request a contract termination because Google has technically breached it.

The "right" of the government to get the data was given by Google when Google signed the contract.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[WaywardGeek]

I seriously doubt it is that simple. Google lawyers don't talk generally to anyone outside Google, but when I get upset at them for something that seems incredibly stupid to me (most recently, their rejection of software with a CC0 license), I get an earful of detail and justifications that would make your head spin. AFAIK, it's not Google lawyers that are messed up, but the system in which they have to do their jobs. From what I can tell, most of them are trying to fight the good fight, and not be evil.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

For most federal government contracts, it is indeed that simple. A clause in the contract stipulates that you'll allow an audit for compliance with labor laws. It's pretty universal. I obviously haven't seen Google's contract, but it would be strange to not have it.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

I do federal contracting. This is a standard, non-negotiable clause. If Google wanted the money, they agreed to the clause. I'm glad you've had bad luck with the legal team and CC0 licenses, but this had to do with federal contracts worth billions. Money speaks.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[WaffleMonster]

As for "all-pervasive surveillance", Google does collect huge amounts of data, but after two years of trying pretty hard to test Google's defenses against internal employee hacking, I have to give Google an A+. I can't help but to poke at every weakness I see - it's a personality flaw. I personally have not seen 1 byte of user data that I did not need to do my job, and I am easily in the top 1% of nosy Googlers. My son told me once, "You love to be evil for good". That's how I feel about testing defenses. There is always room for improvement, and I think we're trying hard to improve, but no other company on earth comes close to protecting user data like Google does today.

NSA offers roughly the same message only they claim collecting data doesn't actually count as "collecting" until it has been used. They are basically asserting it isn't what you have it is what you do with what you take that counts.

This doesn't work for money stolen in bank heists or scams, exfiltration of confidential data such as trade and government secrets. It doesn't seem rational to believe any judge anywhere would accept the line of argument you didn't use what you took as a defense...

NSA brass even makes public statements about all of their safeguards and red tape... at least when they are not undermining themselves by publically gloating about their power and exploits.

Anyway, I'm guessing you don't really know what goes on at Google, but this is Slashdot. Stating strong opinions about that which we know nothing about is what we do here...

Personally speaking for myself I just don't care. Just like NSA collecting data domestically such assertions of being careful and self-limiting completely misses the point it's simply none of Google's business in the first place.

Massive corporations (especially ones with a defacto monopoly) and governments always try to sell the idea they are somehow different or special insulated from historical examples of human nature. They want us to believe they won't overreach or leverage themselves in pursuit of their objective functions. I am not interested in debating this point or characterizing anyone as good or evil.

I am only interested in promotion of structures which hold EVERYONES feet to the fire. This means a few massive companies like Google don't get to go ape shit and read everyone's email and track everyone's every move across virtually every website on the planet whether Google is their search engine or not.

This behind the scenes industrial scale spying relies mostly on ignorance and lack of choice. All of this data ultimately isn't being used for everyone's benefit it is being used to give corporations an upper hand over consumers -- an unfair advantage, an unfair playing field. They don't want *their* feet burnt.

Hopefully soon with increasing public awareness, certain hidden technological changes and possibly legislation there will be adjustments to better balance things out. The status quo is unsustainable and Google is at the forefront of being the problem.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[WaywardGeek]

I started ViASIC in 2000, and I am proud to have had the Air Force Reasarch Labs and Sandia as two of my favorite clients, as well as the smaller Mission Reserch (MRDC) that does some outstanding R&D. In short, I've had a lot of government contracts, and sure, the super-long forms we all have to sign include all kinds of rights for the government. They're worse than the worst EULA you ever did not read and then clicked "I have read and agree to the terms and conditions."

Here's one that really pissed me off. AMS Semiconductor faxed me the terms and conditions, which I signed and faxed back. Later, they stole ViASIC's technology lock-stock-and-barrel. Their lawyer said that we agreed not to sue them for patent violation in the terms and conditions we signed. That language was in their T&Cs, but on the back... they only faxed us the front.

Anyway, I'm confident that the issue here is not Google refusing to let people know how many women and minorities we hire. Few companies have been as open about this as Google. There is something else going on...

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[WaywardGeek]

s/AMS Semiconductor/AMI Semiconductor/. AMS is a great company - Austria Micro Systems, IIRC. AMI Semiconductor, or AMIS, was the company that screwed VASIC big-time. Chris King was CEO at the time. I've found that weak leadership leads to companies that behave as the combination of their worst elements.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[ShooterNeo]

Google is infamous for age discrimination and you're an outlier.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[WaywardGeek]

NSA offers roughly the same message only they claim collecting data doesn't actually count as "collecting" until it has been used.

This is slashdot, so I should not get worked up, but are you kidding me? The NSA tapped our data cables between data centers, and since we backup data between data centers, that gave them nearly everything, without a warrant or any kind of legal right to steal America's data. They used that data to figure out who was having affairs with whom, among other invasive programs they wrote. The NSA's problem is they don't have enough humans to examine all the data they take illegally, while even as a quite nosy employee at Google, I've not seen one byte of private data other than some HTTP headers I needed for debugging (with the rest of the requests redacted).

I do think the NSA as an organization believes in fighting the good fight, but without strong leadership, they've helped prove my theory that organizations without strong leadership will behave as badly as the sum of their worst parts.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[WaywardGeek]

Yep. It isn't so bad in Mountain View, but have you been to SF lately? It isn't just Google. The entire SF hipster startup culture in SF is highly youth-oriented, and I worry that the culture may be more sexist than what we've seen in the Bay Area since the 1960s. What happens when you give a bunch of 20-year-old men a lot of money, and a great dating scene with far more single women then men?

In any case, there are some good reasons for Google's preference for hiring people right out of college. I am still recovering from culture-shock. It would have been far easier for me to have gone to work for Google without having worked for startups for 25 years. When I see stupid stuff that I can fix, I feel compelled to fix it. That works well in small companies, but it will only piss off people at Google, and ensure you get a poor review. I advise nooglers with experience like me to try and ignore what that they learned before.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Google refuses to abide by the contract, the DoL has the right to request a contract termination because Google has technically breached it.

They Dept of labor is not suing to terminate the contract though. They are suing to get private information which, after it is in their hands, can be used by any government department. And this information is MORE than what the IRS would get. Getting salary history and career history essentially means information on how people moved from position to position. This would give the government information on which projects each Google employee ever worked on and their phone numbers (which IRS may not have), street addresses, and probably all email aliases (which IRS definitely did not have). And this is the government which sold state influence secrets to unfriendly nations. So Google is within their rights to question their motives.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[sexconker]

I seriously doubt it is that simple.

Well, you're seriously incorrect.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[paulhar]

> why does the government get to have my name, contact info, salary history, and God knows what else?

IANAA, but I assume your government already knows your name, address, phone number, salary history, etc. Isn't that how they tax you?
The other stuff, I think, is things like promotions, which they *could* infer from salary, but that's probably not as accurate as they want it to be.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[rastos1]

As for "all-pervasive surveillance", Google does collect huge amounts of data, but after two years of trying pretty hard to test Google's defenses against internal employee hacking, I have to give Google an A+. .... I personally have not seen 1 byte of user data that I did not need to do my job, and I am easily in the top 1% of nosy Googlers.

So what are you saying? That Google collects the data and then promptly throws it into a black hole? Or Google collects the data but there is no human intervention and that makes it fine? Or that Google crunches the collected data and just sells the distillation to the highest bidder and that makes it fine?

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[swillden]

it's simply none of Google's business in the first place.

Correction: It's Google's business if you choose to use their services, because your eyeballs and the information needed to target the right ads to them are the "fee" you pay for the use of the services. If you don't like that, you can choose not to use the services. Of course, there are Google ads on lots of third-party sites, but Google makes it easy for you to ensure that Google doesn't track you on those sites as well if you want, including browser plug-ins that ensure your don't-track-me preferences don't get lost.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[MachineShedFred]

Because Google chose to pursue being a US Government contractor, and the US Government has rules (read: laws) duly passed by the Congress about how it conducts business. Don't want to have the US Government opening up your books and peeking around to that degree? Don't work for a government contractor.

Oh, and like the US Government doesn't already have your name, contact info, salary history, etc. See: the IRS. You file all that shit every year.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[MachineShedFred]

I seriously don't doubt it's that simple, as the Department of Labor is saying it is exactly that in TFS:

The Labor Department is now requesting that a judge order all of Google's federal contracts canceled unless it complies with the data request. "Despite many opportunities to produce this information voluntarily, Google has refused to do so," Thomas M. Dowd, acting director for the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said in a statement. "We filed this lawsuit so we can obtain the information we need to complete our evaluation."

Now, it's possible that Google said they wouldn't produce it without a proper subpoena for records, just to limit their own liabilities. In which case, once a federal judge issues a court order to produce records or have the contracts terminated (with whatever termination clauses may be in the contracts), Google happily hands over the data.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[Keick]

"Without a court order, why does the government get to have my name, contact info, salary history, and God knows what else?"

You already have to give the government this data every year, its called 'paying your taxes'. You don't get to wait until the government gets a court order for you to disclose your W-2 do you?

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[MachineShedFred]

from the fucking summary:

The Labor Department is now requesting that a judge order all of Google's federal contracts canceled unless it complies with the data request. "Despite many opportunities to produce this information voluntarily, Google has refused to do so," Thomas M. Dowd, acting director for the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said in a statement. "We filed this lawsuit so we can obtain the information we need to complete our evaluation."

Don't be an apologist.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried to use the internet with *ALL* of google's services blocked? Without google very large swaths of the internet simply break. Best case it becomes read only, worst case nothing loads.

I don't want to use google services but do want to use the internet. Message boards. Private shops. All break unless google is enabled, googleapis specifically.

We are long past the point where one can claim "don't like the company policies, don't use them." I know, I tried for a very very long time but ubiquitous https was the final nail. The solution of creating an account and telling them NO is ludicrous. Giving them even more information and detailed tracking to be able to say "go away" is not a solution.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[avandesande]

This stuff is like inviting a vampire into your house. Companies that want to do business with the government create entire shell companies owned and or run by indian women lesbian disabled etc.... just to get through this crap. It's cancer.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[avandesande]

and this is why we pay so much for shit done for the government.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[swillden]

Have you tried to use the internet with *ALL* of google's services blocked? Without google very large swaths of the internet simply break

Don't block them, just use the tracking opt-out. Works fine. If you have specific examples of stuff that actually breaks, let me know and I'll file bugs.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[swillden]

Dude, your creepy level of loyalty is misplaced: you're working for the bad guys.

Dude, you're wrong.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[edtice1559]

Because Google signed a contract agreeing to do so! It shouldn't take a court order to enforce a contract. If they sign it they should fulfill it.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[trboyden]

Are you that naive that you don't think they have that data already, through you paying taxes to the IRS, you know, the info on your W2 form? They simply are filling a bureaucratic requirement, and soliciting data that legally binds Google to the data, for which they can then be legally accountable for. Plus if the get it in one big data snapshot, it makes it easier to analyze. I thought Googlers were supposed to be the smart ones?

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Said every lackey to the bad guy ever.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious how this works. I'm not required by law to provide this information to my employer (I work for Google and did not provide this). I wonder what they do if they just don't have the data?

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Before working here, I worked primarily in FPGA place and route algorithms, which is a field with AFAIK exactly zero women. Please let me know if I'm wrong, and managers don't count, I mean the actual algorithms geeks. I read somewhere that we only employ something close to 15% women in engineering/software jobs, but when I look around, I see closer to 30% women.

I had breakfast at Google's newish Chicago office a few weeks ago and would have sworn I saw close to a 50/50 mix of males and females. That's way better than what I'm used to which is about a 5:1 male to female ratio. I will admit to seeing way more light colored complexions than I had expected given the make-up of Chicago.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[trg83]

They just report their percentage of voluntary employee participation alongside their results. If one ethnic guy filled out his form and all the white guys didn't, it mathematically HAS TO skew the results. But a low participation count is basically a giant asterisk alongside the information.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[ShooterNeo]

Here's the other thing. So the government is trying to make sure that companies - like, uh, google - it gives Federal money too aren't blatantly discriminatory. Anyways, you were whining that ", why does the government get to have my name, contact info, salary history, and God knows what else?"

Do you pay your taxes or at least file em? Who do you think issued that SSN? At some level, the government already knows everything they are asking for - they are just demanding the records from google because this lets them prove that google knew they were discriminating. If google's own records show that their average employee is 29 and that anyone over that, with a near identical resume, has a 90% lower chance to be hired, well, that's a smoking gun.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[david_thornley]

The best use of lawyers in contract law is to make things sufficiently clear that nobody wants to go to court about it, because they know what the outcome will be.

Re:Google can tell me the definition of hypocrisy

[slavdude]

It is a legal requirement to in order to get any federal contracts.

Of course, compliance with contracts stifles innovation and costs jobs, you know.

/snark

Neoliberal Capitalism vs. the Gubbermint

[matbury6017]

Remember when the Obama administration summoned the CEOs of the big 5 banks to Washington and they didn't show up? That must've stung, no? Well, now Google's trying the same thing with big gubbermint. Can't wait to see what happens. I can smell the testosterone from the other side of the border!

Re: Neoliberal Capitalism vs. the Gubbermint

[MachineShedFred]

You do know that Obama is still President, right? And that this is his Labor Department filing the suit? And that the Labor Department is filing suit based on breaches of contracts that were signed potentially years ago?

Oh, and LOL @ "stupid enough to try to take on Google". People said the same thing about Microsoft, but we all learned that the one organization with more time, money, and lawyers than any other organization on the planet is the Department of Justice. They could spend the next 30 years litigating this thing quite happily. See also: Big Tobacco.

Don't be a fucking idiot - we already have too many of them.

Re: Neoliberal Capitalism vs. the Gubbermint

[MoaDweeb]

People outside the US did not vote for Trump/ Clinton/ Obama or Bob Dole for that matter.
All shame stays with 'Muricans.

Why did it come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not understand why google has not complied. I get it if they do not like the request, I wouldn't like it either, but they signed for those contracts and agreed to these terms so they could get paid.

Quite frankly at a certain point an example needs to be made.

I see this kind of disregard for the law and for contracts etc and it's getting much worse. We need to publicly kill a large corporation, and we need to do it in a very messy painful way. We need to do this to bring the others into line.

Sun Tsu's art of war dictates that a general must publicly execute one of his men so the others fall in line. We need to kill sony for infecting multiple countries with rootkits, or subway for poisoning our population, or walmart for actively encouraging child slave labor, or google for failing to comply with legal contractual obligations.

One must die that we may all live, this is the way of the harvest and we know it, now we just have to pick one to kill by revoking their corporate charter and disassembling their physical business structures.

Re:Why did it come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Google thinks the government wants to cancel these contracts less than Google does?

If these contracts for cloud services from the Federal Government are worse less to them than the risk of liability they expose themselves to by disclosing the information: it may make sense for them to ignore the request.

They may also simply be daring the government to cancel their contracts with an understanding that the government wants those cloud service contracts to be successful more than Google does?

Alternatively: they could simply be stalling for time until a pro-business appointment via regime change causes the entire thing to be dropped, or settled out of court for a slap on the wrist.

Re:Why did it come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it obvious? Google hires white people and Indians. Mostly Indians now that they have an Indian CEO.

They don't hire many women. They sure don't hire many Mexicans or blacks.

Does Google discriminate? Of course! But, their numbers are in line with other big tech companies, they all do this.

Re:Why did it come to this

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Sun Tsu's art of war dictates that a general must publicly execute one of his men so the others fall in line. We need to kill ... subway for poisoning our population ...

Huh? Poison?

Subway is one of the more nutritious purveyors of fast food out there. (A bit bland, and not as good a nutritional deal, by a long shot, as Extreme Pita, but nutritious nonetheless.)

Just get your sandwich (such as a philly cheesesteak) "as a salad" and add a bunch of veggies, including peppers to spice it up.

Re:Why did it come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun Tsu's art of war dictates that a general must publicly execute one of his men so the others fall in line. We need to kill sony for infecting multiple countries with rootkits....

I vote we start with AT&T. Is it about due to be broken up, again. It is worse than the terminator.

Re:Why did it come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

You're referring to azodicarbonamide. Azodicarbonamide has GRAS status in the US and is legally allowed to be added to flour as a bleaching agent at up to 45 ppm (it also helps bread to rise when heated). It thermally decomposes into harmless byproducts, and other than exposure to large amounts of the powder which has been linked to asthma (but what particulate hasn't) is perfectly safe. Subway did nothing wrong by including it, and in fact, over 400 foods from a bunch of other companies include it as well. I'm perfectly fine with publically executing a company for legal violations to prove a point, but Subway is not one of them. If you want to kill an evil food company, lets go after Nestle.

Re:Why did it come to this

[MachineShedFred]

Except that those clauses in the contract are required by federal law. It doesn't matter who the President is, the Labor Department will still be bound by law to proceed, unless the laws are changed by the Congress.

Good luck having that happen before a federal judge rules on this thing.

Re:Why did it come to this

[BradleyUffner]

Subway utilized a chemical agent found in the soles of shoes and in yoga mats

Was it carbon?

Re:Why did it come to this

[Cederic]

Glad I'm not the only one that didn't recall that part of the Art of War.

Voltaire's "pour encourager les autres" is the usual reference.

Re:Why did it come to this

[edtice1559]

And all they have to do is provide those numbers. There isn't a bar being set here. You just have to provide the information. It's like being told you're allowed to rob a bank as long as you sign the bank robbery register. Yet they are pushing back even though they have a legal obligation based on contracts that they entered voluntarily.

Re:Why did it come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed an important part of Sun Tsu's "The Art of War". The particular passage you're talking about, he executes one of the concubine after first instructing them to do the drills, they didn't, he clarified himself, they didn't, then he performed the execution of one of them. With how you worded it, it sounds like you execute one preemptively just to make sure they behave. Sun Tsu says you execute to make an example when the group refuses to do what is required. It's a final option, not a first.

Re:Why did it come to this

[dj245]

If you want to kill an evil food company, lets go after Nestle.

Nestle are saints compared to Hersey.

Everywhere all over the world (except the US), Kit Kat bars are under Nestle control. In the USA, we are stuck with Hersey. Outside the USA, there are multiple flavors of Kit Kat. Some countries have seasonal flavors which they rotate in and out. I believe Japan has more than 30 flavors! Kit Kat bars (even the original flavor) from Japan and Canada taste better than Hersey's Kit Kat bars (opinion).

Hersey basically buys up the rights to brands, and then does nothing with them except swap out ingredients for cheaper ones. Their chocolate is the worst tasting mass-produced chocolate of a company of their size. Nestle at least innovates and brings out new products and flavors.

Re:Why did it come to this

[david_thornley]

Yup. When the General screws up, he has to repeat himself. When the subordinate officer screws up, she gets executed. That's my take-away from the story.

ridiculous

[ooloorie]

Google is obligated to let the government access records that show its hiring doesn't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and more

I think it is utterly ridiculous for the government to force companies to keep track of race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. That is personal information that is neither the employer's business nor the federal government's.

People should either refuse to answer such questions or simply make up answers.

Re: ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

It's required per terms of the contract they agreed to when they took on Federal IT contracts. You take my money, you have to abide by the contract. SIMPLE. Google thinks they are above anybody else's rules.

Re: ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Gender. Not gender identity.

Re:ridiculous

[hawguy]

Google is obligated to let the government access records that show its hiring doesn't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and more

I think it is utterly ridiculous for the government to force companies to keep track of race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. That is personal information that is neither the employer's business nor the federal government's.

People should either refuse to answer such questions or simply make up answers.

If the government doesn't require companies to track on report on these, then how can the government prevent discrimination based on those attributes? It's exceptionally hard for an employee who feels he was discriminated against to prove such discrimination, especially if, as you suggest, employers aren't even required to track it.

Re:ridiculous

[dbIII]

I thought "libertarians" were suppose to be keen on running things by sticking to terms of contracts.

Google could have chosen to have the conditions of the contract changed before they signed it.
They didn't.

So what exactly is your problem here? Is your problem that the government was party to the contract? Does that somehow make the contract void in the name of your personal view of "liberty"?

Re:ridiculous

[pipingguy]

"...hiring doesn't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and more..."

What's the "and more" part? Can I get me one of those cushy jobs reserved for old farts? Would I have to be gay, or at least pretend to be? Is there a test?

Re:ridiculous

[Tony Isaac]

As we so often read on slashdot, correlation is not causation. Even with access to records, the government can't prevent or prove discrimination based on protected attributes.

Re:ridiculous

[rahvin112]

The government doesn't force anyone to do this. What they do is make it part of any government contract, if you want to work for the government you must agree to these regulations (that were put in place by congress long before Obama took office) and the agency in question is required by law to audit contractors to ensure their compliance with the contract provisions.

If Google refuses to provide this they will see every government contract terminated and will be bared from providing services to the government for a time period of either 1 to 5 years. Google will cave.

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

So what exactly is your problem here? Is your problem that the government was party to the contract? Does that somehow make the contract void in the name of your personal view of "liberty"?

I made no comment on the validity of the contract or whether Google should or should not comply with it.

What I am saying is that it is morally and politically wrong for governments to enquire about, or keep track of, the race, religion, or sexual orientation of citizens. Fascist and racist countries do that, free countries should not.

Re:ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

How can the government even track sexual orientation?

Well North Carolina figured it out. Seeing how they think every trans woman going into a ladies' room is a pervert looking to spy on girls, it follows that every man going into a men's room is obviously a faggot looking to scope out some cock. I hear the men's room at the North Carolina state capitol is a modern day Roman bath house, all the representatives in there tugging and blowing each other all day. Why else would they go into a room where men take out their penis? North Carolina isn't even a citrus producer but its statehouse has the biggest lemon parties in the US.

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

If the government doesn't require companies to track on report on these, then how can the government prevent discrimination based on those attributes?

How can the government prove discrimination with this data? What percentage of African Americans at Google, or what gender pay gap, actually proves discrimination?

(Of course, it isn't the job of the government to prevent private discrimination in the first place, and attempts to do so often ends up harming the very people it is supposed to help.)

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

The government doesn't force anyone to do this. What they do is make it part of any government contract, if you want to work for the government you must agree to these regulations

Yes, and I am saying that it is wrong for government to collect this data on anybody. It simply isn't the government's business who I like to sleep with or what "race" I am. And storing that information in government databases is creepy and dangerous.

(that were put in place by congress long before Obama took office)

Did I mention Obama anywhere? The American obsession with categorizing people by race obviously goes back to the founding of the US. People have always found rationalizations for it, how it is good for everybody, how it is necessary for justice and the correct functioning of society. But in the end, these categorizations are, have always been, and will always be racist, discriminatory, and harmful to everybody.

Re: ridiculous

[Entrope]

Tell that to the people who think a good government should proactively try to prevent illegal discrimination, especially in companies that it hires -- and in some cases pays billions of dollars.

Re:ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

As we so often read on slashdot, correlation is not causation. Even with access to records, the government can't prevent or prove discrimination based on protected attributes.

Look up "disparate impact".

When it comes to discrimination, correlation is de jure causation.

Re:ridiculous

[Gilgaron]

They could just correlate the census data with the IRS database to figure it out, I suppose, but isn't that even more Big Government Boogeyman? Some government contracts require security clearances, which his a lot more information than the Dept of Labor is asking for. If Google doesn't want to play the government contractor game than they shouldn't.

Re: ridiculous

[ooloorie]

Tell that to the people who think a good government should proactively try to prevent illegal discrimination

I am telling it to those people: while you may have good intentions, you are dangerously wrong. Government cannot prevent discrimination, but it can massively abuse this kind of data.

Re:ridiculous

[fsagx]

...Would I have to be gay, or at least pretend to be? Is there a test?

Sounds like classic Harold Ramis:

I'm not homosexual, but I'm willing to learn...

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

They could just correlate the census data with the IRS database to figure it out,

Which part of "it is wrong for government to collect this data on anybody" was unclear?

Some government contracts require security clearances, which his a lot more information than the Dept of Labor is asking for.

And race or sexual orientation are relevant to security clearances ... how?

If Google doesn't want to play the government contractor game than they shouldn't.

I didn't make a comment about Google, I made a comment about the US government.

Re:ridiculous

[edtice1559]

The government does not force them to keep this data. It's a contracting requirement if you do business with the government. You can opt out by not selling to the government. It's no different than the government insisting, as part of their contracts, to see quality control data for anchor chain manufacturing if they're going to buy your anchor chain. You're not obligated to keep quality control data. But once you sign the contract, you've voluntarily agreed to do so.

Re:ridiculous

[DerekLyons]

So what exactly is your problem here? Is your problem that the government was party to the contract? Does that somehow make the contract void in the name of your personal view of "liberty"?

The problem is - it's Google, who routinely gets a free pass for behavior that if any other company tried it would result in a tar-and-feather brigade.

Re:ridiculous

[SoftwareArtist]

In what sense is it "not the government's business"? Do you mean that legally? Philosophically? Morally?

Legally, it is the government's business. Why? Because the law says so. They are required to audit their contractors to make sure they're following anti-discrimination laws. End of story.

But that's probably not what you mean. Probably you meant it in a philosophical or moral sense. You have an idea in your head of what you think governments should and shouldn't do. You think it's right for them to perform some jobs, and wrong for them to perform others. Apparently, preventing companies from discriminating in hiring is one of the things you think they shouldn't do. Ok, that's fine. You definitely have the right to that view. But please keep the following in mind.

1. Not everyone agrees with you. A lot of people have ideas about what governments should do that are different from yours.

2. This is a democracy. You get your say, but in the end decisions get made by democratic means. And the people who disagree with you won on this point, so don't blame the government for following the actual laws, rather than what you wish the laws were. You can campaign to change the law. But until it changes, companies need to obey it and the government needs to enforce it. Doing anything else would be wrong.

3. I distrust all views based on personal philosophy, because it's completely subjective. There's no way to say whose philosophy is "right" or "wrong". I'd rather base decisions on how things work out in practice. What happens if you have anti-discrimination laws? What happens if you don't? Taking all the consequence into account, both good and bad, which one produces better results overall? Until you've done that analysis, you have no business (imo) taking a side. But don't waste your time doing the analysis unless you're going to do it with an open mind. Most people start by deciding what conclusion they want to reach, then look for evidence to justify it. That's just a way to pretend to be objective without actually doing it.

Re: ridiculous

[david_thornley]

You got any data to support that claim? Seems to me that discrimination based on sex and race is way down from the 1960s.

Re:ridiculous

[david_thornley]

Which part of "it is wrong for government to collect this data on anybody" was unclear?

The justification. You clearly think this, but I think differently. Since you want to change the government that both you and I vote for and live under, you really do need to convince a lot of us, assuming you want action on this.

And race or sexual orientation are relevant to security clearances ... how?

Anything that might be an opening to blackmail is highly relevant. If you're a closet homosexual, and will face consequences if you're found out, you're a security risk.

Re:ridiculous

[superwiz]

IRS database to figure it out,

If it were legal for IRS to release this data to the Labor department. But if that would require changing the law, then it would take require cooperation from the Republican Congress (which is not likely to give IRS or Labor Department any extra powers).

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

Since you want to change the government that both you and I vote for and live under, you really do need to convince a lot of us, assuming you want action on this.

Actually, I was merely pointing out that you were misrepresenting my reasoning, not trying to convince you.

In any case, it seems like the tide is turning on this, given the numerous electoral defeats Democrats and their social justice agenda have suffered. Seems like I'm not the only one who came to his senses and left the party.

Anything that might be an opening to blackmail is highly relevant. If you're a closet homosexual, and will face consequences if you're found out, you're a security risk.

Yes, that was the justification for government-based discrimination for many decades. Repeating this homophobic justification is offensive.

Re: ridiculous

[ooloorie]

You got any data to support that claim? Seems to me that discrimination based on sex and race is way down from the 1960s.

Yes, society has changed, and social change predated legal change, rather than the other way around. Observe how Hillary conveniently changed to supporting gay marriage once it was popular in the polls. Many other minorities in the US that used to face terrible discrimination became part of mainstream society without government action.

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

You have an idea in your head of what you think governments should and shouldn't do. [...] I distrust all views based on personal philosophy, because it's completely subjective.

Actually, my normative assumption is simply that I want to live in a peaceful, prosperous society in which everybody has equal rights and that doesn't degenerate into tyranny. Hopefully you share those normative assumptions.

Everything else derives from that: that kind of society is threatened when the government keeps track of people's race or sexual orientation, it is threatened when government tries to accomplish equality of outcome based on race, etc. The connection between the normative assumptions we (hopefully) share and the political actions where we disagree is based on economics, history, and psychology. It's not a matter of personal belief but a matter of objective reality which of us is right there.

This is a democracy. You get your say, but in the end decisions get made by democratic means. And the people who disagree with you won on this point,

There is a wide range of forms of government that can be called "democracy". In some democracies, majorities can deprive whoever they like of property, liberty, or even life; in others they can't. In most democracies, citizens have an enumerated list of rights and governments are constrained in their powers only by that list of rights, while in a few democracies, government has a limited, enumerated set of powers, and all other rights and powers are reserved to the people.

What happens if you have anti-discrimination laws? What happens if you don't? Taking all the consequence into account, both good and bad, which one produces better results overall? Until you've done that analysis, you have no business (imo) taking a side.

You're absolutely right. And lots of people have done that analysis, and the conclusion, supported by actual historical data as well as economic and social theory, is that (1) anti-discrimination laws don't work and are often harmful, (2) both the laws and the data collected for those laws is massively abused by governments. Hence my point.

Re: ridiculous

[dbIII]

In what way is changing homosexuality from being a criminal offence with a sentence of imprisonment to not being one a lack of government action?
Did you think at all before typing your comment above?

Re: ridiculous

[ooloorie]

In what way is changing homosexuality from being a criminal offence with a sentence of imprisonment to not being one a lack of government action?

You argued that "discrimination is way down from the 1960s" due to government action, and I pointed out that you got your causality backwards. It was discrimination that went way down first, and then government removed some of its draconian laws.

In different words, it wasn't government that caused an improvement in tolerance and acceptance, it was an improvement in tolerance and acceptance that forced government to finally act. We shouldn't be grateful for government to finally decriminalize homosexuality, we should be pissed off that it took so long and that it was criminalized in the first place.

Re:ridiculous

[david_thornley]

It has nothing to do with homophobia, it has to do with secrets. If a person has a secret that would really hurt his or her life if it got out, that person is a security risk. Someone who is open about their sexual orientation is not therefore a threat, since there's no blackmail potential.

Re: ridiculous

[david_thornley]

You say I've got the causality wrong. Personally, I think the Civil Rights Act had a good deal to do with the change in society. I don't have all that much evidence, but I'm not making a claim.

The government actions included using force to desegregate Southern schools against threats of violence. In some states, their laws were invalidated by Federal action. It's at least partly correct to think that state and local laws were changed following the change in their society, but that change was given an assist by the Feds.

Re: ridiculous

[ooloorie]

Personally, I think the Civil Rights Act had a good deal to do with the change in society. I don't have all that much evidence, but I'm not making a claim.

Notice how you casually switched from gay liberation to race? That's because for race, you can at least plausibly entertain this delusion by not looking at the facts too carefully. For homosexuality, it is crystal clear: legal changes occurred long after societal changes had taken place, not just in the US but also in Europe. So, that alone invalidates your view that government action generally precedes social liberalization.

Now, you might still try to argue that for race in particular it did. I'm not going to argue that with you here in detail because the history of race is complicated. I think the literature on that is crystal clear as well: government was the major cause of race-based oppression and poverty in the US, and minorities have always succeeded despite progressive policies, not because of them. For the details, you really need to read a lot more history and economics.

Just one point...

The government actions included using force to desegregate Southern schools against threats of violence. In some states, their laws were invalidated by Federal action.

Segregation was a creation of government at all levels in the first place. The federal government was one of the main causes behind racial injustice, embracing and promoting segregation, scientific racism, and eugenics; it was particularly Democrats and progressives that were responsible for this, across the country, at all levels. Woodrow Wilson is an example.

Re:ridiculous

[SoftwareArtist]

You start out reasonably:

my normative assumption is simply that I want to live in a peaceful, prosperous society in which everybody has equal rights and that doesn't degenerate into tyranny.

But then you make a huge jump without justification:

that kind of society is threatened when the government keeps track of people's race or sexual orientation

Seriously? Please explain the connection, being very concrete and giving specific evidence. If I understand correctly, this is what you are claiming: "The government's demand that Google (and other contractors) provide data to show they are complying with anti-discrimination laws makes society less prosperous, reduces equality of rights, and/or causes society to degenerate into tyranny." That claim is what you need to support.

For example, do you have evidence that countries with anti-discrimination laws are, on average, less prosperous than ones without them? Even better is if you can show causation: when countries pass those laws, their economic growth rate immediately decreases (measured relative to other countries that didn't pass them). If you have that evidence, I'd love to see it.

Likewise, if you have evidence of a correlation between anti-discrimination laws and government tyranny, I'd love to see it. But please, no circular arguments. If you start by defining anti-discrimination laws to be a form of tyranny, I won't be impressed. I'm looking for the more conventional definitions of government oppression: arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, use of violence against opponents of the government, suppression of criticism of the government, etc.

Re: ridiculous

[dbIII]

You argued that "discrimination is way down from the 1960s

That was someone else but I can see how you would make the mistake.
Your bit about gratitude and being pissed off I think is somewhat irrelevant on the issue of whether a government acted or not. It appears that it did act.

Re: ridiculous

[dbIII]

Notice how you casually switched from gay liberation to race?

Two different posters not a "casual switch".

Re: ridiculous

[ooloorie]

Two different posters not a "casual switch".

It's irrelevant whether it's two different posters. The discussion was about homosexuality and you casually switched to race. In any case, my statements are true for both homosexuality and race, they are just a little easier to see for homosexuality.

Re: ridiculous

[ooloorie]

whether a government acted or not. It appears that it did act.

Yes, government acted after society had already changed. That is, government wasn't the cause of liberalization and tolerance and government didn't reduce racism and homophobia. To the contrary, government tried to perpetuate it even after society had already moved on.

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

But then you make a huge jump without justification

I do indeed. And I'm not going to provide the justification. I suggest you read a bit of economics and history and educate yourself. You might read, for example, about the history of progressivism, eugenics and scientific racism in the US; you might read about how racism and government racial categorizations were used in Nazi Germany.

I'm looking for the more conventional definitions of government oppression

Any law is ultimately backed by government force, including deadly force, even in the US.

In any case, even though the evidence exists (see above), that's even the wrong question to ask. The questions you should be asking are the following. (1) The US government is one of enumerated powers; which of those powers justifies interfering in who I choose to hire? (2) Given that anti-discrimination laws for private employers clearly do infringe on liberty, where is the evidence that they are actually effective (or even just that they are not harmful)?

That is, the burden of proof when limiting people's liberty ought to be on the people proposing such limits, in particular when proposing something as stupid as laws against private discrimination.

Re: ridiculous

[dbIII]

The discussion was about homosexuality and you casually switched to race

No I did not. Two people were discussing two different things and were critical of that.

Re:ridiculous

[SoftwareArtist]

And I'm not going to provide the justification.

That doesn't surprise me. I've had conversations similar to this far too often, and the response is always the same. People first say, "I have lots of evidence," and then when I ask to see it, they invariably say, "I can't be bothered to show it to you." Very convincing. Surely it wouldn't take you that much time to dig up links to a few of the relevant studies, would it?

which of those powers justifies interfering in who I choose to hire?

Article I, section 8, clauses 3 (the commerce clause) and 18 (the necessary and proper clause). If you choose to interpret them differently you have that right, but the Supreme Court says otherwise.

Given that anti-discrimination laws for private employers clearly do infringe on liberty

It's not clear at all to me. Please explain.

Actually, I have a pretty good idea why you think that, so you only need to explain if I'm misinterpreting you. I think you have a particular definition of "liberty" which says it can only be taken away by the government, not by anyone else. You have the freedom to do anything you want, even if it restricts someone else's freedom, yes? As long as it's not the government doing the restricting then by definition, liberty has not been restricted. So a law saying you can't deny rights to other people (such as the right to work where they want, live where they want, etc.) is by definition an infringement on liberty. It restricts your right to restrict other people's rights.

Of course, by the same logic we shouldn't restrict murderers' right to kill whoever they want.

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

If you choose to interpret them differently you have that right, but the Supreme Court says otherwise

Yes, SCOTUS has been using the Commerce Clause to justify such legislation, but SCOTUS decisions are not always logically consistent.

I think you have a particular definition of "liberty" which says it can only be taken away by the government, not by anyone else. You have the freedom to do anything you want, even if it restricts someone else's freedom, yes?

You are grappling with the distinction between negative rights and positive rights. I believe everybody has negative rights, and nobody has positive rights.

Of course, by the same logic we shouldn't restrict murderers' right to kill whoever they want.

A murderer violates a negative right; negative rights ought to be protected.

and then when I ask to see it, they invariably say, "I can't be bothered to show it to you

I told you: you need to read up on "the history of progressivism, eugenics and scientific racism in the US and about how racism and government racial categorizations were used in Nazi Germany." There is lots of excellent literature on it; I am not going to repeat the arguments here.

Re:ridiculous

[SoftwareArtist]

I believe everybody has negative rights, and nobody has positive rights.

Fine, but most people disagree with you. Which again is my point from the beginning. This is a democracy, and the majority has decided they want anti-discrimination laws. You're welcome to disagree with them, but it's the government's job to enforce the actual laws, not the laws you wish we had. Don't blame the government for doing its job.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with having "a peaceful, prosperous society in which everybody has equal rights and that doesn't degenerate into tyranny," as you put it. You're welcome to your philosophical attitudes about different types of rights, but don't pretend you're talking about something totally different. Do countries with anti-discrimination laws tend to be less prosperous than ones without? That's an objective question we can answer with evidence. Do they tend to be more tyrannical? That again is something to answer with evidence, not a philosophical declaration that you don't believe in positive rights.

I told you: you need to read up on "the history of progressivism, eugenics and scientific racism in the US and about how racism and government racial categorizations were used in Nazi Germany." There is lots of excellent literature on it; I am not going to repeat the arguments here.

Wow, there's so many things wrong with that answer. 1) You have no clue how much I know about those subjects. For all you know, I may be an expert on them. 2) I didn't ask for arguments, I asked for evidence. Links to some relevant studies, for example. 3) You're intentionally giving a non-answer that can't be evaluated, responded to, or even understood. "If you knew all about this subject, you would agree with me. Since you disagree with me, you obviously know nothing about it, so I'm not going to try to justify anything." That's not a response, it's a cop-out. 4) Many historians and social scientists disagree with your conclusions. Therefore, being knowledgeable about the subject clearly does not always lead to agreeing with you. 5) Your attempt to equate anti-discrimination laws with Naziism is completely absurd. "Some really evil people collected data on race, so anyone who collects data on race is evil." 6) If you actually knew of solid evidence supporting your claims, you would have cited it. Since you have repeatedly declined to do that, it's pretty clear you don't actually have that evidence.

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

This is a democracy, and the majority has decided they want anti-discrimination laws.

Democracy isn't synonymous with majoritarianism. Furthermore, our political process doesn't even represent the majority of the people, but instead a kind of oligarchy. The form of democracy that the US was actually founded to be is one of enumerated government powers, and very close to a form of government that protects negative rights and does not attempt to impose positive rights, by law and Constitution.

ou're welcome to disagree with them, but it's the government's job to enforce the actual laws

Yes, and I am disagreeing with it. I have been saying consistently that these laws are wrong, not that the enforcement of them is illegitimate. You keep arguing a straw man in order to deflect from the dangerous and discriminative nature of these laws. That is, given that we have deteriorated into a majoritarian-oligarchic form of democracy, people need to understand the harm they are doing by imposing these laws, even if they are well-meaning.

"Some really evil people collected data on race, so anyone who collects data on race is evil."

Once government has collected data on race, religion, and sexuality, it stays in government databases forever. Collecting such data is intrinsically dangerous because governments change in unexpected ways. If you aren't familiar with historical examples, then just look at the last election.

Second, we're not talking about "anyone", we're talking about the same movement, the progressive movement. The progressive movement has consistently advocated categorizing people by race and make racial distinctions in government policies for more than a century. It was wrong and harmful a century ago and it's wrong and harmful today. It's the same core error then and now, namely that "race" is a valid category for objective studies and policy. And the very same progressive movement historically transformed into Nazism in Germany. So, the connection between the people who want to collect this data now and the "very evil people" isn't accidental, it is ideological and historical.

Re:ridiculous

[SoftwareArtist]

I have been saying consistently that these laws are wrong

You've been asserting that they're wrong, and I've been asking you to justify that they're wrong, and you've been stubbornly refusing to do that in any objective way. Instead you just keep falling back on yet more unjustified assertions. Here was your first attempt:

I want to live in a peaceful, prosperous society in which everybody has equal rights and that doesn't degenerate into tyranny.

So I asked you for evidence that anti-discrimination laws make society less peaceful, or less prosperous, or causes them to degenerate into tyranny. I've asked you this repeatedly. You've repeatedly declined to offer any. You seem to take it for granted that they do, yet you're totally unable to point to concrete evidence to back up the claim. These are not questions for philosophical debate. They're factual questions to be answered through data. Do anti-discrimination laws increase the level of violence, decrease the level of prosperity, etc.? Any claims that aren't based on concrete data are worthless.

Then you tried to equate anti-discrimination laws with Nazism, thus demonstrating that you've never heard of Godwin's Law. But when I pointed out this was ridiculous, you responded with an even wilder absurdity:

Second, we're not talking about "anyone", we're talking about the same movement, the progressive movement. The progressive movement has consistently advocated categorizing people by race and make racial distinctions in government policies for more than a century.

So you just equated all progressives with Nazis. Double Godwin! But aside from that, you've just completely rewritten history. Laws have made distinctions based on race for far more than a century. That isn't something the progressive movement invented, it's one of the main evils the progressive movement fought against. Discrimination existed on a massive scale through large parts of the U.S. That's what the Civil Rights Act tried to eliminate. And contrary to your claim that "anti-discrimination laws don't work", it was actually very effective.

But no. Enforcing anti-discrimination laws involves checking to see if people are discriminating. And to check, you need to collect data. And collecting data about race is evil! Therefore, those laws are evil, and we should go back to the pre-Nazi era when black people were forbidden to live in white neighborhoods, attend white schools, use the same restrooms as white people, or sit in the front of the bus. They had so much more freedom back then, before those evil progressives started sending them off to concentration camps.

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

So you just equated all progressives with Nazis.

No, I didn't "equate" them, I linked them. That is, US progressive ideology was the basis for many of the Nazi beliefs on race. It should be obvious to anyone that progressives and Nazis are distinct political ideologies, just like "democratic socialism" and "communism" are distinct ideologies, even though they are linked.

Laws have made distinctions based on race [wikipedia.org] for far more than a century. That isn't something the progressive movement invented,

And I didn't claim they "invented" it; I said they have "consistently advocated" it.

Discrimination existed on a massive scale through large parts of the U.S.

Yes: what do you expect after decades of government-mandated segregation and racist government policy and propaganda?

And contrary to your claim that "anti-discrimination laws don't work", it was actually [bloomberg.com] very [bu.edu] effective [ed.gov].

The Civil Rights Act primarily ended government discrimination; private anti-discrimination laws were a small component. And when economists looked at this (e.g., Sowell's "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality"), they found that "the advances made in the decade preceding the passage of the Civil Rights Act were as substantial as the progress in the ten years following its passage".

when black people were forbidden to live in white neighborhoods, attend white schools, use the same restrooms as white people, or sit in the front of the bus

Yes, and those injustices were created by laws, not private businesses, as you acknowledge by using the term "forbidden". And those disgusting, racist laws had been primarily supported by progressives and progressive ideology.

Enforcing anti-discrimination laws involves checking to see if people are discriminating. And to check, you need to collect data. And collecting data about race is evil! Therefore, those laws are evil,

Forcing me to disclose my sexual orientation, race, and religion to my employer and the federal government is unacceptable, no matter what justification you come up with. Who I sleep with or what I believe in is neither my employer's nor the government's business. And the potential for future abuse is just too great.

Geez, talk about creating a "Muslim registry". You are actually seriously defending creating a registry of the race, religion, and sexual orientation of every employee in the country!

Furthermore, if you ask this gay atheist immigrant on an official form about his race, religion, and sexual orientation, my answer will be "white heterosexual Christian". Only a fool would give a different response, even if privileged and pampered American lefties don't understand why.

Re:ridiculous

[SoftwareArtist]

I hardly know how to respond to that: you made so many blatantly false assertions. And whereas I always provide links to back up my claims, you have yet to provide a single source or single piece of evidence to back up anything you have said.

Ok, let's try to go through those methodically.

Jim Crow laws were not the work of progressives. The whole point of them was to thwart the progressive agenda and preserve the status quo. They were about as regressive as you could possibly get.

Nazism were not in any way shape or form based on the progressive tradition. In fact, it was as diametrically opposed to it as you could possibly get. Don't take my word for it: here's a list of the core characteristics of fascism. Just go down the list: powerful and continuing nationalism, disdain for the recognition of human rights, identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause, supremacy of the military, rampant sexism, etc. Every one of those is the exact opposite of what progressives advocate.

No one is ever required to disclose their race, religion, or sexual orientation. While various questionnaires may ask about them, you are always permitted to leave them blank. The government collects statistics about people's answers to those questionnaires, but only those people who chose to answer them. Also, it's illegal to even ask about them in a job interview, specifically because that would make it too easy to discriminate against people who chose not to answer.

Finally, all of this is just a tangent. You still are totally avoiding the main subject of this conversation: your claim that anti-discrimination laws are harmful to peace, prosperity, equality, and liberty. I have asked you again and again to provide evidence of that, and you have yet to offer a single shred of evidence. Let me quote what I said in my very first post:

I distrust all views based on personal philosophy, because it's completely subjective. There's no way to say whose philosophy is "right" or "wrong". I'd rather base decisions on how things work out in practice. What happens if you have anti-discrimination laws? What happens if you don't? Taking all the consequence into account, both good and bad, which one produces better results overall?

In every post since then I have returned to that question. And in every one of your posts you have tried to deflect attention away from it. So let me be really blunt: I don't care about your philosophy of negative rights, or your fantasies about Nazis, or any of the rest of that. The only thing I care about is evidence on the effects of anti-discrimination laws. If you're prepared to offer concrete evidence, I want to hear it. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

Jim Crow laws were not the work of progressives. The whole point of them was to thwart the progressive agenda and preserve the status quo. They were about as regressive as you could possibly get.

Science at the time said that black were genetically inferiors to whites, and progressives saw segregation and eugenics as the rational response. That is, segregation was "the progressive agenda" at the time, and Jim Crow laws were consistent with it. http://bfy.tw/9SHj

Nazism were not in any way shape or form based on the progressive tradition.

Again, you're disputing basic historical facts. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response; my parents lived through this and were subjected to the "scientific" studies of Nazi scientists. You need to read up on your history, instead of political propaganda .

No one is ever required to disclose their race, religion, or sexual orientation. While various questionnaires may ask about them, you are always permitted to leave them blank.

People are even permitted to lie on them, which I and others certainly do. In addition, these questions don't have an objective, verifiable answer: although for some people, the answer is clear, for many it isn't; race or sexual orientation simply aren't well-defined categories.

Which then raises the question: given that the information is not verifiable, has no objective meaning, and is not statistically representative, how can it possibly be used to accuse and penalize companies for discrimination? Obviously, the current situation can't stand: either you end up with government-defined categories and mandatory responses, or you can't use this data at all as part of law enforcement.

You still are totally avoiding the main subject of this conversation: your claim that anti-discrimination laws are harmful to peace, prosperity, equality, and liberty. I have asked you again and again to provide evidence of that, and you have yet to offer a single shred of evidence

You have already cited the evidence yourself, you just refuse to see it. If you look at economic progress, there was no obvious change in slope when the civil rights act was passed, and that is for all provisions of the act.

Here are high school graduation rates: no effect of the civil rights act

Ditto for median household income: no effect of the civil rights act.

The one thing where you see a big change in social indicators around the civil rights act is illegitimacy, and that's a change for the worse.

So, even minimal fact checking tells you that the civil rights act had no great practical effect on major indicators of progress for African Americans. Its repeal of racist laws and government policies was a moral victory, but beyond that it is massive government interference with no clear benefit.

If you want more analysis, I have told you to read the works of Thomas Sowell as a starting point (there are many other books, but he is an engaging writer, and has credibility and personal experience).

The problem isn't that I have failed to give you evidence, the problem is that you have shown yourself time and again to be resistant to it. Instead of reading up on the history of progressivism, scientific racism, eugenics, or reading up on criticism of affirmative action, you simply and uncritically dig up links to articles that restate your own misconceptions. And, yeah, it's not surprising that you can find such links: obviously, a lot of people have the same erroneous beliefs that you do.

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

Nazism were not in any way shape or form based on the progressive tradition. In fact, it was as diametrically opposed to it as you could possibly get.

By the way, let's be clear here:

Progressivism is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.

Would you agree with that?

The core ideology of the Nazis was that of eugenics; that is, the policy of encouraging humans with desirable traits to reproduce, and preventing humans with undesirable traits from reproducing; that is what justified Nazi expansionism, racial segregation, and genocides. Eugenics was a widely accepted scientific discipline both in the US and in Europe, and based on (then) recent work in human genetics and evolution.

The people who actually opposed eugenics did so on moral grounds: Christians, conservatives, and libertarians at the time (as today) argued against eugenics and segregation on the basis of individual liberties, not utility or progress.

So, why don't you try to make a good progressive argument against eugenics; that is, in what way is eugenics "diametrically opposed" to the defining progressive principle of applying science and reason in government for the purpose of achieving human progress?

Re:ridiculous

[SoftwareArtist]

I'm going to ignore everything you said except for the one question that I care about: evidence on the effect of anti-discrimination laws. On that you made the bizarre claim

You have already cited the evidence yourself, you just refuse to see it.

Obviously you didn't read the links I cited or you would never have said that. (Even the graph you linked to yourself shows the opposite of what you claimed it shows: that the gap between black and white students has narrowed dramatically.) Therefore I'll simply quote the relevant portion from one of those links to save you the trouble of having to click on it. This is the section about racial barriers. It also has sections on gender, disability, and age.

Dropout rate of African American students (age 16 to 24) declined from 20.5 percent in 1976 to 13.0 percent in 1996. [Dropout Rates in the United States: 1996, table A23, page 58.]

High school graduation rates among African Americans have increased substantially in the past 20 years and drawn much closer to the high school graduation rate of whites. [Bureau of the Census, Educational Attainment in the United States: March 1997 (unpublished), table A-2, page A-9.]

In 1990, 66.2 percent of African Americans age 25 and over had completed high school. In 1997, 74.9 percent of African Americans age 25 and over had completed high school. [Ibid.]

Overall student participation in advanced placement (AP) classes has increased dramatically since 1982, rising from 140,000 to 400,000 in 1997 high school graduates. Especially impressive is the growth in participation of minority students. In 1997, the percent of AP candidates who were minority students was 29 percent, compared to 11 percent in 1982. [Secretary Richard Riley: Second Annual State of American Education Address, February 1, 1995; and News from the College Board, August 26, 1997, page 7.]

Student performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has increased in science, math, and reading, recovering most of the ground lost in the 1970s. The gap in performance between white and African American students has narrowed substantially since the 1970s. [NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress, pages V, XIV, and XV.]

Minority participation on the Scholastic Assessment Test (formerly the Scholastic Aptitude Test, or SAT) has increased. In 1998, minority students were 33 percent of all graduating seniors who took the SAT, compared to 23 percent in 1988. [News from the College Board, September 20, 1988, and September 1, 1998.]

Math and verbal SAT scores increased across almost all race/ethnic groups from 1987 to 1998. For example, the average SAT score of Asian American students increased 19 points on the verbal section and 21 points on the mathematics section. The average score for American Indian students increased 9 points on the verbal section and 20 points on the mathematics section. The average score for African American students increased 6 points on the verbal section and 15 points on the mathematics section. All of these increases exceeded those achieved by white students. [News from The College Board, August 26, 1997; and 1998 College-Bound Seniors, National Report.]

Total minority enrollment at colleges and universities increased 61 percent between fall 1986 and fall 1996. [Enrollment in Higher Education: Fall 1986 Through Fall 1994, table 2, page 5; and unpublished data.]

Since 1990, the number of Latino students enrolled in higher education increased by 47 percent; the number of African American students increased by 20 percent; and the number of American Indian students increased by 30 percent. [Ibid.]

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

Therefore I'll simply quote the relevant portion from one of those links [ed.gov] to save you the trouble of having to click on it.

The question we are discussing is whether the anti-discrimination laws imposed on private businesses had any positive effect. That page isn't relevant to our discussions because it addresses improvements in public and publicly funded education. Public schools, public universities, and public funding of education was racist and discriminatory until the 1960's (thanks to Democrats and progressives), so it wouldn't be surprising if reversing those racist government policies led to improvements (note that it was predominantly Republicans that pushed for this). But any benefits of reversing racist government policies in public education tell you nothing about the benefits of imposing anti-discrimination laws on private employers.

In addition, even if it were relevant, that page lists improvements after the passage of the civil rights act. But the situation of African Americans was already improving before the passage of the civil rights act. In order to show that the civil rights act had significant practical benefits, you need to show that the situation of African Americans improved faster after the passage of the civil rights act than before. Thomas Sowell's research (among others) showed that it did not, and that conclusion is also pretty obvious simply from the graphs that I linked to.

So, as you can see, the OCR page is misleading and it contradicts research in economics. Far from supporting your point, what it actually supports is the idea that the OCR is politically biased and not trustworthy.

Now, you can continue to mindlessly point to political propaganda pieces, or you can actually start using your head, read the economic literature, and understand the data.

Re:ridiculous

[SoftwareArtist]

Just look at the graph you yourself linked to. No, really. Click on it right now. Just look at the shape of the two lines.

At the start, there's a large gap between the two lines. And they're moving exactly in parallel. There's no sign of the gap shrinking. Then in the early 70s, less than a decade after the Civil Rights Act was passed, it does start to shrink. And it continues shrinking steadily, so by the right side of the graph, the gap is only a tiny fraction what it was at the start.

That is exactly what you would expect to see if the law were working. Yet somehow, you try to cite it as evidence that it isn't working.

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

At the start, there's a large gap between the two lines. And they're moving exactly in parallel. There's no sign of the gap shrinking. Then in the early 70s, less than a decade after the Civil Rights Act was passed, it does start to shrink. And it continues shrinking steadily, so by the right side of the graph, the gap is only a tiny fraction what it was at the start.

There is no significant change in the rate of improvement of black high school graduation rates until the late 80's, when improvements slow down. That is, the Civil Rights Act obviously didn't help improve black graduation rates. That observation is independent of whatever the effects of the Civil Rights Act may have been on other groups.

Now, the gap is narrowing because white graduation rates at each point in time improve slower than black graduation rates, though that is (hopefully) unrelated to the Civil Rights Act. In fact, both graphs follow a typical logistic growth curve, and such curves mathematically result in narrowing gaps for populations that start growing at different times as they reach saturation.

That is exactly what you would expect to see if the law were working.

You're commiting the fallacy of the converse. It is true that if the act works, then the gap narrows. But observing a narrowing gap doesn't tell you that the act is working because there are many other reasons why the gap might narrow.

Yet somehow, you try to cite it as evidence that it isn't working.

And I've explained to you why. That isn't just my opinion, that's the conclusion of economists who have actually looked at the data. I have repeatedly given you references.

And, again, even if the Civil Rights Act had helped improve black graduation rates, it would have done so through the elimination of government racial discrimination, not any laws related to private businesses, since private businesses have little influence on high school graduation rates. So, your data both fails to show that the Civil Rights Act as a whole helped blacks and that the provisions related to private businesses helped blacks.

Re:ridiculous

[SoftwareArtist]

There is no significant change in the rate of improvement of black high school graduation rates until the late 80's, when improvements slow down. That is, the Civil Rights Act obviously didn't help improve black graduation rates.

I think you misunderstand what the word "evidence" means. Evidence is data that either agrees or disagrees with the predictions of a theory.

Let's say you observe that high school graduation rates are much higher for white students than black ones. That has been true for years, and there's no sign of the gap shrinking. You're pretty sure it's caused by discrimination, so you pass a law outlawing discrimination based on race.

You did that based on a theory that says anti-discrimination laws work. That theory leads to a prediction: once the law is passed, the gap should start to shrink. So you wait a while and sure enough, it does. The data agrees with the prediction of the theory, so it is evidence supporting the theory.

Of course, one piece of evidence isn't conclusive. The real world is a complicated place. Maybe the gap shrank for some other reason. Maybe it would have happened even without the law. So you need to look at lots of data. You can look at other measures of academic success, like earning college degrees and scores on standardized tests. The theory predicts you'll see improvement on multiple measures, not just one. (You do.) Even better, look at other kinds of discrimination. Don't just ban discrimination based on race, but also gender, age, disability status, etc. That gives you several different groups to look at. The theory predicts you'll see shrinking achievement gaps for all of them. (You do.)

This adds up to a lot of evidence, all supporting the theory. That still isn't conclusive. You can always try to argue some other factor might have caused the changes. But still, all the data matches the predictions of the theory. There's a lot of evidence supporting the theory, and very little contradicting it.

Hopefully it's now obvious what's wrong with the argument you tried to make? You were trying to evaluate a theory by comparing it to predictions it didn't make! Graduation rates are constantly changing based on lots of factors other than discrimination: economic changes, social trends like urbanization, changing levels of government spending on education, etc. You can't just make a linear extrapolation from the last five years and assume they'll continue on that same line indefinitely. No sensible theory makes that prediction.

Suppose I say to you, "20 years from now, there will be less discrimination than there is today. Based on that, tell me what the high school graduation rate will be in 20 years." You can't answer that. You don't have enough information. The answer depends on lots of other things that will happen over the next 20 years. Just knowing what will happen with discrimination isn't enough to make a prediction.

But you can still predict that the gap should shrink. Whatever happens to the economy or government spending, the people who previously faced discrimination should improve relative to the ones who didn't. Discrimination means treating people differently. Unequal treatment leads to unequal outcomes. If the treatment becomes more uniform, the outcomes should too. You can only evaluate a theory based on the predictions it makes, not the ones it doesn't make.

And, again, even if the Civil Rights Act had helped improve black graduation rates, it would have done so through the elimination of government racial discrimination, not any laws related to private businesses, since private businesses have little influence on high school graduation rates.

You're the one who cited that graph, not me! In this whole conversation, you have only given two links to anything resembling concrete data on the effects of anti-discrimination laws. One of them was to that graph, which you're now saying is irrelevant to the discussion. So why did you cite it in the first place???

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

That theory leads to a prediction: once the law is passed, the gap should start to shrink. So you wait a while and sure enough, it does

Again, you are making an elementary logic error. The theory says "If P then Q" (P="CRA helped", Q="gap shrinking"). You reason "Q is true therefore P", but that's a logical fallacy. The theory also says "If P then Q" (P="CRA helped", Q="high school graduate rates improve faster after CRA"). I reason "Q is false therefore P is false", and that is a correct logical inference.

You're the one who cited that graph

Correct. I did that because (1) you had linked to ed.gov pages that made claims about graduation rates and (2) because it falsifies the theory that the CRA helped at all, which in particular falsifies the premise that it helped through outlawing private discrimination.

I'd point you to Thomas Sowell's analysis of the (lack of) effects of the CRA again, but since you don't seem to understand elementary logic, there really isn't much point.

Re:ridiculous

[SoftwareArtist]

Again, you are making an elementary logic error. The theory says "If P then Q" (P="CRA helped", Q="gap shrinking"). You reason "Q is true therefore P", but that's a logical fallacy.

No, I didn't say anything of the sort. What I said is that the evidence is consistent with the predictions of the theory. Evidence and logic are two very different things. Science is about accumulating evidence to gradually build up a case. Math is about using logic to prove theorems. If the evidence agrees with the theory, that indicates the theory may be correct, but isn't at all conclusive. That's why you need to accumulate as much evidence as possible. But here's the essential point: it cannot in any possible way be interpreted as evidence against the theory. To be that, it would have to disagree with the predictions.

The theory also says "If P then Q" (P="CRA helped", Q="high school graduate rates improve faster after CRA").

No it doesn't. You're just making that up so you can keep believing what you want to believe. The only prediction it makes is that they should improve relative to the people who didn't face discrimination to begin with. Anything beyond that requires making lots of other assumptions that there's no justification for.

(1) you had linked to ed.gov pages that made claims about graduation rates

Graduation rates and many, many other things. I also linked to two other articles on completely different subjects. And I can easily dig up many more if it would make a difference.

I'd point you to Thomas Sowell's analysis of the (lack of) effects of the CRA again

I'm sure you would. I gather he's your favorite economist? (I just looked him up, and I see he's at the Hoover Institution. What a surprise!) But many other economists have reached exactly the opposite conclusion. So you pick an economist who agrees with what you want to believe and say, "See, I'm being rational! He says so!" Sorry, that isn't evidence and it isn't rational. It's just rationalization. If you simply picked a different economist, you could say exactly the same thing to argue a totally different position.

Re:ridiculous

[ooloorie]

You're just the typical anti-science and anti-reason bigot. There really is no getting through to you.

Makes me curious to know...

[Pollux]

I wonder what other contracts the government has with Google...

This lawsuit lists only one, the GSA's "Advertising and Integrated Marketing Solutions Contract", number GS07F227BA. Since it gives a contract number, we can actually reference it on a few different websites. I guess we can use the FPDS website to search for more contracts awarded to Google. ...

There's a million dollar contract for Google AdWords for the FDA, $250K awarded by the State Department for marketing its "Programs and Products", A lot of contracts by the BBG (who administers the "Voice of America" program)...Neat stuff!

Granted, I know that Google is the digital nexus of advertising online, but it still just feels a little disappointing how much of our tax money is going directly to them. (I suppose it pails in comparison, though, to other contractors like Lockheed Martin. Doing some more Googling (how ironic) seems to indicate that Google isn't even in the top 100. So I guess it's water under the bridge.

I wonder if I can find any contracts by the NSA...

Google's response

[SnowZero]

TFS should have included Google's response (already in TFA):

“We’ve worked hard to comply with the OFCCP’s current audit. However, the handful of OFCCP requests that are the subject of the complaint are overbroad in scope, or reveal confidential data, and we've made this clear to the OFCCP, to no avail. These requests include thousands of employees’ private contact information which we safeguard rigorously. We hope to continue working with OFCCP to resolve this matter.”

Re:Google's response

[Anonymous Coward]

The DoL doesn't collect taxes.

Re:Google's response

[BlueStrat]

" These requests include thousands of employeesâ(TM) private contact information which we safeguard rigorously"

Doesn't fucking matter. For tax purposes, these things MUST be known. ZERO EXCUSE.

Umm, the IRS is not requesting the data. This isn't about taxes, it's about hiring quotas and affirmative-action compliance. The IRS has all the employees' contact info necessary for tax purposes.

This sounds more like a politically-correct witch hunt on the part of the government. Maybe I'm wrong, I await proof that contradicts it.

Strat

Re:Google's response

[rahvin112]

As my reply above noted these restrictions were put in place by congress a long time ago. They are a requirement of every single government contract, if you want to work for the government you must by law comply. The information gathering is extensive, often includes information on all employee's not just the ones working on government contracts and is one of the reasons federal work is specialty in the contracting world that requires people knowledgeable with the process and requirements. The agency in question is required by law to audit these contracts for compliance, Google is not complying with the terms of their contract.

There are plenty of other companies that will be willing to comply with these restrictions, if Google will not comply they should be bared from working for the government.

Re:Google's response

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary clearly says that demand for employees contact information is part of the lawsuit. This opens (for example) someone on gmail team to be coerced by NSA to argue for a security scheme which NSA knows to be less than fully secure. If the government doesn't know who works on which products within Google (something they can't get even from the tax information), they can't do this targeted coercion. And large-scale coercion would raise too much noise. Providing a few thousand servers for government storage doesn't mean that Google has to give up to the government full life history of all of its employees (and that's what the government is suing to get).

Re:Google's response

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't include private contact information. We get audited every year, and have NEVER been asked for that.

Re: Google's response

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, demand my salary match my phone number.

Re: Google's response

[rahvin112]

Yes it does, they have the clause so they can contact empolyees directly if they have suspicions the data provided by the company is inaccurate or incomplete. It would appear the agency believes the data is erronious and wishes to spot audit by contacting employees directly outside the work place so they can be sure the employees aren't being pressured. These are standard terms in govt contracts.

Re: Google's response

[Entrope]

You might not get asked, but your employer probably has a postal address for mailing stuff to you, possibly a phone number for emergency contact, and so forth. The government could ask, even if they often don't.

Re:Google's response

[sabbede]

Of course we do. But it's only updated every 10 years and only contains very general employment information,

Re:Google's response

[Khyber]

The DoL works with the IRS. I've had BOTH in my business at the same time for the same purpose.

Try running a business and maybe you'd actually know these things.

Re:Google's response

[Khyber]

"This isn't about taxes, it's about hiring quotas and affirmative-action compliance"

Taxes get involved, too. You would know this if you ever ran a business for yourself. You can have DoL and IRS in the same building for otensibly the same purpose, and I've had it happen.

Re:Google's response

[Khyber]

We do but the update time is on the order of a decade. You think 10 year old information is really accurate? It's usually not, unless you're rich and don't move around.

Re:Google's response

[mjwx]

" These requests include thousands of employeesâ(TM) private contact information which we safeguard rigorously"

Doesn't fucking matter. For tax purposes, these things MUST be known. ZERO EXCUSE.

Umm, the IRS is not requesting the data. This isn't about taxes, it's about hiring quotas and affirmative-action compliance. The IRS has all the employees' contact info necessary for tax purposes.

This sounds more like a politically-correct witch hunt on the part of the government. Maybe I'm wrong, I await proof that contradicts it.

Strat

Sigh,

No this is about Google demonstrating that it was hiring the best people for the job, not people based on race. It doesn't matter if blacks only make up 5% of the workforce as long as they can demonstrate that they weren't throwing out applications because they were black.

Sorry if this contradicts your Political Correctness^W conspiracy theory.

Re:Google's response

[BlueStrat]

No this is about Google demonstrating that it was hiring the best people for the job, not people based on race.

How do you prove a negative? Any data Google offered could easily be used against them even if Google did not discriminate in any way if those evaluating said data decide to go after Google. They've done it to large defense contractors they wished to apply pressure against in the past. We're not talking about 'reasonable standards' of proof as the average person would understand it here, we're talking about federal bureaucrats. The deciding factor with bureaucrats is typically whatever grows their power, prestige, and aligns with their politics and the politics of the bureau involved which may or may not align with the current administration. Presidents and Congresses come & go, but bureaucracies are forever.

Sorry if this contradicts your Political Correctness^W conspiracy theory.

I still say I'll wait to see how things pan out, which I do not think unreasonable in the least. I do think automatically assigning innocent and righteous motives to government agencies & bureaucrats under such circumstances to be unrealistic and politically motivated and/or biased.

Strat

Re:Google's response

[david_thornley]

I remember when a sinister organization passed out large books containing my contact information to every one of their customers. Now, there are websites where someone can type my name in and find out where I live and what my phone number is. I'm used to this being publicly available information.

Not Equal Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

The Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against Google on Wednesday to get the Internet company to turn over compensation data on its employees. [...] Google is obligated to let the government access records that show its hiring doesn't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and more.

And how exactly does providing data on employees prove that they do not discriminate against applicants? Oh, that's right, it isn't about equality of opportunity, it's about equality of results. I forgot.

Re:Not Equal Opportunity

[tlhIngan]

The Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against Google on Wednesday to get the Internet company to turn over compensation data on its employees. [...] Google is obligated to let the government access records that show its hiring doesn't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and more.

And how exactly does providing data on employees prove that they do not discriminate against applicants? Oh, that's right, it isn't about equality of opportunity, it's about equality of results. I forgot.

Because you missed the fact that Google has to provide the information, which means they probably have to provide applicant information as well, and information why applications were denied.

Then there's also current employee data, which they need to show that everyone working at a certain job is paid within a similar range. If you have a bunch of people claiming to be "Software developer, level 3" and their pay ranges from $10,000 to $99,000, they'll ask what's going on since there's no way one level of software developer should have such a wide range in pay. Lesser experienced employees should be in a lower tier, after all.

It's why government pay schedules are as rigid as they are - if you're a certain level, there's maybe a $10,000 variation between everyone at the same level.

Re:Not Equal Opportunity

[asylumx]

TFA very clearly says "compensation data on employees" and makes no mention of applicant data as well.

Well, they don't compensate applicants... so... what compensation data do you expect them to provide on applicants?

Re:Not Equal Opportunity

[edtice1559]

They may have to provide this data as well and may have already provided it. Just because part of something is in dispute doesn't mean everything is in dispute. This is a silly strawman.

Yeah, this will last about 2 weeks

[Snotnose]

When Trump is in this will get canned,

Re:Yeah, this will last about 2 weeks

[Waffle Iron]

When Trump is in this will get canned,

Not after they tell Trump that Google is discriminating by hiring furrinors in preference to natural born umericans.

Re:Yeah, this will last about 2 weeks

[rahvin112]

You apparently believe he will rewrite the entire federal code in 2 weeks. Your wrong. They couldn't change 10% of the federal code in 4 years.

Re:Yeah, this will last about 2 weeks

[RobRyland]

Well,... that is a pretty damning statement about how we have too many federal laws and regulations.
besides, Trump doesn't have to change the law, just be selective about enforcement. right?

Re:Yeah, this will last about 2 weeks

[swb]

You're making jokes about this, but how do we know that this isn't exactly what Google is most worried about?

I mean, if you were going to just hazard a wild guess based on the usual stereotypes you'd figure Google skews young and male in engineering but does better overall in gender when marketing and other soft skills positions are included. You could talk to anyone in technology and get this same mix described to you like the people involved were talking about the weather or the sun rising in the East. Just the way it is.

But when it comes to race and national origin, I'd guess they skew heavily Indian and Asian but extremely light on blacks.

That's a bad combination for this zeitgeist. Not hiring enough blacks exposes you to all the usual discrimination claims and I'm sure BLM would love a target like Google.

But the real zinger will be the heavy hiring of Indians and Chinese and they don't want Trump ranting on Twitter (a competing service!) about how they're not hiring Americans.

And if Trump had half a brain, he'd say that part of why blacks are doing poorly was that Google was hiring Indians over them. It's ludicrous, I know, but it's political genius because it deflects Trump's alt-right image and it pits blacks against Indians. It's classic divide and conquer.

Re:Yeah, this will last about 2 weeks

[superwiz]

You apparently believe he will rewrite the entire federal code in 2 weeks.

No, he probably believes that he will appoint a new head of the Labor Department. And he is right about that.

It's the right time!

[hcs_$reboot]

If you're over 50 years old and looking for a job at Google , apply now!

Re:It's the right time!

[superwiz]

Most people I know who found jobs at Google did so mid-career (so they were past the 40-years-of-age starting point of qualifying for age-discrimination protections). You must have Google confused with Facebook. It was Facebook's CEO who famously claimed that "young people are just smarter."

Re:It's the right time!

[hcs_$reboot]

You must have Google confused with Facebook.

Nope.

Re:It's the right time!

[superwiz]

Ok, so there is a law suit. But I am fairly sure it will fail. I don't work for Google, but I do know a number of people who do. And, as I mentioned, most of them joined the company mid-career. And quite a few of them were past 50 when they joined. So I have problems believing what the suit alleges. It hasn't been resolved yet. Anyone can file a law suit in the US in the hopes that the company would settle to avoid the cost of litigation, but there isn't even news of that in your link. There is only a statement that a suit was files in 2014. Ok. Maybe statistically the suit does have merit. In my personal observation it does not. Until I see evidence to the contrary I am choosing to trust my personal observations.

Re:It's the right time!

[hcs_$reboot]

As long as you are an accomplished researcher with at least one PhD, a founder of at least one industry and all around good guy. Then, go ahead. Ivy League MBAs are acceptable with the same conditions.

We are talking about, what, 0.001% of the population?

Re:It's the right time!

[swillden]

If you're over 50 years old and looking for a job at Google , apply now!

Well, year-after next I'll be 50. But I'm already working for Google. What should I do?

Re:It's the right time!

[swillden]

As long as you are an accomplished researcher with at least one PhD, a founder of at least one industry and all around good guy.

Actually, for software engineering positions Google doesn't care about research, and doesn't care about PhDs (or degrees at all). Being a good guy/gal does matter, though. As does being able to think and code on your feet.

Re:It's the right time!

[avandesande]

They (govmt) don't care about old people, just minority women etc....

Re:It's the right time!

[hcs_$reboot]

Well, year-after next I'll be 50. But I'm already working for Google. What should I do?

Train/choose better the newbies. Google did great stuff a few years ago, but over time the pioneers were promoted, and the newer generations are not as innovative and code efficient as their elders.

Re:It's the right time!

[swillden]

So, are you a janitor or a security guard? Because those are the only two positions at Google that people over 40 qualify for.

Software engineer, currently working on Android.

Re:It's the right time!

[swillden]

over time the pioneers were promoted, and the newer generations are not as innovative and code efficient as their elders.

I disagree. What's changed isn't the quality of the people, it's the nature (mainly, size) of the company and the expectations users have of its products, which changes the sort of work that can be done.

Re:It's the right time!

[hcs_$reboot]

I didn't say it's the quality of the people (Google is very selective, and that's a good thing). However, and it's certainly related to your reply, Google topology changed a lot, and due to this it seems (will not elaborate on the impact of such a structure becoming gigantic) the recent developments are less refined and innovative as they used to be.

Probably a Witch Hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

We're a government contractor. We get audited. We've NEVER been asked for as much data as they're asking google. This is almost certainly a witch hunt.

In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

Sadly it's not politically wrong due to historical factors. If a government is going to have a policy about racist hiring practices it's going to be entirely useless without keeping track of information about employees races.
It's not a perfect world full of perfect people, and if you want to be able to get a job without having to belong to the correct Church (a problem with an employment agency near me a while back who were rejecting Catholics, Mormons and non-Christians despite taking government money) then some heavy handedness on the behalf of citizens like yourself is needed from time to time.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

If a government is going to have a policy about racist hiring practices

Government shouldn't have such policies because they aren't necessary, they are ineffective, and they are frequently abused.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

That is an opinion. Enough people have a different opinion to provide a political motivation for it no matter what your reservations are.
Not a perfect world with perfect people in it is it?

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

That is an opinion. Enough people have a different opinion to provide a political motivation for it no matter what your reservations are.

Enough people have had political motivations to institute fascist and communist dictatorships; that doesn't make fascism or communism either moral or effective.

Just listen to the expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

It's funny that you should mention dictatorship at the same time as declaring the views of other people invalid.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

It's funny that you should mention dictatorship at the same time as declaring the views of other people invalid.

So you are saying that if you say "F = m/a" and I say "F = ma", I'm advocating dictatorship?

Facts are just facts, and if you disagree with them, you're merely a fool, not an oppressed freedom fighter.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

Logic now? If you had applied logic at the start this thread wouldn't exist.
Also opinions are not facts.
A third thing, if you cannot get the irony of you suggesting that all opinions other than yours should not be heard, then making noise about dictatorship, then you really should sober up or come down from whatever is clouding your mind.


Back to the initial point - is the reason you think the contract should not be adhered to is because the contract is with a government? Or is it something else? How about getting back onto the topic.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

Facts are just facts? Here's what you wrote above:

What I am saying is that it is morally and politically wrong for governments to enquire about, or keep track of, the race, religion, or sexual orientation of citizens. Fascist and racist countries do that, free countries should not.

It appears that the fact is that you do not live in a "free country" then, indeed it's a "racist" one. Perhaps you should consider that fact and you will understand why people encourage governments with their votes to pay attention to race issues.
Yes, in a perfect world they would not have to and your "philosophy" of "I've got mine, you can just go hang" would be perfectly acceptable. In this imperfect world such views are seen as damage to route around. Shit happens and needs to be dealt with instead of just shouting at people who are paying attention to the shit that happens.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

It appears that the fact is that you do not live in a "free country" then, indeed it's a "racist" one.

Indeed.

Perhaps you should consider that fact and you will understand why people encourage governments with their votes to pay attention to race issues.

I understand perfectly well why many people (not just young ones) vote to pay attention to race issues. My point is that whether that works isn't a question of "philosophy", it's an empirical question, and the answer is that it clearly isn't working.

Yes, in a perfect world they would not have to and your "philosophy" of "I've got mine, you can just go hang" would be perfectly acceptable

I'm a gay man, an immigrant, and not even a native speaker. My parents started from literally nothing after WWII. Please tell me where I can "get mine" because so far, I havn't gotten it.

Shit happens and needs to be dealt with instead of just shouting at people who are paying attention to the shit that happens.

I'm shouting at the people who are causing the shit to happen: who are causing black kids to rot in ghettos and projects without hope and with a 1:3 chance of ending up in prison. I'm shouting at the same kind of people who used to put these kids in chains, and later denied them jobs and segregated them. I find it reprehensible that you and others defend these racist people and policies, because that's exactly what you are doing.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

Logic now? If you had applied logic at the start this thread wouldn't exist. Also opinions are not facts.

I stated facts and I stated my disapproval. I didn't state a lengthy justification of it because that's pointless with you.

A third thing, if you cannot get the irony of you suggesting that all opinions other than yours should not be heard

Well, I didn't "suggest" any such thing. I believe that even people with hateful, racist, or authoritarian beliefs (like you) should be heard. I simply point out what they are and express my disapproval.

Since you are a narrow-minded bigot unwilling to listen to reason, I don't bother giving you the facts and references every time you bring up your b.s., I simply express my disagreement and disapproval.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

I find it reprehensible that you and others defend these racist people and policies

Describing a problem is not defending it.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

Since you are a narrow-minded bigot unwilling to listen to reason

What a cop-out. Just because I raised details that show that it is not a simplistic issue of you go and build a straw man in my name and set it on fire - pathetic!


The contract clauses are to stop actions like Google or others sacking entire departments and filling them full of illegal immigrants at low wages. It's kind of useless without gathering information to see if the contract has been adhered to.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

What a cop-out. Just because I raised details

You "raised details" the same way people who build perpetual motion machines or argue for intelligent design "raise details".

The contract clauses are to stop actions like Google or others sacking entire departments and filling them full of illegal immigrants at low wages. It's kind of useless without gathering information to see if the contract has been adhered to.

These clauses have nothing to do with enforcing illegal immigration; they supposedly have to do with ensuring non-discrimination in hiring based on categories like race. But they are utterly meaningless for that purpose because nobody can tell what those numbers actually ought to be.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

Describing a problem is not defending it.

You are defending collecting race data? You are defending the enforcement action by the US government?

If you do, that makes you a racist because you believe that there are racial differences that require government intervention to remedy.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

nobody can tell what those numbers actually ought to be

Of course they can. It is called setting policy.

Please work on that naive streak of yours instead of trying to propagate it to others. The ridiculous equating to fascism above was almost to the point of being retarded.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

A cat is dead. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat.

Such a braindead level of logic is utterly fucking useless so please do not attempt to use such a chain to call me racist just because I mentioned that Google is being asked to stick to the terms of a contract that they initially approved.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

just because I mentioned that Google is being asked to stick to the terms of a contract that they initially approved

That was never in question anywhere in this thread. I questioned whether such contractual requirements are moral or politically desirable.

Are you saying that you disagree with the collection of race data in principle, but you are defending it because... well, because why?

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

nobody can tell what those numbers actually ought to be

Of course they can. It is called setting policy.

The US government certainly cannot arbitrarily "set policy" when it comes to racial quotas. The only policy it could legally set under the 14th Amendment is a policy that amounts to non-discrimination, but nobody can determine what those percentages ought to be.

The ridiculous equating to fascism above was almost to the point of being retarded.

You're deplorable.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

Despite it being a very imperfect tool it's all we've got when people are discriminated against, such as the story here a few weeks ago about the company that was only accepting people from India.
Your perfect world where it is not required does not exist.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

Oh do grow up. There are laws other than the constitution.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

Oh do grow up. There are laws other than the constitution.

Laws can't override the Constitution, and 14A prohibits any other racial quotas besides those justifiable by ensuring equal treatment.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

Despite it being a very imperfect tool it's all we've got when people are discriminated against, such as the story here a few weeks ago about the company that was only accepting people from India.

I think all-minority companies are a great thing, as are all female companies, all gay companies, etc.

Your perfect world where it is not required does not exist.

Quite the opposite: in the real world, discrimination exists, and the best way to deal with it is to let companies engage in it freely. Sometimes the discrimination is beneficial (such as when minorities create "safe spaces" for themselves), and the rest of the time, it is far preferable for it to be overt. Maybe you don't recognize that because you have never been subject to serious discrimination; take it from someone who has.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

Oh do grow up. There are laws other than the constitution.

Laws can't override the Constitution, and 14A prohibits any other racial quotas besides those justifiable by ensuring equal treatment.

I highlighted the bit that applies in this case. Why have you been pretending that something so obvious is not there?

It looks very much like the answer to my question way above you have been evading all this time is that you consider it acceptable for someone to not stick to the terms of a contract if the other party is the government. Is that the case? Yes or no.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

That's changing the subject because in those situations the government isn't giving them money.

What do you think of that government funded "Christian" employment agency that was breaking the rules by not offering jobs to Catholics, Mormons, Jews etc? Should they be free to illegally discriminate with your taxes?

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

I highlighted the bit that applies in this case. Why have you been pretending that something so obvious is not there?

As I was saying: "nobody can tell what those numbers actually ought to be". That is, there is no rational basis on deciding what racial statistics amount to "equal treatment". Your response was effectively that the government can just make something up ("set policy") and I pointed out that under 14A, they can't: they need to be able to justify those numbers.

It looks very much like the answer to my question way above you have been evading all this time is that you consider it acceptable for someone to not stick to the terms of a contract if the other party is the government. Is that the case? Yes or no.

Breaking a contract is always an option, and whether that is "acceptable" depends on the details of the contract and how you are breaking it; who the contract is with is immaterial. Parts of contracts can be unenforceable because they are invalid or unconscionable and it is common practice for people to agree to contracts that contain unenforceable terms; you have doubtlessly done that yourself many times.

In this case, the answer for me is quite simple: I consider governmental data collection of race, sexual orientation, etc. both morally wrong and dangerous, and I encourage Google to challenge the validity of these terms in court. Trump might simply drop the case, a new SCOTUS might invalidate those portions of the contract, or Congress might simply get rid of these requirements by law.

In addition, regardless of what Google does, I'd like to remind you that you and I are perfectly free to refuse to answer or even lie about our race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. I encourage everybody to do that to undermine this racist system.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

What do you think of that government funded "Christian" employment agency that was breaking the rules by not offering jobs to Catholics, Mormons, Jews etc? Should they be free to illegally discriminate with your taxes?

Non-discrimination in government contracting is unachievable for the same reason that efficiency is unachievable for government: the information necessary to achieve it is simply not available. So, it's pointless to argue about what "should" happen, the only thing one can argue about is what the best tradeoffs are.

What are the best tradeoffs? As far as I'm concerned, government should reduce spending to a bare minimum, and the spending it does engage in should be based only on economic criteria. That is, government shouldn't select a business because it is all-Christian/all-gay/all-female, but should select a business only because it offers the best bang for the buck, being blind to all other considerations. (I have confidence that diverse, non-discriminatory businesses will generally win.)

On the other hand, for government to collect data on the race, sexual orientation, disability, etc. of the US workforce in order to attempt to reduce discrimination is the wrong tradeoff: it is a huge privacy intrusion, creates databases that have enormous potential for abuse, and is not likely to be effective.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

As I was saying: "nobody can tell what those numbers actually ought to be"

You keep on going on as if that's a reason to not find out the numbers at all and see if there are blatant abuses going on. Why do you do that? You are surely not as stupid as you appear so what is your motivation for pushing such a ridiculous line that a head in the sand is the best option?

Trump might simply drop the case

The same Trump who keeps on going on about illegal immigrants and building a big wall? Do you really think so? Come on now - you are not a cocaine-ravaged ex-DJ making noise on Fox, you have a working brain. There is no need to express a naive view that a government can just ignore problems and they will go away by magic.

You didn't answer my question about what you thought of the government funded employment agency that was turning away Catholics and Jews despite their contract stating they had to help all who applied. What do you think of a breach of contract like that? Do you think that is OK as well? Do you really think that gathering information to make a case about removing their funding is also an invalid way to gather statistics and "both morally wrong and dangerous"?



If a government doesn't know what the fuck is going on even with the people they have contracted work out to then how do you expect them to govern? By magic?

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

Please try again in English instead of in waffling time-wasting evasion.
The contract was for job matching for all applicants. They took the money but never offered job information to Catholics, Jews and other people they didn't like.
Do you consider that breach of contract acceptable or not?

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

Do you consider that breach of contract acceptable or not?

I already answered that question: yes, it is. Contracts aren't divine law or moral statements, they are simply documentations of business agreements, and breaking them is a simple cost/benefit tradeoff.

In this case, Google may break the contract and enjoy the benefit of opposing a racist and privacy-invading government policy, but they would have to pay for it through loss of business and penalties.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

You didn't answer my question about what you thought of the government funded employment agency that was turning away [...] What do you think of a breach of contract like that? Do you think that is OK as well?

I did answer your question: I think it is fine for a government funded employment agency to discriminate against whoever they like for whatever reason they like. Government contractors should be selected only on the cost/benefit tradeoffs they bring to the contract.

You correctly point out that that means that your tax dollars may go to people who behave in ways you don't like. Join the club. We address that by minimizing government spending, not by turning our society into a surveillance state, as you are suggesting.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

I already answered that question: yes, it is

That's what I thought. You are slime.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

I think it is fine for a government funded employment agency to discriminate against whoever they like for whatever reason they like

Even when they are being paid to not discriminate. I take the slime thing back - you are a festering pile of shit and I am very fortunate that I have never met you in person.

Selfishness is not a political philosophy you prick.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

I grew up with massive discrimination and was barred from most jobs because of my sexual orientation; that's why I emigrated and came to the US. Believe me, I have an excellent first hand understanding of what job discrimination actually means. I don't want government dictating how private companies operate because it hurts the very people it ostensibly protects. I'm sorry you are too ignorant and bigoted to understand that, but that's really your problem. Your ignorance does not excuse your rudeness, however.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

Of course your vitriol hits all the usual notes we have come to expect from progressives: feigned tolerance in return for support of the statist and authoritarian agenda. But when we don't play ball or once we have served our purpose, we get abused and eventually sent to the camps.

Anybody who has experienced actual discrimination is painfully aware what utter folly it is to tell the government anything about your sex life or any other attribute that periodically gets people rounded up and killed, no matter what good deeds it promises in return. Of course, since to you, social justice is just a little exercise in social signaling, you don't know and you don't care.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

It's too late to play the victim after you have advocated making victims out of other people.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

I've never made a secret of who I am and why I take the positions I do. Your problem is that you are ignorant and you just aren't listening. And in your ignorance, it is you and people like you who advocate making victims out of other people, and you are too ignorant to even understand what you are doing.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

Your problem is that you are ignorant and you just aren't listening.

Don't project. That is very clearly your problem here where you are advocating harm to others.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

That is very clearly your problem here where you are advocating harm to others.

You are advocating that people who are already subject to discrimination declare ourselves to the government. Even all other issues aside, once government has that data, it stays in their databases forever, for any crook, blackmailer, and fascist who comes along to hurt vulnerable people. Did you notice what happened in this election? How utterly ignorant of real life discrimination do you have to be to advocate such idiocy? You do not want a government record that says "sexual orientation: homosexual, religion: atheist", believe me.

So, we declare ourselves to be straight and Christian, only to have the big jackboot of government then stomp down on our employers for supposedly discriminating against us because, heck, people like you aren't satisfied until every homosexual, every black man, every Jew, and every atheist is registered in a federal database.

Thank you for this object lesson in the banality of evil and how progressivism leads to fascism.

(Of course, the policies you advocate that this data be collected for are themselves racist, homophobic, and harmful as well, but understanding that clearly exceeds your ability to think and reason.)

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

I'm advocating that people stick to their word and you are not.
That's all it comes down to.

I'll meet you "banality of evil" with your undermining of the very core of civilization.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[ooloorie]

I'm advocating that people stick to their word and you are not. That's all it comes down to. I'll meet you "banality of evil" with your undermining of the very core of civilization.

You mean like Rosa Parks "undermined the very core of civilization" when she paid for her bus ticket and then ignored rules on segregation? When Southern businesses that operated under government licenses decided to disregard racist government policies? When bars allowed us homosexuals to openly engage in our disgusting habits in public? I have no doubt that you believe that breaking one's word like that "undermines the very core of civilization" as you understand it; after all, you'd like uppity homosexuals and blacks to be kept track off in federal databases, supposedly for our own good.

Of course, there is no evidence that Google is not sticking to their word. After all, they collect this data and proudly parade it around every year. Their failure to report is almost certainly just a misunderstanding. I just wish the had the backbone to tell the federal government to fuck off.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

You are really going very wide and waaaaay oftopic to justify selfishness.
No problem - America is going to be Great again with showers of gold.
You'll get to see first hand what dishonesty and selfishness does on the scale of a government.

Re:In your perfect world, maybe, but ....

[dbIII]

That is a very good example of your annoying habit of tying completely unrelated, or even opposed, arguments to an issue in the hope of making others look like they are opposed to those unrelated issues instead of the one at hand.
FFS - it's things like this current action that are keeping you free.

Using the arguments of the left to push a right wing agenda and hoping that emotion carries the day is more than just a little annoying.

I'm starting to think you are making the Rand mistake where she saw little bits of Soviet Russia everywhere and even called Twentieth Century Fox Studios communist.
I think you'll find that book I linked to as educational and funny as I did.

Candidate pool

[presidenteloco]

To know whether they discriminate or not, you have to know the demographics of their candidate pool.

If say 20% women are applying (for a position type), and the women's qualification levels are equivalent statistically to men's, and roughly 20% women are getting hired that's not discrimination. Same goes with race.

If there are barriers to getting to the candidate pool with equivalent qualifications and experience, that's a problem earlier in the chain and in the nature of educational opportunity equality and barriers, economic barriers, social barriers etc. All of that is not Google's fault, if it's the case.

Re:Evil

[Chas]

Fuckin' with your cash is the only thing you kids seem to understand!

You're misapplying Sun Tzu

[MikeRT]

Sun Tsu's art of war dictates that a general must publicly execute one of his men so the others fall in line.

Going after the company is not an application of that idea, an application of Roman decimation or any equivalent concept of punishing someone pour encourager les autres. You want to make sphincters pucker here? Real simple. Hold the executive(s) responsible personally. Pierce the corporate veil and go after them directly for ordering non-compliance.

Re:You're misapplying Sun Tzu

[ausekilis]

Sun Tsu's art of war dictates that a general must publicly execute one of his men so the others fall in line.

... Hold the executive(s) responsible personally. Pierce the corporate veil and go after them directly for ordering non-compliance.

So what I'm hearing is public execution of CEO's. Seems a bit barbaric, but I bet it would get companies to shape up.

Re:Evil

[TheRaven64]

I think the new version is 'Don't. Be evil.'

Re:It's a really hard problem

[sabbede]

The collection and submission code is stuck in alpha until the DoL publishes an API for receiving it. As soon as they get the contract for writing the API, the DoL can have it's data.

Re:So ironic isn't it

[sabbede]

Or for the DoL to just buy the information...

What's google's side?

[sabbede]

This article is incredibly one-sided and the quote from google isn't very detailed. What is the DoL looking for that google considers so overly broad? What about the contracts are they asserting should be kept private? Maybe google's argument is perfectly reasonable and the DoL's request isn't. Hard to tell with only one side of the argument.

Re:Google's response-Leaky Distractions.

[swillden]

Well if the concern is about confidential data, then just wait for the next public leak and the problem will be solved.

Public leak of Google-managed personal information? Has there ever been such a thing? Not that I'm aware of.

Re:Evil

[fbobraga]

The data request is part of a routine audit into Google's equal opportunity hiring practices

Re:Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet America, the Government collects data on Google!

In principle, that would apply sometimes

[MikeRT]

So what I'm hearing is public execution of CEO's. Seems a bit barbaric

If the CEO effectively or directly orders an action that a reasonable person could foresee would lead to the death of their workers or members of the general public, then it most certainly could apply. In fact, a civilized society would not only punish the CEO harshly, but hold the CEO to the strongest standard under noblesse oblige which might merit not only an execution in some cases, but the state liquidating their estate and putting the assets to work for the community and victims (in particular).

One reason why nobody trusts the government

[liquid_schwartz]

This is why I don't trust the government to run things, they conflate social engineering with actually running things. I recall first adopting this view when I heard that despite failing the tests fire departments were being strong armed into hiring more protected classes, especially women. I want the best qualified person doing my rescue from a burning building, not the socially preferred yet inferior one. If the government wants to run things then they need to drop the social engineering and run things efficiently. If they insist on social engineering, and they do, then they won't be able to run things effectively since they are deliberately hiring less qualified people.

Re:It's a really hard problem

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean.. as soon as that happens, google will discontinue the project that provides the data.

So much for do no wrong.

[pjv936]

Google like most tech firms does a very bad job of hiring minorities except for Asians and does a very bad job of hiring and promoting women.

Decline federal contracts

[micahraleigh]

That info does not belong to the government, and the government is NOT we the people.

Re:Read the law

[rahvin112]

You are reading the wrong law. It's in the required contracting provisions not part of the EEO law. Ask someone that does federal contracting, it's a standard clause mandated by congress and written into the code as part of the DOL rule making. This was added to the contracts in the 80's and the final rule probably has Regan's signature on it.

There is a compelling government interest if verifying that their contractors are in compliance with Federal law and validating that compliance. In Federal funded transportation jobs the Resident engineer is required to interview a certain number of employees from each contractor and sub to verify that their employers are in compliance with EEO and mandated wage requirements.

You really brought Rosa into this?

[dbIII]

FFS - Rosa Parks did not get to negotiate a contract where one of the terms was sitting at the back of the bus.
Please act like a human being and not like an eliza bot.

Re:You really brought Rosa into this?

[ooloorie]

FFS - Rosa Parks did not get to negotiate a contract where one of the terms was sitting at the back of the bus.

Neither did Google. Terms of federal contracts are a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, just like the segregation laws that forced Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. Yeah, I chose the analogy carefully.

Furthermore, nothing in Google's contract said that they needed "to provide names, contact information, job history and salary history details that the government has requested for its employees" as well as personally identifiable information on "race, religion, sexual orientation, gender". That is an overly broad, and chilling, interpretation of the contractual terms. That is, when Google signed the contract, they had no way of knowing that the Obama administration would make such a ludicrous demand.

How utterly disconnected from reality do you have to be to ever think that it is a good idea to let the government go to companies and say "Please give us a list of all the homosexuals that you employ, together with their addresses and salary history." And you just keep doubling down on your stupid and indefensible position.

Re:You really brought Rosa into this?

[dbIII]

Neither did Google.

Yes they did, the article was about it.

Terms of federal contracts are a take-it-or-leave-it proposition

Not so, and even if it was Google can certainly get work elsewhere.

just like the segregation laws

Obviously nothing alike. Why are you pretending to be far more stupid than you can possibly be? A brain damaged ex-DJ can get away with that shit on TV because he also makes funny noises, but you have not destroyed your head with cocaine and are not working here as an entertainer so you do not get that excuse.

Re:You really brought Rosa into this?

[dbIII]

Instead of attempting to convince me of something I've been hard coded to reject for more than forty years perhaps you'd be better off reading this book about internet discussions etc:
https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/humour-gift/A-Short-History-of-Stupid-Helen-Razer-and-Bernard-Keane-9781760110543

It's very funny in places and goes over some ground we have attempted to cover in a far better reasoned and better written way than I could ever manage.