Slashdot Mirror
Google Schools US Government About Gender Pay Gap (cnet.com)
Google wants the US government to know that it takes gender pay equity very seriously -- and is baffled by the contention that a gap exists at the tech giant. From a report: In responding to allegations lodged by the US Department of Labor that Google systematically pays its female employees less than it pays men, the search giant said in a blog post that employee gender doesn't factor into compensation decisions. Google described the process that it arrives at suggested compensation as "extremely scientific and robust," relying on the employee's role, job level and location, as well as recent performance ratings. What isn't considered in determining pay is whether the employee is male or female -- that information is masked out to those making the compensation decisions, Eileen Naughton, Google vice president for People Operations, explained in the post late Tuesday. "The analysts who calculate the suggested amounts do not have access to employees' gender data," Naughton wrote. "An employee's manager has limited discretion to adjust the suggested amount, providing they cite a legitimate adjustment rationale.
Most of the time pay gap statistics are brought out, they don't seem to compare apples to apples. The average female employee at company A makes less than the average male employee at Company A. And yet lower-paying office roles are predominantly sought out by female employees, which is what brings down that average if you're not comparing equivalent job titles and experience levels.
Women who do not have children get paid the same or more. But when you have to take several weeks or months off to take care of a child you slow your career. So don't have kids if you want a big pay check. If you want to have the biological and emotional fulfillment of giving birth and raising a child then realize you have to sacrifice your overall income.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
... is that the so-called "gender pay gap" is actually due to life decisions, not rampant sexism?
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
"extremely scientific and robust," relying on the employee's role, job level and location, as well as recent performance ratings"
So basically they are claiming that performance ratings are scientific, and that there's no possibility those are biased.
Right.
That's what it seems like to me, too. I think it's more around 5% or less. It's still wrong, but it's not the apples-to-oranges 20% that SJWs throw around. And I'm not saying it's right, but if we just let things ride the way they are going now, it will solve itself, at least in the U.S.. The last I read (On campus, women outnumber men more than ever), there are more women than men in college, so what does that mean for the future? People also need to put things in historical perspective - without the whining of the last decade, think about what the real (apples to apples) pay gap was 50 years ago... 40 years ago.... now look at the last decade and the "real" pay gap is only around 4%. It was improving all on it's own without new laws or requirements. Society evolved, and it's still evolving. Just let it happen.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Company accused of bias claims there is no bias. No one got "schooled."
press the button!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Just another case of feelz before realz!
This Sig does not Exist.
My wife took a couple years off when my daughter was born. We could (barely) afford that because more than half of our income was from me. While she was taking time off, I found a new job that almost doubled my pay, in a city four hours away. For double the pay, we moved. Now I make four times as much as my wife.
The next time we consider a move, suppose we can go to city A and increase my wife's income by 25% ($7,000 increase) or we can move to city B and increase my income by by 25% ($30,000 increase). Which will we do? Obviously we'd take the $30,000, increasing my income. And she would start over with a new employer. If our daughter got sick and one of us had to stay home with her for six months, should my wife quit her job (costing us $14,000) or should I quit for six months (costing us $60,000)? Right now we can afford to send one of us to school. The same sort of calculation applies - me getting my masters degree will increase our income by $30,000/year or so.
Every decision we make about whose career takes priority logically prioritizes the career that provides most of our income. Because she makes less, and therefore has less of an impact our budget, it'll always be logical prioritize my career, compounding the difference. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. The more one parrner makes relative to the other, the more important it becomes to protect and enhance the higher income. That's perfectly okay with my wife and I - it helps OUR budget to increase OUR income.
Logically, we temper that and make sure she has some marketable skills only in case something happens to me. If I die or have a major head injury she'll need to be able to earn an income in a couple years, after the insurance runs out. So our plan is that if I should die, she'll finish school while living off the insurance money.
My ex-wife and I planned for divorce, and surprise surprise we got divorced. My wife and I plan for "the two shall become one, till death do you part, for better or worse" and indeed we've worked through tough times and come out stronger.
Partly that's related to having our daughter - a decision that we feel like going our separate ways is no longer possible (we'll always be connected, like it or not), and to the extent it's possible, it's not right - I have no right to take away my daughter's father or mother just because I feel like boning some other chick. I've made a COMMITMENT to my family.
That works for us largely because we look at everything in our marriage, including all conflicts, from the perspective of *we*. If your arm is causing pain, you don't get mad at your arm, you figure out how to heal it. If my foot is giving me trouble, I don't yell at my foot (or cut it off), I care for it. If my wife is giving me trouble, I don't yell at my wife, or divorce my wife, I care for my wife. Probably sometimes you're not sure what to do - perhaps you want to eat cake, but you also want to lose weight. You want to buy a new toy, but you also want to save for a house. You think about these things, basically "discuss them with yourself." We are the same way - sometimes we want this and we want that. We think, discuss, and we decide. We (my wife and I) don't fight and get angry when we have two different viewpoints, anymore that you fight with yourself when you have two perspectives on something.
That's worked for us all the way to even when we've been attracted to someone else. We have a problem, we've been having inappropriate conversations with someone we find attractive. That's dangerous to us, our family. So how do we address this to protect ourselves from our family being torn apart? If she cheated on me, it wouldn't hurt *me*, it would hurt *her*, our daughter, AND me - it would hurt *us*. So we treat inappropriate conversations as a danger that could hurt us.
Having said all that, we are aware that divorce happens, and she's going to finish her degree - after she's more clear about what kind of degree she wants. During the roughest part of our marriage, during a mental health crisis, there was a risk that the person going through the mental health issues might do something crazy, and we took some precautions during that time in case we had to seperate. But generally, you tend to get what you plan for, so we don't plan on divorce.