Slashdot Mirror
Accused of Underpaying Women, Google Says It's Too Expensive To Get Wage Data (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Google argued that it was too financially burdensome and logistically challenging to compile and hand over salary records that the government has requested, sparking a strong rebuke from the U.S. Department of Labor (DoL), which has accused the Silicon Valley firm of underpaying women. Google officials testified in federal court on Friday that it would have to spend up to 500 hours of work and $100,000 to comply with investigators' ongoing demands for wage data that the DoL believes will help explain why the technology corporation appears to be systematically discriminating against women. Noting Google's nearly $28 billion annual income as one of the most profitable companies in the U.S., DoL attorney Ian Eliasoph scoffed at the company's defense, saying, "Google would be able to absorb the cost as easy as a dry kitchen sponge could absorb a single drop of water."
Another tech guy afraid of getting numbers. The numbers will show what the numbers will show. What's the matter - stats scare you in school? Or was it girls?
That is all.
The requirement to provide the data is part of the government contracts Google has taken on, so yes it is Googles job to do the governments bidding in this case.
why isn't their entire workforce made of women, wouldn't it be cheaper that way?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
They already know everything anyway.
...some sort of search engine, perhaps.
Why are you afraid of honoring the request? That amount is a pittance to you and the WORLD knows it. The only thing I can think of is that you have been underpaying women since the very first one that was hired and by giving this information to the US government you'll have to come clean and pay a pittance of a fine. Boo hoo... Companies are making record profit from what I see on the Internet and they are not paying their help as they should. Then these companies complain they are unable to hire replacements. It's because the companies don't want to pay the potential employees what they are worth. It takes money to make money and companies that don't want to pay their potential employees are only shooting themselves in the foot. Avantare
Even if the data is critical for this case, it can then be used for other government investigations such as those for tax evasion, H1B abuse, and potentially for civic lawsuits by current and former Google staff for abusive hiring practices. I'm not insisting that there is evidence of such abuses, but rather that the data would then be available for other investigations by other governmental or even private agencies who can subpoena the records.
It's easy to get the numbers for the salaries, but how are you going to accurately get the numbers for job type, productivity, experience and skill level ?
"You can afford it" is not a valid reason why you should have to do something for free.
Even if you can afford it, you shouldn't be required to pay $100k to provide evidence the prosecution wants for a fishing expedition. If the prosecution wants it, they can pay for it.
Then if you're guilty, maybe the judge will order you to pay that amount in addition to whatever other punishment you get.
Please explain why you think this is a fishing expedition? Besides the government can always get a subpoena. How much will that cost everybody then? Google will certainly pay much more than $100,000 defending their stance and the taxpayers will pay more for attempting to make it happen. I'm with the government on this one (for a change) so they get my vote for spending the money here as the results of what they could potentially find could very well end up benefiting those who need it most... the working American. Avantare
Google Knows everything about everyone. Where you go, what you spend money on and everything else.
To say that it can't find out wage data is a pile of crock.
Google could if it wanted tell the FBI how much each Agent spent in expenses for the past 5 years.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
When Audi made a cringy, virtue-signaling Super Bowl ad and got called out over it, they ended up debunking the wage gap in a single tweet:
https://twitter.com/audi/statu...
Oh wait, they have Kubernetes! And computers and stuff. Big coder-thinkers, and cars with no drivers! They can do it! C'mon, Googlies, you can do it!
All that big data stuff is full of great information for everyone! Especially the US Government. Wow, I'm sure they're going to do this, it would be so helpful to everyone, right? Do no harm! That's their motto! I love them! They'll do the right thing, I just know it!!!!
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
>how are you going to accurately get the numbers for job type, productivity, experience and skill level ?
Traditionally... by ignoring productivity and experience, and using seniority as a stand-in for skill level.
In other words, there is no practical way to do it since you need to individually perform a detailed historical analysis of each person's output, including adjusting for where others have helped or hindered. It'd be faster just to do the work over again.
Its not Googles job to do the governments bidding. Furthermore, Google has no incentive to comply because even if the data shows that they are entirely innocent, such facts wont matter to the SJW's.
If Google wants to continue to do business with the government, then it is their fucking job to comply. That effort is either worth it, or it's not. Don't want to comply? Then step away from all government contracts. Plain and simple.
1) Google showed it was incapable of discrimination due to its process. *facepalm*
2) Google took a government contract and doesn't want to comply with the rules of doing so. *facepalm*
3) Google is spending way more effort/money to not hand of the information than if they had. *facepalm*
This is all kinds of retarded. *facepalm*
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
In other words, there is no practical way to do it since you need to individually perform a detailed historical analysis of each person's output, including adjusting for where others have helped or hindered
Which makes the whole debate pointless.
http://pm1.narvii.com/5779/c3a...
http://i.imgur.com/c7lLo4w.gif
#DeleteFacebook
They could reduce the cost to $80000 by having women do it.
Good thing that's not how court orders work.
It is not a court order. It is an administrative request from the DoL.
I agree with you 100%. Moreover, I don't think any such discrimination, that Google is being accused of, should be illegal in a free country.
But they went out for Hillary Clinton — donating not just money, which the entire Silicon Valley did, but engineering/logistics talent too. The ostensible "women's champion" would only have increased the anti-discrimination prosecutions like this against various companies. Something tells me, however, the prosecutors she would've appointed wouldn't be so harsh on and sarcastic of Google...
As long as these laws are on the books at all, the SJW-enablers should be prosecuted under them — until they stop with the enabling...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
So it's cheaper to send a lawyer to explain the data is too hard to collate
So it's cheaper to pay the fine or lose the contract
That must tell you something about the cost of "doing the right thing". Not that the cost of obtaining the information is too high, but the cost of fixing whatever the data tells the government is too high.
So we can infer that there IS an issue here. It is also reasonable that Google knows this, or it wouldn't be baulking at providing the data (and exploiting the P.R. benefits of showing "there! we do pay people fairly").
The question is whether Google would consider the odds of getting found out and having to pay people more, AND paying a fine for obstructing some dam' law or other, is worth the effort they are going to, to behave in such a manner.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
By that logic, you as a person continue to live at my pleasure.
"His name was James Damore."
The government may need Google more than Google needs them
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I'm no SJW but it seems to me that the difference between what men and women are paid to do identical work is a Real Thing, and it makes me shake my head in sadness that we're still living in a world where aside from sexism, there's also racism, bigotry, ignorance, superstition, and religious militantism. The human race is, at it's best, capable of so much more, able to reach so much higher than it currently does, yet we keep getting dragged down to a level just a hair above non-sentient animals, revealing our so-called 'civilization' to be just a paper-thin layer over the savages that, apparently, we still are, and that you stress us just a little bit and it gets torn away as easily as a sheet of paper. Google allegedly not paying women the same as men is just the tip of the iceberg.
Although feminists will tell you otherwise.
I don't disagree that it should be illegal, but in a "free" country the government wouldn't have the right to mandate wages or what an employer wants to pay a man vs a women for a contract that both parties enter into voluntarily.
You can't just say "We paid the men more because they asked for more."
Can you just say, "we paid the people more who asked for more"? That's how salaries work in the US culture, for better or for worse. Malfeasance not required.
One sub-group that gets really screwed: aspies. Don't tell a class-action lawyer that's epigenetic, though.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The left are devouring their own. It's so ironic that the left-leaning silicon valley firms are now becoming the victim of the identity politics of the same idealogy. Take a look in the mirror, and if you wouldn't want yourself to be judged to the same standard, then stop preaching identity politics to the public.
I'm not insisting that there is evidence of such abuses,
Google would be fiscally stupid to comply with the request, even if it wanted to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
don't make me laugh...
I'd just like to point out that this is a long-running story. As with all complex issues, there are two sides.
Yes, Google has to provide a certain amount of information to the government, as part of its government contracts. however, they have already provided quite a lot of information. The DoL is now looking for historical information, and wants to interview a wide range of employees throughout the company. This is beyond the usual level of stuff that government contractors have to provide.
The DoL claims that this is because they find discrepancies in male/female pay at Google. Now, I have zero knowledge of Google's internal pay practices, but on the face of it, this is extraordinarily unlikely. First of all, the IT industry wage-gap has already been thoroughly debunked: a gap only exists if you deliberately ignore things like years taken off for childcare, which result in less experience and missed promotion opportunities. Second, Google is big enough, and under enough observation, that their HR department will be extraordinarily careful about issues like this.
All of which leads me to suspect that there's a hidden motive here. Maybe someone in the DoL is trying to make a name for themselves? Maybe there's a private lawsuit waiting in the wings, hoping for a big settlement? Maybe someone is just hoping to be bought off, possibly via a revolving door? Dunno what the agenda is, but I'll give odds that it's something at least borderline corrupt on the part of the DoL...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Google Knows everything about everyone.
If that were even close to true they would easily know enough about politicians that requests like this would never see the light of day.
For a lot of companies that might work as a line of reasoning. But Google's bread and butter is data analysis of behaviors. Their ability to find this data is more powerful than anyone else's and they already have it and use it to make money. So, yes, it is literally their job.
Identifying gender pay disparity is the kind of project they used to knock off in an afternoon, release to the public, then abandon after three years because "only" a few million people used it.
I'm no SJW but it seems to me that the difference between what men and women are paid to do identical work
You're assuming that they do identical work, with identical performance. Before you go any further, you'll need to provide proof that this is true.
Select * FROM employeeDB where gender='F' ORDER BY role, year DESC
Select * FROM employeeDB where Gender='M' ORDER BY role, year DESC
There you go.
The numbers will show that girls have cooties.
Well Google being publicly traided on a size borderline monopoly, has a tag line of not being evil. While may not be its job, it would be to their self interest to know this data and make sure to correct any inequalities in its workforce. Otherwise they may be opening themselves for future legal problems.
West Coast based IT companies are notoriously bad in diversity in their workforce compared to East Coast IT workers who are often older, more gender and race diversity.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Not really -while some SJWs are in it for the money, google's not doing it for the money. They're doing it for a shitload of money.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The government already knows how much everyone makes and whether they are female. They should get it from the IRS and mine it themselves.
No. It doesn't matter what you "say". It only matters what you "do". If you systematically pay men and women differently on any basis other than their ability to do their job, they you are breaking the law.
I'm not familiar with US law, but does it really say that it's illegal to negotiate about salaries ? Can you provide a link to that law ?
You don't privacy, do you?
Do men "negotiate harder" or are men more likely to accept the risk of rejection? The former could be tested by having professional negotiators to separate the candidate from the employer for that part of the hiring process. But the latter can't.
If your negotiator comes back with a number and says they think they can get more with another round, at some point the decision belongs to the candidate.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Can you prove his assumption, that a man gets paid more for the same job, isn't true?
Hey moron, the poster is making the assumption, so he or she needs to provide the proof, moron.
noooo the government would NEVER impose unnecessary restrictions on people/companies..
Google doesn't cooperate after they feel they've been treated unfairly. I speculate they feel they were treated unfairly over the anti-poaching agreement so now they are lawyering up.
I will attempt to help people understand the Googler's Mind. The specific form in which their arrogance comes is confidence in their own goodness. They react in Machiavellian ways when they think the arena is unfair. It's reasonable for them to consider the arena unfair because the press often writes hysterical hit pieces about them, the EU often uses them as a punching-bag for basically protectionist impulses (ex. blaming Google for their broken tax code), wing nuts and ex-Republican-strategists working for Microsoft claim "Chrome spies on you" when all the source code is right there, etc., but they respond by becoming secretive so there's no story to begin with to make into a hit piece. Now Googlers know how they protect and partition user data but not the public. This feeds their arrogance because it makes the public suspicion appear even more unjustifiable to the Googler, fitting their internal narrative that they don't get a fair shake, even though the suspicion is now coming from their lack of transparency rather than the public's hysteria or desire to write dramatic hit pieces.
Making this leap is difficult for them: they've gone to the best college, moved to the best country, gotten the "best job" (their mother-in-law is very impressed), so you've got an approval-addicted person doing everything he thought he was supposed to and not getting approval. He's sullen and sad and angry. It's pathetic to watch, but it's not evil, at least not directly: it doesn't lead to taking short-cuts and a slow slide to evil, if anything to a redoubling of efforts. At best, people burn out, quit, take a job their mother-in-law likes less, and become a more complete human being. However it does make discussion impossible because everyone's feelings get hurt and ears reflexively close, which opens up too much space for the wave of MBAs and sociopaths to exploit.
What if you negotiate a more challenging job ? For example, one person could get a job title that says "software engineer 150k", while another gets a title that says "software engineer 140k".
Your birth certificate. Try getting anywhere without it... The state does own you.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
One of us may be lost in the above-quoted triple negative... Last I heard such a construct was Pinocchio trying to answer a question while betraying Shreck by neither his words nor his nose...
I would fully agree with this statement — had you not put "free" in quotes. Such mandates really do reduce freedom, and that was my point. But as long as these regulations remain on the books, the Illiberals who help keep them on the books, should be the first to suffer from their enforcement.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
'Worth' really is a personal thing. This entire issue is summed up in self worth.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
google's not doing it for the money. They're doing it for a shitload of money.
Not really, if the men are making more money for the same job, a simple solution would be to lower their salaries to match their female counterparts. That would actually save money for Google.
By what logic? That makes no sense! A limited liability corporation is a legal fiction that exists only because the government says it exists. You are not a legal fiction and exist no matter what anyone says.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
And yet you're arguing about it.
No, I'm not. I'm asking a question.
If you are systematically paying women with the job relevant skills in the same roles different amounts then it's illegal.
Even if the average woman makes less than the average man, that doesn't mean there's a systematic gender bias. It could simply be that the man performed better, asked for a raise, and got one. Does the law say that if one person gets a raise, that everybody else with the same job description should get an identical raise ?
I'm not familiar with US law, but does it really say that it's illegal to negotiate about salaries ?
No. Negotiating is legal, as long as it doesn't lead to systematic bias.
Hollywood, of course, is exactly like the IT industry.
It sounds to me like the demand is getting into the "takings clause" territory, which prevents private property from being used for public purposes without just compensation. I'm guessing the reason it would cost so much is because Google doesn't want to return a simple "SELECT GENDER, SALARY FROM EMPLOYEES", but provide more detailed information that it believes supports its position.
A universal lightning rod offered up to people who are tired of thinking.
In my experience, either a person already views the world through this lens—in which case it's redundant—or a person tries extremely hard not to open this appalling box until some directly corroborating evidence forces the issue—in which case floating the possibility prematurely without offering up a smoking gun (or at least a lipstick-stained cigarette butt)—is an obnoxious waste of breath.
This particular anxiety harp string is only two strings over from SJW. Expertly woven together they manufacture the beautiful chord of tinfoil minor.
It could simply be that the man performed better
If that is based on objective criteria, it is legal. Pay can differ based on performance and qualifications. If cannot systematically differ FOR ANY OTHER REASON.
Does the law say that if one person gets a raise, that everybody else with the same job description should get an identical raise ?
No. But if your policy of "give anyone a raise if and only if they ask for one" results in systematically different pay for equally qualified men and women, you are breaking the law.
If men are more assertive about asking for raises, then you either need to learn to say "no" or you need to give equal raises to similarly qualified women, whether they ask or not.
if you do nothing, but a difference in the aggregate world is indirectly observable through your aggregate behaviour, you have still done nothing.
Whether is is "wrong" is subjective.
Whether is is "legal" is not.
Salary discrimination by gender is against the law, and the judge isn't going to give a crap about your rationalizations.
Google signed a number of contracts with the government of their own free will. This request is being made under those contracts. If they didn't want to handle requests like this, they were free to not sign (and not take the money, of course).
If men are more assertive about asking for raises, then you either need to learn to say "no" or you need to give equal raises to similarly qualified women, whether they ask or not.
Why make an exception for women ? Why don't the non-assertive men get a raise too ?
But if your policy of "give anyone a raise if and only if they ask for one" results in systematically different pay for equally qualified men and women, you are breaking the law.
What if you give a raise to anybody who performs exceptionally well, and that happens to result in more men getting a raise ?
Salary discrimination by gender is against the law, and the judge isn't going to give a crap about your rationalizations.
What if a company determines salary by a completely objective method, independent of gender, that results in a systematic difference between men and women ?
In a large organization like Google there will usually be multiple people working on similar, if not identical things. So there can be comparisons between those people.
Beyond that, they can look at things like qualifications, time at the company, projects worked on, and annual reviews. It's imperfect, but also far better than doing nothing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
because a systematic bias will show anyway if there is one,
If you don't compensate for job performance, the bias is meaningless. You need to learn a lot more about statistics.
You still have to proove it's systematic bias and not something else. If guys are paid more, it's due to natural reasons, like them working overtimes and not being pregnant for 2 years.
Why make an exception for women ?
Because the law says so. Gender is a protected class.
Why don't the non-assertive men get a raise too ?
Because they are not a legally protected class. If you want to change that, write your congressperson. Good luck.
What if you give a raise to anybody who performs exceptionally well, and that happens to result in more men getting a raise ?
If you can back up that claim with objective evidence, it is legal.
Beyond that, they can look at things like qualifications, time at the company, projects worked on, and annual reviews. It's imperfect, but also far better than doing nothing.
Brace yourself for people claiming that the review process is sexist.
What if a company determines salary by a completely objective method, independent of gender, that results in a systematic difference between men and women ?
If your hiring process results in a systematic difference in pay between equally qualified men and women, then you are breaking the law.
The process does not make it illegal. The end result does.
I mean, the company's mission statement is literally to compile ALL of the information in the world. But their own pay roll is too hard for them. That's funny.
This may surprise you, but it is illegal to systematically pay women less than men holding the same job position.
If that can be shown from the data (and it most likely can, or Google wouldn't be trying to hide the data), then Google is in for a world of hurt.
Thanks for the links. According to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, there are plenty of legal ways to pay women less than men, as long as it isn't based directly on sex.
"(d) (1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.
It doesn't say anything about negotiations.
The review process can be problematic too, but it is possible to review the review process to determine that.
Anti-feminists want you to think that bias is undetectable and that all methods of evaluating it are flawed. They would prefer we didn't even try, it seems.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
With the possible exception of "Eat lead", "There can be only one", and other similar sentiments....
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
>>Google Says It's Too Expensive To Get Wage Data
Yeah.
Google.
Doesn't know how to get data efficiently.
Google.
Yeah.
aaaaaaa
WHAT????
I think that pretty much says YES, they must do the governments bidding. At least in this instance.
If your hiring process results in a systematic difference in pay between equally qualified men and women, then you are breaking the law.
If they used a 'completely objective method, independent of gender', and they find a systematic difference, then they must not be equally qualified.
It exists as an artificial person, and as such the courts have extended certain rights to artificial persons. The government has only those rights the body public, by way of the constitution granted it. The people hold the body of rights inalienable, the government must beg for them. And what we grant the government must be applied uniformly without bias, and when some taking is required it must be funded. If the government wants the information, they must pay google to obtain it.
Aspies are not a legally protected class.
They are in the UK. It's a learning disability.
Isn't ad hominem literally sexist?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If they used a 'completely objective method, independent of gender', and they find a systematic difference, then they must not be equally qualified.
If that "systematic difference" is objectively related to their ability or qualifications to perform their jobs, it is legal. Otherwise it is not.
Workplace discrimination is a civil offence, not a criminal offense. That means that cases are decided on the preponderance of the evidence, and not on "beyond a reasonable doubt", and there is no ban on self-incrimination during civil discovery. So if you think you can justify your policies to a judge or jury as nondiscriminatory, then go for it. Just keep really detailed records (something Google apparently didn't do) and either study the relevant law, or talk to an employment law attorney.
I think that pretty much says YES, they must do the governments bidding. At least in this instance.
They still have the right to argue that they've already complied with the law, or that further demands are overly burdensome. They may be wrong, in which case their objections will be overruled, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.
This sounds like the kind of thing that should be given to an Analytics company. Preferably one that knows a lot of details about everyone on the planet. Seriously, experience? Skill Level? I'll bet you Google could correlate the breakfast its employees eat to their coding style, let alone such basic things you suggest which are stored in a company database somewhere and can be sucked out by an intern with 5min of SQL.
I've answered your question,
Where ?
If you're systematically paying equally skilled and qualified people in the same role different amounts which correlate with gender then you are doing something illegal.
Wrong. The law, assuming that you're talking about the Equal Pay Act of 1963, forbids a discrimination based on gender. It doesn't say anything about correlation. So, if there's a correlation between gender and skill, you may discriminate based on skill, and end up with a correlation between salary and gender.
Google just announced to advertisers that they have access to 70% of offline retail credit card data, and they are planning to give it up all for better tracking capability... and they are whinning about costs to keep track of data on the wage of their own employees?
Give me a fucking break.
Isn't ad hominem literally sexist?
Not necessarily. Latin homo can, and usually does, stand for "human being" in general. Male and female of the species are vir and mulier, respectively.
This is big stuff in information economics. Liking numbers isn't enough.
People using information theory in business these days, people who read Stiglitz, understand that information as a cost. That is why wages stagnate instead of dropping during a bad recession; it would cost money to find out what the new balance of worker supply/demand is. If you go too far you would lose workers; by the time you get that feedback, you've already received the harm. There is no free warning system.
Same problem here; wages and worker supply is constantly changing, you'd have to do expensive studies on a continuous basis to ever have this information. No employer does that, and none would. It is just asking too much. Like the summary points out, the actual pay at issue is a tiny amount of money and there is no reason for google to avoid paying it. Which is true; they would certainly prefer to have wage fairness! But they also need to be using a pay system based on perceived merit, so that they have healthy feedback loops.
It might actually be better to have government track worker pay across the economy, and provide the wage information that they want businesses to consider in their hiring practices. Each worker is different and has different value, so you need a detailed system to account for what you value in a worker if you're really going to make decisions that would have improved outcomes. It isn't enough to pay based on an underwear check, because the Shapiro-Stiglitz efficiency wage model requires employers to target wages to minimize shirking. In a factory that is easier, but in professional work it requires individualized pay packages. Even if not personalized, you'd need a large number of pay levels that people can be placed at, and so it is effectively the same and will also have the same marginal problems with bias and fairness.
Aspies are not a legally protected class.
They are in the UK. It's a learning disability.
Aspergers is not a learning disability, it is a learning advantage. I am an Aspie. Aspies can tune out distractions, and focus on learning and absorbing knowledge far better than neuro-normals. I have little difficulty memorizing copious quantities of information. I could crush any opponent at Trivial Pursuit, back when people still played it. When coding, I can remember the calling convention of every library routine. I can learn a new language in a weekend well enough to debug other people's programs. I seem to be able to juggle information in my mind better than my coworkers, and when I pair program they often ask me to type slower so they can keep up.
We may be at a social disadvantage, and we may be at a disadvantage in jobs that require social skills, but we generally do not have a problem learning technical skills or performing jobs with objective requirements, and those tend to be the jobs that pay well.
If that "systematic difference" is objectively related to their ability or qualifications to perform their jobs, it is legal.
Ok, that's settled then.
That means that cases are decided on the preponderance of the evidence,
Which should still be provided by the claimant.
Just keep really detailed records (something Google apparently didn't do)
I'm sure they did, but a smart defense is multi-layered. If you can stop the claim early with some bullshit objections, then this is preferred.
I agree with what you said, but it might not be realistic for businesses to do that review themselves for various reasons from confirmation bias, to the high price of information and the lack of economies of scale for that information.
we generally do not have a problem learning technical skills or performing jobs with objective requirements, and those tend to be the jobs that pay well.
And Aspergers is about 4 times more common in men than in women....
That part of it, sure. You reduce the value of the employee to you to a rating number for that employee, and then put in their pay, and you do that for all your employees and google tells you who you're over/under paying.
The problem is that the bias is rolled into step one, where you have to rate the value of each employee. There is nothing about teasing that out that is similar to monitoring your searching and browsing to predict your interests. Google knows exactly what you searched for and what you eventually clicked on, but their algorithm makes no attempt at all to figure out why. And that why is the whole problem in this case.
Math is easy, but thinking is harder.
Why make an exception for women ? Why don't the non-assertive men get a raise too ?
But if your policy of "give anyone a raise if and only if they ask for one" results in systematically different pay for equally qualified men and women, you are breaking the law.
If you are only giving raises to men who ask for it, and you give them to all women, to keep the averages the same, you are discriminating the non-assertive men based on their gender, which is illegal.
and can be sucked out by an intern with 5min of SQL.
I've worked that project, on the cleanup crew that was fixing it after 3 years of effort by the original team followed by 2 years of effort by the first cleanup crew.
The answer is, you throw away all the code written in the previous 5 years, admit that the problem is hard, and start over with a code architecture that attempts to encompass the actual complexity of the use case.
Nothing is solved with 5 minutes of SQL. And honestly, 5 hours of SQL takes less time to write once you realize that the time prediction accuracy affects the outcome. But SQL isn't going to tell you whose annual review misrepresents their value to the company because the reviewer had subconscious biases.
Sadly all jobs require social skills and anybody that wants to pursue a career beyond programming kind of needs them.
There are also significant differences in how Aspergers impacts people. Some people can mask their social skill gap, others are defined by it. A support group I used to attend had people present that could barely function in society - they had council appointed carers with them.
So although it may not be preventing you achieving success and being happy, it is recognised as a disability and that does grant a level of protection under UK law.
As an example, a lady with Aspergers has asked her employer to grant her permission to use the disabled toilets so that she doesn't have to cope with the noise of the hand dryers in the female toilets. In UK law that's considered a 'reasonable accommodation' and can make a massive difference to her quality of life and ability to contribute at work.
It’s not Google’s fault. They tried to honour the government’s request, they really did.
It went like this:
“Google Assistant, what are the wages of female employees versus those of male employees at Google?”
“I’m sorry, Sundar, I’m afraid I can’t do that, it would be too expensive and burdensome to produce.”
I made it 3 years without one, until my parents realized they wanted to send me to public school and they filed a Delayed Birth Registration.
Truly it's delightful to watch the filthy baizou eat one another alive.
Another tech guy afraid of getting numbers. The numbers will show what the numbers will show. What's the matter - stats scare you in school? Or was it girls?
Yes, the numbers will show that they didn't discriminate and as the original poster stated no one will care and still not believe the numbers.
OR
The numbers will show that there is some descrepency and they will get raked over the fires even if there are legitimate reasons behind the difference.
So basically by giving away their data, it can not possibly help them and could possibly hurt them. There is no win here for google.
It has been my experience that any significant bias is already known and an accepted part of the culture, not some well-intentioned effort unknowingly failing to be fair.
And the review processes are usually HR bullshit. And the people pushing them use bad logic and misleading stats to push an agenda.
What you really need is to have a company not run by assholes... or given how rare that is, at least a company whose particular brand of assholes aren't sexist.
Just look at the pay disparities from the Sony leaks. Shitty male stars making as much or more than top drawer women. There is no way in hell that Adam Sandler was worth $20 million for Jack and Jill.
So assuming that your statement is true. Why do you think a company would pay one actor more than a different actor? Are they doing it out of the goodness of their heart? Do they need the male actor more? Is the male actor better at negotiating? Is the male actor demanding more? In Hollywood, top name male and female actors are free agents. They negotiate their contracts and decide whether they want to work a particular job. Even more so than google employees, top name actors can easily say no to anyone they want so if males are getting paid more than females it's likely because the females are not demanding more or aren't walking when their demands are not being met. There are other reasons like there is a larger pool of good female actors so they are easily replaced, etc... but nowhere is it sexism. Supply/demand is actually a lot of the pay disparity that you see combined with men being willing to optimize their career for money while women tend to optimize their career more for work/life balance and less for money.
And yet.. nobody can find evidence of wage gaps within an employer.
The internet should be full of examples. There should be dozens or hundreds just from the Fortune 500 companies alone.
Yet.. there isn't. There are isolated individual cases. There is bullshit about total career earnings, or comparisons between contact centre staff and board members.
Fuck this shit. I'm bored with it. I get paid less than my peers and I'm doing something about it: I'm quitting and getting another job. I'm not bitching about the fact that one of them is a different skin colour or that another is female, I'm doing something constructive about the situation.
has a tag line of not being evil
That was like 10 years ago, when the other guy was in charge. Remember that, when they had a change of leadership and said they were going to run it like a normal company? They dropped that tagline.
The law does not concern itself with how you choose to set wages. If you're systematically paying equally skilled and qualified people in the same role different amounts which correlate with gender then you are doing something illegal.
It's really simple, and the law does not concern itself with why you're doing it.
False. See the Equal Pay Act of 1963 Section d, Paragraph 1:
No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.
The law very much does care why there are differences in pay.
YES, they must do the governments bidding. At least in this instance.
No, no, that isn't it. They don't have to do the Government's bidding; the Government is offering the contracts, and soliciting the bids. Google has to do their own bidding. And that bidding is on government contracts, so they might desire to qualify to win.
You think Google has a single HR database?
You think the HR database includes details on experience in previous jobs at other companies?
You think the HR database contains actual take-home pay information?
You think the HR database tracks hours worked?
I don't.
It is illegal to systematically pay equally qualified men and women differently.
Exactly, and since they're not doing that, they don't have information about why there might still be a difference anyway.
If they had a mind-reading machine, they could just scan the HR department and find out who had exercised a bias.
Traditionally, the company is informed that there is a problem by the employee, who provides some of the information. When there is a complaint in an actual instance, they have something they can look into. Here, they're being asked some really general questions that encompass things outside the knowledge of mortals. And it would be expensive to conduct a retrospective "best guess" analysis that purported to contain the information. For the same reason; there is no actual complaint. That's why the company is refusing; they're saying that it is a search. And there is required process for searches. And other companies aren't required to provide the same information.
Google will win this round, it is an investigation started by the government as part of routine compliance, and if they want something special they'll have to do a different type of investigation. They may not even have the legal authority to do the type of investigation they're trying to do. By "they" I mean, the actual office full of humans doing the investigation.
In the end, the Government will do the investigation from the correct office and/or with the correct paperwork, and they'll win that because Google is one of the biggest US Government contractors.
Google knows the exact timing, weight, what I was doing the prior 20 minutes, and composition of my turds (and how long it takes me to flush the toilet - after sniffing the fine aroma), and they can't get wag data on their female employees?
Bullshit.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Estrogens also result in increased strength and muscle mass, same fashion testosterone does. But unlike testosterone, it doesn't give rise to unstable emotions, it actually reduces them. And also unlike testosterone, it increases lifespan by 3 years over women who aren't on HRT for menopause. Studies done on male volunteers with just a single 4mg estrogen patch showed a calming influence without any increase in emotional instability.
The "well-documented effect on all manner of behaviours" is bullshit if you're implying a negative effect. It's down to women having to put up with bullshit like having to do an unequal share of work around the house despite supposedly being "equal partners" (20 hours for women each week, vs 8 hours for men) and putting up with job and pay discrimination.
Yes, there is a difference between the sexes - women do a better job. If you want to live longer, get a woman for a doctor. Women doctors are statistically better listeners. Being a better listener means getting more information before making a judgement call. Male doctors also tend to take complaints of pain from women and children less seriously than from men. And let's not forget the "man cold." Suck it up the same as women do, buttercup.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
3D scan of every tree on Earth? Done.
One DB-query with a few `SELECT`, `COUNT` and `SUMS`? Too hard for Google, sorry!
Google's core competency is processing huge amounts of data... so why can't they compile a spreadsheet?
Somehow, this DoL request it "too much" for their data-analysis engineers to handle? I thought you guys were good with data, Google. Are you publicly proclaiming incompetency?
Sadly all jobs require social skills
There are plenty of jobs that don't require much. Accountants benefit from a neurotic focus on details, and their lack of social skills is often at programmer levels. Most Aspies can fake it well enough to get by in normal day-to-day social interactions. Many of my co-workers knew me for a long time before they finally realized I was weird. For instance, someone at my company died, and since I barely knew him, it didn't affect me emotionally, and I failed to display a socially acceptable amount of despondency.
people present that could barely function in society
Aspergers is defined as high-functioning autism, so someone this dysfunctional probably shouldn't be diagnosed as an Aspie.
Have women do the compliance work to catch up with the ongoing demands. That way it will only cost $70,000.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Seriously read the post. What part of "equally skilled" in my post was unclear?
You're trying to find excuses for why this law doesn't exist, but the only way of doing it is to completely ignore the inconvenient bits of my posts that you don't like.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
> Do no harm! That's their motto!
It was actually "Don't be evil". There's an important moral and social distinction.
If you study the google a bit, it seems obvious to me (after reading many of those books) that the extreme incentive policies could easily create the appearance of gender discrimination that reflect actual compensation results. To summarize briefly, if a particular googler is involved in an extremely successful project, then that googler will get obscenely more money than others, even though they are doing the same kind of work. I don't think this favors men because they are inherently more skilled, harder workers, or even luckier. The two most likely causes are related to gender, however: Willingness to take extreme risks and prioritization of work over life. On that basis, I think has two primary secrets they are trying to conceal here:
(1) How they protect losers from failure because they want to encourage risky behaviors. (And even with that insurance, I think women are more risk averse on average.)
(2) That work-life balance at the google is really a lie and the company is dominated in every way (including in compensation) by workaholics.
The strong incentive pay just makes it look worse and might make the google look more EVIL than it is. If that is possible. Makes me sad how the unbounded love of money turned the good google into such a monster. The motto of today's google: "All your attention are belong to us."
The ultimate threat is when people realize that all of the world's information has been prioritized to the BS info the advertisers are paying the google to shove down our throats by abusing our privacy and by raping our personal information. All in a futile quest to solve an unsolvable problem. There is no biggest number and there is no profit that is big enough to "solve" super-greed.
As usual, today's Slashdot has been disappointing, though at least it isn't evil as we measure the google. In particular I lament the lack of funny comments. However I just got the weird idea for units of EVIL measured in googlevils? Should be shorter, but something along those lines.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
It's impossible to show when there is so much scientific bullshit around, they use statistical evidence and scientific consensus to declare you guilty of thought crime. There is no defence possible except to just give undeserving women bullshit jobs and raises till the statistics line up with what the scientific consensus hold they should be. Then soon you have to do it for every other protected class and then the economy and freedom dies, hello communism.
Prohibitions against discrimination by private citizens were a mistake ... the road to hell and all that.
What the? This is a government reportable, not a money making product. You do the bare minimum and if it doesn't work you claim the "well we tried" card.
But SQL isn't going to tell you whose annual review misrepresents their value to the company because the reviewer had subconscious biases.
That's also not what the government is asking for, and rule one of providing things to the government: Never provide more than you absolutely have to.
Exception to rule 1: Provide absolutely everything and hope they never find what you didn't want them to see in the first place.
The numbers will show one thing, political correct "science" that they can only mean there is systemic discrimination. Google will be punished, because when it concerns political correctness it suddenly becomes perfectly correct to judge based on group identification and statistics. It's only bad when the evil x*ists do it.
Reality has a systematic bias, while social "sciences" have a systematic bias towards being retarded.
An unfortunate combination when they get to give evidence to judge you of thought crime.
That's already factored into the contract. This just ends of being "the cost of doing business". Unless there's a clause where Google gets compensated, all they have is a duty to perform. Otherwise they will be in breach.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Corporation is not a person. Never was really. The idea that it is is just bad jurisprudence taken too far.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
What government? Google is incorporated in Delaware.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The fact that a corporation can even be empowered to exist is an extra power of government that may are may not be ultimately legitimate.
It's like how intellectual property is allowable but not mandatory.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Ever heard of forgeries?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Man, those women who get pregnant for 2 years must be pretty pissed off.
Just how do you propose that a world could exist without ignorance? For one thing, omniscience is impossible. For another, everyone is born with almost no mental content.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Pregnant 9 months, motherhood leave another year or more depends where you work.
Don't be intentionally obtuse. It's neither acute nor right.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Another tech guy afraid of getting numbers. The numbers will show what the numbers will show. What's the matter - stats scare you in school? Or was it girls?
I'm confused... Can't he be afraid of both?
Sounds like you're trying to recreate the time period, just with the genders reversed, and without women having to pay the price that men did of dying overseas in warfare. Any system that punishes only women earning less than men is really a system that says women must be paid more because they're women.
For Google to provide data that does not make them look bad, they'd need to provide a great deal of information from personnel files, such things as performance reviews and reprimands. That sort of data is properly considered company confidential and could leave Google open to a host of lawsuits (such as for libel) if the data were released.
The Department of Labor (being union stooges) is trying to harm Google. No other fact is necessary to understand the DoL's motivation.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You misunderstand. Nowhere did they say they can't do it. They said it takes time and money and won't do it.
Now that is poor.
Is that deliberate? It sure is funny.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Because they're exempt. I get it.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
You'll be disappointed that Jack and Jill probably isn't in Sandler's 5 worst movies. Jim Carrey made $20 million on Cable Guy and $400k on Ace Ventura. Ace Ventura considered much more successful. But if you think pay matches the end result, you don't get how things work. Other than factory work, there's very little that a person's character doesn't influence the quality of work output. One side wants to pay the least to get the talent they want. The agent for the talent negotiates based on previous experience to get the most it can get. Art is fucking subjective. What some people pay millions for wouldn't be worth toilet paper to others. It's the same thing in any job that isn't identical. Also, getting paid the same as someone who does an inferior job is hard on job satisfaction. You need pay imbalance to reflect better talent. Being forced to be paid ONLY because of gender is sexism.
A steady dose of 17-beta-estradiol (say about 2 milligrams a day) will cause depression in most otherwise healthy males. I suppose depression is "stable", but it isn't healthy.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I'm male. I fucking hate housework. I pay someone to do that for me. All cleaners who've ever worked for me have been female. There was never an opportunity to hire male, not that I would have anyway. Growing up, I lived where there was a lot of stay at home mom's. The best ones had energy coming out their asses, cooking, cleaning, looking great. All the dad's were the type to eat big meals and relax and not full of energy. I've met at least a dozen women in my life who've said they enjoy cooking and cleaning. I've met ZERO men who've said the same. Cooking yes, cleaning a big fuck no. My friend makes 6 figures a year. He'll buy a lot of things that would be cheaper to make, but it's not worth the time. His wife might also make 6 figures. She's a nurse who is also getting her masters. She refuses to allow her husband to pay a cleaner to clean up despite how tired and busy they both are. One of his hours would pay for 5 hours of cleaning and free up more time for them to spend together, but she put her foot down.
Have you ever seen a woman work an 80 hour week? I haven't.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Nobody says men are not getting paid more than women. The claim is that corrected by equal performance, the salary breach isn't as big and might just be attributed to agreeableness. Women on average are much more agreeable that men, and agreeableness makes you suck at negotiations/confrontations. It's not patriarchy. Just psychology and capitalism. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
I also don't know why you try to build a strawman. Nobody forces women to be howsekeepers. It's up to them to pursue a career and/or build family. And the responsibility distribution between couples never was supposed to be equal. It's up to each to figure out the rules of their relationships.
I'd like to see the HR document that shows anyone systematically paying women less.
I can't negotiate. I got paid less than I should have for years. The only time I asked and got what I want, I had the upper hand. I found out what other people got paid in the company years later and it was much, much higher than I expected. These were people who I noticed took the hardest negotiations (ie, just stopped showing up for work until his terms were met). These were also people who took all the credit and threw every one else under the bus, sometimes in comically bad ways.
This sounds ideal for women who supposedly "don't negotiate as much" because they're afraid of being "perceived as bossy" or whatever is the latest memetic hypothetical.
It's not a memetic hypotetical. Agreeableness is a measurable personality trait. On average women are more agreeable than men and there is a negative correlation between agreeableness and salary reproduced in multiple studies. Granted, that agreeableness affects salary negotiations the hypothesis to explain such correlation. http://digitalcommons.ilr.corn...
On the other hand, the insights you bring on Google's salary management are really interesting.
So if more women get larger raises than men by threatening to leave, that won't be legal, either? What the actual fuck ?
That works fine if your job is packing widgets into boxes in a widget factory, but it is of no use to professionals. There just isn't a magical Bean-counter In The Sky to keep track of who did how much work, and which part of the work was more important to the project, and who appeared to do more work because they made more mistakes that they had to fix.
You thought management was trivial, but you were wrong.
Prohibitions against discrimination by private citizens were a mistake ... the road to hell and all that.
Waiting for the individual state gov'ts and individual county gov'ts and individual city gov'ts to do the right thing and live up to their obligations under the Constitution was a failed experiment for decade after decade after decade. The price of continued rampant discrimination was simply too high. Widespread business discrimination were proven as effective in working hand in hand to maintain a system of widespread government discrimination. The whole swamp needed to be drained, instead of putting a bandaid on the literally millions of wrong individual actions.
4 to 8 milligrams a day does wonders for your mood. And you'll live longer, which is a bonus. Estrogen is a powerful anti-depressant. Of course, you may or may not be happy with the physical changes, but look at it this way - you won't have to worry about getting someone pregnant after a while, and you'll be less likely to die of coronary diseases or stroke. Stroke is an ugly way to go because it often takes so long that you might prefer to be dead.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You don't get what you deserve in life, you get what you settle for. Ipso facto, the women are settling for lower rates of pay. The women need to learn to negotiate more effectively.
No, it'll kill Google.
I was reading the comments from the top down.
I'm trying to figure out how your comment is a response to the previous post. What exactly was the point of your comment and who was it directed to? Are you attacking Rockoon or something in the original article? Or was it just a failed joke or pun about the equality issues?
I agree! The usefulness of the data is even questionable and too simple to provide anything beyond correlation and conjecture. The $100 000 is probably given as a number, because the data they produce should be more advanced than just DeptA -> M vs F, Dept B -> M vs F. More variables should be included, such as the experience, education and effectiveness(productivity) of these workers. What you get paid in salaried positions that are negotiable is a function of your ability to negotiate and the HR person you are negotiating with's responsiveness to that. It also depends on what you have to offer obviously(experience, domain knowledge, your references, etc). How do you quantify these variables? If it is shown to correlate, the cause would be hard to determine. Is it caused by the effectiveness of males vs females to negotiate, or is it caused by HR's lack of response to the same input from potential female candidates? Or is it caused by disparities in experience and qualifications. Anyone could conjecture all day long as to the causes, but that's all it would be; conjecture. This could only be offset by richer data. Even then, there are so many unquantifiable variables involved. The resultant correlation, if shown, could be seen as a microcosm of what happens in the wider world. It would fail to show a "systematic" cause, i.e. Google purposely did this. As far as the costs are concerned, just because a company makes a lot of money, doesn't mean that money has less value.
DoL attorney Ian Eliasoph scoffed at the company's defense, saying, "Google would be able to absorb the cost as easy as a dry kitchen sponge could absorb a single drop of water."
Sure, they could absorb the $100,000 processing cost, but I'll bet they don't want to absorb the cost of all the lawsuits and settlements that will result from that!
I don't disagree that it should be illegal
One of us may be lost in the above-quoted triple negative... Last I heard such a construct was Pinocchio trying to answer a question while betraying Shreck by neither his words nor his nose...
The use of litotes, even when it's the simplest way of expressing an idea, is now a sign of deception?
Pay can differ based on performance and qualifications.
The difficulty many people are having with this topic is even many of the people claiming there is systematic bias give different criteria for how pay can differ. Most are saying only performance, but here you add qualifications. The question on the minds of those who question this bias is how employee retention and acquisition strategies can legally impact salary.
Sometimes it takes more money to keep certain employees. This could be to encourage them to relocate, work on less desirable projects, or whatever reason. Paying these employees extra has little if nothing to do with performance and qualifications, but many of these reasons would still seems to be a very fair and rational. Unfortunately they nearly all depend on negotiation with individual employees, and if one gender tends to do better in these negotiations a wage gap will appear.
Many people on this thread have a problem with not allowing companies to pay employees what is required to attain or retain them. They also have a problem forcing companies to pay more than is required to attain or retain employees. Unfortunately at least one of these would probably be necessary to remove the type of systematic gender bias you are talking about.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Anti-feminists want you to think that bias is undetectable and that all methods of evaluating it are flawed. They would prefer we didn't even try, it seems.
You don't have to be anti-anything to see that a major part of the issue is that some of the more 'enthusiastic' feminists are quite happy to lie about statistics, even when they're easily disproved: "Full time women make 78% of what full time men make" is true, but they have to add "for the same job!" which makes it false. Twisting the results of possibly useful studies into "1 in 3 men would rape it they could get away with it" and "25% of college women are raped". With a single false story Rolling Stone set back the campus anti-rape movement more than almost anything else possibly could have.
If members of a movement make false statements, and double down on them when called out, they have no-one to blame but themselves when other people start assuming that a request for information is just a prelude to a smear campaign. Unfortunately, then only way to fix that is for the less emotionally-invested members to put pressure on the others to stick to the truth.
There is plenty of proof that men get paid more, moron.
Nobody in this thread disputed that.
Proof that there is no pay bias? Hah!
There have been plenty of studies that looked at the wage gap and found that after adjusting for things like hours worked, travel/commute, work environment (indoor/outdoor), and non-financial perks there is only a 2-6% gap left unexplained - roughly the same as the difference between right and left handed people, tall and short men, and other gaps that we know exist but don't care about. And because every single time there was a trade-off to be made men were more likely than women to choose the extra money, it's quite possible that the remaining gap can be explained by some other factor that hasn't been accounted for.
Hey moron ... Open your mind to facts instead of mindlessly believing shit? ... And it doesn't end at work ... Just another reason men die younger. Women get fed up and leave, and they lose their "built-in housekeeper" and can't fend for themselves. ... Or did you think that clean underwear magically picked itself off the floor where you left it, jumped into the washing machine, and snuck back into your dresser? You don't see the disparity because you're so used to it everywhere that you've become blind to it.
Someone asked someone else for evidence, and you responded with a series of bland insults, changed the subject, and went on a rant. The only positive thing I can say about this is that I prefer that bigots be open about their prejudice, and for that I thank you.
On the other hand, this rage against half the human race can't be good for you or the men around you. Please get help.
Calling names is a poor substitute for comprehension.
If it sounds "intentionally obtuse" there is a very large probability that you didn't understand. Much more likely than it being intentionally stupid. Which actually should be obvious, but then, both systems are self-reinforcing.
From what I hear you even have to pay the US government for the honour of renouncing your citizenship, otherwise the IRS will try to tax you on earnings outside the US, regardless of your residency.
It almost sounds like you're indentured to the government.
I completely agree with what you say, but seeing a Daily Mail link always makes me a little dubious as their reputation for misinterpreting facts and numbers precedes then.
"The only positive thing I can say about this is that I prefer that bigots be open about their prejudice, and for that I thank you."
I like that one. It'll compliment my "free speech is a wonderful tool - it provides bigots the rope from which they can hang themselves"
Government agencies keep detailed records on salary and promotions. This information includes information such as race, age, years in grade before promotion, etc. Commercial companies owe it to their workforce to do the same
Here's another possible explanation for "why the technology corporation appears to be systematically discriminating against women": When someone's job is to find possible instances of something, they're apt to find it. Its actual existence is irrelevant to that quest. Appearance is enough.
Could be Google (or rather, some specific person in Google, or group of people) is doing exactly what what the government says. Which would be detrimental to the company, of course, because: (1) they could get caught and there could be negative impacts to its reputation as a firm and as an employer, (2) even if not caught it diminishes the company's ability to hire the best available people for positions.
Once the data is in the hands of the government, they are free to cherry-pick and misinterpret (perhaps innocently, perhaps not -- bureaucrats are people, too) and otherwise make their case.
A smaller company likely would simply knuckle under, regardless of the merits of the claim. Instances of the federal government have to pay serious consequences for being wrong are pretty rare. I suspect instances of that happening to the bureaucrats are even rarer.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
you keep using the word "systematic" i know its a buzz word these days, but it really seems you dont quite understand it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If you were logged in you'd realize just how stupid your comment is. I recommend all women discuss HRT (hormone replacement therapy) with their doctor if they're perimenopausal or postmenopausal. Combined with exercise, it reverses the age-related decline in muscle mass and strength, and the added muscle tone improves both posture and balance. Great way to avoid dowager's hump from a deteriorating spine, as well as helping to avoid bone fractures from falls. And if you do fall, your bones are less likely to break because it limits bone demineralization. Throw in the benefits in reduced risk of heart attacks, strokes, delayed dementia, and most cancers, so what's not to like?
BTW, slide 23 is wrong. The risk of blood clots, cancer, heart attack and stroke is only if you have an idiot doctor who prescribes premarin (horse estrogens) and progestins. Estradiol alone decreases all these risks, adding an average of 3 years to your lifespan - and those years are of better quality.
350,000 people fracture their hips every year as their bones demineralize, and 20% of them die within a year. If HRT can lower that risk, on top of all the other benefits, it's about time people got over the bs scare tactics of the Women's Health Initiative (which used only horse hormones), which have since been disproven. And yet almost 2 decades later, the message is still slow to get out.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Don't payroll systems have some sort of grade/level field? To use an [armoured] car analogy, at least you'd know who was a private and who was a general.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What? You've never heard of LOC/day?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If the money and time is too much for Google to come up with, then perhaps they could ask their own employees to volunteer the vaunted 5% free time of their own to get the data. Perhaps all 17 women who work there will vounteer ;-)
Oh my, you mean the SJW initiatives Google has been fostering are now starting to backfire on them? The problem with this sort of data is that it will -only- look at the numbers. It won't factor in things like attendance, work reviews, overtime worked, wage negotiations...it's never a case of 'the numbers will show what the numbers will show' in the case of this sort of data request. In order to gain an exact idea of WHY those numbers exist, you have to look into those other factors as well. You can't just say 'but but but SEXISM.'
You don't have to be anti-anything to see that a major part of the issue is that some of the more 'enthusiastic' feminists are quite happy to lie about statistics, even when they're easily disproved:
So? Some of the most enthusiastic anti-feminists and MGTOWs are also prepared to lie about statistics and completely make shit up. If you only focus on the nuttiest people you can find, then you will find that everyone you look at is incredibly nutty.
If members of a movement make false statements,
You can dismiss literally any movement, no matter how sensible, with that. Anything large enough to be a movement is large enough to attract at least one total nutcase. Even if the proportion is low in terms of raw numbers any large movement will have a lot of nutcases.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Perhaps I should have said 'wilfull ignorance' for those of you too hung up on literal dictionary definitions to get the meaning from the context.
Exactly, and since they're not doing that,
How do you know? You seem very sure.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Try harder. Think of it as an IQ test.
Not for total compensation, only for base pay. That won't address a disparity, because the most variable part of pay is bonuses.
What? You've never heard of LOC/day?
I stopped reading The Daily WTF years ago, but it appears they are still going.
We run weekly pay reports and we wouldn't have the resources Google have.
> What the? This is a government reportable, not a money making product. You do the bare minimum and if it doesn't work you claim the "well we tried" card. If you do the bare minimum, and it doesn't work by making it look like you discriminate by gender when in reality there are more complex reasons for the apparent disparity that you could've shown with actual effort, not only have you failed, you've probably screwed yourself harder than if you told them to kindly shove it. One does not fuck around when asked for important data, especially when the results of that report can screw you over and the person asking has the power to do that screwing (the DoL).
Or you could write more clearly.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yes, the anti-government "militia", all on welfare, shows government ID to collect their food stamps. But hates the government and taxes, but don't touch my food stamps or medicaid.
Learn to love Alaska
Nope. I'm alive, regardless of whether I have a piece of paper from the government to prove it. The corporation exists solely as a piece of paper from the government.
Learn to love Alaska
Nope. You only need to pay to renounce citizenship if the IRS thinks the renunciation is related to avoiding US income tax, or if you are "selling" US income to your non-US self.
If someone with no assets and little income were to renounce, nobody would ever care, and there's no fee to do so.
Learn to love Alaska
And yet statistics (which I cited) say you're the one who is full of shit. Deal with it, Donald!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You seem to forget that Amazon is nipping at their heels. If google lowers their pay, they can easily leave.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Google signed a contract in which they agreed to give the government the data. Telling the government to, as you put it, fuck off isn't going to fly. Breech of contract opens them up to more lawsuits.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Definitely heard of it, for sure. There's no particular reason to think it has much to do with programming performance.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
What utter nonsense. With all the resources, money google has? I hope they realize this is like pissing in the wind. Now it's all over them. The Judge should have a field day with them.
*ONLY* 100,000$ to wipe out all doubt about accusations relating to underpaying women (if Google's line of reasoning is right) - that's a massive bargain! It would cause tens of millions worth of public relations damage if they didn't do that... lame, transparent excuse.
Individual cases are hardly the massive discrimination at scale that keeps being described.
I'm no SJW but it seems to me that the difference between what men and women are paid to do identical work is a Real Thing,
Got any evidence to support that? Because I've been hearing this for years but am yet to see one solid piece of evidence to back it up. The lack of data speaks volumes.
There is plenty of proof that men get paid more, moron.
Well that's a bit harsh...
Or don't you know how to do a search? Open your mind to facts instead of mindlessly believing shit?
Alright, get ready for the facts, I can't wait...
Proof that there is no pay bias? Hah!
Ok I'm losing confidence now...
And it doesn't end at work. Just look at...
Wait. What?
This was your big opportunity to present the facts, and you ranted on about housework instead?
Pleased do a better search because that was rubbish. The gender pay gap myth continues....
Ok, I wasn't aware of that. It's still slightly dubious. As an Irish emigrant I'm not required to pay tax back on foreign earnings back in Ireland, so have no need to relinquish my citizenship.
...Big Data was just a scam ;-) #voteFortran
He was a man who didn't know the meaning of the word "fear"; or the meaning of many other words longer than 3 letters
Most minorities are routinely discriminated against, but you mostly hear about individual cases, so your logic isn't valid in the real world.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Obviously I do. Prove me wrong - post from an account (and not one just made up a few moments ago).
Oh, since you're obviously a bit thick between the ears, this challenge is what's called "troll bait."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Last I looked, the USA was the only country that taxed non-resident citizens. Inconsistently and unfairly, at that (depending on where you earn it, and the sources of income, it's so complicated, most non-residents don't pay taxes, and hope they never get noticed).
Learn to love Alaska
Thank you for the compliment.
Our former President used it.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This attitude is why we have the government we do. The government requires authority derived from their constitutionally granted powers and passed legislation that complies with the constitution. To allow arbitrary uncompensated requests means the government could burden a company to the point they couldn't compete or they went bankrupt complying. So, the grandson vernment needs to compensate google if they can legitimately request the information. Unfunded mandates are a tool to control and manipulate entities.
Speaking of unfunded mandates, perhaps we should take a closer look at how much Google has paid into their tax burden for the billions they make as a US company. Offshore tax havens and bullshit loopholes created by the uber-rich affect the average taxpayer a hell of a lot more than this, which is nothing more than a mega-corp whining about a burden they can easily afford.
I'm not familiar with US law,
And yet you're arguing about it.
The law doesn't care and judges don't like smart arses. If you are systematically paying women with the job relevant skills in the same roles different amounts then it's illegal.
Wrong. If you are systematically offering women with relevant skills a job in the same roles [as men] different amounts then it's illegal.
Judges aren't going to bat an eye if you show them offer letters that all start at the same amount.
Do you want negotiation to be made illegal? Should companies refuse candidates that ask for more?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Aspies are not a legally protected class.
I think the Americans with Disabilities Act disagrees with you.
I believe it's now "autism spectrum disorder", which is rather sweeping, covering people from me to those who simply will never be able to function even semi-independently. I don't know where the "high-functioning" line is. It might be the line between can live independently and needs lifelong help (and I've got a relative on the wrong side of that line).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Gender bias is complicated. It's hard for some people to treat men and women strictly equally. If a manager has this deep-down belief that men accomplish more than women, that could bias the manager in handing out raises, completely unconsciously, but illegally.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
80-hour-weeks are not a good idea, and a worker's productivity will decrease fairly fast on that schedule. Paying people more because they work more, as opposed to paying people more because they get more done, is stupid.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This, frankly, is where Google's objections lie: how much would it cost to find those differences? How much to have outsiders vet them? Salary data is trivial to obtain, something I'm sure the plaintiffs are very aware of, and which animates a good bit of the sniping at Google on this thread. The difficulties lie in why they differ between the sexes. That gets into a host of issues the plaintiffs would likely rather ignore, things like women's preferences for more time off and flexible work hours.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Prove it!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It isn't for positions that aren't paid bonuses ever or received no bonus(es) for a particular time period. For those that are, bonuses probably are seldom based on individual performance across the company as a whole and are, instead, based on something larger such as department, line of business, and company-wide quarterly or annual performance. In this scenario, the bonus is paid equally across a given role or in a way that correlates to one's base. Still, the data is there, and the math can be done with a simple enough spreadsheet formula.
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
If you don't think bonuses are given out individually for performance, you shouldn't even be entering the conversation on this planet. Go back to your own Universe and argue about this stuff, you're not even from this one.
How is that my problem? Oh wait, it's only a problem for wannabe trolls.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
On the days they did household activities, women spent an average of 2.6 hours on such activities, while men spent 2.1 hours. --On an average day, 22 percent of men did housework--such as cleaning or laundry--compared with 50 percent of women. Forty-three percent of men did food preparation or cleanup, compared with 70 percent of women. Men were slightly more likely to engage in lawn and garden care than were women--12 percent compared with 8 percent.
Women worked around the home more than twice as many days as men, and spent more time each day that they did than men did.
2.6 hours average per day that women did housework, x 3.5 days = 9,1 hours (this does NOT include caring for children or elderly parents, which also falls mostly on women).
2.1 hours per day that men did housework, x 1.54 days per week = 3.234 hours per week. That's way less than half as much. If it's so insignificant, why aren't men doing it. That 50.8 minutes a day extra, 7 days a week, works out to 101 minutes each day that women do housework. Considering the day has 24 hours, and that work takes 8.5 hours, leaving 15.5 hours. Now throw in commute time - 2 hours, leaving 13.5 hours. Let's not forget sleep - 8-3/4 hours according to your chart, leaving 5.25 hours. At some point you have to eat breakfast and supper, say you round down the number on your chart to 1 hour total. That leaves 4.25 hours. Oh, and you have to shower and sh*t, do it quick because you don't have much time, and get dressed and undressed. Your chart gives 40 minutes a day for "personal grooming", but we'll throw in taking a dump, just because we're generous. Leaves you 3.58 hours.
And we still haven't included things like caring for children, parents, etc., helping with homework (which is NOT housework), where the hell do you find almost 2.6 hours for housework every second day? 3.58 hours - 2.6 hours = just under an hour of "free time" to do ALL other things - watch tv, play with the kids, talk to family and friends, nag the hubby for not doing his fair share, etc. An extra 40 minutes would be HUGE.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Obviously it does, or you would be doing something other than trolling women on the internet. What a loser virgin. (Your right hand doesn't count as a sexual partner).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.