Slashdot Mirror
Oracle Systematically Underpaid Thousands of Women, Lawsuit Says (theguardian.com)
Thousands of women were systematically underpaid at Oracle, one of Silicon Valley's largest corporations, according to a new motion in a class-action complaint that details claims of pervasive wage discrimination. From a report: A motion filed in California on Friday said attorneys seek to represent more than 4,200 women and alleged that female employees were paid on average $13,000 less per year than men doing similar work. An analysis of payroll data found disparities with an "extraordinarily high degree of statistical significance," the complaint said. Women made 3.8% less in base salaries on average than men in the same job categories, 13.2% less in bonuses, and 33.1% less in stock value, it alleges.
The civil rights suit comes as the tech industries faces increased scrutiny of gender and racial discrimination, including sexual misconduct, unequal pay and biased workplaces. The case against Oracle, which is headquartered in Redwood Shores and provides cloud computing services to companies across the globe, resembles high-profile litigation against Google, which has also faced repeated claims of systematic wage discrimination.
The civil rights suit comes as the tech industries faces increased scrutiny of gender and racial discrimination, including sexual misconduct, unequal pay and biased workplaces. The case against Oracle, which is headquartered in Redwood Shores and provides cloud computing services to companies across the globe, resembles high-profile litigation against Google, which has also faced repeated claims of systematic wage discrimination.
Correlation is not causation. There is no proof that the inclination is caused by biology, nor the degree of productivity.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal results. There are tons of explanations that could account for the statistical difference that are not discrimination.
I recall reading about a company who's salary decisions were completely made by computer, which never knew anything about gender, and there was still a gender pay-gap. So the computer was "fired" (discontinued, same thing) for being sexist.
That said, it's still possible that there is discrimination going on that should be investigated, but it shouldn't be the default call-back.
A Navajo said it best, IMHO: "It is a sad time we live in where outrage is a recreational activity."
Salary is not simply a function of the job. It also depends on your resume and experience. Seems completely possible to me that a 4% difference could simply be explained by the opportunity cost of maternity leave.
Saves my business a lot of money when our employees will take a huge pay cut.
Correlation is not causation. There is no proof that the pay difference is caused by gender discrimination as opposed to performance.
Study after study has shown that women are biologically less inclined in technology and obviously they would be less productive in a high-tech company
Sorry but that does not logically follow at all. Just because it is rarer for women to be interested in technology it does not mean that those individual women who are interested are any less skilled it just means that there are fewer of them. Your point could explain why Oracle hires more men than women but not why it pays them less.
After college, over a decade ago, I interviewed with them on the consulting side. Their compensation structure was all based around work, work, work, bill, bill, bill leading to bonuses and such. It is precisely the sort of environment where the average woman is going to flame out on compensation because few women are going to want to work 20 hours of unpaid overtime to beef up a quarterly bonus. It's an environment made for workaholic men.
In other words, unless you are one of those people who believe that a workaholic culture is "institutionally sexist," the level of real sexism may very well not pass muster with a federal court.
Single women without dependents make 8% more than their male counterparts with same education and experience across the US, in large cities like Atlanta the pay gap is 21%
Women are 50% more likely to graduate from college.
Politifact rates it Mostly True solely because they can't find more recent statistics that disprove their narrative.
Over time, women (as a statistic) make different choices and prefer life over work. They tend to work less hours, take less overtime, are happier, live longer lives and don't die from work-related accidents or diseases (as in >1 percent of work-related deaths are female), they also make only 1-3% less over their lifetime than males (a statistic that reverses when you account for education and single motherhood) but that 3% makes all the difference as this wealth disparity is pretty much concentrated in the top 1%.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Bingo. Nailed it.
I as a man have no such crutch and had to work hard to obtain valuable skills to allow high negotiated salaries.
Oddly enough all the naysayers were women too. I dropped out of school and was told I was an idiot for going the self taught route.
Fast forward and now it is "unfair" I make more because my self taught way was better than the college all the females were trying to force me to attend.
Technology favors intelligent slackers, get over it.
This is very far from the worse that Oracle has done of course.
In any case, it is certain I'll see those "women are bad at negotiating salaries" comments, from people who have zero understanding of how, well, anything works. If salary negotiation was haggling, women would be fine, they are fine hagglers. But when you apply for a job, the potential employer already has formed his opinion on how much you are worth to them and the job offer will be relative to that. There is some wiggle room, but not enough to cover a $13k discrepancy. And in the end, if the women feel they are worth less, it is also due to the environment, not some innate problem.
And note I don't like the "solution" of preferring someone because they are female or a minority and not because they are better, in an attempt to "balance out" the status quo. It's the "easy way" that causes other problems, not the best way.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
No, correlation is not causation. until a smoking-gun email from Larry Ellison turns up...but Iâ(TM)m sure that never happened..
I choose to be optimistic, perhaps consequence of this mandatory gendered equal pay is that men will be allowed to "lean out" of crazy overtime and weekend hours that have been expected up to this point.
Americans are making 20% less than they used to (article says "Millennials" but I don't know about you but I took a paycut when the economy crashed in 2008).
Men and Women are now fighting among ourselves over 1-3% (a percentage that might just be due to men not taking time off for child rearing) while the ruling class is laughing all the way to the bank with that 20%.
This has been modus operandi for centuries: wedge issues. You find something to divide the working class into manageable chunks. Race, creed, sex. Hell, when the Japanese couldn't do it with race because they were all Japanese they made up classes based on jobs and kept books of them by name.
Don't fall for it. Demand better pay for all workers. Support the push for higher minimum wage. Vote in your primary for pro-Union, pro-worker candidates who refuse corporate PAC money. Demand all workers get healthcare that isn't tied to your job so you can switch jobs at will.
We've got bigger fish to fry than this. Don't get into the trenches with your fellow workers fighting while the rich laugh at you
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
female employees were paid on average $13,000 less per year than men doing similar work
Notice it doesn't say "for the same number of hours"?
I despise fake outrage over alleged sexism accusations coming from people who don't understand statistics. I also despise Oracle. So...
I'm very curious about the validity of the claims, which unfortunately the fine article doesn't not elaborate on. It's not even possible for a 33.1% discrepancy in stock value to be a result of bias, unless they actually mean something else. A 13.2% difference in bonuses could be more interesting - it's very easy to see a discrepancy due to, for example, differences in work-life balance choices, but it could also be a result of subjective factors which opens the door to at least the possibility of bias. Further investigation seems on the surface to be a reasonable response.
A 3.8% difference in pay, if it truly is for equal work (not 'similar', equal), is hardly a crisis of systematic discrimination, but it is too high to dismiss as random variation or differences in negotiating styles, and so would definitely constitute an employment standards violation. If true I hope Oracle gets every legal penalty that's coming to them.
I guess 3.8% doesn't make for a glamorous and shocking headline.
Since wages are a closely guarded secret in the US, that one is not so surprising.
It's more surprising that they should have ended up here.
My guess is they took shortcuts with their gender quotas.
If you have ten times as many male applicants as female, but you want 50% of each gender hires, you have a choice.
One is to throw out, randomly, 9 of 10 male resumes. This ensures, assuming women and men applicants are equally qualified (which we will), that men and women hires will be equally qualified too, by whatever metric they use in their hiring process. On average, of course. This has been established as a legal way to do gender quotas in the US, and AFAIK it's what Google does.
The other is to accept that the average female hire will score worse on whatever metric you use for hiring, but hire them anyway. It can be deliberate, or accidental - for instance, if you cheat by peeking on those 9 in 10 resumes to make sure you don't throw out the very "best" ones, it will be the end result. Even though men and women are equally good, the "best" will likely be a man, since there are just more blue balls in the urn.
If you do this, it probably is illegal gender discrimination, weirdly enough. But against men, so they probably won't get in trouble... unless they evaluate their employees by anything like the formula they use to evaluate resumes (and forget to add a bonus for being female). Then they quickly get into trouble anyway.
To throw out 9 out of ten 10 CVs from men might seem like it would cripple a company, but it doesn't. a) because applicants to these sorts of businesses are likely to be extremely qualified anyway, and b) their hiring metrics aren't actually that great at ranking them in the first place.
Every woman wants to blame discrimination and yet you will never get a single one of them to admit they're simply not as good at negotiating.
Ironically good negotiating skills require the very same masculinity feminism is looking to wipe off the face of the planet.
I love how you went down from 2 to -1 within seconds. The troll farms are hard at work. Now the question remains: is it the Berkeley-type SJWs with too much time on their hands, a troll organization funded by the likes of Soros (let's use doublespeak and call it "Progressive Societies" or "Human Advancement Initiative" or some lame strawman name), or is it perhaps BizX itself which comes in and prunes posts and can give itself as many modpoints as it wants to shift the discussion and change how the search engines see results?
I give it a 50/50 that my post will be deleted for addressing this again. Take a screen shot, gents!
Oracle is a product of its time and environment. A task oriented product. It probably wont change and people need such companies. A more forward looking company like amazon solves modern problems
Just another reason not to hire woman.
Correlation is not causation. There is no proof that the inclination is caused by biology, nor the degree of productivity.
I don't know anything about productivity, this is the first time I've heard someone mention it. But the inclination, oh boy.
https://www.thejournal.ie/gend...
There's even a wiki page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As always, I wouldn't trust the wiki page, but the sources might be interesting.
Oh, and here's a documentary from the Norwegian state channel. Don't worry, it's subbed in English. It's a good watch, quite explanatory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So yes, it seems to be heavily influenced by biology, even more so than findings from not-so-equal countries might suggest.
Did these women agree to take a job for a specific rate of pay? They aren't slaves? Then they are paid exactly what they should be being paid. I'm sorry if men are generally better negotiators. Wait, no I'm not. It's not my fault not the fault of men in general.
Sticking your hand in a fire isn't correlation, it is direct observable cause
From the article: "I just couldn’t believe it. I was angry,” Marilyn Clark, one of the Oracle plaintiffs, told the Guardian. The complaint alleged that she discovered the wage gap when she saw a pay stub a male colleague had left in a common area. “I felt like I had been punched in the gut.” Clark, 66, who has since retired from Oracle, said it was particularly painful because she had even trained the male employee, who was making roughly $20,000 more than she was, amounting to a 22% higher salary. Clark, 66, who has since retired from Oracle, said it was particularly painful because she had even trained the male employee, who was making roughly $20,000 more than she was, amounting to a 22% higher salary."
The reality is this is her own fault. This is not a union job with fixed pay scales.
People make more because they ask for more and create a perception of value.
From my experience, when taking a new job:
Women undervalue themselves and they ask for the comp they think they deserve or is the most the employer is willing to pay
Men ask for what they want, not what they think they deserve, and don't care about the employers problems
When annual comp happens, raises and bonuses can very often be crappy
Women will be unhappy but will not change jobs to get what they want.
Men change jobs aggressively.
In fact, from a management standpoint knowing you will eat shit and not change jobs just provides evidence they are paying you appropriately.
No wonder MGTOW is picking up. Men are getting sick of womens bullshit. Maybe if women choose not to breed until they were financially stable. It is always the women in any work place I have been at that are chronically late, needing to leave early or absent because of their snot nosed offspring. Or absent for months at a time cause they just popped out another one. You made the choice to have that crotch goblin now live with the way it impacts your bottom line.
I'm familiar with a local government that has this problem. The County Commissioner is a female that was elected on the promise of making all local civil service employees equally 50/50 men and women. She did. Here's the thing: a huge percentage of local employees are skilled laborers with very physical jobs, like road crews, water/sewer plant operators, etc, that are all male. The result of mandating an even 50/50 split is that the entire administration departments are 100% female. Every desk job now goes to a female. Males need not even apply. Finance, accounting, billing, clerical, everything. There is zero opportunity now for the men in those labor positions to advance to desk-job management and the women that are being hired for those positions have zero experience with the hands-on aspects. This began about 6 years ago and the results have been disastrous for the public these departments are supposed to serve.
It's observable women got less pay in this & other instances, yes? Correlation = causation (& the cause is women themselves accepting less).
* That's how I see it & how it is apparently. WE ARE LITERALLY OBSERVING IT HAPPENING!
APK
P.S.=> For anyone that's "jockeyed for jobs" especially bids & contracting (which I did for decades in the computer sciences), it's competition & "necessity IS the mother of this invention" (you accept lower pay due to a lower threshold of pain &/or acceptance, it's on you (& I've had to do it myself - we pretty much ALL have to - bills/taxes/insurances/food + water etc.))... apk
Got him by the balls, every woman ever bragging about their control over men.
Double standard much??
I would love to hear what "similar positions" constitutes.
You know, some actual facts, with your statistics, and reporting. Maybe some actual journalism. Last report I read like this grouped such large job groups together it was completely meaningless.
As others have said, if you factor in pay from maternity (and now paternity!) leave - childless employees (male and female) are getting completely douched over. And I get shit for taking a few days off.
Life is not fair.
Life never will be fair.
Face it, as an SJW pussy snowflake, you won't ever be able to deal with this reality.
So the only correct answer for you is to kill yourself.
DO IT NOW.
SLASHDOT USER: Science, logic, and math are the only valuable forms of human endeavor, and those that employ them are elevated above the teeming, irrational masses.
ALSO SLASHDOT USER: If statistics say that women have it bad, statistics is wrong! Understand, you've got to look at all these other factors about specific women's specific circumstances, and anyways, there is no chance a single company has a culture that would undervalue them! Plus, I knew a woman once and she was a bitch and made mistakes!!
and they must be protected with the tools of the state to ensure they are given equal treatment.
I am glad world finally has realized women are helpless
This lawsuit will be dismissed, no matter the soundbites and catchy heading. It will be presented in court that alleged gap does not exist when actual responsibilites and experience are factored in. Wage gap is a myth. On the contrary, in the USA it has been shown that, on average, women earn more for the same competence, work and results than men.
High School: Look at those neeeerds playing computer games
College: You're a...computer science major? (looks dubiously at me)
2015: I'm a woman who did a 6 month boot camp, why am I being payed less than you? Also can you show me how this stuff works? If you need genuine info from me though I'm just to busy.
I'm a guy (double checks) -- yes, definitely.
Okay. It's still a man's world. Really. And females are not mentally engineered or biologically predisposed to work in
this man's world. That doesn't mean they're not intelligent, weak or anything like that. The women who do succeed
are basically playing the role of a man. It's something they were able to learn. But they'll never be 100% male.
The female brain is wired very differently than the male's brain. They can be taught to mimic a male, but they're not
equipped to think like a male. No woman has ever said "What's the moon like? We should go there someday."
Honestly, I don't think it's possible to have a completely gender-neutral work / business environment.
Will females evolve to work in a man's world? Gawd, I hope not. Because we need someone to raise the children,
and (most) men don't have breasts or the brains to properly raise an infant. If woman will evolve, it'll take hundreds
of generations to breed out the "female." Will it be worth it?
You always have to consider the messenger in these sort of things; what are they selling? Embrace the biology you
were born with and excel in the strengths those qualities provide.
CAP === 'galaxies' / 'totals'
you've completely misread my point to make a straw man (e.g. you're attacking my supposed defense of people who support the equal pay movement when I've done the opposite, I've attack the movement as nonsensical).
/. you're probably not) or to die with no friends and no family left behind. That's not a life fit for anyone...
Yes, there are some rubes on the left who have fell for the equal pay garbage. Even Bernie Sanders gets into it. People on my side can be wrong. You'll note that Bernie doesn't bang on about it much. It gets a passing mention. His main goal right now is and has been Medicare for All and a living wage. So he gets my vote.
Now, if you want to talk about folks using identity politics to divide and conquer, that's your "Clinton" Democrats or "New" Democrats (as they like to call themselves). That's your Pelosis and your Chuck Schumers. Those folks suck and can go to hell.
But I don't care that they're Democrats. That doesn't matter. What matters is always, always, _always_ policy. The Clinton Dems are on the right wing. Doesn't matter if they've got a D next to their name, they're pro-corporate, anti-worker right wingers. That's what matters. They oppose me and mine. I've got friends with medical conditions they woulda let die. I am not nor have I ever defended their policy views. I might swallow my bile to vote for one (I voted for Clinton herself) because I'm not a child and there really _is_ such a thing as the lessor of two evils, but that doesn't mean I support or defend them.
Stop putting words in my mouth and wake up. You're being used by the American ruling class governing from the right wing. They'll eat you alive. If you happen to die before they do they'll eat your friends and family. The only way to win with them is to be one of them (and if you're posting on
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This of course is why we have trials. You select a jury who has the fewest or at least the most minimally entrenched preconceptions and have at it.
It's not clear to me at all that this would be an easy suit to defend against; nor is it clear to me that it's an easy suit to win. It depends on specifics, doesn't it? Even if you believe that its a consequence of nature that women are on average paid less than men, that doesn't mean some sufficiently idiotic management might not discriminate against individual women on the basis of sex rather than ability. Nor would it stretch the bounds of credibility that they might leave some kind of paper trail that exposes them. None of that is mutually exclusive with the hypothesis that men on average are better engineers.
Now here's what I think, based on what I know about Oracle from having been an Oracle business partner. The corporate culture of Oracle is greedy and ruthless. It is (or at least was ten years ago) predicated on locked in customers having to put up with Oracle's shit. I think if there were an assumption that women are less marketable than men, they wouldn't hesitate to exploit that. Whether they violated laws is another question, and whether they did it in a way that can be proved is yet another.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Generally they pay their overweight male strippers a lot less than they pay slim 20 year old females.
Also they generally discriminate against both sexes as you get past a certain age. However old folks are not protected so I guess it is OK.
To be a 1/2 african american 1/2 latino american homosexual female with 1 parent being Jewish and 1 parent Islamic would place me on the very very tippy top of the Social Justice Food pyramid. All others would be inferior to me.
According to Darwin we should be breeding these folks like crazy.
So for now on Only Blacks and Latinos will be allowed to reproduce, but they need to do it through artificial insemination. We should all know that female on male fornication is 100% rape all the time.
In an effort to create a world free of injustice, we have created a perfect hell hole that nobody wants to live in. Witness the drugas epidemic
Study after study has shown that women are biologically less inclined in technology ...
References are required as most of us find this highly unlikely and will tend to ignore it. Extraordinary claims require at least some evidence to be taken seriously.
I love how you went down from 2 to -1 within seconds. The troll farms are hard at work. Now the question remains: is it the Berkeley-type SJWs with too much time on their hands, a troll organization funded by the likes of Soros (let's use doublespeak and call it "Progressive Societies" or "Human Advancement Initiative" or some lame strawman name), or is it perhaps BizX itself which comes in and prunes posts and can give itself as many modpoints as it wants to shift the discussion and change how the search engines see results?
Or none of the above. I'm looking for content that advances the discussion or contributes to the general knowledgebase. Vague conspiracy theories, off-the-shelf opprobrium or pejorative paranoia gets ignored or modded down, depending on what kind of a mood I'm in. When it's from A/C it carries even less weight, although I understand why people are afraid to stand up and be counted -- too many loons in the loop. Whatever happened to "agreeing to disagree"?
I give it a 50/50 that my post will be deleted for addressing this again. Take a screen shot, gents!
It's not about sex, its about upbringing and drive to succeed.
I'm sure if you compared the incomes of Alpha Males to Soy Boys you would find similar discrepancies.
Salary? Really! So theses saw the problems of the well-off. Down in the real world , we looked as much as these women are making and the perks and advantage in social engineering endeavors , would be happy for their situation. when it comes to greedy people will always find someone to compare themselves to to say they have more. If we would just Define an amount that is considered enough, you should discard any complaints above income level, focus on those who don't have what they need getting raises.
I don't really think Soros-Conspiracy Theories are shining a light on anything. It's good thing he's rich, throwing his money at hiring all these crisis actors... funding studies... cementing in the pizza-basement child sex ring... all those definitely real things that are happening.
You flunk statistics.
IF those studies are valid, they would show that you might find fewer women at a given level of inclination, but those you did find would be just as good as their male counterparts.
You're making salary? So you're doing better off than most of country. Rest of us are working hourly , when we don't show up to work we get paid less .when you don't show up to work doesn't matter. Unless you wasted your money on lavish luxuries like not having to cook for yourself, avoiding learning how to maintain your own equipment and oversized properties, you should be sitting pretty with savings accumulating. This gender more is just another mechanic to increase the wealth of those who already have more than others despite working less hard
that's assuming the men were even made to negotiate. good chance they just walked in and got given their wage. And let's be real, the men are 'expected' to negotiate and are rewarded for their big cajones. If the women try to negotiate they are seen as ladder climbers, or trying to get above their level and would likely be punished. Tell me it's not true... that if you were sitting there in the chair interviewing that you wouldn't see it that way?
It's not our fault if you don't understand basic logic. It usually applied to things that might be considered a little more abstract than... sticking your hand directly into an open flame.
How about this...
You would find a correlation that the taller a person gets the more intelligent they get... You can clearly see that if you look at test scores. A 6ft tall male is probably a heck of a lot smarter than say... a 2ft tall male. So height and intelligence are correlated. In this case though we can see that cause of that difference is probably something else... Age and height also correlate... you get taller as you age... you also tend to get smarter as you age. As long as you don't vote for Trump, them you have to start over from scratch again.
See subject & I've taken logic & did well: Have you? I did so during CS degreework (tough for you to prove as anon UNIDENTIFIABLE troll, now isn't it? Yes, lol).
* Don't even TRY your FORUMS "Illogic-logic" on me you disgusting worm HIDING from me by AC posts.
APK
P.S.=> Your types brain is ALL "F'd UP" from birth what w/ the "NEW NORMAL" crap (your type will ALWAYS lose - it's ALL your kind CAN do)... apk
I know we live in a culture where the merest accusation from a woman is treated as a guilty verdict, but our legal system still operates under the 'antiquated' innocent until proven guilty standard.
For years women in general (and feminists in particular) have been decrying the 'wage gap' to which most of the rest of us in the real world argue several points against it's existence as portrayed by the activists.
Now here we get one of the common arguments against the 'wage gap': it's already illegal to pay women less than men for identical work because they are women. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 saw to that.
So now we are at the next stage; these people believe they are being discriminated against based on their sex and have filed a class action lawsuit to that effect.
Now let the courts do their job and adjudicate this claim. When the verdict/judgement is in, then you can write all the articles you want about it. Till then, it's just another unproven accusation just like so many others we've seen in the modern era.
Case in point with GP's "theory." Soros *is* on record for doing this garbage. Hired ^ AC trolls ^ spread disinfo.
So as long as you can bamboozle someone, it's all moral!
And just like no woman ever thought of going to the moon no woman has ever thought anything like "How do I conduct a study and present the results effectively for the study on infectious diseases?" or "Radium - how does that work?" or "I wonder what the structure of DNA is", or "What do those signals from outer space mean?". Oh, my bad, they have.
Add this the likely pile of Oracle human atrocities.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Perhaps they aren't as aggressive when asking for raises, etc once they are employed?
That's not the companies' fault....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Not a single study supports the gender bias explanation for the gender wage gap.
Stick a fork in it is right.
Correlation is good enough to justify discovery, Once the lawyers get their hands on performance reviews/productivity stats and whatever else then we can see what the truth is. Unfortunately regardless of the truth we will only ever see a settlement with no admission of guilt and a big fat NDA.
There was an interesting study that showed this. The more interesting part is that women were equal in negotiating salaries for a third party to men were but less good at negotiating their own. This leads towards an argument that women often undervalue their own contribution in comparison to men.
There is no proof that the pay difference is caused by gender discrimination as opposed to performance.
The plaintiffs don't need "proof". This is a civil suit. The outcome is based on the preponderance of the evidence.
If the disparity is really as wide as the summary claims, Oracle will have a hard time showing it is a statistical fluke.
.... a company actively wanting to pay women less, or women not asking aggressively for raises because they're more agreeable?
If it's the second option, whose fault is it?
Could it possible be that women in general, are not as good at negotiating their own salaries as men?
Irrelevant. It is illegal to pay men and women systematically differently based on any other criteria but job performance. Unless they are salespeople or professional negotiators, paying them differently based on "ability to negotiate" is illegal.
Perhaps they aren't as aggressive when asking for raises, etc once they are employed?
Again, willingness to ask for a raise is not a valid criteria for discrimination. Women are less aggressive at asking for raises. So are black people, often because they feel less secure in their job. That doesn't justifiy discrimination.
That's not the companies' fault....
Yes it is.
In general/statistically, men are more aggressive. That is all their numbers say.
Too bad it's been the law in the US for over 50 years, which Oracle's HR department seems to have accidentally missed? I guess you also feel sympathy for tax dodgers?
Just to be clear, knowing how to negotiate without offending the other person is a skill that needs to be developed. I've more than once made the person I was negotiating with very angry.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Correlation is not causation. There is no proof that the inclination is caused by biology, nor the degree of productivity.
These studies though, are either flawed, or the reporting is.
One of the very first things that is needed is to define what constitutes equal pay. Equal pay by productivity, or equal pay by job description, or equal pay for everyone regardless of job/career.
Might seem obvious, but that is how we come up with all of the wildly varying numbers of disparity in pay.
Now this doesn't mean that Oracle isn't discriminating against women pay wise, but if my University setting experience over 30 plus years has anything meaningful to it, one of the first generalized differences between the sexes is that the males tend to use less sick days, and often vacation days. They have a tendency to come in early and stay late more often than the females. This does have a tendency to enable higher productivity. As well, when dangerous or dirty work or work that required travel came up - it was the males (in my work, mostly me) that got the task.
Then there is longevity. I was there a lot longer, as well as more productive. I didn't use sick days, and two weeks out of a month and a half vacation.
Now tell me that someone coming in should be paid the same as me, and why.
As I noted earlier, I don't have enough data to make a good judgement on the issue. But there are some red flags, such as the "base" pay discrepancy. Base is base. So who knows?
But as I told my supervisor when some women thought they should be paid as much as me even though they refused to travel, come in early or stay late. "Let me know if you start paying them the same as me. That's when I'll hand in this letter of resignation. " Annnnnd that's how My job description was changed.
note: one thiing that is very likely involved is based in that meeting. I was telling him that B would happen if A happened. There have been some studies that would indicate that men (in general) are better at negotiating raises and job actions. Better defined as more aggressive. When I listened to the woman who was promoting the study, it was done in defense of women getting paid the same as men, and that employers should be sensitive to the less aggressive approach and adjust their raises accordingly.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Could it possible be that women in general, are not as good at negotiating their own salaries as men?
Perhaps they aren't as aggressive when asking for raises, etc once they are employed?
That's not the companies' fault....
Funny, but as I was saying in a post above, I was listneing to a woman who did a study that was claiming just that. Men are more aggressive in the negotiations in general. I know I was damn assertive in my reviews and raise expectations.
The interesting part I noted to her was that women are claimed to be better communicators than men.
Anyhow, before the apologists jump on me like alligators on a wildebeest, this woman was performing a study to show that managers should take that into account, and give women larger raises than they would otherwise - she was arguing for women.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Sadly, even successful lawsuits can be "spun". This lawsuit seems ripe for political abuse: objecting to the lawsuit can be seen by the most ardent of political feminists as attacks on politically correct thought, as misogyny, or as confirmation of the bias. Failure of the lawsuit can be seen by some as confirmation that female work is, indeed, less valuable than male work. And the "discovery" in a lawsuit is not normally about scientific fact, but rather about what evidence can be compelled from the opposing side and their legal counsel.
That is true, now that you mention it. I did get looked down on as being a nerd for choosing computer science. I'll bet when a girl chooses computer science, her girlfriends REALLY make fun of her.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
In the porn industry, males are paid far, far, far less than the females. Where are all of those lawsuits?
That's not the companies' fault....
Yes it is, according to the law.
Ability to negotiate a salary has no bearing on a programmer's performance, therefore if there's a systematic bias it is absolutely the company's fault. The law is crystal clear in this regard.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Perhaps they aren't as aggressive when asking for raises, etc once they are employed?
Again, willingness to ask for a raise is not a valid criteria for discrimination. Women are less aggressive at asking for raises. So are black people, often because they feel less secure in their job. That doesn't justifiy discrimination.
That's not discrimination. Characterizing it as discrimination, with the implication of active bias, is not helpful. It's a systemic issue resulting in women getting lesser compensation and it should be addressed. But that doesn't make it discrimination.
"Oracle" underpaid the market rate. So these women could have quit and been hired elsewhere at the market rate? Isn't that a choice? If they could not have made more money then then they are paid the market rate.
You have all these supposedly underpaid people... sounds like a business opportunity to me. Any business person that likes to make money will jump at the chance to hire them at slightly more money. They would be stupid not to and must hate women more than money.
Where are all the business women creating all women businesses? If women are equally productive then business women can hire these women away at half the salary difference. Women could buy stocks in such companies since such businesses would be at an advantage. Anyone that likes money would invest this way.
The truth is women as a whole are indeed less productive at SOME things. All big businesses have a spreadsheet that calculate what each employee is worth. There are businesses that do these calculations for businesses based on all sorts of historical data as well as current performance data. As it is I speculate most tech business pay women slightly more than their performance is worth simply to increase their diversity numbers. And there is more than just performance to each employees value. There are training costs and prediction of how long a person might stay with the company. How much overtime do salaried people do? The more women you have the more "he said she said" suits you will have; men don't initiate the suits. These are costs.
>on "ability to negotiate" is illegal.
Law citation needed.
Well, how do you propose it works then?
I mean, I don't really know of any company, that pays everyone with same job title exactly the same.
Employee 1 comes in, and negotiates to work for the company for $50K a year.
Employee 2 comes in and negotiates to work for the company for $45K a year.
Employee 3 comes in and negotiates to work for the company for $55K a year.
All employees are hired one with the salary they agreed to....
That's how it works.
So all 3 employees work for years there, each getting a 5% raise each year.
Alll things being equal, the person that negotiated the best salary, will always be paid the most.
Now, what if employee 2, valued themselves the least starting out...who's fault is that?
If that was a woman, she'll always be paid less than 1 an 3.
Let's say 1 and 3 are both men.
Well, #3 will always be paid more than #1.....
So, where's the discrimination there? There is none.
The company wants to get as much work out of you for the least amount of money, that's how it works, and it is up to YOU as the individual to negotiate to get the best deal you can for yourself and to know your self worth, etc.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It is not...there are also MEN that get paid more and less than other men too.
See my example above.
If all things are equal, and 3 employees all negotiate their starting salary, and they are all different.
If all things are equal during their stay and they all get 5% raises annually....they they ALL will be still paid at different rates, with some getting more than other.
Men get more money than some others, just like some women will to.
It is up to each individual to know their market worth.
Of course my example is a simplistic one to drive a point, I know other things come into play, like experience, and seniority.
Heck, it isn't fair that some times, new employees can come in, doing same job as older employees, but start off making more than the legacy employees. It just happens, that's why people often job hop so they can raise their salaries faster.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Characterizing it as discrimination, with the implication of active bias, is not helpful.
Discrimination against a protected class is illegal whether it is "active" or not.
Most discrimination is passive, and unintentional. That doesn't make it legal.
People identify with and tend to socialize with people like themselves. So if management is full of white guys, they will mentor and promote other white guys. The company should have an active process to ensure this is not discriminatory. If they don't, they're gonna wind up in court, and a class action lawyer will get a big check.
This article allows me to OBSERVE it - or, is it lying? Anyhow, I'm not here to "quibble semantics" or philosophize on this bullshit really - this site has gone way, Way, WAY too "SJW" & stuff that's not really "news for geeks" imo & that of MANY others.
APK
P.S.=> Doesn't matter to me really - I no longer work for my money, my monies work for me & for the last 12++ yrs. now I haven't HAD to work for ANYONE, but myself (goal you should ALL pursue & achieve imo & experience - it's WAY better)... apk
same number of hours worked?
same amount of overtime?
same amount of leave?
same amount of sick days?
same length of service?
Unless of course hiring managers gave affirmative action-style preferences to female candidates. Then on average, the female candidates actually hired wouldn't be as good as their male counterparts, because lower quality female candidates could get hired right along with the better ones (which do exist).
How likely is it that a company which has their executives openly publish blog posts like this, who spend a bunch of money every year promoting Oracle Women’s Leadership’s, who have special programs to highlight, reward and praise their female staff isn't also giving preferences trying to hire as many women as they possibly can.
I've been in the technology for 30+ years, across a dozen different giant, large and small employers. I've never seen any of them do anything in regards to hiring women except basically automatically hire any bare minimum qualified female applicant who showed up, because they all wanted more women in technology.
And yes, as a hiring manager myself, despite knowing the supposed wage gap is B.S., despite knowing studies show women generally get preferred hiring status, I'd probably still lean towards hiring a woman over a man if their resumes and interviews were equal, just to have them around the team.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
I mean, I don't really know of any company, that pays everyone with same job title exactly the same.
That's fine. There is no requirement to "pay everyone the same". There is also no general law against discrimination based on hair length, nose rings, or shoe size. But there are laws against systematic discrimination based on gender, race, and religion.
If that was a woman, she'll always be paid less than 1 an 3.
That's fine. 1 out of 3 is not enough to show any sort of systematic discrimination.
But if you have 100 female engineers, and 300 male engineers, and the females are paid less despite equal performance reviews, you aren't going to get out of a lawsuit by saying "Hey, they were bad negotiators".
Women are Poor negotiators. Argue for higher salary and you'll get it.
If the base rate is the same and the man argues for a higher amount due to being a better negotiator that is legal.
IT workers in California fall in a funny area where they are, by definition, non-exempt (i.e. get OT) up to around $90k/yr.
However, you are neglecting the exemption applies to managerial, professional, or administrative functions - you've correctly identified management - essentially hire/fire authority over more than 2 people qualifies you as a manager and exempt. However the "professional" exemption is the one where most IT people will wind up - that would be anyone with "advanced education and training" - which is essentially a college degree - the law was written when 10% of people had a degree, and the court cases tend to follow that, even today. Most places will actually consider "fresh-out" hires with a degree as non-exempt for 2-3 years, just to make sure.
Engineers in engineering environments and other "non-salespeople" do need negotiation skills in their day to day jobs. They need to negotiate with peers to design and implement features on multi-person projects, they need to negotiate with more senior members of their organization to promote their ideas over other's ideas if there are resource constraints, they need to negotiate with IT on policy exceptions, they need to negotiate with management to transfer to projects/teams where they feel they would contribute more (or just enjoy more), etc.
Esp. in senior positions in development, engineers spend quite a bit of their time negotiating for resources and favored solutions.
What about the Russians?
If the base rate is the same and the man argues for a higher amount due to being a better negotiator that is legal.
If one man does this, it is legal. If 100 men do this, and your company now has a systematic pay difference between equally qualified men and women, that is not legal. The police are not going to come and kick your door down, but if you get sued by a class action lawyer, you are likely to lose.
Was "negotiating skills" listed in the job advertisement? Is it part of the written job description? Is it a criteria in performance reviews? Do those performance reviews document that women are indeed worse at their jobs?
If not, you are going to have a hard time convincing a judge that you have a valid excuse for paying men more.
I'm assuming you're being facetious.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0095399716636928
That's not what the lawsuit is about. It's about pay differences between gender. If being male is correlated with higher pay when controlling for performance and ability, it is illegal. That's what systematic means here.
You're assuming they're equally qualified but when a company had to make an effort to get those women in there in the first place... It's likely they were hiring the best of the women they could find but that says nothing about comparison with the men. There are simply less women in the tech job pool so when a company tries to hit it's diversity numbers, it would take too long if they only hired the best women -- and executives need their diversity bonuses!
And the same would apply to men in a female-dominated field that was trying to hire more men to hit diversity numbers and had to pick up not the best men for the job to get there. I expect the men as a group would get paid less than the majority of qualified women there.
All that said .... Affirmative action done right means you also have to ensure you're paying the diversity hires the same as your normal hires or else you get into exactly this trouble. It's only 4% ...
I haven't had a white, straight, male manager in the last 10 years. Of 14 professional years. Can I get some loving ?
Oh. It's just other people. I get it.
Goddamn you make the world a shitty place to live. Can't wait to time card every 5 minutes so the hr / bean counters can make everyone feel awesome.
The identifier that this is a bogus lawsuit is the use of the term "similar". This isn't about actual discrimination against individuals working the same job, working the same hours for the same period of years.
This is an attempt to claim discrimination for "work of equal value" which is a completely subjective position.
Since I used to be a Manager of a group that was required to have the same skills and perform the same job. I can tell you unequivocally that I had no thought along those lines at all.
This is especially true in any company large enough to have an HR department and job roles and levels with dictated pay grades and regular raises of set amounts.
Hell this idea that men have some magical power to negotiate a salary, especially raises differently from women is pure bullocks other than the best of the best who are in demand to other companies than the one they work at. Which would be true whether you're a man or woman.
You're assuming they're equally qualified
No, that is not an assumption. If there is a quality difference, you can pay differently. But if both men and women get 80% perfect marks on their performance reviews, you are going to have a hard time arguing in court that the men are better and deserved more money.
If the women are lower quality, they should have worse performance reviews, more written warnings to improve, and documented lower productivity. If they are developers, do they have fewer code commits? Are they more likely to fail code reviews? Does their code have more bugs?
When you go to court, you need objective evidence.
Literally hundreds of studies disagree with you.
Oracle's HR department had likely not missed a thing. Which is why they've likely set up levels within every job description and mandatory oay raises for the company based on %.
Do unless you are prepared to leave the company and demonstrate how you deserve to skip a level (really both). Any pay difference has nothing to do with discrimination.
You don't seriously think a company the size of Oracle negotiates yearly pay increases with each individual employee do you?
And when starting with a new company the size if Oracle you're going in to a pay level for the position you're taking. So you have some leeway to negotiate that, but if you aren't prepared to walk away then you'll likely take what they offer, which will likely be the same starting point set by HR regardless of any non relevant physical factors of the individual.
Correlation IS causation you fucking blowhard
Before sticking a fork in it, spell it correctly.
Again, willingness to ask for a raise is not a valid criteria for discrimination.
Sorry guys, we can't hire the new guy as he wants about $20k more on average than the rest of the department, even though he has the experience in X, Y, and Z we've been looking for to help compete in the market. The problem is we'd have to pay all the people with vaginas (don't worry about the ones without vaginas - suckers!) more to keep the average up in case of a bullshit lawsuit, so he'd effectively cost us $380k per year more than the average personnel in the department.
I guess... negotiated salaries are a tool of the 1%? Right? I guess I should expect to see a couple hundred million people publicly announce their salary as they come to this same conclusion over the next couple of months, so that the situation can be rectified.
It is illegal to pay people differently based on government-determined protected statuses, which are:
Ability to negotiate is not listed.
Wave your magic wand and have "access to income and resources" drop off the selection matrix of hetero women for hetero men and the pay gap will go away instantly.
But since that all is due to evolution and it's long term strategy, I doubt this will happen any time soon. As long as Daniel Craig carrying a baby around is "unmanly" and men without career biographies are measurably more unattractive for long term relationships things will stay the way they have been since the dawn of time.
If we can design a Utopia that can cater both to men and women without either feeling discriminated, that would be cool, but that also requires us to accept a certain degree of biological differences. That is present with classic feminism, but not so much with today's hashtag and gender studies camp.
However, I see this more of a fad that will go away soon and have us back on track with reasonable expectations when it comes to equality.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It is not...there are also MEN that get paid more and less than other men too.
Irelevant, the law says nothing about that unless there's some othe protected characteristic involved.
See my example above.
You don't seem to understand the law. Hypotheticals or pointing out related but irleevant hold in the law is going to count for squat in front of a judge.
It is up to each individual to know their market worth.
And yet the law is quite clear in this regard.
Of course my example is a simplistic one to drive a point, I know other things come into play, like experience, and seniority.
The law allows for that. Anything that affects your ability to do a job is taken into acconut. If all the men are more senior than the women then it's perfectly legal to have pay disparity (it might say something abou your hiring practices, but that's another topic).
Heck, it isn't fair that some times, new employees can come in, doing same job as older employees, but start off making more than the legacy employees. It just happens, that's why people often job hop so they can raise their salaries faster
You seem to have a fundamantal undestand gap here. You can't eason you way aound the law. No matter how illogical you think the law is, it still stands. I'm not trying to argue the merit or othewise of the law in this post, I'm telling you that the law is clear.
You keep trying to tell me the law is wrong, but that doesn't make it unclear. And being wrong or illogical doesn't stop it existing.
Like I said the law is clear. If you don't like it you can lobby your representative.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Seems if Women , aka competition, working for less there was malfeasance of management to over pay men. Perhaps gender bias. Shareholders should sue. Larry can sue himself;).
African-American NASA mathematician Katherine G. Johnson calculated the trajectories for the moon missions and was trusted more than the computers to do the math correctly. https://www.nasa.gov/content/katherine-johnson-biography
You on the other hand are a fucking moron, if you are such a big man then why the need to double-check your gender? Get the fuck off the internet you imbecile.
If it was able to save so much money by employing women, surely the entire workforce of Oracle would rapidly become all female?
[citation needed]
The law doesn't consider nature to be a factor. All it says is that people should be paid the same regardless of their gender, for equal work. That can include factors like experience level and time seniority.
The idea that men are on average better engineers is not considered and not a possible defence. It's really hard to see how they could have any plausible excuse.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
When negotiating with new hires or handing our raises, the company needs to consider other employee's pay as well. If some candidates are undervaluing themselves then they need to offer them more money anyway, simple as that.
ShanghaiBill is right, trying to argue "she was a worse negotiator in the interview!" isn't a legally valid excuse and won't get you off the hook.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Feminist sponsored studies. The real numbers say otherwise. If women were actually paid less for the same work, companies would only hire women. This equality of outcome nonsense has to stop. If men were paid more on the average, then its probably because they had superior qualifications, not some mythical negotiation skill. You don't "negotiate" if your competition were truly equal in qualification. A company will pay more for someone with more skills and accomplishments.
Pay inequality is a conspiracy theory of the worst kind. People are getting paid fairly according to their qualifications and accomplishments. If the SJWs wish to make this into a gender battle (that is their brand), then they need to do accurate statistical analysis. Instead of simplifying everything into this false/corrupted narrative that sex is the only metric, they need to instead study why women get paid less. In my professional experience, it's because women dont usually work as hard as men. It's also not just about hours put in but also results. Women love to hide behind college degrees but men still tend to accomplish more because the simple reason that women care more about people and men care more about things. So, while women go home and relax, men typically do intangible things after work such as reading professional trade journals or interact with other like minded people on trade forums like this one.
There is a difference between being the man that invented the math and the women that merely applied it.
Careful, the leftists SJWs may find where you live and get violent. You are speaking too much truth. Can't talk about truth if it offends them. Oh, and no real science because that too could be offensive to their idealogy.
I hope you are joking.
"A motion filed in California on Friday said attorneys seek to represent more than 4,200 women and alleged that female employees were paid on average $13,000 less per year than men doing similar work."
So they even admit that they do not do the same amount of work just similar.
Someone making $87,000 a year is similar to someone making $100,000 a year when you factor in maternity leave, experience and the fact men typically work more overtime than women.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf
Whip out the performance reviews and hours worked, do a blind comparison, and see what happen. I'm curious to see if Larry's crew squeaks by on this. Not that I assume guilt or innocence, nor do I harbor high expectations of justice either way.
Funny thing too is that college is inherently structured for the learning style of women.
There is no scientific study which is not fundamentally flawed that strongly supports the notion that there is some actual biological connection between being male or female and the likelihood of interest in STEM. At the very least, if that were true, any observed correlation would certainly be *dramatically* stronger than what it actually is observed to be.
No, it is in fact much more likely to be the consequences of societal pressures, whether they are unintentional or not, to conform to expected modes of behavior.
But that causative factor, is sociological, not biological.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
the bias is based on your ability to negotiate, not your sex.
depending on the specific group of men and women it will skew one way or the other when divided by sex
that's assuming the men were even made to negotiate. good chance they just walked in and got given their wage
Typical comment from someone who clearly doesn't understand how to negotiate. If you were one of the ones who "walked in and got given their wage" then you're clueless and deserve what you were given. Nobody forced you to accept it.
Just another day in Paradise
Just to be clear, knowing how to negotiate without offending the other person is a skill that needs to be developed. I've more than once made the person I was negotiating with very angry.
Agreed, but then it can be okay to make the other person angry depending upon the relationship you need to maintain with them. If it's a one-off negotiation (new car purchase for example), who cares. But if it's your future boss, well that's a entirely different story.
Just another day in Paradise
That's IS the point! Women working at Oracle are self-selected for being interested in technology! Hence, the studies looking at technological interest in women as a whole DO NOT APPLY!
Yes, if you ignore all the studies then there are no studies that show the clear and distinct biological connection, that is correct.
Well done.
Women are almost equally capable as men, however the problem is that they are insecure - unfortunately the source of this insecurity is deep rooted in the biology of humans , to be specific in the nine-month gestation period. This insecurity affects their behavior in all social and work situations. To give just one example, a woman takes greater offense if she is called a fool than actually being fooled. A man is exactly opposite.
If a woman is asking for a raise, or is negotiating salary in an interview, if she is shown the company pay categories in a chart that is different from men, that's systematic. If say a man in a similar title and region is shown the salary chart that shows his pay can be in the $45k-$55k range, but the woman is shown a different chart showing $40k-$50k, that would be totally systematic, illegal, and morally wrong.
However if each employee is pushed back with "this is as far as we're willing to go", and the company waits and sees who will bluff leaving, that's not systematic.
Instead of forcing companies to override normal business behavior for women even when they're businesses and general capitalism dictates that they only maximize their profits, the root cause of this issue must be tackled. You can't seriously force businesses to tell women (or visible minorities, or the disabled) "oh you just want $45k, I think we'll just give you $55k because one man with the same title has $55k". In reality the business would rather split the title (Jr, Sr) or make it look like the woman has a slightly different job responsibility.
The real underlying issue is the confidence that the woman can find another job should this one go away. And that she will survive easily if she loses this job. This further depends on if she has a large mortgage or is a single mother of kids or has other dependancies. Perhaps her social circle is important too. Just as women are encouraged by peers to "leave him" when she's having relationship issues, men are encouraged to leave the job when they're unhappy. This really isn't businesses' fault and cannot be fixed by patching the symptoms by forcing more money through businesses which are designed to only maximize profit.
In fact, it should be offensive to suggest that a particular disenfranchised group needs government mandated policies to be equal to the modal group, in productivity OR benefit. This would technically imply that group is inferior.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
That's not the companies' fault....
Yes it is, according to the law.
Ability to negotiate a salary has no bearing on a programmer's performance, therefore if there's a systematic bias it is absolutely the company's fault. The law is crystal clear in this regard.
So they should... what? Pay all employees equally to the highest earner? Pay all employees equal to the lowest? Continually reward failure, or ignore success?
If raises are percentage based, how can there NOT be discrimination. If group X is worse at negotiating initial salary, how do you propose to remedy it with a flat structure? How do you prevent men and women who are good at negotiation from jumping ship?
Why not? Certainly most men I know are more disagreeable and willing to jump ship especially if single. I don't think many would argue that women are not more risk averse. It isn't even then about negotiating. My management knows that I expect certain things and that I'm fairly comfortable leaving if I don't get them. This isn't anything I've formally "negotiated" it is simply evident when you interact with me.
Are you serious? You would only need to google something like "study Men and things women and people" to get myriad results to support this. It is observable in every culture. Even setting this aside, you still would need to ignore iq distribution in which men have a wider curve giving them more in the higher IQ range.. I'm not trying to be an ass but you'd need to be living under a rock to believe what you posted.
feminists just can't do math.
No, in the studies which you refer to, they may show there to be a distinct correlattive factor between gender and likelihood of inclination towards STEM, but there is no reason to conclude that it is actually caused by biology. As I said, if it were, the correlation would be dramatically stronger than what it has ever been observed to be.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Do women pay more for used cars?
If so, is this discrimination?
The law doesn't consider nature to be a factor. All it says is that people should be paid the same regardless of their gender, for equal work. That can include factors like experience level and time seniority.
The idea that men are on average better engineers is not considered and not a possible defence. It's really hard to see how they could have any plausible excuse.
It seems like you contradict yourself. If Oracle can show that most men work more / take less time off / etc, etc. than they are clear: the work is NOT equal. Not saying they will show this, not saying there isn't discrimination, but I am saying that this is clearly to argue it.
>paying them differently based on "ability to negotiate" is illegal.
Have you worked anywhere at all? No companies pay flat-out same salaries, even for new college grads entering the workforce at the same company, with the same job functions. Right off the bat, the difference of 20% ain't uncommon because some people just negotiate better.
Let me guess. You shout correlation doesnâ(TM)t imply causation when your car parked outside is wet after it rains. Correlation doesnâ(TM)t always imply causality - but itâ(TM)s a damn good clue to investigate.
The company wants to get as much work out of you for the least amount of money, that's how it works
Which also means companies should hire more women than men!
Hiring men costs more :)
I don't know how it works in the US, but here your employer can't penalize you for taking time off for holidays you are owed or for illness unless certain fairly strict conditions are met.
The other problem they will run into with that argument is the way they measure performance. If it values unhealthy over-working it would be considered to be part of the problem and invalidate their argument.
Basically the assumption is that men and women are equally capable of doing the job, so you will have an uphill battle proving otherwise. Companies are expected to take steps to eliminate the things that might create the differences, such as an overtime culture or poor work/life balance, not use them as an excuse.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Such studies can only objectively affirm that there appears to be some, perhaps even significant, correlative factor, but do *NOT* affirm that the causative factor that might relate them is in any way biological.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yes, there is every reason to consider it biological. The whole reason the video uses Norway as an example is because it is the most gender-equal country in the world by far. There is absolutely no incentive for men or women to take traditional roles there, and there is every incentive for them to take non-traditional roles. The sociological factors would push them towards the exact professions they aren't pursuing, which leaves only biological factors. And those are getting even stronger when money is no longer an issue. Look at Iran for instance. Way more female programmers down there. Are they further along in equality? Nope. But programming there is one of the few ways women can gain some independence, so they go for it. Why are there so few female programmers in Norway? Because they are free to choose what they want, and programming doesn't come with any incentive towards more money or independence.
But you don't even need that to see the obvious disparities in all countries that are approaching gender equality. Look at field by gender in the Nordic countries and you will see that there are "male" and "female" professions even after all the incentives to break those stereotypes. Why are there so many females in biology but barely any in electrical engineering even after the implementation of quotas, studies-to-job guarantees, fast-lanes etc and over 15 years of equality indoctrination? Because women don't enjoy electrical engineering, and the guarantee of an unappealing job doesn't do much in a country where no one has to starve.
Men and women aren't the same, biologically. Any biologist can tell you that. The links I posted tell you that.
What I don't understand is how anyone could possibly think that we are different when it comes to hormones, genitals, brain, mammaries, bone structure, reproductive function, immune system, aesthetics, muscle, instinct, behavioral tendencies, and size, but suddenly when it comes to preferences we're all the same and it's all sociological. It' such an odd cut-off, and it makes no sense.
Do women pay more for used cars?
If so, is this discrimination?
It may be discrimination, but it is not illegal. Anti-discrimination laws apply to employment, housing, and lending. They don't apply to buying products.
There is no general law against discrimination. There are only laws against discrimination in specific situations against specific protected classes of people.
Agreed, but then it can be okay to make the other person angry depending upon the relationship you need to maintain with them.
That's true too.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Were the people in the study entirely separated from existing societal influences? Given the pervasive nature of such influences it is very hard to account for the influence in studies, and so the causation of differences in inclination are hard to determine, and the degree of causation, given that results may be multifactorial.
I wasn't suggesting otherwise.... I was specifically addressing the allegation only that it is the biological aspect of being a man or woman that somehow influences a person's tendency towards choosing a technical career. This is an entirely unproven concept.... I do not allege that there is no validity to the claimed correlation between gender and occupation, but there are numerous sociological factors at play which are going to be far more of a consequence of living in a particular society as a particular gender than what chromosomes a person happens to be born with... to such an extent, in fact, that any apparent observed biological influence in that regard ultimately falls well below the levels of statistical significance, and is more likely attributable to apophenia.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Don't be stupid. Our market conditions change.
Let's say programmers were making 80K at a company in 2010. Fast forward to 2018, new employees at the same company are starting at 120K. What's "illegal" about any of this? And how do you even suggest what the solution should be? Suddenly the old-timers making 80K should get a 50% raise or what?
She co-authored the paper on it, working alongside a man. Wow, who would have thought that people of different genders could actually work together.
So they should... what?
Um.. abide by the law for one.
Continually reward failure, or ignore success?
How about not being stupid about it? You went from "not based on negotation ability" to "reward failure". How about paying based on performance. That's 100% legal.
If group X is worse at negotiating initial salary,
Negotiating ability is irrelevant to job performance of a programmer. So if you started that way it was already against the law. Fix your hiring process. How hard is this to understand?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Unless you're bean counting, performance reviews are subjective. The fundamental problem is quality matters and measuring quality of intangible things is a bit difficult. One programmer finishes projects faster but more issues crop up using their projects but nothing is technically "wrong" and another programmer is 1/2 the speed of the first, but their projects seem to have no issues.
The AC I was replying to was claiming a gender wide deficit in technology skills.
Paying women less DOES benefit them, dumbass. They would fuck the guys over more if they could, but we won't put up with your bullshit. The majority of women understand they are subserviant (in this current culture) and simply take what they can get, which is better than nothing.
There's a difference between specifics and generalities. You are pointing at specifics and trying to use them to disprove the generalities.
If I said "men are stronger than women" (and they are, on average), and you pointed at some Olympic champion female weightlifter and said "Here's your proof that they aren't", you are still wrong.
The GP is absolutely correct regarding the biology of women. They have babies. They cannot afford to take risks.. A mother's first choice is always (generally) to flee with the child. She cannot confront males and she cannot confront childless females. She has to escape danger. A woman with a child will, generally, only fight if she's backed into a corner and has no other options. What relevance is all of this? Simply to point out that not only are we physically different, but we have different thought processes and priorities.
Males and females are equal in intelligence. The differences are how the apply the intelligence. Men are far more action oriented (think shoot first ask questions later), while women are more likely to be of the "we need to consider all options" group.
Continually insisting that men & women are the same isn't enlightened. It isn't progressive. It's stupid. Neither is more valuable than the other, but the value is different due to the fact that men & women are different.
But, by all means, please keep insisting that men and women are identical. May I suggest you also join the Flat Earth Society? They seem to be a group that is also quite happy to ignore facts and the truth.
Oops, clicked reply on the wrong post.. Ignore the duplicate, this is the correct response
There's a difference between specifics and generalities. You are pointing at specifics and trying to use them to disprove the generalities.
If I said "men are stronger than women" (and they are, on average), and you pointed at some Olympic champion female weightlifter and said "Here's your proof that they aren't", you are still wrong.
The GP is absolutely correct regarding the biology of women. They have babies. They cannot afford to take risks.. A mother's first choice is always (generally) to flee with the child. She cannot confront males and she cannot confront childless females. She has to escape danger. A woman with a child will, generally, only fight if she's backed into a corner and has no other options. What relevance is all of this? Simply to point out that not only are we physically different, but we have different thought processes and priorities.
Males and females are equal in intelligence. The differences are how the apply the intelligence. Men are far more action oriented (think shoot first ask questions later), while women are more likely to be of the "we need to consider all options" group.
Continually insisting that men & women are the same isn't enlightened. It isn't progressive. It's stupid. Neither is more valuable than the other, but the value is different due to the fact that men & women are different.
But, by all means, please keep insisting that men and women are identical. May I suggest you also join the Flat Earth Society? They seem to be a group that is also quite happy to ignore facts and the truth.
If we would just Define an amount that is considered enough.....
I hope you're joking.. Socialism doesn't work. Socialism fails 100% of the time. Repeat after me: "Socialism does not work"
Bullshit.. Sweden is our test case right now.. Maximum opportunity and maximum self segregation between the sexes in the labor force.
Could it possible be that women in general, are not as good at negotiating their own salaries as men?
Perhaps they aren't as aggressive when asking for raises, etc once they are employed?
Possible? This is settled science. This has been known for 20+ years.. Women SUCK at negotiation. They're terrible at it. But, they also have different priorities IN GENERAL (sorry for the caps, but some people can't seem to understand that when speaking about groups of people (women) in broad statements like this, we're talking about generalities and not specifics.
Irrelevant. It is illegal to pay men and women systematically differently based on any other criteria but job performance. Unless they are salespeople or professional negotiators, paying them differently based on "ability to negotiate" is illegal.
Bullshit. Well, let's say "bullshit for many jurisdictions". Asking for a raise is a negotiation. It's as simple as that. Now, if you said "All men get a raise after 2 months and women get a raise after 6 months" sure.. That's illegal as fuck.. But if you don't have scheduled raises and instead hand them out when an employee can justify it.. Well, the women (in general) aren't going to ask for them. Men (in general) will.. Giving people who can justify a raise is not illegal.. Just have your documentation in order..
There are only laws against discrimination in specific situations against specific protected classes of people.
I hope you understand the hypocrisy of that.
Very insightful and worded much better than I could have done.
CAP === 'interim'
Ok, so then you are advocating with making laws forcing companies to pay EVERYONE with a same job title exactly the same....no more negotiation for salaries?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
One option is to have pay scales, where people doing the same or very similar jobs are all within a range based on their time at the company. They may start higher up the scale based on experience, which is fine as long as it is applied evenly to everyone.
But yes, basically the practice of negotiating salaries needs to be retired and companies offer a fair rate. That's actually good for existing employees too, because if the market rate goes up and the company wants to remain competitive they need to give everyone decent raises, otherwise they won't be able to offer market rate to new hires.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Just stop hiring women! They only cause trouble about wages, harrassment, etc. Only men environments are healthy work environments.
Mandatory pay raises? Ha! You clearly donâ(TM)t work for Oracle.
Well said
So, you're saying the govt needs to take over for private companies, and dictate and enforce not only hiring practices, but also salaries......
Geez, at that point, you're only a couple of steps by having the govt own and manage private industry and all of us becoming defacto government employees.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
On the other side, they overcharged all of their customers, regardless of who they were.
How about not being stupid about it? You went from "not based on negotation ability" to "reward failure". How about paying based on performance. That's 100% legal.
Stupid about it? Lets see, there are two cases here. Either Oracle are being sexist; great put them against the wall. Maybe Oracle isn't sexist and the pay difference is based on initial salary negotiations and performance. Yes it does reward failure, as women who train in salary negotiation tend to have higher starting salaries than men. Men in turn tend to work more hours, meaning more performance. It evens out.
Basically just say what you mean: that the initial salary should be set and non-negotiated no matter what. I disagree with you, initial salaries should have some room for negotiation to reward those who use it and provide incentive for people with experience to get those positions. Sometimes it sucks, but there it is.
Look up Norway
That's how it works in Europe, and we haven't turned Communist yet.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Not socialist. Capitalist with heavy taxes, but NOT SOCIALIST. Definitely a welfare state, but that's not socialism.Personally I think the USA qualifies as a welfare state too, but that's my opinion. Norway has one of the lowest rates of market regulation in the western world. It's not lassiez-faire but it's a hell of a lot less regulated than the United States.. Almost makes a case for less market regulation, doesn't it?
One of the accepted hallmarks of Socialism is collective ownership of production. Norway doesn't have that... So.. no...it's a Welfare State
They are a balance. They safely harness capitalism to generate what they need for socialism. But they keep their capitalism safely regulated and contained within beneficial restraints. But instead of having a wild fires of unrestrained capitalism burning quality to theground,. They use a control reactioned , like we are car engine is powered by explosions but in a controlled contained regulated manner, that makes the engine serve the entire vehicle rather than just the engine. what good is a car without an engine and what good is an engine without a car to attach it to.
Let's not get lost arguing about semantics. There's certain percentage of the population that are Workaholics due to various psychological instabilities. that part of their brain it supposed to click in and say I have enough is dysfunctional. And the US these mentally ill people have been allowes to wait the system in their favor to the point where there's not enough left for everone else. So if we take a page from norway and heavily prune them then then what was malignant becomes symbiotic.
I have seen very little evidence for women being more or less insecure than men.
Men are far more action oriented (think shoot first ask questions later), while women are more likely to be of the "we need to consider all options" group.
Men are also culturally conditioned to act like that, and woman also. So saying that men and women tend to behave that way doesn't necessarily say anything about any innate qualities.
Lets see, there are two cases here. Either Oracle are being sexist; great put them against the wall.
sure.
Maybe Oracle isn't sexist and the pay difference is based on initial salary negotiations
If that gives you a gender bias then you have a problem and have done something illegal. Salary negotiation is unrelated to performance of a developer so if you see a gender bias due to salary negotiation then it's unrelated to performance and hence against the law.
Performance related bias is allowed. Anything else isn't. If you're relying heavily on salary negotiations then you're leaving yourself open for a lawsuit.
I don't make the law, but I'm telling you how it works. You're trying to argue the rationality of the law with me when I' trying to tell you how it works. Yes, that is stupid, because courts do not enforce the letter of the law.
I disagree with you, initial salaries should
Should doesn't come into it. If you're paying women less than men for anything unrelated to performance then you're inviting a lawsuit. And you'll lose, because the law is clear.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I agree with this to some extent and while this is no scientific inference but just personal experience. Most women I know have not ever negotiated a salary, they typically took what was on offer. Whereas most men I know always tried to negotiate their offer, never taking the first one and typically getting more. It's no secret that a company is going to try to offer the lowest it feels it can get away with and it is up to the candidate to convince them that they should be getting more than that.
It could very well be that women are just not as aggressive in salary negotiations as men on average
I'll give you the "also". There is some social pressure, but as Sweden is showing us, it doesn't account for a whole hell of a lot.
And the US these mentally ill people have been allowes to wait the system in their favor to the point where there's not enough left for everone else.
Your logic is flawed. The system isn't a pie that's divided up and portioned out. Brand new wealth is created constantly. The "pie" is constantly getting larger.. But please keep blaming the successful for your failures.
I really love how you have equated ambition and drive with a mental illness. I suppose the lazy or unambitious are virtuous?
That same drive that can create an real estate tycoon can also create a world class brain surgeon.. Or a piano virtuoso. Just depends on how the person chooses to focus it..
Your general "shtick" is that the successful people are out to get you and wanting to be the best is a mental illness. I'm done with you...
It's not the wealthy people are out to get me and stuck there willing to sacrifice everyone else for their own benefit. Different motivation, same functional end result. Wealth is when you have Roland and means to provide for yourself and graduate from the economy because you became self-sustaining. It's the equivalent to exiting the casino while you're still ahead and leave in the rest for others.
Correction. Edson that they are proactively willing to sacrifice everyone elses well being if necessary to get what they want. Getting what they want never does any good because they just want more, meaning every bitter resource consumed by them above their basic needs are wasted as it is not provided any sustainability of satisfaction. So they could be at the same relative level of dissatisfaction at a much lower cost, all the same amount of resources redirected to people higher potential to be satisfied results in higher relative being of the general populace , demonstrated a more healthy and successful people.