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.
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
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/
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.
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.
Funny, I'm white, male, all that. And being mostly the best engineer I'd ever met, the rate of my pay and promotions always seemed unfair to me - had I been one of those other - person of color, wrong sex, whatever - I'd have been sure there was discrimination. And no reasoning would have convinced me otherwise. This observation is to me, quite eye-opening. I'm now out of the game and old enough to look back with a little less ego in it and see why things were the way they were in my own career (which was quite successful in the end).
I was brash, a bit of a prick, bad people skills, immature...but technically a fantastic engineer otherwise. I had zip for social and negotiating skills, only bothered to be nice to others I felt might be worth it and who might help me up the ladder, in other words, I was a real asshole.
And people put up with it because I delivered the goods, technically, but I'm pretty sure they didn't like it. It's embarrassing now to look back on in some ways.
.
My point is, if there is one, that if you're too close to a situation, it's hard to be an honest judge of it. If you go in with an agenda, no hope of finding truth. And in my own case, yeah, I was "discriminated against" and for damn good reasons, they just didn't have anything to do with my "identity" or "class" as people now would divide things up to make conquering easier. I'm so grateful I wasn't anything but white, but not for the reason that white males did better - there was still only one person at the top, after all - and that was the big issue, there's not much top, and to be there you have to have more than one thing working right. Had I been one of those "repressed" identities, I'd be dead sure to this day that my failure to get to the top super fast was discrimination, patriarchy, totalitarianism, favoritism, cronyism, whatever. Nope...it was that the world isn't, and probably shouldn't be, a pure meritocracy in some narrow definition of that concept. Sure, I was one of the best EE's ever - but that's not all there is to merit in an engineering job, not by a very long shot. Doh!
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.........
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.