He even starts with "I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity", the typical "I'm not racist but..."
How do *you* frame a statement that you think is true, but you think might be misinterpreted?
The harm of Google's biases: A high priority queue and special treatment of "diversity" candidates, hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative ratio...
Disagreeing with the method by which Google is trying to achieve diversity is not anti-diversity. Offering alternate methods of achieving diversity (even if they turn out not to work) is not anti-diversity.
He's basically saying "diversity" candidates are dumber without giving any proof.
He's also implying that some of his colleagues are there in Google because of lower standards and not merit.
If that is not anti-diversity, what is?
Unless he produces statistical proof that this is the case at Google, then this is an anti-diversity opinion.
I think there are probably some very good and legitimate criticisms that can be made of this memo. I am not even necessarily opposed to this engineer being fired.
But why lie about the contents of the memo? I am very sympathetic to the idea that diversity is a good thing (as apparently the author of the memo was as well), but I am completely turned off by the fact that the strategy utilized by "the other side" (not the other side from me... yet) is to lie about what's in it.
It is not anti-diversity. Maybe it's wrong. But it being wrong doesn't make it automatically anti-diversity. Redistributing this falsehood is intellectually dishonest.
I don't want to be on a side that's wrong. I also don't want to be on a side that's dishonest.
Read the memo.
He even starts with "I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity", the typical "I'm not racist but..."
The harm of Google's biases: A high priority queue and special treatment of "diversity" candidates, hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative ratio...
I think there are probably some very good and legitimate criticisms that can be made of this memo. I am not even necessarily opposed to this engineer being fired.
But why lie about the contents of the memo? I am very sympathetic to the idea that diversity is a good thing (as apparently the author of the memo was as well), but I am completely turned off by the fact that the strategy utilized by "the other side" (not the other side from me... yet) is to lie about what's in it.
It is not anti-diversity. Maybe it's wrong. But it being wrong doesn't make it automatically anti-diversity. Redistributing this falsehood is intellectually dishonest.
I don't want to be on a side that's wrong. I also don't want to be on a side that's dishonest.
What? That memo is all over the place.
Women are more neurotic and male gender roles are inflexible in the same list about ways to reduce the gender discrimination.
Then there is a huge dose of semi-political rants like PC-authoritarians, alienating conservatives etc.
There is even a footnote that says, "men are judged on status and women on beauty" for why women do not go for leadership positions as only men seek status.
The memo is a terrible rant in a PDF. It makes it look like those scientific papers. If it was in e-mail text format, everyone would think it is a sexist rant.
Now, all we need is a biological racial differences memo. Feel like all this heading to saying white males are biologically superior.
When she was 3-4 she started playing minecraft.
When she was 6, we assembled her first PC.
When she was 9, we upgraded her video card.
She's 11 now. She understands underlying components, she understands basic TCP/IP networking. She understands partitions, how to install an OS. She knows what to not click, and how to keep her computer free of crap. At 11, she's got an equal understanding of tech from when I started at 20. Yet she doesn't want to do it. She wants to be an artist. She thinks all babies are super cute. People call her "Mini-me" because she looks like me, and is good with computers like me. There's nothing wrong with saying, "She's biologically predisposed to not go into an engineering role"
She never played with dolls or barbies. Always computers, her choice. Yet she does not want to go into an engineering role like her mom and dad. (Actually, her mom moved onto management years ago)
Her mom going to management and seeking to be leader (and hence apparently seeking status) violates the Google memo.
According to the memo, it's the guys who are supposed to seek status and take high stress jobs.
When she was 3-4 she started playing minecraft.
When she was 6, we assembled her first PC.
When she was 9, we upgraded her video card.
She's 11 now. She understands underlying components, she understands basic TCP/IP networking. She understands partitions, how to install an OS. She knows what to not click, and how to keep her computer free of crap. At 11, she's got an equal understanding of tech from when I started at 20. Yet she doesn't want to do it. She wants to be an artist. She thinks all babies are super cute. People call her "Mini-me" because she looks like me, and is good with computers like me. There's nothing wrong with saying, "She's biologically predisposed to not go into an engineering role"
She never played with dolls or barbies. Always computers, her choice. Yet she does not want to go into an engineering role like her mom and dad. (Actually, her mom moved onto management years ago)
Don't worry she'll become an engineer.
If we became what we wanted to as a kid, we'd be astronauts and we'd have a 100 million astronauts in the US.
Wojcicki opens by saying her daughter asked her, "Is it true that there are biological reasons why there are fewer women in tech and leadership?" Wojcicki says no, it's not true, but the question has still plagued her throughout her career.
Or she's just wrong. Choosing not to believe in something doesn't make it go away.
I'm sure there are plenty of parents telling their children that climate change isn't real, but that isn't going to stop global temperatures from increasing.
And really it comes down to about the same thing. There are some people who have built their world view around a belief that isn't true, and even when presented with large amounts of evidence to suggest otherwise they will continue to dismiss it. I've found that there are very few people who are scientifically minded and rational and even if they did accept the reality of both climate change and sex-based biological differences, there're just as likely to be off the reservation in some other area like the link between vaccination and autism, GMO food, or even something as laughable as the age of the earth.
I don't think anyone's really immune and humans have some terrible cognitive inclinations that make us unwilling to let go of view points once we've latched on to them. I was recently at a family reunion and watched some of my relatives get into an argument over some idiotic event in the past for almost five hours. Even after someone got annoyed enough to dig up an old photo on Facebook to prove their point, the other person still wouldn't admit they were wrong and started inventing all kinds of fanciful reasons to explain away the photo. It was kind of surreal, but I've done the same plenty of times myself. I think there should be a class in school about being wrong about whatever and learning to accept new data that challenges our original assumptions.
So you're saying that the CEO of Youtube has a cognitive bias that prevents her from believing that sex-based biological differences leads to less women in tech leadership. Hmm.
Maybe you should consider that she might be a little more qualified to give opinions on that matter.
If he takes them to court and can prove that his statements are scientifically backed at the statistical scale, they they aren't stereotypes and it would be wrongful termination right? I would LOVE to see that happen. So tired of the like that says everyone is genetically the same. It's literally shouting at proof to try and scare it into falsehood.
He was terminated for violating the code of conduct.
It's not his job as a google engineer.
If I went around at work saying state university engineers are dumber and should be paid less, I would be in trouble.
"At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint)."
And to prove that their fears are well founded, Google will simply fire one of them. Got a minority conservative viewpoint? Don't you dare to express your view or suffer the consequences.
Harassment or viewpoint?
I can see it as harassment if I send out emails at work with ideas that target your co-workers. I would expect to get fired if I sent emails like "women are dumber", "muslims are terrorists", "blacks are violent" etc to my co-workers.
It takes almost the entirety of the time limit to complete the green card application -- you basically are committing only to use the H1B as a temporary work permit for a maximum of 6 years then leave -- if you are able to switch employers (your employer is your green card sponsor).
If the H1B "temporary/permanent dual intent" is changed to something like a provisional green card - you the employee have the provisional green card... As long as you pay taxes, are not a burden on society, work a minimum of 5 years accumulated, stay out of the criminal justice system -- the provisional green card status becomes full green card status.
I did work on a TN1 status in the US for a couple of years - but I turned down the offer to transfer to an H1B and start the green card process -- it just was not worth it. I have no plans on ever returning to work in the United States - but I do recognize that the American system is a complete mess which does not give priority to those that are skilled -- which leaves these H1B visas as basically a hack where immigration reform that changes to a point based system that favoured high tech / employment sponsored for permanent status.
Points would be issued on:
1. English language proficiency
2. Education (American University Education would be the most points).
3. Education (University/College - Skilled - Assigned based on University ranking globally)
4. Employment Offer / Salary based points
5. Prior Employment History in selected fields (American University can be duplicated and applied for these points as well).
6. Age
7. Marital Status (Married - your wife has her points calculated and then combined and divided by 2)
Figure out the immigration target level - divide it by 12 (monthly) and then those that have the most points in the month of the application get approved in that month. An employer may make another job offer the following month and your status could be evaluated in the following month (it would rely on a patient employer).
The system would encourage talent to immigrate or those with American University degrees to be ranked highly. The H1B would become redundant then.
It takes around 1-1.5 years to get the green card. 2 months for PWD, 2 months recruitment, 4-5 months for PERM and 5-8 months for AOS. You could be done around a year.
US has quotas for each of the different types of family and employment based green cards and are issued by first come first served basis and not by points. The point based system is the Canadian immigration system now being suggested by the Trump administration for US.
I don't consider that a reasonable fix. The process is still a pain and costly. As Craig suggested in his response to me, tie the visa to the worker, not the company. I would add to his suggestion, if you remain unemployed for too long, your visa is cancelled. How long is too long is open for discussion.
H1B is attributed to the person first, not the company. A person cannot get an H1B without a company sponsorship but the H1B belongs to the person.
If unemployed for too long, the visa is not cancelled. The person is free to start up another H1B again with another company anytime afterwards. It's just that immigration does not let you stay in the US but free to come back anytime they have another sponsor.
So far every single "rebuttal" from google and outside, every autistic screeching, every angry tweet and call for his firing and public outing simply confirms what he said.
Instead to tackling the deep issues of PC culture they are trying to kill the messenger.
The very existence of a VP for diversity at an engineering company should be a wake up call.
And lets not even get to her asinine "arguments" that are anything but. Sara Meis response is even worse actually (not that I thought it could be possible). Instead of citing data that disproves his arguments (protip: does not exist, neither does the wage gap) she puts words in his mouth ("conclusions that favor his ego") and implies that he did not arrive to those conclusions by observation but apparently HAD to work backwards.
Why makes you think they don't exist?
Have you actually tried looking for evidence to the contrary of your beliefs?
I remember reading many an article like these and these.
Statistical analysis by function, creates groups. It's interesting that we group numbers, genes, animals... however it's somehow evil, in a new century way, to group based on gender
The reality is men tend to process spatially where as women tend to process verbally. that is biology. These are not absolutes, as varying individuals on both sides of the spectrum cross. However, generally it's true... and yes, I'm grouping. Anyone who claims different is a liar or misinformed. There's no debate, men and women are wired differently.
https://www.scientificamerican...
I'm sure most people on this forum have seen those ads or politicians stating "everyone needs to learn to program" and smirk to yourself or get upset knowing it's ludicrous as well
This is the same. People have predispositions to specific tendencies and processes that make some professional trades ideal, where as others, not so much. Given that mathematics, and computer programming via extension, tend to favor those who process information spatially, this biologically implies males would be more likely to perform these tasks and drawn to them.
Again, I'm not saying "all", just general tendencies.
But we as reasonable people need to stop going apesh*t when someone suggests that the everyone is not the same or some people can not perform tasks as well as others..
Yet mathematics and computer programs are written in text. Wouldn't you say strange for something that strongly favors those who process information spatially?
Women tend to do better in science and mathematics classes in college and universities. Why doesn't their lack of spatial processing power doesn't hinder them at those levels?
Are you sure that you are not really suggesting your own opinions by finding facts to support your opinions?
We live in a day and age where the only socially acceptable racism is against whites, and the only socially acceptable sexism is against men.
Perhaps it's foolish to think that it could be any other way, and that we could come to a harmonious society with equality of treatment (even if that leads to disparate outcomes), and judgement based on content of character rather than color of skin, but it seems clear now that once empowered, and in power, the alt-left has inevitably become the demons they once fought against, authoritarian, bigoted, and inflexible.
Shame on google.
If student admissions were all by merit, majority of the top universities would be occupied by Asian girls. It is also socially acceptable to not let that happen.
1. Naively capping H-1Bs at 1,000 per organization would only result in more organizations. The outsourcers would simply lean on shell companies. Depending on the elasticities, workers would get paid even less in order to fund the extra overhead. That won't work.
2. There is an easy fix, actually: set minimum H-1B salaries to $10,000 per month (2017 dollars, inflation indexed) nationwide, up to $2,000/month more (2017 dollars) in high cost of living areas (e.g. Silicon Valley), plus require that the employer post a 12 month bond. That'll have zero impact on Apple and several other legitimate H-1B employers. Closely monitor compliance (e.g. compare to tax records), deport any employee paying kickbacks, throw anybody accepting kickbacks in prison, and keep the bond if there are any rule violations.
3. A variation on #2 is to hold monthly or quarterly H-1B auctions. The bid price is the employee's salary, and the highest salaries win, subject to a $10,000/month (2017 dollars) floor.
Options #2 and #3 would help boost government revenues since high salaries (for both the H-1Bs and resident workers) mean higher tax payments.
It also allows you to essentially fix costs for a position if you're using H1B as temporary labor. New employees every 3 years means never needing to raise what that position costs you.
And as another poster pointed out above, these are rarely used to hire in workers of skill greater than they could find locally. I'm aware of a company that has staffed their QA department almost entirely through H1B, and their QA is not required to actually understand the product at all, just run specified test cases and report results. My dad is not a technical person and he could do their QA.
NO. Hiring new engineers for your product is super disruptive. It takes years for the new hire to learn the code, learn the company processes and get good at what they are doing. You want to retain as much as possible.
I don't know how you can staff your QA with H1Bs. First, DOL's salary requirements are high. Second, lawyer and USCIS fees are also very high. Third, their salary and job description must be posted on the company common room and if anyone can claim that they have the minimum requirements for the job, the H1B must vacate that position for the US person.
There are two issues with the process. The H1B is the only visa that allows for dual purpose/intent - temporary worker while allowing for the person to have the intent to work permanently in the United States. It is often used while a company is sponsoring the individual for a green card. H1B is a maximum of 2 3yr visas, and sponsoring for a green card typically takes almost 6 years to process. During this time a worker cannot change employers or they have to start over on the green card application -- basically turning them into indentured servants with little or no ability to negotiate on pay.
The H1B tech worker program should be changed into a temporary work permit given to the employee (not the employer) while the green card application is underway. The green card application once started should have the ability to "transfer sponsors". H1B visas should require a minimum salary at or above the prevailing wage. Data on salaries of local hires and H1Bs should be reported annually, and if a company is abusing the visa then they should be banned from sponsoring them for a period of 5 years.
There are already stuff like this.
Main problem is that most H1Bs are from India and because of the diversity quotas (one country cannot send more than 10% of the total immigrants per year), the backlog is decades long.
However, a lot of stuff like 140 and priority dates are transferable.
However, the whole green card process was never indented to be a 2 year process. It was 3-4 months process and stuff that made sense for a 3-4 month process doesn't make sense for 2 year process. For example, considering a green card application as abandoned for leaving a job makes sense for a 3-4 month process but doesn't make sense for 2 year process.
Don't tie the visa to a specific company. Make it easy for the workers to switch jobs. H1B workers are damn near indentured servants because it's so damn hard to switch jobs. The result is they have to put up with crap that a regular worker wouldn't tolerate, e.g. longer hours (at a fixed salary), no bonuses, shorter or no vacations, etc. It's not just about the salary. It's the ability to completely control the workers.
This was fixed 15-20 years ago.
H1Bs can easily switch jobs. It does cost the company legal fees and USCIS fees (around $4000 or so) but it is pretty straightforward to switch.
Yes, I am a Brit trying to get into the US on the H1B program because my girlfriend is there. It is now significantly harder to get companies to even talk to me since they defunded priority applications. My best shot is to apply in April, for a visa that *may* start in October. My chances of getting it are very slim though.
Note that I'm in software, in London, earn a very good salary and have 20 years of experience - I'm a model candidate - and I've been told by some people over there that I may as well not bother and to "explore other options"...
Absolute hogwash.
Priority processing has nothing to do with this. Even with priority processing, you still apply in April and come in October. It's just that you'll know in June instead of July if you're coming or not.
If you have a company that is genuinely interested in you then it is possible to do EB2 green card. It takes about 6 months before you can get your work permit and green card about 5-8 months afterwards. It is more complicated and more burden on the employer to file 4 stages of paperwork to prove that you are getting paid high enough salary, not taking an American's job and that the employer has enough money to pay you. But, it is possible to go outside of H1B.
I don't know about Britain, but a lot of European countries have treaty visas, special visas negotiated per country basis. So, it bypasses everything but depends on the country.
The problem is that biases are reality based. Blacks really are more violent. Asians really are good at math. Women really are bad at navigating. As humans, we try to ignore these generalities for the greater good of judging people as individuals, but nonetheless generalities are generally true.
A famous quote from Arthur Conan Doyle, "While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will be up to, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but percentages remain constant. So says the statistician."
You can have a pacifist Buddhist black man, Asian who has flunked math and a woman navigator.
If you institutionalize AI decision making for individuals based on statistics on what we believe a group a person might belong to, this is worse that hiring a racist/sexist decision maker.
In the US, the original intent of the H-1B visa was to be a safety valve to find and hire the most talented people you could find regardless of their current location. I actually know several people whose employers used it for this purpose. But, it has been shown that all the body shops use it to bring in cheap labor. The visa rules state that the minimum salary is $60K, and it never got adjusted for inflation. So, say you're a company in San Francisco and have to pay your IT staff $200K a year just to keep their heads above water. TCS or Infosys or Cognizant will come around and offer you 2 "qualified resources" for the same price, and you get to wash your hands of the IT department. It's not surprising they win outsourcing deals.
Hopefully Canada won't repeat the same mistake. I doubt it though -- there's no point in participating in politics unless you have millions of dollars to buy the laws you want. I'm sure all the big companies have purchased themselves nice loopholes similar to the ones we have. It's a shame too, because I would move to Toronto or Montreal in 2 seconds if I could find a good job.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! That was never the intent of the H1B visa.
You're confusing it with the EB1 visa. EB1 grants direct green card - no work permits.
H1B was to provide a temporary work permit in a specialized field that an employer cannot fulfill LOCALLY.
Example, Company A needs skill S to finish project P. They look for people with skill S looking for a job in Company A's city. They can't find anyone - everyone with skill S is happily employed. So, they hire an H1B with skill S. That is the intent of the H1B.
The job description is to published in a public area of company A. Any American with skill S can ask company A and he must be given the job.
And, for problem of compensation. Company A could always low ball the salary and nobody would apply and then go on and hire H1B. They have added the step that DOL now determines the minimum salary.
This concept is drilled into us day in, day out. It's accepted as a universal truth with absolutely no vetting, which has always made me suspicious of the claim. Why is diversity important in science? By it's very nature, WHO is doing the science should be irrelevant. A test result won't change depending on my gender or melanin levels, or at least it won't if the science is done right.
Lack of diversity just means they're shutting certain segments out.
I'd rather have my scientists compete rather than simply occupy positions and pass it along to their friends and family.
I'm working at a business with low pay--where the average for a programmer is $96k here, programmers make $74k. The same is true of most IT staff, running a good 20%-30% short of the industry median.
We're also fairly diversified and have chicks and people from all over the world in our staff, and have had folks who speak Russian or obscure Indian dialects as a primary language in prominent technical positions. They're also poorly-paid, although near as I can tell we all have about the same salary.
It seems like a form of posturing: we don't want to pay salaries, so we create a perception of... something. We're a good place to work because of something something benefits diversity open-door-policy.
Are these studies by industry, region, experience, and business? Do we say that black women earn 55% as much as white men, or do we say that black women at business X in job Y earn 55% as much as white men in business X at job Y? What happens if business X mostly hires white men for job Y, and business X' hires a higher proportion of black and asian women for job Y but also pays like shit even if you're a white man?
That doesn't work. Recruiters will successfully poach someone getting underpaid or unhappy. So, it seems like you're unhappy about getting underpaid.
Competition is why people earn what they earn what they earn. Your employer cannot get away with paying you $x when employer B will pay you $(x+y). At a statistical level, maybe race and gender matters but on a personal level there are too many variations.
I'll take my vacation sure!
But while I'm gone it's one more opportunity for them to "forget" how much work I do. And that's working a regular 51 hours a week (yeah I'm a lightweight in the industry) and being extremely productive while doing so.
I'm over 40 in "the biz" so EVEN if I had full certs, and EVEN if they were current, and EVEN with a TON of experience, If I'm let go, I'm unlikely to get employed at anything but the lowest technical position.
This has already happened to me once. If I want to keep paying my bills and supporting my family I can't let that happen again.
Fear runs this business in a lot of places.
You're doing it wrong. It should be the other way around. The company should be afraid that you will leave with valuable experience and knowledge.
You should only have FOMO, fear of missing out. Someone else grabs a nice opportunity when you're on vacation.
When agism is rampant in multiple industries, and when there are people who will work for much less than I am, then the companies have the upper hand.
I'm not disagreeing that things should be different - just pointing out that they currently aren't.
I find ageism to be counter-intuitive for me.
The older you are, the bigger your social network and connections that you have more opportunities. I know an older engineer and he gets calls from his older jobs who want him to constantly do contract work and he charges very high for those. You basically carry around the knowledge of every company you have ever worked at and a lot of them are always calling you back to get a project done.
Plus, you have a huge retirement account. They say retire when the money your retirement savings makes for you exceeds your expenses. House paid off, kids grown up - the expenses are barely there and your retirement account keep growing. The only problem is healthcare though.
Plus, older workers probably have more of a management role or a semi-engineering/management role. Those aren't going to be replaced by younger/cheaper engineers.
Plus, I feel older employees have probably had more time to come across that magical opportunity that gives you a huge payout or a huge chance to work with the best. When you're young, you're basically scrambling around to make something happen - unless you are aided by well-connected relatives or mentors.
I guess it all depends on each person's circumstance. I just feel older engineers control higher positions, hold all these wonderful connections and have it all setup over time. As a younger engineer you're basically burning through your time just to get an inch ahead while all your efforts are harvested by the older engineers to benefit them from the system they have slowly created to benefit themselves by withholding information, connections and such.
All I'm saying is that it feels counter-intuitive to me.
I'll take my vacation sure!
But while I'm gone it's one more opportunity for them to "forget" how much work I do. And that's working a regular 51 hours a week (yeah I'm a lightweight in the industry) and being extremely productive while doing so.
I'm over 40 in "the biz" so EVEN if I had full certs, and EVEN if they were current, and EVEN with a TON of experience, If I'm let go, I'm unlikely to get employed at anything but the lowest technical position.
This has already happened to me once. If I want to keep paying my bills and supporting my family I can't let that happen again.
Fear runs this business in a lot of places.
You're doing it wrong. It should be the other way around. The company should be afraid that you will leave with valuable experience and knowledge.
You should only have FOMO, fear of missing out. Someone else grabs a nice opportunity when you're on vacation.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the memo.
I did, in it's entirety
He even starts with "I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity", the typical "I'm not racist but ..."
How do *you* frame a statement that you think is true, but you think might be misinterpreted?
The harm of Google's biases: A high priority queue and special treatment of "diversity" candidates, hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative ratio ...
Disagreeing with the method by which Google is trying to achieve diversity is not anti-diversity. Offering alternate methods of achieving diversity (even if they turn out not to work) is not anti-diversity.
He's basically saying "diversity" candidates are dumber without giving any proof.
He's also implying that some of his colleagues are there in Google because of lower standards and not merit.
If that is not anti-diversity, what is?
Unless he produces statistical proof that this is the case at Google, then this is an anti-diversity opinion.
I think there are probably some very good and legitimate criticisms that can be made of this memo. I am not even necessarily opposed to this engineer being fired.
But why lie about the contents of the memo? I am very sympathetic to the idea that diversity is a good thing (as apparently the author of the memo was as well), but I am completely turned off by the fact that the strategy utilized by "the other side" (not the other side from me... yet) is to lie about what's in it.
It is not anti-diversity. Maybe it's wrong. But it being wrong doesn't make it automatically anti-diversity. Redistributing this falsehood is intellectually dishonest.
I don't want to be on a side that's wrong. I also don't want to be on a side that's dishonest.
Read the memo.
He even starts with "I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity", the typical "I'm not racist but ..."
The harm of Google's biases: A high priority queue and special treatment of "diversity" candidates, hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative ratio ...
I think there are probably some very good and legitimate criticisms that can be made of this memo. I am not even necessarily opposed to this engineer being fired.
But why lie about the contents of the memo? I am very sympathetic to the idea that diversity is a good thing (as apparently the author of the memo was as well), but I am completely turned off by the fact that the strategy utilized by "the other side" (not the other side from me... yet) is to lie about what's in it.
It is not anti-diversity. Maybe it's wrong. But it being wrong doesn't make it automatically anti-diversity. Redistributing this falsehood is intellectually dishonest.
I don't want to be on a side that's wrong. I also don't want to be on a side that's dishonest.
What? That memo is all over the place.
Women are more neurotic and male gender roles are inflexible in the same list about ways to reduce the gender discrimination.
Then there is a huge dose of semi-political rants like PC-authoritarians, alienating conservatives etc.
There is even a footnote that says, "men are judged on status and women on beauty" for why women do not go for leadership positions as only men seek status.
The memo is a terrible rant in a PDF. It makes it look like those scientific papers. If it was in e-mail text format, everyone would think it is a sexist rant.
Now, all we need is a biological racial differences memo. Feel like all this heading to saying white males are biologically superior.
When she was 3-4 she started playing minecraft. When she was 6, we assembled her first PC. When she was 9, we upgraded her video card.
She's 11 now. She understands underlying components, she understands basic TCP/IP networking. She understands partitions, how to install an OS. She knows what to not click, and how to keep her computer free of crap. At 11, she's got an equal understanding of tech from when I started at 20. Yet she doesn't want to do it. She wants to be an artist. She thinks all babies are super cute. People call her "Mini-me" because she looks like me, and is good with computers like me. There's nothing wrong with saying, "She's biologically predisposed to not go into an engineering role"
She never played with dolls or barbies. Always computers, her choice. Yet she does not want to go into an engineering role like her mom and dad. (Actually, her mom moved onto management years ago)
Her mom going to management and seeking to be leader (and hence apparently seeking status) violates the Google memo.
According to the memo, it's the guys who are supposed to seek status and take high stress jobs.
When she was 3-4 she started playing minecraft. When she was 6, we assembled her first PC. When she was 9, we upgraded her video card.
She's 11 now. She understands underlying components, she understands basic TCP/IP networking. She understands partitions, how to install an OS. She knows what to not click, and how to keep her computer free of crap. At 11, she's got an equal understanding of tech from when I started at 20. Yet she doesn't want to do it. She wants to be an artist. She thinks all babies are super cute. People call her "Mini-me" because she looks like me, and is good with computers like me. There's nothing wrong with saying, "She's biologically predisposed to not go into an engineering role"
She never played with dolls or barbies. Always computers, her choice. Yet she does not want to go into an engineering role like her mom and dad. (Actually, her mom moved onto management years ago)
Don't worry she'll become an engineer.
If we became what we wanted to as a kid, we'd be astronauts and we'd have a 100 million astronauts in the US.
Wojcicki opens by saying her daughter asked her, "Is it true that there are biological reasons why there are fewer women in tech and leadership?" Wojcicki says no, it's not true, but the question has still plagued her throughout her career.
Or she's just wrong. Choosing not to believe in something doesn't make it go away. I'm sure there are plenty of parents telling their children that climate change isn't real, but that isn't going to stop global temperatures from increasing. And really it comes down to about the same thing. There are some people who have built their world view around a belief that isn't true, and even when presented with large amounts of evidence to suggest otherwise they will continue to dismiss it. I've found that there are very few people who are scientifically minded and rational and even if they did accept the reality of both climate change and sex-based biological differences, there're just as likely to be off the reservation in some other area like the link between vaccination and autism, GMO food, or even something as laughable as the age of the earth. I don't think anyone's really immune and humans have some terrible cognitive inclinations that make us unwilling to let go of view points once we've latched on to them. I was recently at a family reunion and watched some of my relatives get into an argument over some idiotic event in the past for almost five hours. Even after someone got annoyed enough to dig up an old photo on Facebook to prove their point, the other person still wouldn't admit they were wrong and started inventing all kinds of fanciful reasons to explain away the photo. It was kind of surreal, but I've done the same plenty of times myself. I think there should be a class in school about being wrong about whatever and learning to accept new data that challenges our original assumptions.
So you're saying that the CEO of Youtube has a cognitive bias that prevents her from believing that sex-based biological differences leads to less women in tech leadership. Hmm.
Maybe you should consider that she might be a little more qualified to give opinions on that matter.
If he takes them to court and can prove that his statements are scientifically backed at the statistical scale, they they aren't stereotypes and it would be wrongful termination right? I would LOVE to see that happen. So tired of the like that says everyone is genetically the same. It's literally shouting at proof to try and scare it into falsehood.
He was terminated for violating the code of conduct.
It's not his job as a google engineer.
If I went around at work saying state university engineers are dumber and should be paid less, I would be in trouble.
"At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint)." And to prove that their fears are well founded, Google will simply fire one of them. Got a minority conservative viewpoint? Don't you dare to express your view or suffer the consequences.
Harassment or viewpoint?
I can see it as harassment if I send out emails at work with ideas that target your co-workers. I would expect to get fired if I sent emails like "women are dumber", "muslims are terrorists", "blacks are violent" etc to my co-workers.
It takes almost the entirety of the time limit to complete the green card application -- you basically are committing only to use the H1B as a temporary work permit for a maximum of 6 years then leave -- if you are able to switch employers (your employer is your green card sponsor). If the H1B "temporary/permanent dual intent" is changed to something like a provisional green card - you the employee have the provisional green card... As long as you pay taxes, are not a burden on society, work a minimum of 5 years accumulated, stay out of the criminal justice system -- the provisional green card status becomes full green card status. I did work on a TN1 status in the US for a couple of years - but I turned down the offer to transfer to an H1B and start the green card process -- it just was not worth it. I have no plans on ever returning to work in the United States - but I do recognize that the American system is a complete mess which does not give priority to those that are skilled -- which leaves these H1B visas as basically a hack where immigration reform that changes to a point based system that favoured high tech / employment sponsored for permanent status. Points would be issued on: 1. English language proficiency 2. Education (American University Education would be the most points). 3. Education (University/College - Skilled - Assigned based on University ranking globally) 4. Employment Offer / Salary based points 5. Prior Employment History in selected fields (American University can be duplicated and applied for these points as well). 6. Age 7. Marital Status (Married - your wife has her points calculated and then combined and divided by 2) Figure out the immigration target level - divide it by 12 (monthly) and then those that have the most points in the month of the application get approved in that month. An employer may make another job offer the following month and your status could be evaluated in the following month (it would rely on a patient employer). The system would encourage talent to immigrate or those with American University degrees to be ranked highly. The H1B would become redundant then.
It takes around 1-1.5 years to get the green card. 2 months for PWD, 2 months recruitment, 4-5 months for PERM and 5-8 months for AOS. You could be done around a year.
US has quotas for each of the different types of family and employment based green cards and are issued by first come first served basis and not by points. The point based system is the Canadian immigration system now being suggested by the Trump administration for US.
I don't consider that a reasonable fix. The process is still a pain and costly. As Craig suggested in his response to me, tie the visa to the worker, not the company. I would add to his suggestion, if you remain unemployed for too long, your visa is cancelled. How long is too long is open for discussion.
H1B is attributed to the person first, not the company. A person cannot get an H1B without a company sponsorship but the H1B belongs to the person.
If unemployed for too long, the visa is not cancelled. The person is free to start up another H1B again with another company anytime afterwards. It's just that immigration does not let you stay in the US but free to come back anytime they have another sponsor.
So far every single "rebuttal" from google and outside, every autistic screeching, every angry tweet and call for his firing and public outing simply confirms what he said.
Instead to tackling the deep issues of PC culture they are trying to kill the messenger. The very existence of a VP for diversity at an engineering company should be a wake up call. And lets not even get to her asinine "arguments" that are anything but. Sara Meis response is even worse actually (not that I thought it could be possible). Instead of citing data that disproves his arguments (protip: does not exist, neither does the wage gap) she puts words in his mouth ("conclusions that favor his ego") and implies that he did not arrive to those conclusions by observation but apparently HAD to work backwards.
Why makes you think they don't exist?
Have you actually tried looking for evidence to the contrary of your beliefs?
I remember reading many an article like these and these.
Statistical analysis by function, creates groups. It's interesting that we group numbers, genes, animals... however it's somehow evil, in a new century way, to group based on gender The reality is men tend to process spatially where as women tend to process verbally. that is biology. These are not absolutes, as varying individuals on both sides of the spectrum cross. However, generally it's true... and yes, I'm grouping. Anyone who claims different is a liar or misinformed. There's no debate, men and women are wired differently. https://www.scientificamerican... I'm sure most people on this forum have seen those ads or politicians stating "everyone needs to learn to program" and smirk to yourself or get upset knowing it's ludicrous as well This is the same. People have predispositions to specific tendencies and processes that make some professional trades ideal, where as others, not so much. Given that mathematics, and computer programming via extension, tend to favor those who process information spatially, this biologically implies males would be more likely to perform these tasks and drawn to them. Again, I'm not saying "all", just general tendencies. But we as reasonable people need to stop going apesh*t when someone suggests that the everyone is not the same or some people can not perform tasks as well as others. .
Yet mathematics and computer programs are written in text. Wouldn't you say strange for something that strongly favors those who process information spatially?
Women tend to do better in science and mathematics classes in college and universities. Why doesn't their lack of spatial processing power doesn't hinder them at those levels?
Are you sure that you are not really suggesting your own opinions by finding facts to support your opinions?
We live in a day and age where the only socially acceptable racism is against whites, and the only socially acceptable sexism is against men.
Perhaps it's foolish to think that it could be any other way, and that we could come to a harmonious society with equality of treatment (even if that leads to disparate outcomes), and judgement based on content of character rather than color of skin, but it seems clear now that once empowered, and in power, the alt-left has inevitably become the demons they once fought against, authoritarian, bigoted, and inflexible.
Shame on google.
If student admissions were all by merit, majority of the top universities would be occupied by Asian girls. It is also socially acceptable to not let that happen.
1. Naively capping H-1Bs at 1,000 per organization would only result in more organizations. The outsourcers would simply lean on shell companies. Depending on the elasticities, workers would get paid even less in order to fund the extra overhead. That won't work.
2. There is an easy fix, actually: set minimum H-1B salaries to $10,000 per month (2017 dollars, inflation indexed) nationwide, up to $2,000/month more (2017 dollars) in high cost of living areas (e.g. Silicon Valley), plus require that the employer post a 12 month bond. That'll have zero impact on Apple and several other legitimate H-1B employers. Closely monitor compliance (e.g. compare to tax records), deport any employee paying kickbacks, throw anybody accepting kickbacks in prison, and keep the bond if there are any rule violations.
3. A variation on #2 is to hold monthly or quarterly H-1B auctions. The bid price is the employee's salary, and the highest salaries win, subject to a $10,000/month (2017 dollars) floor.
Options #2 and #3 would help boost government revenues since high salaries (for both the H-1Bs and resident workers) mean higher tax payments.
This will let the rich buy H1B visas.
Make a shell company, and hire yourself.
It also allows you to essentially fix costs for a position if you're using H1B as temporary labor. New employees every 3 years means never needing to raise what that position costs you.
And as another poster pointed out above, these are rarely used to hire in workers of skill greater than they could find locally. I'm aware of a company that has staffed their QA department almost entirely through H1B, and their QA is not required to actually understand the product at all, just run specified test cases and report results. My dad is not a technical person and he could do their QA.
NO. Hiring new engineers for your product is super disruptive. It takes years for the new hire to learn the code, learn the company processes and get good at what they are doing. You want to retain as much as possible.
I don't know how you can staff your QA with H1Bs. First, DOL's salary requirements are high. Second, lawyer and USCIS fees are also very high. Third, their salary and job description must be posted on the company common room and if anyone can claim that they have the minimum requirements for the job, the H1B must vacate that position for the US person.
There are two issues with the process. The H1B is the only visa that allows for dual purpose/intent - temporary worker while allowing for the person to have the intent to work permanently in the United States. It is often used while a company is sponsoring the individual for a green card. H1B is a maximum of 2 3yr visas, and sponsoring for a green card typically takes almost 6 years to process. During this time a worker cannot change employers or they have to start over on the green card application -- basically turning them into indentured servants with little or no ability to negotiate on pay. The H1B tech worker program should be changed into a temporary work permit given to the employee (not the employer) while the green card application is underway. The green card application once started should have the ability to "transfer sponsors". H1B visas should require a minimum salary at or above the prevailing wage. Data on salaries of local hires and H1Bs should be reported annually, and if a company is abusing the visa then they should be banned from sponsoring them for a period of 5 years.
There are already stuff like this.
Main problem is that most H1Bs are from India and because of the diversity quotas (one country cannot send more than 10% of the total immigrants per year), the backlog is decades long.
However, a lot of stuff like 140 and priority dates are transferable.
However, the whole green card process was never indented to be a 2 year process. It was 3-4 months process and stuff that made sense for a 3-4 month process doesn't make sense for 2 year process. For example, considering a green card application as abandoned for leaving a job makes sense for a 3-4 month process but doesn't make sense for 2 year process.
Don't tie the visa to a specific company. Make it easy for the workers to switch jobs. H1B workers are damn near indentured servants because it's so damn hard to switch jobs. The result is they have to put up with crap that a regular worker wouldn't tolerate, e.g. longer hours (at a fixed salary), no bonuses, shorter or no vacations, etc. It's not just about the salary. It's the ability to completely control the workers.
This was fixed 15-20 years ago.
H1Bs can easily switch jobs. It does cost the company legal fees and USCIS fees (around $4000 or so) but it is pretty straightforward to switch.
Yes, I am a Brit trying to get into the US on the H1B program because my girlfriend is there. It is now significantly harder to get companies to even talk to me since they defunded priority applications. My best shot is to apply in April, for a visa that *may* start in October. My chances of getting it are very slim though. Note that I'm in software, in London, earn a very good salary and have 20 years of experience - I'm a model candidate - and I've been told by some people over there that I may as well not bother and to "explore other options"...
Absolute hogwash.
Priority processing has nothing to do with this. Even with priority processing, you still apply in April and come in October. It's just that you'll know in June instead of July if you're coming or not.
If you have a company that is genuinely interested in you then it is possible to do EB2 green card. It takes about 6 months before you can get your work permit and green card about 5-8 months afterwards. It is more complicated and more burden on the employer to file 4 stages of paperwork to prove that you are getting paid high enough salary, not taking an American's job and that the employer has enough money to pay you. But, it is possible to go outside of H1B.
I don't know about Britain, but a lot of European countries have treaty visas, special visas negotiated per country basis. So, it bypasses everything but depends on the country.
The problem is that biases are reality based. Blacks really are more violent. Asians really are good at math. Women really are bad at navigating. As humans, we try to ignore these generalities for the greater good of judging people as individuals, but nonetheless generalities are generally true.
A famous quote from Arthur Conan Doyle, "While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will be up to, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but percentages remain constant. So says the statistician."
You can have a pacifist Buddhist black man, Asian who has flunked math and a woman navigator.
If you institutionalize AI decision making for individuals based on statistics on what we believe a group a person might belong to, this is worse that hiring a racist/sexist decision maker.
Another interesting quote about Jeremy Lin, https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/5zcmz4/michael_lewis_morey_said_jeremy_lin_is_the_15th/
We should be using AI to judge removed from our biases, not take the worst biases and amplify them.
Just look at Coursera, EdX, Code School, and others.
Are they free? No, but neither is Netflix or Hulu.
Videos are the worst way to learn.
Stackoverflow, slack, redit discussions are better way to learn.
Best is to do a project and post it on github, bitbucket, VSTS.
In the US, the original intent of the H-1B visa was to be a safety valve to find and hire the most talented people you could find regardless of their current location. I actually know several people whose employers used it for this purpose. But, it has been shown that all the body shops use it to bring in cheap labor. The visa rules state that the minimum salary is $60K, and it never got adjusted for inflation. So, say you're a company in San Francisco and have to pay your IT staff $200K a year just to keep their heads above water. TCS or Infosys or Cognizant will come around and offer you 2 "qualified resources" for the same price, and you get to wash your hands of the IT department. It's not surprising they win outsourcing deals.
Hopefully Canada won't repeat the same mistake. I doubt it though -- there's no point in participating in politics unless you have millions of dollars to buy the laws you want. I'm sure all the big companies have purchased themselves nice loopholes similar to the ones we have. It's a shame too, because I would move to Toronto or Montreal in 2 seconds if I could find a good job.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! That was never the intent of the H1B visa.
You're confusing it with the EB1 visa. EB1 grants direct green card - no work permits.
H1B was to provide a temporary work permit in a specialized field that an employer cannot fulfill LOCALLY.
Example, Company A needs skill S to finish project P. They look for people with skill S looking for a job in Company A's city. They can't find anyone - everyone with skill S is happily employed. So, they hire an H1B with skill S. That is the intent of the H1B.
The job description is to published in a public area of company A. Any American with skill S can ask company A and he must be given the job.
And, for problem of compensation. Company A could always low ball the salary and nobody would apply and then go on and hire H1B. They have added the step that DOL now determines the minimum salary.
Why is diversity important?
This concept is drilled into us day in, day out. It's accepted as a universal truth with absolutely no vetting, which has always made me suspicious of the claim. Why is diversity important in science? By it's very nature, WHO is doing the science should be irrelevant. A test result won't change depending on my gender or melanin levels, or at least it won't if the science is done right.
Lack of diversity just means they're shutting certain segments out.
I'd rather have my scientists compete rather than simply occupy positions and pass it along to their friends and family.
I'm working at a business with low pay--where the average for a programmer is $96k here, programmers make $74k. The same is true of most IT staff, running a good 20%-30% short of the industry median.
We're also fairly diversified and have chicks and people from all over the world in our staff, and have had folks who speak Russian or obscure Indian dialects as a primary language in prominent technical positions. They're also poorly-paid, although near as I can tell we all have about the same salary.
It seems like a form of posturing: we don't want to pay salaries, so we create a perception of ... something. We're a good place to work because of something something benefits diversity open-door-policy.
Are these studies by industry, region, experience, and business? Do we say that black women earn 55% as much as white men, or do we say that black women at business X in job Y earn 55% as much as white men in business X at job Y? What happens if business X mostly hires white men for job Y, and business X' hires a higher proportion of black and asian women for job Y but also pays like shit even if you're a white man?
That doesn't work. Recruiters will successfully poach someone getting underpaid or unhappy. So, it seems like you're unhappy about getting underpaid.
Competition is why people earn what they earn what they earn. Your employer cannot get away with paying you $x when employer B will pay you $(x+y). At a statistical level, maybe race and gender matters but on a personal level there are too many variations.
I'll take my vacation sure! But while I'm gone it's one more opportunity for them to "forget" how much work I do. And that's working a regular 51 hours a week (yeah I'm a lightweight in the industry) and being extremely productive while doing so. I'm over 40 in "the biz" so EVEN if I had full certs, and EVEN if they were current, and EVEN with a TON of experience, If I'm let go, I'm unlikely to get employed at anything but the lowest technical position. This has already happened to me once. If I want to keep paying my bills and supporting my family I can't let that happen again. Fear runs this business in a lot of places.
You're doing it wrong. It should be the other way around. The company should be afraid that you will leave with valuable experience and knowledge.
You should only have FOMO, fear of missing out. Someone else grabs a nice opportunity when you're on vacation.
When agism is rampant in multiple industries, and when there are people who will work for much less than I am, then the companies have the upper hand. I'm not disagreeing that things should be different - just pointing out that they currently aren't.
I find ageism to be counter-intuitive for me.
The older you are, the bigger your social network and connections that you have more opportunities. I know an older engineer and he gets calls from his older jobs who want him to constantly do contract work and he charges very high for those. You basically carry around the knowledge of every company you have ever worked at and a lot of them are always calling you back to get a project done.
Plus, you have a huge retirement account. They say retire when the money your retirement savings makes for you exceeds your expenses. House paid off, kids grown up - the expenses are barely there and your retirement account keep growing. The only problem is healthcare though.
Plus, older workers probably have more of a management role or a semi-engineering/management role. Those aren't going to be replaced by younger/cheaper engineers.
Plus, I feel older employees have probably had more time to come across that magical opportunity that gives you a huge payout or a huge chance to work with the best. When you're young, you're basically scrambling around to make something happen - unless you are aided by well-connected relatives or mentors.
I guess it all depends on each person's circumstance. I just feel older engineers control higher positions, hold all these wonderful connections and have it all setup over time. As a younger engineer you're basically burning through your time just to get an inch ahead while all your efforts are harvested by the older engineers to benefit them from the system they have slowly created to benefit themselves by withholding information, connections and such.
All I'm saying is that it feels counter-intuitive to me.
I'll take my vacation sure! But while I'm gone it's one more opportunity for them to "forget" how much work I do. And that's working a regular 51 hours a week (yeah I'm a lightweight in the industry) and being extremely productive while doing so. I'm over 40 in "the biz" so EVEN if I had full certs, and EVEN if they were current, and EVEN with a TON of experience, If I'm let go, I'm unlikely to get employed at anything but the lowest technical position. This has already happened to me once. If I want to keep paying my bills and supporting my family I can't let that happen again. Fear runs this business in a lot of places.
You're doing it wrong. It should be the other way around. The company should be afraid that you will leave with valuable experience and knowledge.
You should only have FOMO, fear of missing out. Someone else grabs a nice opportunity when you're on vacation.