Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday April 10 2017, @07:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-doll-house dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Google has discriminated against its female employees, according to the US Department of Labor (DoL), which said it had evidence of "systemic compensation disparities".

As part of an ongoing DoL investigation, the government has collected information that suggests the internet search giant is violating federal employment laws with its salaries for women, agency officials said.

"We found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce," Janette Wipper, a DoL regional director, testified in court in San Francisco on Friday.

Reached for comment Friday afternoon, Janet Herold, regional solicitor for the DoL, said: "The investigation is not complete, but at this point the department has received compelling evidence of very significant discrimination against women in the most common positions at Google headquarters."

Herold added: "The government's analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry."

Google strongly denied the accusations of inequities, claiming it did not have a gender pay gap.

Source: The Guardian


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 10 2017, @07:08PM (22 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 10 2017, @07:08PM (#491845) Journal

    Google strongly denied the accusations of inequities, claiming it did not have a gender pay gap.

    Hey, Google. Don't be evil. How about . . .

    Google strongly denied the accusations insisting its pay discrimination is NOT Extreme but merely Excessive.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @07:10PM (20 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @07:10PM (#491847)

    Let's see the evidence. I trust Google more than the US Government.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday April 10 2017, @07:46PM (9 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday April 10 2017, @07:46PM (#491886)

      You won't see any evidence, because salaries or IRS files are not public.
      If you trust a company with a financial interest in discrimination, over a government agency with easier targets than spending years fighting million-dollar lawyers, you should move to a different country.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @08:06PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @08:06PM (#491903)

        Why does Google have a financial interest in discrimination? From a financial perspective, Google is just as motivated to pay less salary to men and women....I have worked in a US government agency and know first hand how incompetent they can be. But thanks for trying to make me feel unwelcome in my own home.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @08:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @08:10PM (#491908)

          > Why does Google have a financial interest in discrimination?

          Because maintaining the status quo is always the short-term cheapest option.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday April 10 2017, @08:14PM (5 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday April 10 2017, @08:14PM (#491912)

          > just as motivated to pay less salary to men and women

          Men in the Bay Area keep jumping ship to find more elsewhere. Are women, especially those responsible children logistics, as likely to be fickle?

          > thanks for trying to make me feel unwelcome in my own home.

          You're the one claiming more trust in a private for-profit privacy-invasion-as-business-case entity, than for your own my-constitution-is-the-bestestest government... Don't shoot the messenger.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 10 2017, @09:47PM (2 children)

            Personally, I trust both of them. Granted I trust them both to fuck over anyone they get the chance to, but that's still a type of trust.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @11:27PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @11:27PM (#492010)

              No, that would be called "distrust".

              Wait, in your case I think you might have the proper usage...

            • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday April 11 2017, @02:26PM

              by linkdude64 (5482) on Tuesday April 11 2017, @02:26PM (#492268)

              I will share one of my favorite one-liners of all time...

              "You can't trust a dog, but you can trust a dog to be a dog."

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @10:47PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @10:47PM (#491990)

            Or women are negotiating for different perks instead of literal pay. Pay is only one factor in compensation and others can be much more expensive, but not pay.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by qzm on Tuesday April 11 2017, @04:36AM

            by qzm (3260) on Tuesday April 11 2017, @04:36AM (#492136)

            >Men in the Bay Area keep jumping ship to find more elsewhere. Are women, especially those responsible children logistics, as likely to be fickle?

            Actually, in that case paying the men more would more certainly not be 'discrimination', it would be required to retain a more difficult to retain asset.
            Care to try again?

            I suspect, actually, this whole thing is an attack on Googles tendency to scale pay based on 'results' (ignoring arguments about how results are measured)
            versus seniority. Most feminists, and bureaucrats, think that a pure seniority based payment scheme is the ONLY fair method, and that payment based
            on actual value of work is evil. This is where the whole 'pay gap' lie has been nurtured. It is based on the assumption that any person with degree X who
            has been alive for Y years after getting that degree is worth the same pay - regardless of what they have done in the meantime, what their track record
            looks like, how much personal time they tend to commit to the company, etc, etc.

            In other words they desperately hate on the fact that men, with a higher average level of commitment to their career (for a number of very well understood
            sociological reasons) get paid more on average than women, who for similar sociological reasons, have more choice and less pressure in that area.

            In fact, figures that DO adjust for this show that men are almost ALWAYS paid less the women for a given level of ability/commitment.
            This should surprise no one, as it is a direct result of a society which places more pressure on men to succeed financially and in their career, and less pressure
            on women for the same.

            In other words yes, there is usually a pay gap, to the detriment of MEN, as they have given up more to receive less.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by goody on Monday April 10 2017, @11:04PM

          by goody (2135) on Monday April 10 2017, @11:04PM (#491997)

          I'm sure it isn't in their business plan or on any Powerpoint slides to embrace discrimination, but as often happens in companies, it just happens. It happens by not having processes and policies in place to prevent it from happening. The Department of Labor has its faults, but in general they protect and favor workers and aren't some big brother agency with black helicopters. You all may be fans for Google for having a great search engine, a fast browser, and a mobile device OS with mass appeal, but it says nothing of their internal practices. While Google may espouse to do no evil and use this in major decisions at an executive and board level, it can be very difficult to apply and maintain this in thousands of daily decisions in middle management.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 10 2017, @09:21PM (2 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday April 10 2017, @09:21PM (#491946)

      Google is a for-profit company so you can deduce what their motivations are. Trust Google to act for the good of Google. Sometimes we get lucky and it coincides with our interests.

      The government, on the other hand...theoretically they shouldn't really have any motivations. Our representatives should work solely to perform the will of the People. But of course 49% of the People are idiots ;)

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday April 10 2017, @10:46PM (1 child)

        by kaszz (4211) on Monday April 10 2017, @10:46PM (#491989) Journal

        I suspect the idiot quote is more like 80%..
        Not that soylentnews is demographically representative by a long shot..

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @01:41AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @01:41AM (#492063)

          > I suspect the idiot quote is more like 80%..

          Nope, it is exactly 44.4%.

    • (Score: 2) by srobert on Tuesday April 11 2017, @12:27AM

      by srobert (4803) on Tuesday April 11 2017, @12:27AM (#492034)

      I don't trust either currently, but at least with the government, I get to vote for who runs it once in a while.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 11 2017, @02:29AM (5 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 11 2017, @02:29AM (#492084) Journal

      Where do you work that the people's salaries are commonly known? Our HR creature is very careful at every discussion of pay to tell you "Don't tell anyone else what you're getting!" Like, if you're making minimum wage, and get a 2 cent raise, it should be top secret, because all those other minimum wage flunkies will want the same 2 cents. Fek - a 2 cent or even 2% raise across the board will break the company? And, does that minimum wage flunkie REALLY believe that he's getting something special? Something special would be a 50% raise! A raise of 50% over minimum wage would put the average head of household up to the poverty line! THAT is special!

      I've never visited a Google campus, but I'm willing to bet that few of their employees are at liberty to discuss wages.

      • (Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday April 11 2017, @05:11AM (3 children)

        by slinches (5049) on Tuesday April 11 2017, @05:11AM (#492144)

        Minimum wage jobs aren't intended to support a family. They are there to be a first job for young adults to begin working and gain some experience before starting a career. If those types of jobs aren't allowed to exist, then how will kids work their way through college or afford vocational training?

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 11 2017, @01:24PM (2 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 11 2017, @01:24PM (#492236) Journal

          Doesn't matter what they are "intended" to do. Facts are facts - corporate America forgot where they came from, and sold out their country, shipping good paying jobs to Outback Fuckistan, where people will work like a dog just to put food on the table. Do you know where your Levi's come from?

          But, do you know what's WORSE than minimum wage? All those jobs that are exempt from minimum wage laws. Food service and wait staff first and foremost. Mysogenistic laws that ensure a single mother can never make ends meet if they rely on waitress work.

          While everyone is worried about some prima donna at Google not getting as much money as the guy who was hired at the same time - NO ONE worries about women struggling to make ends meet at a job that doesn't even pay minimum wage.

          • (Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday April 11 2017, @05:28PM (1 child)

            by slinches (5049) on Tuesday April 11 2017, @05:28PM (#492371)

            What are you talking about with misogynist laws against waiters/servers? That's a job that is roughly evenly split between men and women, so even if the laws were put in place to harm them, it wouldn't be misogynistic. And secondly, the laws are in place because gratuity is a substantial portion of their income (often more than their base pay, much of which is unreported tax-free cash income) and applying minimum wage laws on top would severely distort the job market which includes non-tip based positions. So we need to either keep the laws as they are or change them to apply to wait-staff, but somehow get rid of tips.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 12 2017, @12:47AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 12 2017, @12:47AM (#492555) Journal

              You've gotten the cart before the horse. Have you ever noticed that tipping doesn't take place in most of the rest of the world?

              The REASON we tip wait staff, is that we exempted them from minimum wage laws when the minimum wage was dreamed up. Corruption reigned then, as always. Lobbyists worked hard to specifically exempt farm workers, food service, and wait staff from the laws, claiming that each of those groups received certain benefits on the job. When minimum wage was created, we established an entire separate class of workers who could be exploited independently of all other workers.

              https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/flsa1938.htm [dol.gov]

              The fact that the US has established a custom of "tipping" over the past 80 years or so doesn't make an inequitable wage law moral or just. The fact that most people in the US can't remember, and haven't been taught, how the law came to be, doesn't make that law moral or just. The US was slow to adopt minimum wages, just as it was slow to outlaw slavery. When it did adopt minimum wage, the US got things all wrong.

              There is no justification for any exemption to minimum wage laws.

              And, historically, as applied to wait staff, the law is indeed misogynistic. Male waiters have historically been paid more than females. Males have always had more choices, and males often move on from waiting to other work. Females often spend their entire careers in waitress work.

              Read up on the history of the law before you tell me how fair it is.

      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday April 11 2017, @03:29PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday April 11 2017, @03:29PM (#492302) Journal

        I've never visited a Google campus, but I'm willing to bet that few of their employees are at liberty to discuss wages.

        They most certainly are. HR will always *suggest*, sometimes quite strongly, that you do not discuss your salary. But legally they cannot prohibit you from doing so, nor can they punish you for doing so. I'd hope people working for Google are intelligent enough to realize this and to not be intimidated by some lying HR drone...assuming they actually wanted to of course.

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday April 10 2017, @10:43PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Monday April 10 2017, @10:43PM (#491987) Journal

    You are totally wrong. They mean to say "Don't be evil (except if there a profit to be made)" ;-)

    Google had their behavior quite straight until they got entangled with the political apparatus (by necessity) and got big.