Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday February 20 2018, @01:59AM   Printer-friendly
from the everybody-knows dept.

From The Verge:

Google didn't violate labor laws by firing engineer James Damore for a memo criticizing the company's diversity program, according to a recently disclosed letter from the US National Labor Relations Board. The lightly redacted statement is written by Jayme Sophir, associate general counsel of the NLRB's division of advice; it dates to January, but was released yesterday, according to Law.com. Sophir concludes that while some parts of Damore's memo were legally protected by workplace regulations, "the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected."

Damore filed an NLRB complaint in August of 2017, after being fired for internally circulating a memo opposing Google's diversity efforts. Sophir recommends dismissing the case; Bloomberg reports that Damore withdrew it in January, and that his lawyer says he's focusing on a separate lawsuit alleging discrimination against conservative white men at Google. NLRB records state that its case was closed on January 19th.

There are White House Staff positions open, I hear.

Previously: Google Fires Author of Divisive Memo on Gender Differences
Google Cancels "Town Hall" Due to Leaks


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 20 2018, @05:22PM (6 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @05:22PM (#640738)

    Then you fell off the wagon and found a biological difference:
    - Women are less likely to accept job requirements, whether express or implied, that involve large quantities of overtime and/or late nights at the office.

    There's nothing biological about that. I cited reasons why, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with biology and everything to do with the social expectations of motherhood, women find those working conditions less acceptable. The reason you label that a "biological" reason is that you probably believe that parenting is primarily women's responsibility, which isn't a biological rule but a social one, proven wrong by many many fathers who are the primary parent of their kids.

    The only thing that women can do for their kids that men can't is breastfeed them, and men can substitute bottlefeeding (either of pumped breastmilk or formula). And the whole issue is completely irrelevant once the kid is weaned, at which point there's absolutely no inherent difference in the parenting capabilities of men and women.

    One of the reasons that matters is that the belief that motherhood is more important than fatherhood is actually something that hurts men's ability to get custody of their kids in divorces.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Zinho on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:09PM (3 children)

    by Zinho (759) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:09PM (#640889)

    I think you're putting words into frojack's mouth. All he said is that given the choice, women will choose shorter hours than men. He said nothing about why they would make that choice, you assumed it was about motherhood and child rearing.

    The difference in choices made by men and women regarding log work hours seems to be cross-cultural, and more pronounced where women have more choice in the matter. Here are a pair of example I found in a quick search on the topic:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-because-of-gender-not-jobs.html [nytimes.com]
    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/11/going_dutch.single.html [slate.com]

    This isn't settled science; little in psychology or sociology is. The current understanding, though, is that given the choice of working more or less hours women will happily choose less money and more free time while men will happily work more hours for more pay. This appears to be a biology-based difference between men and women, one that doesn't have a good explanation just in culture.

    So, which option is more oppressive of women?
    1) providing only more-work-for-more-pay advancement options for the women in the workforce (results in lower happiness for women)
    2) providing reduced-hour options to all employees, and paying each employee for the hours they choose to work (results in lower pay for women)

    --
    "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:43PM (2 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:43PM (#640932)

      The current understanding, though, is that given the choice of working more or less hours women will happily choose less money and more free time while men will happily work more hours for more pay. This appears to be a biology-based difference between men and women, one that doesn't have a good explanation just in culture.

      The leap you're making is "women will choose less money and more free time while men will choose more money and less free time" is due to biological drives rather than some practical matter. And I presented a practical matter that would definitely cause those sorts of decisions, namely responsibility for children, which is still primarily foisted on mothers rather than fathers when all available evidence points to nothing biologically requiring that arrangement (e.g. there's no significant disadvantage to being raised by two dads versus two moms). Frojack then assumed that I was describing a biological difference, when I wasn't: I was describing a social difference.

      And to add even more teeth to the argument: According to this NIH study [nih.gov], the career disadvantage for women in general tends to start after the birth of their first child. Based on that, it looks a lot more like it's the additional parenting responsibilities of women, rather than anything inherent to women being women, that causes them to refuse long hours.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by Zinho on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:52PM (1 child)

        by Zinho (759) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:52PM (#641225)

        Quick review of the conversation so far:

        Frojack: Then you fell off the wagon and found a biological difference:
                - Women are less likely to accept job requirements, whether express or implied, that involve large quantities of overtime and/or late nights at the office.

        Thexalon: There's nothing biological about that.

        Zinho: The current understanding, though, is that given the choice of working more or less hours women will happily choose less money and more free time while men will happily work more hours for more pay. This appears to be a biology-based difference between men and women, one that doesn't have a good explanation just in culture.

        Thexalon: The leap you're making is "women will choose less money and more free time while men will choose more money and less free time" is due to biological drives rather than some practical matter.

        The leap you're making is that, having correctly identified a cultural explanation for a phenomenon, you assert there is no possible biological component to it at all. I had to double-check that I wasn't strawmanning on this; your "nothing biological" line put my mind at ease in that regard.

        There is an assumption inherent in the discussion of wage imbalance between men and women that both men and women want the same things in their jobs, and that women should be happy performing the same tasks for the same number of hours as men. Whether or not this is true has nothing to do with parenthood. It has everything to do with whether men and women have the same brain chemistry and structure; they do not. [duckduckgo.com] This is a biological difference, which has nothing to do with childbirth, nursing, or specific cultural policies about family leave.

        All that said, I want to give you credit for having a good source for your point that in the US wage difference between men and women starts at parenthood. That certainly is a cultural phenomenon, and one that we should work toward fixing.

        I skimmed through the NIH paper, and I think that it is asking the wrong question. Near the end, it asks:

        . . . why should the family gap in wages be systematically smaller in the unfettered labor market of the United States than in European countries like Britain and, especially, Germany that provide stronger public support to families?

        and answers itself with:

        . . . women in the United States seem to be acutely aware of the structure of the American labor market and act accordingly. Overall, the labor market behavior of American mothers is much more market oriented than that of their British or German counterparts: American mothers take much less time off for childcare, and they are much less likely to enter part-time jobs, typically female jobs, or low-prestige occupations in response to childbirth than mothers in Britain and Germany. In other words, our results imply that if American mothers behaved like their European sisters, they would see their total wage costs of motherhood soaring, whereas European mothers might actually see somewhat (although not very much, given weak market incentives) reduced wage penalties for motherhood if they behaved in a more market-oriented fashion.

        In other words, if German/British women played the game better they'd get a better score. That kinda sounds like victim-blaming to me, but I'll leave it alone.

        The questions they should be asking include: do men suffer the same penalties for fatherhood if they take time off for child care? [1] Why is paternity leave not legally protected the same way maternity leave is? What better employment model could we adopt that would improve the outcomes for everyone? [2] I think they missed some opportunities by focusing on three countries with toxic work/parenthood conditions for women and no focus whatever on neighboring countries with much better outcomes.

        [1] the paper does note that "In a Swedish study, Albrecht et al. (1999) established wage costs of some 2% per year of child-related work interruption for women and 7%–8% for men", but gave the issue no further analysis.
        [2] the paper also notes that Scandinavian countries give generous public support for new parents, and no further details. I happen to know that at least Norway gives generous time off for new parents, which can be split between the two parents in any proportion they wish.

        --
        "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 21 2018, @09:49PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @09:49PM (#641416)

          The questions they should be asking include: do men suffer the same penalties for fatherhood if they take time off for child care?

          For the record, I'd agree with the conclusion to [1] as being a solid "yes". And if you don't believe me, try refusing overtime so you can get to your kids' Little League game when there's a critical release that will be delayed if you do. I can guarantee you that at the very least somebody will label you as not being committed to your career, which will affect your salary and your odds of promotion.

          Why is paternity leave not legally protected the same way maternity leave is? What better employment model could we adopt that would improve the outcomes for everyone?

          My ideal if I were setting policy would be something along the lines of Finland's system. Finland has paid parental leave for both parents: Dad is expected to take a little over 2 months leave, and Mom gets up to 5 months starting in the 9th month of her pregnancy. Then there's another 6 months of leave that Mom & Dad get to split between them however they like. The culture as a result tends to be that both parents are heavily involved in caring for their child, right from the get-go. There are also I believe some Finns pushing to close the gap between the 2 months for Dad and the 5 months for Mom, which I would also support. (How do I know so much about this? Because my step-sister is married to a Finn and they just had a baby.)

          And guess what? The pay gap for women is substantially smaller in Finland than it is in the US, adding yet more evidence to my hypothesis that parenting is a major cause of the gap in professional treatment for men and women.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 2) by Demena on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:47PM (1 child)

    by Demena (5637) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:47PM (#640934)

    You did exactly what James Damore did. Pointed out biologically lighted tendencies. You also lied. You either did not read his epistle or you read the abbreviated one in which the references were removed. All the references checked out and the people who were referenced very largely agreed. SO your entire line of posting is meaningless and indeed, counterproductive as it is contrary to fact.

    • (Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:58PM

      by insanumingenium (4824) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @11:58PM (#640939) Journal

      If there is a version in which references are provided, I would love to see it. Cause the only versions I have seen had nothing of the sort.