Google Accused of "Extreme" Gender Pay Discrimination by US Labor Department

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Despite the Department of Labor’s findings, Google is denying these accusations of inequities and claims it does not have a gender pay gap. The company appears to be hiding something, however, as it has repeatedly refused to hand over employees’ job and salary history even though it may be required by law.

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.
 
Hmm....

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Google-Reviews-E9079.htm

5,466 Employee Reviews

4.4/5 Stars

How bad could it really be.....

Seems to me like another bullshit investigation that fails to take into account things like prior experience, time at the workplace, Etc.

Heres a fun one

https://www.google.com/diversity/women/our-work/index.html

This one is everything you need to know about how google treats its women.

https://www.inc.com/business-insider/best-google-benefits.html

This one talkes about how women get 18 weeks off and men only get 6.

Its not our fault that single women are more common than single men, the courts tend to give the women sole custody most times. In fact there should be a study that correlates the time off requested by women over men and weather or not the child is in sole custody of the woman. Either take on the extra responsibility or STFU and stop stealing from men in the courts with children.
 
This is weird, as Google is pretty public with their pay statistics (anonymized, but I believe male/female is included) and they wouldn't lie on documents like that. Interested to see where this goes.
 
According the Verge's article on the subject, part of the dispute between the DoL and Google is "that the information including employee names and contact information are relevant to the audit..." Basically, the data that DoL originally requested is, according to Google, "overly broad," not relevant, and/or break privacy rules. Also not mentioned in the linked article from the Guardian is that the DoL requested a summary judgement on the matter back in Feb and the judge denied it. The judge made this decision based on multiple criteria including undue burden (in 1.5 yrs Google made $600,000 on the contract and say the total request would cost ~$1 million, making the request a "poison pill") and unlimited scope ("Google was incorporated in 1998. The government contract was agreed to in June 2014. Although a worker‟s starting salary – and later adjustments to that salary – obviously relate to compensation, OFCCP has not shown how a starting salary 19 years ago – and 16 years before the government contract – is relevant to its proper purpose in a compliance review").

So, while I agree that according to some of the articles I have read on the subject, it sounds like Google is definitely in the wrong and hiding something, that might not actually be the case. They could be trying to hide something. They could also be trying to force the government to follow Fourth Amendment rules ("the Fourth Amendment requires that the subpoena be sufficiently limited in scope" - to this for reference "The parties agree that OFCCP‟s request for information is akin to an administrative subpoena"). There is a reason this is going to court, so I am actually interested in where this ends up at the end of a trial.
 
sigvoror said:
According the Verge's article on the subject, part of the dispute between the DoL and Google is "that the information including employee names and contact information are relevant to the audit..." Basically, the data that DoL originally requested is, according to Google, "overly broad," not relevant, and/or break privacy rules. Also not mentioned in the linked article from the Guardian is that the DoL requested a summary judgement on the matter back in Feb and the judge denied it. The judge made this decision based on multiple criteria including undue burden (in 1.5 yrs Google made $600,000 on the contract and say the total request would cost ~$1 million, making the request a "poison pill") and unlimited scope ("Google was incorporated in 1998. The government contract was agreed to in June 2014. Although a worker‟s starting salary – and later adjustments to that salary – obviously relate to compensation, OFCCP has not shown how a starting salary 19 years ago – and 16 years before the government contract – is relevant to its proper purpose in a compliance review").

So, while I agree that according to some of the articles I have read on the subject, it sounds like Google is definitely in the wrong and hiding something, that might not actually be the case. They could be trying to hide something. They could also be trying to force the government to follow Fourth Amendment rules ("the Fourth Amendment requires that the subpoena be sufficiently limited in scope" - to this for reference "The parties agree that OFCCP‟s request for information is akin to an administrative subpoena"). There is a reason this is going to court, so I am actually interested in where this ends up at the end of a trial.
Click to expand...
Yea hiding their employees personal information. Releasing how much someone makes even if it's not the same department causes drama in the work space between people. It recently happen at my job where a temp recently got hired for $11 an hour. She demanded that she get paid $15 hour cause she found out another employee that was a direct hire was getting $15. She didn't care about the fact the direct hire was to fill a specific job that we required. While the temp was a worthless no skill employee. She lucky we even hired her. Image is a important issue to huge corporations like Google. They would not be dumb enough to try and get away with paying people based of their gender/race/sex/whateverthfuck over actual merit of the employee.
 
is this another one of those cases where they stuck everyones pay in a jar and averaged them out?

or is this a wage gap? where women work less than men?
 
Conspiratory theorists, all. When are women going to get it through their heads that paying men more than equally capable women makes no economic sense? Executives of companies large and small would quickly find ways to get rid of the men and hire all women, and instantly increase their own compensation. But you don't see that happening. And it's certainly not out of the goodness of those executives hearts.
 
Somewhat ironic that a company that makes its living collecting and harvesting vast amounts of data about everyone that uses the Internet is now claiming supplying the requested data will violate company privacy.
 
Google *has* done a lot of shady shit, and it wouldn't surprise me if a wage gap was one of them. They threw away their "Do no evil" mantra long ago; the moment they became a public company was the moment they stopped being awesome. They are smart, and really know how to play the market for sure. They have also brought us a lot of fantastic things that I'm thankful for, but I am under no illusion that they are saints.
 
This is how I see it.

1mztrl.jpg
 
Is anyone else offended when they read these gender pay gap articles? It's almost like they're trying to say that there are only 2 genders...
 
https://www.law360.com/articles/423808/rising-star-sanford-heisler-s-janette-wipper

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kpmg-lawsuit-idUSTRE7515BW20110602

This is Janette Wipper's expertise. And that expertise is using technicalities that are inherent to female-specific benefits to win (read: settle) court cases.

In the Novartis case — in which a jury slapped the company with a $250 million punitive damages verdict before the parties reached an accord — Wipper discovered that the defense expert lumped in women on paid maternity leave when he reconstructed workers' hourly rates without accounting for the fact that those women weren't accumulating hours worked.

Dividing women's overall pay by the leave-reduced number of hours made it appear that women were being paid more than they were, and artificially inflated hourly pay rates, Wipper said.
Click to expand...


"When a woman has a child, she's assumed to be less committed to her job and less effective as an employee, which results in her promotion opportunities being denied," Wipper said.
Click to expand...
Yes Janette, that's correct. There are many people married to their jobs and the success of the companies they lead. Having a child means at the very least some compromise in dedication to the job. Those people that decide to make that compromise have to deal with the consequence. The upside is that you get to have a life, a family, and all the joys of it.
 


You realize he makes his entire career out of arguing against logic and facts right? He literally does nothing else. He does not exist unless its to be "Controversial". He's not some fucking political scholar or even somebody with an actual agenda. He has no goals. He's not here to make a difference. He is the conservative Anita Sarkeesian stating his opinions as fact. Don't get me wrong if you only want hear rhetoric reinforcing your own preconceived outlook great, more power to you, but I feel obligated to atleast inform you that he is a paper thin origami dancing clown making a buck off you "paying attention" to him. He's your personal pewdiepie of political bullshit.

O84HvSe.gif
 
piscian18 said:
You realize he makes his entire career out of arguing against logic and facts right? He literally does nothing else. He does not exist unless its to be "Controversial". He's not some fucking political scholar or even somebody with an actual agenda. He has no goals. He's not here to make a difference. He is the conservative Anita Sarkeesian stating his opinions as fact. Don't get me wrong if you only want hear rhetoric reinforcing your own preconceived outlook great, more power to you, but I feel obligated to atleast inform you that he is a paper thin origami dancing clown making a buck off you "paying attention" to him. He's your personal pewdiepie of political bullshit.

O84HvSe.gif
Click to expand...
He was still right in that video, so...
 
Companies always want to make more profit, being sexist or racist is not a problem..
 
Last edited:
piscian18 said:
You realize he makes his entire career out of arguing against logic and facts right? He literally does nothing else. He does not exist unless its to be "Controversial". He's not some fucking political scholar or even somebody with an actual agenda. He has no goals. He's not here to make a difference. He is the conservative Anita Sarkeesian stating his opinions as fact. Don't get me wrong if you only want hear rhetoric reinforcing your own preconceived outlook great, more power to you, but I feel obligated to atleast inform you that he is a paper thin origami dancing clown making a buck off you "paying attention" to him. He's your personal pewdiepie of political bullshit.

O84HvSe.gif
Click to expand...

It's a free world, right? He is entitled to his opinion.
 
GlacierNine said:
What sort of "Angry Liberal" makes a statement like "This guy is terrible, he's just like Anita Sarkeesian"?
Click to expand...

One that is angry about the extreme of their side showing how ridiculous modern "liberal" viewpoints are when taken to their endgame without even realizing it. Socialism -> Communism, Fact Checkers -> 1984, No Child Left Behind -> Every child held back, Open Borders -> Collapse of Nation, Trans-xyz-ism -> pedophilia acceptance.

All that silly hot button shit. The left operates under the assumption that humanity is ultimately good, which would quickly lead to collapse of society without balances of the right. The right operates under the assumption that everyone is an asshole, which would quickly lead to hyper-isolationism and mass warfare; which is similarly balanced by the left. The puppetmasters of the world play off of both of these mindsets to push the shit they want in the world. What happens after mass surveillance is truly global with many endpoints for every person? That's when the real global social engineering begins. Oh boy. When we're old we're gonna all be saying "those fuckers..."
 
P4B said:
simple fire them all and hire men. im sure some kid would love a sandwich not made by a hired minority
Click to expand...
Or simply open up a competitor called Foogle that hires exclusively women.

If women do the EXACT SAME WORK as men as a statistical average at A THIRD LESS COST, it should be impossible for any company that hires mostly men to compete. That's just common sense.

If that doesn't turn out to be the case in practice, then perhaps the entire premise of the pay disparity is suspect, or women aren't doing the exact same work as men on average... pick one.
 
Ducman69 said:
Or simply open up a competitor called Foogle that hires exclusively women.

If women do the EXACT SAME WORK as men as a statistical average at A THIRD LESS COST, it should be impossible for any company that hires mostly men to compete. That's just common sense.

If that doesn't turn out to be the case in practice, then perhaps the entire premise of the pay disparity is suspect, or women aren't doing the exact same work as men on average... pick one.
Click to expand...

I'd go with the name Vagoogle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top