Accused of Underpaying Women, Google Says It's Too Expensive to Get Wage Data

[Megalith]

The US Department of Labor wants Google to compile and hand over salary records so they can determine why the company appears to be underpaying female employees, but the tech giant has argued that this task would require too much money and manpower. Of course, that excuse did not go over too well in the eyes of the DoL, being that Google regularly makes billions in profit. According to their lawyers, 2,300 hours and $500,000 have already been spent to partially comply with the government’s demands.

Google officials testified in federal court on Friday that it would have to spend up to 500 hours of work and $100,000 to comply with investigators’ ongoing demands for wage data that the DoL believes will help explain why the technology corporation appears to be systematically discriminating against women. Noting Google’s nearly $28bn annual income as one of the most profitable companies in the US, DoL attorney Ian Eliasoph scoffed at the company’s defense, saying, “Google would be able to absorb the cost as easy as a dry kitchen sponge could absorb a single drop of water.”

 

[jkw]

Such a crock of crap! You know damn well Google has the data already stored and crunched. Even if they didn't, they could get it together in an hour, for under $100 in cost.

 

[NickJames]

Google knows how many times I have been to McDonalds in the last 5 years but they can't figure out their own employees salary? I don't even need to smell the bullshit on this one, it's visible from miles away.

 

[Exavior]

if that doesn't scream guilty I don't know what does

 

[Uvaman2]

Just put some machine learning and stuff. Cheap!

 

[Meeho]

Oh, the SJW irony, how sweet are thou!

 

[Jim Kim]

Just google it.

 

[Hallucinator]

Google stores tons of search data log hourly for years on their countless servers yet...

....they cannot do this tiny job which cost them only 10 cent?

 

[Damar]

I bet they'll find the time and money pretty quick once the lawsuits get filed.

 

[naib]

they should hire a woman to calculate it, I hear they are cheap

 

[vegeta535]

Or they just don't want to open themselves up to lawsuits, fines and bad publicity? In a company as big as google they would find something. The DoL wouldn't even take account that a woman in the same position was just hired out of college and the man been with Google for 10+ years or any of the other variables for pay discrepancies. It would also cause turmoil within the company with people knowing what others are making.

 

[macksomerville]

I still cant wrap my head around the fact that if US Companies are so greedy, why do they willing turn away an opportunity hire women and pay them 18-28% less than their male counterparts for the same job? There shouldn't be a male in any office building in the country. But I guess that's just my patriarchy talking. I apologize.

 

[Master_shake_]

I still cant wrap my head around the fact that if US Companies are so greedy, why do they willing turn away an opportunity hire women and pay them 18-28% less than their male counterparts for the same job? There shouldn't be a male in any office building in the country. But I guess that's just my patriarchy talking. I apologize.

i think it's cause it's total bullshit.

and i have a graph to prove it.

actually it may be true

 

[Zohar78]

I still cant wrap my head around the fact that if US Companies are so greedy, why do they willing turn away an opportunity hire women and pay them 18-28% less than their male counterparts for the same job? There shouldn't be a male in any office building in the country. But I guess that's just my patriarchy talking. I apologize.

i think it's cause it's total bullshit.

and i have a graph to prove it.

View attachment 26049

actually it may be true

lol.. yeah.. laws already make it so they cant hire lower pay based on gender or ethnicity different pay as it is if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Exavior]

I still cant wrap my head around the fact that if US Companies are so greedy, why do they willing turn away an opportunity hire women and pay them 18-28% less than their male counterparts for the same job? There shouldn't be a male in any office building in the country. But I guess that's just my patriarchy talking. I apologize.

Because a lot of stuff is still a "boy's game". They also would have some trouble trying to find that many females for that also.

lol.. yeah.. laws already make it so they cant hire lower pay based on gender or ethnicity different pay as it is if I'm not mistaken.

yeah, because we know that no company has never done a single thing that was illegal.

 

[Criticalhitkoala]

lol.. yeah.. laws already make it so they cant hire lower pay based on gender or ethnicity different pay as it is if I'm not mistaken.

So the answer is to hire people who actually are skilled at the position which probably means they are men. And hire woman to fit positions that they can fill, which might end up being a lower wage position. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Out of curiousity of those in the know...why exactly does google have to fit the bill for this investigation?

 

[maverikv]

I still cant wrap my head around the fact that if US Companies are so greedy, why do they willing turn away an opportunity hire women and pay them 18-28% less than their male counterparts for the same job? There shouldn't be a male in any office building in the country. But I guess that's just my patriarchy talking. I apologize.

If they value women so much less that they will pay them 18-28% less doesn't it make sense that they would value them so much less not to hire more of them? It's not a huge logical leap.

 

[Criticalhitkoala]

I still cant wrap my head around the fact that if US Companies are so greedy, why do they willing turn away an opportunity hire women and pay them 18-28% less than their male counterparts for the same job? There shouldn't be a male in any office building in the country. But I guess that's just my patriarchy talking. I apologize.

They don't teach in business school how to handle the inevitable work week when the menstraul cycles sync up, so maybe in 2022 with more learning in liberal arts colleges there will be a shift


Joking aside all the places I've seen that hire a direct demograph end up being a nightmare to work at....hell all places including owning your own self business is a nightmare to work at.

 

[Criticalhitkoala]

If they value women so much less that they will pay them 18-28% less doesn't it make sense that they would value them so much less not to hire more of them? It's not a huge logical leap.

An interesting arguement I've read is that some business actually don't "Value" female workforce less, but actually honor what females ask as their salary. The article stated that males interviewee were more likely to aggressively approach a higher wage over a female interviewee. Does that mean the business values the female less if they pay them a lower wage that the female interviewee initially agreed to? And that by default the company should honor the extra wage a male interviewee may ask for in a new female hire?

As a minority I've never been comfortable with things like affirmative action, etc... so for something like this I think the best person qualified for the job should get the job, but it doesn't mean they should make more. The art of negotiating your wage is also a skillset, and if you are good at it more power to you if you are a girl or a boy.

 

[Zohar78]

yeah, because we know that no company has never done a single thing that was illegal.

yeah, because we know that no government servant has never done an abuse of power thing that was illegal.

 

[Zohar78]

So the answer is to hire people who actually are skilled at the position which probably means they are men. And hire woman to fit positions that they can fill, which might end up being a lower wage position. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Out of curiousity of those in the know...why exactly does google have to fit the bill for this investigation?

exactly.. at the same job they cant offer drastically different pay based on gender and/or ethnicity. there is a lot more factors that affect pay. ex: What is the full metrics they are going to use to measure it? pay should be based to a large degree on the value the employee brings to the company. Should a person with a degree in lesbian dance theory make what a programmer manager managing a programming team with a programming degree at a software company? What if a person paid hourly takes off more unpaid time vs hourly person that doesn't?

 

[Jehuty]

Google needs to be taken to task for this bullshit.

At least they don't constantly spout the "Do no Evil" mantra as they used to. Then again that went away the moment they went public.

 

[Criticalhitkoala]

Google needs to be taken to task for this bullshit.

At least they don't constantly spout the "Do no Evil" mantra as they used to. Then again that went away the moment they went public.

Taken to task for exactly what bullshit now that's not just speculation?

 

[Jehuty]

Taken to task for exactly what bullshit now that's not just speculation?

"It's too expensive"

That's the bullshit I'm talking about. Just for having said that, they should be laughed at and forced to comply.

 

[Criticalhitkoala]

"It's too expensive"

That's the bullshit I'm talking about. Just for having said that, they should be laughed at and forced to comply.

It is expensive. I understand google already saying "Yo man, why are you making us spend money" when they've already spent half a million on it.

A shit ton of millionaires and billionaires are rich because they are penny pinchers...I don't see an issue with google saying they don't want to spend more money.

What I do find funny though is google's lawyer is a female lawyer asking the government to stop pestering them, thus making less money for herself. Which is the problem being noted.

 

[Krenum]

Exactly what is expensive for a multi billion dollar company? Shit, Google should hire me, I'd do it for a couple hundred thousand.

 

[M76]

When will they actually learn that comparing the sum of money earned by all women to the sum of money earned by all men is meaningless.

Even if you average it out it's meaningless. Even if you compare two people with the same job title it's meaningless.because you can have vastly different skills and could have contributed to the company in vastly different ways. Just because both of your contracts say "team lead".

 

[Savi]

Google knows how many times I have been to McDonalds in the last 5 years but they can't figure out their own employees salary? I don't even need to smell the bullshit on this one, it's visible from miles away.

how many times did you go...hmm

 

[NickJames]

how many times did you go...hmm

Well you see, I work in an office building and uh, it's right across the street so umm, you know what that's not what's important. There is an injustice going on around here!

 

[Exavior]

Exactly what is expensive for a multi billion dollar company? Shit, Google should hire me, I'd do it for a couple hundred thousand.

Did you not even read the original post? They are saying that $100,000 is what it would cost them and that is too much money. You are thinking that they would want to go higher?

When will they actually learn that comparing the sum of money earned by all women to the sum of money earned by all men is meaningless.

Even if you average it out it's meaningless. Even if you compare two people with the same job title it's meaningless.because you can have vastly different skills and could have contributed to the company in vastly different ways. Just because both of your contracts say "team lead".

That is bullshit. Looking at that data is very much useful and meaningful. lets use some made up numbers just to make a point. Lets say you have 1000 people all in the same type of position. Now yes some people would have been there longer, some might have different reasons to make more so you can't look at just a single number but you have to look at a range. So lets say that you run the numbers and see that male employees normally start at $75,000 a year and females at $70,000. Lowest paid male is $72,000 and the lowest paid female is $65,000. after 5 years lets say that most males have increased their pay by $15,000 on average but females only by $10,000. All that would show and confirm the claims. What you are looking at is averages and other statistical information that shows if there is a trend and what is happening overall. If every single female is paid less than a male that shows that the claim is true. True there could be skill set differences, but at some point that matters less and less. If you get a job as a network system admin does it matter that you can play the piano and your coworker can't? Does it matter in the grand scale of things that you have 7 years of experience to his 6 at another location? What if his 6 was supporting 20,000 pcs on his own and your 7 was only supporting 150 as part of a team? At some point that kind of stuff plays less and less into getting you a huge amount more if it doesn't bring a huge benefit to the table. So a few grand difference a year is one thing, 10+ grand difference is another. Especially if you can't find anyone of a certain gender or group that is equal with the group that you say is being given special pay for being part of said group.

It actually isn't that uncommon for people to use this type of data when it comes to pay, so if the industries are willing to use this for all employees as a whole and consider it valid we should be able to do the same for a sub group of that. I actually just acquired this type of information for comparing the pay scale that I was trying to offer for a open position I have. It gave me a break down based on the number of customers the company has, if union or non union, no experience vs 5 years experience. No, it isn't a end all be all but it is does give a good idea of what ranges most other companies on average are starting employees at to know if I am trying to bring people in below the average for this job, thus making it harder on myself to get people to accept the job when they can go anywhere else and make more, or if I am on par and offering what would be considered a reasonable amount for somebody to accept.

 

[Exavior]

Well you see, I work in an office building and uh, it's right across the street so umm, you know what that's not what's important. There is an injustice going on around here!

I don't know what is wrong with you people that can stand to eat there that much. That is almost as much of an injustice.

 

[M76]

That is bullshit. Looking at that data is very much useful and meaningful. lets use some made up numbers just to make a point. Lets say you have 1000 people all in the same type of position. Now yes some people would have been there longer, some might have different reasons to make more so you can't look at just a single number but you have to look at a range. So lets say that you run the numbers and see that male employees normally start at $75,000 a year and females at $70,000. Lowest paid male is $72,000 and the lowest paid female is $65,000. after 5 years lets say that most males have increased their pay by $15,000 on average but females only by $10,000. All that would show and confirm the claims.

THe numbers in a vacuum are meaningless. Just because there is an earnings gap between female and male employees doesn't automatically mean there is a discrimination. You just completely ignored my point which was. "you can have vastly different skills and could have contributed to the company in vastly different ways. Just because both of your contracts say" the same position or title.
Actual studies have shown that the discrepancy is due to different hours worked, different life choices, different personal choices, and less motivated female workers all contribute to the fact that on average they earn less.
If you can show an example where two people do the exact same job, and they put in the exact same hours, and they get the exact same results and the female gets paid less, then that's a problem which needs to be addressed. But you can't make blanket statements that all females are being discriminated against, because it's identity politics and it's bullshit. Each case needs to be examined individually when there is suspicion of discrimination.

What you are looking at is averages and other statistical information that shows if there is a trend and what is happening overall. If every single female is paid less than a male that shows that the claim is true. True there could be skill set differences, but at some point that matters less and less. If you get a job as a network system admin does it matter that you can play the piano and your coworker can't? Does it matter in the grand scale of things that you have 7 years of experience to his 6 at another location? What if his 6 was supporting 20,000 pcs on his own and your 7 was only supporting 150 as part of a team? At some point that kind of stuff plays less and less into getting you a huge amount more if it doesn't bring a huge benefit to the table. So a few grand difference a year is one thing, 10+ grand difference is another. Especially if you can't find anyone of a certain gender or group that is equal with the group that you say is being given special pay for being part of said group.

Actual real world experiences show that men are more willing to work over time. And that they're more willing to take risks and go off the book, and to innovate. If we turn it around just because there are more female nurses than male ones doesn't mean there is discrimination against men there.

Also studies show that women and men have vastly different intelligence range. When it comes to women their intelligence varies in a much smaller interval. Most are concentrated in the mid range. Meaning that while there are much less absolutely daft women than men, there are also much less exceptionally clever women as well. That's also a contributing factor to why are there less women in higher positions. But mostly it's personal choice and commitment.

 

[Exavior]

THe numbers in a vacuum are meaningless. Just because there is an earnings gap between female and male employees doesn't automatically mean there is a discrimination. You just completely ignored my point which was. "you can have vastly different skills and could have contributed to the company in vastly different ways. Just because both of your contracts say" the same position or title.
Actual studies have shown that the discrepancy is due to different hours worked, different life choices, different personal choices, and less motivated female workers all contribute to the fact that on average they earn less.
If you can show an example where two people do the exact same job, and they put in the exact same hours, and they get the exact same results and the female gets paid less, then that's a problem which needs to be addressed. But you can't make blanket statements that all females are being discriminated against, because it's identity politics and it's bullshit. Each case needs to be examined individually when there is suspicion of discrimination.

Actual real world experiences show that men are more willing to work over time. And that they're more willing to take risks and go off the book, and to innovate. If we turn it around just because there are more female nurses than male ones doesn't mean there is discrimination against men there.

Also studies show that women and men have vastly different intelligence range. When it comes to women their intelligence varies in a much smaller interval. Most are concentrated in the mid range. Meaning that while there are much less absolutely daft women than men, there are also much less exceptionally clever women as well. That's also a contributing factor to why are there less women in higher positions. But mostly it's personal choice and commitment.

Ok, so all women are lazy and stupid, compared to all men who are all well above average in intelligence and the hardest working people alive. Got it. thanks for the information

 

[Savi]

Well you see, I work in an office building and uh, it's right across the street so umm, you know what that's not what's important. There is an injustice going on around here!

haha



well to be honest i had some today for lunch haha

 

[NickJames]

I don't know what is wrong with you people that can stand to eat there that much. That is almost as much of an injustice.

For $3 I get a filling work lunch. It's basically the best place to eat on a budget aside from bringing from home. Anywhere else and I'll typically spend $10 on average for lunch.

 

[mdzcpa]

Whether Google has the information readily available or not is irrelevant. And whether or not Google makes a hefty profit or not is irrelevant. The point is that this is yet another government over reach. Extending it's claws into private enterprise yet again. The DOL, like every Federal agency has no profit motive, no competition, no reason to be efficient. Over budget? Out of money? No problem!!! Just raise taxes again and soak the people.

Makes me sick. The Federal government is bloated, self serving, and inefficient. And US taxpayers foot the bill for that. I find it sadly comical that the Feds want to put their nose into a company that actually makes money instead of wasting it.

Leave it to free markets. If women do not like what they are getting paid at Google, they can work somewhere else. Good tech jobs are hard to fill. If Google is deciding to under pay women, they will pay a price for that by not securing the top women for the job. We need to stop thinking of the Federal government as our Nanny to wet nurse everyone and take care of everyone's problems. They need to build our highways, raise an army, protect our borders, and stay the heck otherwise out of our lives.

I own my own business and I am SICK of federal regulation. I'm tired of the IRS, Department of Labor, OSHA, and a slew of other agencies all positioning themselves to tell a private enterprise how to run...even though there isn't a federal agency that exists that runs efficiently. That last few years have been hard to make it. We have 800 employees that support their families with food, mortgages, medical care, schooling, and you name it. And, like all businesses over 100 employees (considered a "big business") we have to report our wages by age, race, gender, and more. It takes hours and wastes resources. If employees don't like what we can afford to pay, they can go elsewhere. We are far beyond the years of kids working in the mines, and factory workers working in crazy unsafe environments. I'm all for some basic regulations. But forced social engineering through the federal government is a bridge too far for me.

 

[krotch]

Love how ppl think Google just has the info on tap. Sure, they had data on how much every employee makes. So does the IRS. What they don't have is, why they make that much. There's a reason why the girl who recently left made less than me and a reason why the incoming girl makes more than me, while we do the same job.

 

[M76]

Ok, so all women are lazy and stupid, compared to all men who are all well above average in intelligence and the hardest working people alive. Got it. thanks for the information

Typical SJW when faced with facts they try to muddy the water and misrepresent what you said. Even though it's backed up by actual evidence. While they only base their views on what they feel like.

 

[Shintai]

5 mins for a DBA to do a DB query if a finance member cant do it? Ouch Google.

 

[Exavior]

Love how ppl think Google just has the info on tap. Sure, they had data on how much every employee makes. So does the IRS. What they don't have is, why they make that much. There's a reason why the girl who recently left made less than me and a reason why the incoming girl makes more than me, while we do the same job.

It has nothing to do with them having it right on hand but more to do with their statement. It will take 500 hours and cost them $100,000 to get this information. They said that is too costly for them to comply. If we were talking about some small company that has $300,000 in profit a year then sure. However when you make billions a year, $100,000 really isn't anything to you.

Typical SJW when faced with facts they try to muddy the water and misrepresent what you said. Even though it's backed up by actual evidence. While they only base their views on what they feel like.

What facts? The person I replied to stated that no women should be paid the same as a male as males bring more to the table as males are more creative in thinking, they are willing to work more hours than any female, take less time off, work harder....

Stating something doesn't make it fact. People say that they seen big foot and the loch ness monster. That doesn't make them real. I personally can counter any of those comments with people that I know. Which while I know that doesn't mean that my counter applies to 100% of people, I know that at the very least means that their statement doesn't apply to 100% of people.