Hacker News Reader

Comment by Infinitesimus | Hacker News Reader

> The department also said that during its investigation, which began in 2014, Oracle refused to provide relevant information about its pay practices.

That's the part that doesn't help Oracle at all in this.

If you really don't have anything to hide/cleanup, why avoid providing useful information for 2+ years? (Granted, 'relevant information' might be loosely defined here)

Tangent: I know several employers use the concept of a "salary band" for roles. I.e. entry level "Software Engineer" can make between $70k and $85k depending on some metric. I wonder how often our preconceived biases/prejudice are used as an excuse to put people in lower salary bands.

Is there even merit to these? On one hand, people have different skill levels even in a role. On the other, shouldn't the salary be tied to title?

View on HN

The actual court filing has more details[0]. The "refused to provide relevant data" is outlined on Page 5, points 12-15.

Point 12 main part: "Oracle refused to produce ... prior year compensation data for all employees and complete hiring data for PT1[Professional Technical 1, individual contributors] roles during the review period of Jan 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014...".

[0] https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...

Demanding a release of payroll data is simply a pressure tactic. Disclosing pay practice information is something the company really doesn't want to do, it only marginally helps the plaintiff but the plaintiff can make the case that they need that information for their case. It puts pressure on the company to settle before a judge orders them to hand over the data.

According to the full complaint [1], release of payroll data was a contractual obligation for Oracle due to its government contracts.

[1] https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...

Companies don't have anything to gain (and much to lose) from disclosing their pay practices and information.

They have much more lose by violating their obligations under the contracts they signed for government work. See page 5 of the complaint: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...

>On one hand, people have different skill levels even in a role. On the other, shouldn't the salary be tied to title?

I think bonuses are a great way to account for this. Give everyone with the same title the same salary and then take individual performance into consideration for bonuses so the better workers get more compensation in the end

You never cooperate with the feds. Any competent attorney will tell you that. They'd be putting their company further at risk by doing so.

> Tangent: I know several employers use the concept of a "salary band" for roles.

And you should know that it doesn't matter. If you're too expensive, you simply need to join with the appropriate role/title.

e.g. Senior something instead of Software Engineer.

> If you really don't have anything to hide/cleanup, why avoid providing useful information for 2+ years?

Would you mind if a snoop through your wife's underwear drawer? You have nothing to hide. Right?

Why do you close your window blinds at night? You have nothing to hide. Right?

Would you mind if a place a GPS tracker on your vehicle for data collection purposes? You have nothing to hide. Right?

Corporations are not people my friend. They do not (and should not) have the same rights.

EDIT: Going through my wife's underwear drawer is not the same as having to provide payroll data to enforce labor law.

EDIT 2: If you're a government contractor, you have certain labor rights obligations, by law. If you violate those, the US government has the authority to pursue you.

"The department in a complaint filed with an administrative judge in Washington said the company was prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination given the hundreds of millions of dollars it receives as a contractor with the federal government."

"The U.S. Labor Department has sued Oracle America Inc, alleging that the technology company systematically paid its white, male employees more than other workers and unlawfully favored Asian applicants in its recruiting and hiring efforts."

It's in the first two paragraphs! Does anyone read the article anymore?

It has nothing to do with whether or not corporations are people.

And the article is light on the details, so we're left to our imaginations.

But, if Oracle was under no legal obligation to provide the information (and the article is not clear), why would they?

> Corporations are not people my friend.

It doesn't matter. That wasn't the argument stated; What was proposed was "Why does it matter if you have nothing to hide."

> They do not (and should not) have the same rights.

Corporations are protected from illegal search and seizures just like people.

> Does anyone read the article anymore?

I wasn't responding to the article. I was responding to the previous poster.

I am repeating this comment all over the place but - in those same government contracts, they also agreed to share this data with the government. See page 5 of the complaint: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...

>It doesn't matter

It does matter. He's arguing that actual people should have a greater right to privacy than do corporations.

Granted, this is not a legal argument, but an ethical one.

Moreover, he might actually have some legal standing (INAL, etc) since there are laws that mandate corporate transparency whereas there are no direct equivalents for private persons.

They are owned by people though and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either.

> They are owned by people though

That does not mean the corporate entity has personhood and the rights that status conveys.

The data they requested didn't have personhood either yet the discussion went straight to whether the corporation does. Why is that if ownership doesn't encompass property rights?

Because ownership rights are not absolute. The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances to ensure you're compliant with your required tax liability payments, why would you think the Department of Labor wouldn't be permitted the same?

EDIT:

> I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry.

Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? The law is all that matters, as that's what will be enforced.

When you denied corporations having personhood despite them having personhood in the eyes of the law, I assumed you were interested in discussing the concept from an ethics pov rather than a legal one.

I'm sure the department of labor knows exactly what it can and can't request and even if it doesn't it, an entity with lawyers on payroll, would definitely have more of an idea on US law than me, a non-American non-lawyer.

I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry.

> The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances

Keyword: Finances

And from what I understand, Oracle has turned all of those over. But you and others, are demanding unfettered access to every nook, cranny and file cabinet they possess.

You sound like a disgruntled socialist that simply hates bigger and better people/companies succeeding in life.

> Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law?

Said the person who hasn't read SCOTUS rulings on corporation's right to privacy, due process of law, etc.

You don't want to follow federal government contractor regulations, don't take federal dollars. Otherwise, produce the docs you're required to.

> You sound like a disgruntled socialist that simply hates bigger and better people/companies succeeding in life.

I hate entitled companies who don't think they have to follow the rules. They deserve the boot on their neck.

Because we find discussing theory fun? What does "all that matters" mean? This is a recreational discussion that carries no practical weight.

SCOTUS disagrees with you "My Friend" and I'm pretty sure they have more experience in these matters.

> and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either.

wtf?? When you invade a person's privacy it's rarely jsut about the personbeing nude. Of course it is almost always about private possessions or data. So this reasoning is complete BS. The thing is that the owner is in one case a person, in the other case a corporation. Just because the corporation is owned by group of people rarely means the private data of the company is the private data of its owners.

> They do not (and should not) have the same rights.

Yes they should. Otherwise all the powerful organizations in the country are under the heel of the government.

Come on, you know this isn't an argument about privacy.

This is a public company and federal contractor. That status has some expectation and if the article is to be believed, those expectations include "don't racially discriminate".

This isn't DoJ harassing some poor startup. This is "hey, it seems you're discriminating against these people based on things you shouldn't legally discriminate on. Can you provide us with data to show otherwise?"

"hey, it seems you're discriminating against these people based on things you shouldn't legally discriminate on. Can you provide us with data to show otherwise?"

Hey, we're going to assume you are guilty. Can you prove otherwise?

"Hey, you signed a contract saying you will provide us with these papers on request. Are you gonna do so or not?"

Not the same context, are they?

Federal investigators asking to review documents and information that portain to areas that they provide regulation for is completely different than someone arbitrarily digging through a spouse's underwear drawer.

> Not the same context, are they?

Of course it is. The context is/was (as stated by the previous poster), if you have nothing to hide, then why not be completely open?

Which is what my point is; You don't need to justify your reasoning for privacy. It is a constitutional right. No justification is needed.

Again, completely different context.

You, as an individual in the United States have a Constitutional right to privacy through the Fourth Amendment.

Governed businesses operating in the United States have no such right.

Well, if you want that expectation of privacy, maybe you shouldn't have become a federal contractor.

That's a pretty complete list of false equivalences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com