Pay disparities against women at Google are systemic, labor department testifies | Hacker News Reader

Pay disparities against women at Google are systemic, labor department testifies

theguardian.com

16 pointswonderous22 comments

US govt: "The government’s analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry.”

Google: "Every year, we do a comprehensive and robust analysis of pay across genders and we have found no gender pay gap"

I expected different takes from both sides, but this is diametrically opposed. Should be interesting when the data comes out.

Google pays everybody as little as it can get away with. Apparently this is illegal.

Amazing, I just saw the pay gap video a couple days they had on their homepage. What a bunch of hypocrites!

And according to the article the DoL has provided no evidence of this extraordinary claim. But of course since the headline is framed as a[n indirect] quote, the Guardian supposedly can't be accused of spreading fake news if it turns out that the DoL is full of shit. How convenient.

Well then maybe Google should hand over those salary figures that the government is asking for, as required by law.

Hopefully the investigation that the department of labor is doing will prove or disprove these claims.

> as the DoL claims is required by law

Unless you're a lawyer with more-than-public knowledge about this case, you're not qualified to determine whether or not Google has fully complied with the law, which they maintain they have.

Well then we shall see won't we?

If Google isn't engaging in discrimination then they have no reason not to release the info to the government.

Maybe it isn't technically illegal for Google to withhold this info.

If so, they would be free to not release it.

And us not idiot engineers and the media would be free to use this as evidence that Google must obviously be discriminating.

The court of public opinion has different standards than the court of law.

Don't like it? Think you're innocent? Then release the info and prove it! I see no reason to give large for profit companies the benefit of the doubt.

"If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear."

Are we really going with this argument? I thought we had grown past this stage now.

With for profit companies, that have a history of illegally keeping down salaries, as proven by a court of law?

Yeah, absolutely, we are going there.

The New York Times is a for profit company. Does it have no fourth amendment rights?

Court of law != court of public opinion.

If the New York Times was involved in a major scandal, and their response was "I plead the 5th", and refused to give any details, well I as a human being absolutely can judge them on their decision to not explain themselves, and I absolutely can judge them guilty.

Don't like it when I judge you guilty and treat you as guilty? Then be more transparent and try and convince me otherwise.

> Court of law != court of public opinion.

This is quickly becoming older than the stupid "First Amendment only applies to government so it's okay to censor opinions we don't like!" trope. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just some quaint legal principle, it's supposed to be a foundation of American society (and many like it). The legal system is ultimately just a mirror of society; if we disdain such principles for long enough they'll disappear from the courts as well. Many people would be happy to see that happen; perhaps you're one of them, perhaps not.

Okay, that makes sense if you automatically believe whatever your government tells you.

Replace "Google" with "black people" or "muslims" and "discrimination" with "committing crimes".

You can say exactly the same thing about any ethnic/religious minority that has ever had a member convicted of committing a crime about trying them in the court of public opinion, instead of innocent until proven guilty.

"What were you doing last night? Give me evidence I want but am not legally entitled to. What are you hiding?"

According to the article, the DoL has found pay discrepancies and wants more data to confirm its findings. From the article:

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

Wipper said the department found pay disparities in a 2015 snapshot of salaries and said officials needed earlier compensation data to evaluate the root of the problem and needed to be able to confidentially interview employees.

“We want to understand what’s causing the disparity,” she said.

Herold told the Guardian that the department “seeks additional information to ensure the accuracy of the department’s findings, because if the findings are confirmed, this is a troubling situation”.

You are incorrect. According to the article, according to DoL, the DoL has found etc. There is a big difference, and my original statement is the correct one assuming that the Guardian is being truthful (which they probably are). If the DoL had provided evidence then the Guardian themselves would state that the DoL has found this evidence. You can't go to court and tell the judge and/or jury, "I found such-and-such evidence which proves that Google discriminates!", you have to actually provide that evidence.

They aren't going to provide evidence publicly for an ongoing investigation and lawsuit. That doesn't mean they don't have evidence.

Sorry you're being downvoted. Your original comment was about The Guardian's coverage of the DOL's suit and I think you were being a little unfair, because The Guardian did a good job of explaining what the DoL aske for, and why. The article title is to the point - it sayst that the DoL is accusing Google of discriminating over gender. That's what's happened, so what else could they have reported?

On a separate note, could we have a web-rule, like Godwin's Law, to address a certain tendency to comment on the logic of peoples' comments, in the abstract? Sometimes I feel like I'm in the Stoa debating Socrates, not on a web board exchanging opinions with some dude/s/s, the way I'm told my "argument is illogical" or my "statement is incorrect" etc.

Here, I'll make a stab at it myself:

YeGoblynQueenne's Law of Debugging Arguments: as the length of an internet conversation approaches infinity, the probability that someone will mention the words "argument" and "incorrect" (or their cognates) in the same comment tends to become 1.0.

I dunno; if you think that this is mere "exchange of opinions" where facts don't matter and people can just make shit up (I'm not saying you are, but that's the natural conclusion of such an attitude) then it's not surprising if you're involved in a lot of conversations in which the counterparty uses the words "argument" and "incorrect". Kind of like if I notice a lot of people I'm talking to are using the words "where" and "your" and "pants" in close proximity, I'm going to start wondering if I maybe forgot to do something this morning. It's ridiculous to come up with a theory that maybe people are just weird and like talking about pants.

As I obviously will not be trolling you anytime soon bc I simply have zero fcks to give about where your pants might be.

Yep...exactly. All in due time, ehhh? So, after familiarizing one's self with the dialog then apparently one must direct their target audience accordingly. See how easy that is? Also, I don't think this is "merely an exchange of opinions". I "think" this has turned into a hate campaign between both sides of the debate and perhaps it would be more beneficial if you all BOTH stuck to the facts but obviously neither side is capable of doing so... this is a perfect example right here...this online hate campaign against me is futile to say the least. I mean what have you internet warriors actually accomplished and/or how has it been beneficial to your anti-bsl campaign? NADA...ZIP...ZILCH. What have you learned exactly about me that has been such a "hush hush secret"? Please do share... What conspiracy theory do you all have for me now, huh? Let me make myself very clear bc apparently you all need things spelled out for you. I post MY personal opinion on my own PERSONAL timeline of which I have zero 000 friends or acquaintances involved in either side of this issue. It is YOU people who seek out my posts and monitor my timeline 24/7. I mean...how incredibly pathetic??? If you don't like what I have to say on this issue it's really a simple fix...block my account or maybe just stop trolling me? Easy...peezy.

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017, 7:00 PM Google Alerts <googlealerts-noreply@google.com> wrote: Google "I Dunno" WEB I dunno; if you think that this is mere "exchange of opinions" Hacker News I dunno; if you think that this is mere "exchange of opinions" where facts don't matter and people can just make shit up (I'm not saying you are, but ... Google Plus Facebook Twitter Flag as irrelevant See more results | Edit this alert You have received this email because you have subscribed to Google Alerts. View all your alerts Send Feedback

Reply on news.ycombinator.com