Class-action lawsuit over gender pay disparity at Google | Hacker News Reader

Class-action lawsuit over gender pay disparity at Google

engadget.com

I originally thought somehow 10,000 people are claiming Google did something wrong and coordinated to make this lawsuit happen. I'm not a lawyer but I think that might not be the case. Looks like it's a class action lawsuit being done on behalf of 10,000 women, not necessarily initiated or organized by all of them.

> Four women who worked at Google have won class-action status to proceed with their gender pay disparity lawsuit, reports Bloomberg. The latest ruling in the protracted legal battle means the suit can now apply to 10,800 women who held various positions at the tech giant since 2013.

Yes, the title seems fairly misleading.

What a clickbait title. Four women are suing Google in a class action lawsuit that could apply to around 10k women. It’s not like 10k women are actively engaged in this.

I've attempted to make the title less misleading. If there's a better (more accurate and neutral one) we can change it again.

Why do companies not only hire women if it is cheaper?

Because the gap exists for reasons besides "sexism".

Agreed, experience, time in the role, and tech stacks all play a part.

Long ago I had a female peer, with whom I was good friends, complain that she made less than me. We had completely different backgrounds and worked on different systems. I was on an async messaging platform and she did Java web development. She was one of the highest paid in her group but was fixated on my salary as she found out how much I made when I was purchasing a home and her friend was my real estate agent. It was all quite sad really.

> We had completely different backgrounds and worked on different systems. I was on an async messaging platform and she did Java web development.

I don’t buy this as the reason, it sounds like after the fact rationalization on your part to explain the status quo

Did everyone on the async messaging team earn more than the java web developers?

I could very easily see her earning more than you due to a multitude of reasons

Well the base salary for the tech stack I was working on at the time was substantially higher. Also I worked in another part of the country and she had spent 20 years working in the same company in a small town in Florida. Honestly there are more reasons why i was paid more then there ever would be to justify why she should have been paid the same. Also my team handled the product that delivered 80% of the companies revenue and 90% of its profits.

Such as?

This article has lots of good reasons: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2021/05/25/the-gende...

I think one of the most significant is that women tend to be more likely to go for jobs that may pay slightly less but offer more benefits like flexibility.

There are also greater societal issues with how a child is raised that lead to girls gravitating towards certain career aspirations, and away from others — especially noticeable in engineering.

Women are less likely to negotiate.

Women are more likely to be the primary caretaker, causing them to often times leave the workforce early and lose out on valuable experience if they choose to return.

Why didn't companies only hire black factory workers during the era of Jim Crow?

Isn't that what some did? Aswell as women only factories.

Go back a 100-200 years and check in on plantations

Because the KKK would kill the owner and burn it down and the police wouldn't investigate.

Even worse (?) gender discrimination, and not enough ladies in the workforce?

It will be interesting to see how the numbers play out. I'm confident they'll have the resources and knowledge necessary to check for interesting effects like Simpson's paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

When I read articles titled like this, I wonder, “doesn’t someone in HR look at the data and raise red flags? Isn’t that their job?” The only thing I can think of is some exec forcing HR to turn a blind eye to this data.

Or maybe there’s something we’re not being told?

Actually they did look at the data. Google had to go back and pay MEN more. They did that last year I think.

This is a case that's been dismissed once so whether it had any merit is very tbc...

Isn't anchoring (to current pay) a hiring tactic that virtually all companies use with all applicants, regardless of gender? Does that somehow have an outsized impact on women? Sincere questions.

I can't say virtually all but a lot of companies do this; however, it depends if they can get that info. My personal opinion is that it's not a good practice and should be eliminated by all companies. I would even be supportive of having regulation passed.

I believe you should hire someone based on the role and the value it provides as opposed to anchoring to the applicant's current pay.

I would guess that this practice does impact women more often than men; however, I'm not certain. In general, getting rid of the practice would make pay more equitable across all genders.

I agree it is not a good practice. My experience has been that hiring managers and/or recruiters ask the question, and some people answer it truthfully for one reason or another (probably something psychological, maybe related to upbringing, which may have a gender implication).

Probably. I think the point is that if you as a women is underpaid at your current job it will continue when you switch workplace. Even if the same applies to men it doesn't matter if they presumably had a fair pay already in the previous job.

What one gets payed for their current role is irrelevant in the hiring game for the next role. You simply deflect away and let them name their opening offer. Is this the real issue about negotiating tactics to maximize the pay you get?

I'm sure this is true but presumably they have to show that the disparity exists because Google deliberately chose to pay women less. That's going to be a tall order!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com