Google claims it's too much of a financial burden to submit gender pay information to government

[mikeymikec]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/26/google-gender-discrimination-case-salary-records

Google argued that it was too financially burdensome and logistically challenging to compile and hand over salary records that the government has requested, sparking a strong rebuke from the US Department of Labor (DoL), which has accused the Silicon Valley firm of underpaying women.

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.

Always amusing when a company whose primary function involves what a government requests it to do and responds by saying it's too much like hard work.

 

[Charmonium]

If only Google had an experienced IT staff that understood relational databases.

Oh, right . . .

 

[khon]

A whole 500 hours of work ? If only they had a few employees who could help, or maybe 57000 of them ...

 

[Roflmouth]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/26/google-gender-discrimination-case-salary-records



Always amusing when a company whose primary function involves what a government requests it to do and responds by saying it's too much like hard work.

It's none of the government's business what Google pays their employees. Try not to cry

 

[jdstern]

Apparently you never heard of the ...
'Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009'

 

[theeedude]

It is silly of them to make that claim.
But pay is a very complicated subject. For example, if a man and woman are getting paid same for same work, but then the man goes out, interviews, and gets a higher offer, which the company agrees to match to retain him. So now he is getting paid more for same work, but is that discrimination?

 

[Smoblikat]

If the women arent happy with their pay they should negotiate for higher wages, or quit. The government doesnt need to get involved with any of this..........same goes for the men.

 

[Meghan54]

It's none of the government's business what Google pays their employees. Try not to cry

From the OP's linked article....try not to cry too much, cuck:

The current court battle stems from the DoL’s lawsuit filed against Google in January, accusing the company of violating federal laws by refusing to provide salary history and contact information of employees as part of a government audit. As a federal contractor, Google is required to comply with equal opportunity laws and allow investigators to review records.

Here's a hint...if you don't want the gov't to audit your pay records, don't take gov't contracts. Plain and simple.

 

[jman19]

From the OP's linked article....try not to cry too much, brilliant gentleman:



Here's a hint...if you don't want the gov't to audit your pay records, don't take gov't contracts. Plain and simple.

Rough smackdown.

 

[Slew Foot]

Tons of people do the same job, but they all do it at a different quality level. Lebron James and some chick in the WNBA are doing the same job, but should they get paid the same? F no.

 

[Roflmouth]

If the women arent happy with their pay they should negotiate for higher wages, or quit. The government doesnt need to get involved with any of this..........same goes for the men.

That's implying that women are capable of negotiating for higher wages, which the left considers sexist.

 

[Roflmouth]

From the OP's linked article....try not to cry too much, brilliant gentleman:



Here's a hint...if you don't want the gov't to audit your pay records, don't take gov't contracts. Plain and simple.

Looks like we've found the next regulation for Trump to throw in the trash. Thanks.

 

[Meghan54]

Looks like we've found the next regulation for Trump to throw in the trash. Thanks.

So, you're a sexist as well as a racist. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[DarthKyrie]

It is silly of them to make that claim.
But pay is a very complicated subject. For example, if a man and woman are getting paid same for same work, but then the man goes out, interviews, and gets a higher offer, which the company agrees to match to retain him. So now he is getting paid more for same work, but is that discrimination?

In that case, there is no discrimination because all they are doing is paying to retain talent. But if I was that person I would want that title that the other job would carry with it, it looks good on the old resume.

 

[FIVR]

Men and women are both essentially worthless anyway, the future is all robots and AI. Even the future of sex is all robots and AI.

 

[theeedude]

In that case, there is no discrimination because all they are doing is paying to retain talent. But if I was that person I would want that title that the other job would carry with it, it looks good on the old resume.

My point is it would mean that man is getting paid more than woman for same job, but reason is more complicated than simple discrimination.
Or same example, but only two companies in town: the current employer, and another company that discriminates against women.
Both man and woman go interview at the other company, but man gets a much higher offer than the woman, as result of the other company's discrimination. They both bring their offers and get them matched, but the man is now getting paid more than the woman for same work, as a result of discrimination, but not by the current employer, which is simply matching the offers, but the other company in town which is discriminating when making offers. But current employer is benefiting from discrimination elsewhere in the industry, even if it doesn't participate in it. So it's a complicated issue. A lot of men are underpaid too, simply because they are complacent and don't go out and interview to see what they can get elsewhere. I was like that once, asked employer for a small 10% raise, which it declined to give, so I interviewed elsewhere and got 30%+ higher offer. Which all of the sudden the previous employer was very willing to match. This is why when you want a better deal on cable, you call the cancellation department and tell them you are switching to U-verse. Often times the one doing the discrimination is you, by accepting what one employer will give you and not letting the market decide.

 

[mikeymikec]

@senseamp

While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I don't think it's as complicated as you describe, simply because if an organisation has sexist hiring tendencies, then a trend is going to be revealed across the board, even once one has removed a few 'exceptional' hiring scenarios. Furthermore, with a company as big as Google I'd expect that someone in HR would have pointed out if they kept retaining employees with an obvious skew in favour of men, and that a company as big as Google would care about maintaining a reputation for gender equality (partly because it looks great and attracts more female candidates in future, increasing the chance that they find the most ideally suited person for any given role, as well as decreasing the chances of hiring someone with gender-related anti-social tendencies and creating a toxic workplace). I also would have thought that most companies (that aren't really toxic workplaces for women) would have taken the kind of steps I've suggested to potentially avoid a discrimination lawsuit in whatever countries they operate in.

Furthermore, if an investigation strongly suspected that something was wrong simply by looking at the salaries by gender respective of role, they'd dig a little deeper, employees would come forward with testimonies, and that there would also be trends such as women being consistently held back from pay rises and promotions (assuming substance to those suspicions).

Or perhaps while Google isn't necessarily explicitly interested in 'holding women back', they've taken advantage of the market tendencies to pay women less for simple monetary ends and therefore are still complicit in sexist employment tendencies as a result.

On the other hand, let's take a hypothetical scenario that women are generally discriminated against with regard to equal pay for equal experience, and while Google is interested in not massively over-paying women compared to what the rest of the market is doing (in order to achieve gender equality in this respect), they would have evidence of say a strategy whereby they've consistently paid female candidates considerably more than what rivals were offering because it was a trivial steal of ideal candidates from competitors, so while women might still be paid generally less than equally experienced men at Google, women are paid considerably more for the same role at Google than they would have been elsewhere, which in the 'real and not ideal world' is still an improvement.

 

[sdifox]

I guess google hr is still in the stone age and relies on papyrus for data storage.

 

[Double Trouble]

This stuff is highly complex and it's not at all difficult to believe that it would take $100k to get the requested information. I don't know if the judge is going to see that as overly burdensome for a company the size of google, but it seems like a fishing expedition by the DoL. I remember reading an article a while back about Google having processes in place where decisions about salary increases are determined with no knowledge about the gender of the employee.

I have yet to see any actual evidence or research that actually shows that men are systematically paid more than women for the same work in the same job when adjusted for factors like education, hours worked, performance and experience. It just doesn't make logical sense to assume that companies would want to pay more than necessary to get the exact same performance from men as they do from women. If there were a man and a woman that do the same job the same way and one costs more than the other, of course the company would pick the cheaper one, every time.

 

[Meghan54]

Again, since Google is a govt. contractor, it is required by federal law to comply with requests of this sort from the DoL. Plain and simple. No amount of gnashing of teeth or crying and wailing is going to change that.

 

[fskimospy]

This stuff is highly complex and it's not at all difficult to believe that it would take $100k to get the requested information. I don't know if the judge is going to see that as overly burdensome for a company the size of google, but it seems like a fishing expedition by the DoL. I remember reading an article a while back about Google having processes in place where decisions about salary increases are determined with no knowledge about the gender of the employee.

What's the basis for thinking this is a fishing expedition? What part of the background of the case would make you think this?

I have yet to see any actual evidence or research that actually shows that men are systematically paid more than women for the same work in the same job when adjusted for factors like education, hours worked, performance and experience. It just doesn't make logical sense to assume that companies would want to pay more than necessary to get the exact same performance from men as they do from women. If there were a man and a woman that do the same job the same way and one costs more than the other, of course the company would pick the cheaper one, every time.

While there's a good debate to be had as to whether the system as a whole penalizes women, the idea that no business has set up a system either intentionally or unintentionally that has the effect of systematically underpaying women strains all credulity.

 

[Jaskalas]

Information... how does it work? /google.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Its more than just doing the same or similar job, they must also have the same responsibilities and expectations as well. If those are all similar and females still earn less then there may be grounds for a Title VII violation.