Google gender pay gap

[RowanV]

Revealed: Google tried to block media coverage of gender discrimination case

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/22/google-gender-discrimination-case-reporting-restricted?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Shadowsenses]

Read up on this, that's actually terrible. But it's Google, I doubt it would decrease their userbase. They're worth $495B, so even a multimillion-dollar lawsuit would be less than a slap on the wrist. 

[GoodBytes]

This post does not meet the posting guideline for the Tech News section, and therefor moved out.

 

[LAwLz]

So if I understand this correctly, this is what happened.

1) Someone accesses Google of underpaying women, demanding to see salary data.

2) Google refuses to give out the salary data.

3) People say that Google's refusal to hand out the salaries of their employees is "blocking media coverage"

 

Am I missing something or is that the story here? If so, the media can fuck off.  They are not entitled to see the salaries of Google employees.

 

Edit:

There were things I was missing. (Best to read several articles about it, it's fairly complicated)

 

I wonder what evidence they had in order to start the lawsuit to begin with. It is from the DoL so there is probably some truth to the original claim about wage gap. It would be interesting to see how large it is, assuming that the gender gap at Google exists.

 

 

Edit 2:

Just realized the attorney criticizing Google is called Therese Lawless.

That's a pretty funny name for an attorney.

[tlink]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

So if I understand this correctly, this is what happened.

1) Someone accesses Google of underpaying women, demanding to see salary data.

2) Google refuses to give out the salary data.

3) People say that Google's refusal to hand out the salaries of their employees is "blocking media coverage"

 

Am I missing something or is that the story here? If so, the media can fuck off.  They are not entitled to see the salaries of Google employees.

not someone, the government. this is what ACTUALLY happened, you seem to have completely misread.

first line is basically a summary of the article:

Quote

Google has tried to restrict reporting on a high-stakes gender discrimination case brought by the US government and fought to have the case thrown out of court because of a federal attorney’s comments to a reporter.

 

[mr moose]

This is not uncommon in most lawsuits that gain public media attention.  It is generally not permitted that any parties in a court case be allowed to talk to media as it can effect the outcome or fairness of the proceedings.  The rules change depending on the case and the seriousness (murder cases for example would have been thrown out if the DPP talked to the media).  There really is nothing new here, guilty or not, google are trying to get out of facing a lawsuit and shutting down the media is just a second welcome outcome. 

[Sauron]

Honestly it's just a bunch of allegations with no proof. The facts are that google refused to show data - which means you can't know if there is or isn't a difference in wage. Of course that doesn't mean there certainly isn't one, we just don't know. The guardian is reading much more into it than it should, just like in the other wage gap article it so proudly links which also contains no real data.

[TetraSky]

Can't help but notice the article provide zero evidence or raw numbers of this other this "Janet Herold" who work at the Department of Labor saying the following

Quote

Janet Herold, regional solicitor for the DoL, told the Guardian by phone: “The investigation is not complete, but at this point the department has received compelling evidence of very significant discrimination against women in the most common positions at Google headquarters.”

So all we have so far is their words. But how big is "very significant" ? And does it take into account that in every workplace, there's always people who are paid more than you, be it from having more experiences, having been with the company for a long time or simply by demanding a raise, the latter of which is shown that women are less likely to do than men.

Google won't exactly raise the salary of every women just because one dude got a raise, that's ridiculous. If you think you deserve a raise, ask for it, don't go complaining that your co-workers who had the balls (get it? balls<>men, haha!... kill me) to ask for it when you don't are paid more and it's unfair.

[tlink]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

The government got a report, not proof.  The accuser is using their gender, and that's why there is media coverage.  Google is probably innocent and could counter sue for defamation.  Hence, why they probably don't want "coverage" of this.  Not one part of the original article state there being any proof.  Rather it's accusations.

what the hell are you on about. the government never got a report, read the actual article. the whole lawsuit is because google refused to give the data to which the government has the legal right because they are a federal contractor. all i hear from you is this: confirmation bias

Quote

The DoL sued Google in January, alleging that the company had violated federal laws when it declined to provide salary history and contact information of employees as part of an audit. Google is a federal contractor, which means it must comply with equal opportunity laws and allow the DoL to inspect records.

 

[tlink]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Oh, please!  They made various accusations and only in one line said that they had evidence.  They wouldn't even go into detail about the evidence.  The entire original article is just the media bitching.  

yea of fucking course they made accusations, that's how lawsuits work. yea of course they are not going to publish the data or even give vague statistics, that would be a huge violation of privacy. the media is just pointing towards google desperately trying to get out of the lawsuit which is damaging their imago immensely. they tried to have the case dismissed because the DoL talked to the media, "they wouldn't even go into detail about the evidence" yea of course they don't its a fucking lawsuit. they also clearly state on which data they base it, even if they don't go into detail.

Quote

The department said it uncovered the pay inequities in a 2015 snapshot of wages, but that investigators needed historical compensation data to evaluate possible causes as well as the opportunity to confidentially interview employees.

why the fuck is google bitching about this if they have nothing to hide? the DoL just wants to lay the facts on the table, google is preventing that and doesn't want the DoL to talk about anything seen as evidence to the media. read into that as you will, but that is a fact and they reported it accurately and that that behavior is questionable. innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be extremely skeptical about this. it might just be googles legal team going over the top, it might be that google is trying to hide its gender wage gap, who knows?

[cluelessgenius]

im gonna make myself really unpopular here but im with jim jefferies on the whole issue.

[tlink]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Also, I forgot to mention one thing.  There is no proof for the case.  the DoL is just bitching because Google isn't budging on a bs case.  The person or people complaining are probably, or at least were, under contract.  It is your responsibility to have copies of work documents/contracts on what you do.  Not keeping them on file is your own damn fault.  Just because Google won't budge doesn't mean they shouldn't have copies for this exact sorta situation.  So, the DoL is clearly bitching because they, themselves, failed to do such.

WHEW BOY confirmation bias much? have any evidence that there is no proof for the case? the DoL isn't bitching, google is bitching because it doesn't want to provide data. and why is it the DoL's fault??

[tlink]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Because they didn't ask the women complaining about their own evidence.  It's not Google's responsibility to hold the all and only copies.  If you fail to hold onto copies of your contract/work documents then that is your own damn fault.

yes it is googles responsibility, as i already proved with a previous quote. this whole lawsuit is about the data google is obligated to provide, not about some data some woman don't have anymore.

Quote

The DoL sued Google in January, alleging that the company had violated federal laws when it declined to provide salary history and contact information of employees as part of an audit. Google is a federal contractor, which means it must comply with equal opportunity laws and allow the DoL to inspect records.

 

[Princess Luna]

It would surprise me if a multi billionaire company that's known to the best workplace in the world by every college class there is (like reallu I already done 3 different colleges and every time google "perfect work environment" comes to the discussion would really take their chances underpaying based on gender... that feels like something Ford back in the 20's would do rather than one of the most advanced technology companies of 21st century.

 

Myself I have never been underpaid due to my gender so this is rather odd and hard to believe, though should Google really do such practices it is "disgusting" to say the least.

[tlink]

11 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, it's Google's responsibility to show their own side of the documents to match their documents.  If they have no proof then it's pure bitching for the sake of money.  I want these women to confirm that they are getting paid less for their gender.  They should provide what they do at work, not just Google.  If they were to provide evidence, on their own, that they are getting paid less because they are women then I'd side with them.  But, their own failure to keep documents for this sorta situation is their own fault.  I'm simply stating that if you don't have proof then you don't have a case.   Maybe Google is using that to their favor, who knows?  The women can't prove their case, and that's their fault.  Always keeps a copy for evidence in this sorta situation. 

there. are. no. woman's. who. incited. the. lawsuit. nor. are. their. woman's(who work(ed) at google). claiming. there. is. a. pay. gap. have you even read the article? here is a link to the case.
https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104

Quote

The U.S. Department of Labor has filed a lawsuit to require Google Inc. to provide requested compensation data and documents for the multinational company’s Mountain View headquarters as part of a routine compliance evaluation.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs asked the technology giant to submit information in September 2015 about its equal opportunity program and to provide supporting documents as part of a scheduled compliance review. As a federal contractor, Google must agree to permit the federal government to inspect and copy records and information relevant to its compliance with the equal employment laws administered by OFCCP.

this was a routine inspection. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SOME WOMAN GOING TO THE GOVERNMENT. you're literally making shit up.

[Princess Luna]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

"

Wasn't in the USA some guy proved the justice system was a bit flawed by trying to sue God or something and it actually become a court case?

[tlink]

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Okay, then please tell me the DoL's actual proof?  "I was there man!  I saw things!"  Is not evidence.  If they had actual evidence then they would have won the case, but they don't.  So, they're trying to pressure Google into giving it for them.  A judge denied them, and they're going for a retrial bitching that Google didn't give them the evidence?  Google is innocent until proven guilty, and the media has no right to force them for coverage.  What is the actual proof that the DoL has?  

 

But, hey what if I were to sue you for that time you worked at Carl's Jr, gave me less fries because I'm a guy, and I said that I have compelling evidence?  I didn't win?  Too bad, I could sue your workplace for not giving up the security camera footage.  Don't like it?  Confirmation bias.

 

Yup.

ffs im so done with you, you didn't read the case and you didn't read what the lawsuit was about. the lawsuit isn't about a gender pay gap, the lawsuit is about googles inability refusal to comply to a routine inspection. even if the DoJ had perfect evidence for gender discrimination that would still not end the lawsuit BECAUSE ITS NOT ABOUT THAT.

Quote

Filed with the department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges, the lawsuit seeks to enforce Google’s obligations to provide OFCCP with compensation data, documents and requested information to complete its audit. Federal contractors are scheduled for routine audits through a neutral selection process. The lawsuit seeks an order requiring Google to cooperate fully with the scheduled compliance review and to meet the requirements of all laws enforced by the agency. If the company fails to comply, the department asks the court to cancel all of Google’s current government contracts and to debar the company from entering into future contracts.

Quote

Judge Steven Berlin – who will make the final ruling on whether Google has to release records

 

[LAwLz]

27 minutes ago, tlink said:

WHEW BOY confirmation bias much? have any evidence that there is no proof for the case?

That's not how logic, nor the justice system works.

 

I'm not trying to argue if there is/isn't evidence here (haven't looked into the case enough to make a statement about it). I'm just saying that you can't demand that someone prove that there is no evidence. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

[tlink]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

I read both articles.  One is nothing but accusations with a line stating they had "compelling evidence" then went on about Google not wanting media coverage.  The next one was about Google not providing evidence for them.  Fine, be done with me.  My point still stands.  Innocent until proven guilty.  That's how the legal system works.

thats not the chronological order in which thing happens, first they requested the data, then later after 6 months they state something about having compelling evidence that they need to cross reference with the data google is refusing to give for about 6 months now. and i never argued against innocent until proven guilty, i stated that before you did. you're fighting ghosts.
 

Quote

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs asked the technology giant to submit information in September 2015 about its equal opportunity program and to provide supporting documents as part of a scheduled compliance review.

Quote

At a federal hearing last month in San Francisco, DoL’s lawyers for the first time publicly alleged that the agency’s initial investigation has “found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce”.

^ this, happened 5 months after the lawsuit was filed.
google is now attacking the DoL because they talked to the media, and trying to get it closed to the media.

Quote

Following a private meeting with the judge about the Guardian’s reporting, Google’s attorney requested that the proceeding be closed to the media before continuing, but a DoL attorney objected and the judge sided with the government.

now this is the title:

Quote

Google tried to block media coverage of gender discrimination case

tell me, what isn't true about this article? how is this the media bitching? are they not simply reporting what is fact?

here is where i said that innocent until proven guilty is true:

Quote

innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be extremely skeptical about this. it might just be googles legal team going over the top, it might be that google is trying to hide its gender wage gap, who knows?

 

[tlink]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's not how logic, nor the justice system works.

 

I'm not trying to argue if there is/isn't evidence here (haven't looked into the case enough to make a statement about it). I'm just saying that you can't demand that someone prove that there is no evidence. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

it is how logic works, if he says they have no evidence than that is a claim with a burden of proof. or can i claim you have no brain without that having a burden of proof? (i don't actually think you have no brain, this is just an example)

[tlink]

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Again, almost everything they spewed was an accusation, not evidence.  There was only 1 vague thing in the original article stating that they had "compelling evidence"  everything else was an accusation.  An accusation is not proof.  This is going way over your head.  Accusations =/= evidence/proof.

you also spewed an accusation, that they have no evidence. yet you provide no evidence for this. i never argued that there is discrimination, you're literally fighting ghosts in this discussion because you don't even understand the point im trying to make. that you completely misunderstood the article and are showing a heavy bias by the direction you IMMEDIATELY made assumptions in because of the subject, assumptions that where easily dismisable if you actually read the article and the lawsuit.
 

Quote

The accuser is using their gender, and that's why there is media coverage

nope

Quote

Not one part of the original article state there being any proof

never claimed that

Quote

The entire original article is just the media bitching.

no its not, its the media covering a lawsuit and literally quoting what is said without stating that accusations are true.

Quote

There is no proof for the case

yes there is, the case just isn't about what you assumed it was.

Quote

Not keeping them on file is your own damn fault

they never had the files in the first place, you assumed there was some form of female involved.

Quote

Just because Google won't budge doesn't mean they shouldn't have copies for this exact sorta situation

yes it does because they are legally required to give them and the DoL never had them which is why they are suing.

Quote

The fact that there is no evidence of this

prove it.

Quote

Because they didn't ask the women complaining about their own evidence

who's complaining? i only hear you complaining about some invisible woman.

Quote

It's not Google's responsibility to hold the all and only copies

not all and only, but it is their responsibility and it is their responsibility to give them to the government.

Quote

If you fail to hold onto copies of your contract/work documents then that is your own damn fault

this doesn't involve anyone who worked at google, nor had the accusing party any of the documents anytime in their existence.

Quote

the only mention of evidence is the fact that they vaguely said there was compelling evidence

no, that is their motivation to double down on this case. that isn't evidence in this case because this isnt a discrimination case.

Quote

it's Google's responsibility to show their own side of the documents to match their documents

there are no documents to match since only one party has the mentioned documents, and that is google.

Quote

I want these women to confirm that they are getting paid less for their gender.

there are no woman involved who claim they are getting paid less for their gender

Quote

They should provide what they do at work

there is nobody in the accusation's side that work(ed) at google.

Quote

If they were to provide evidence, on their own, that they are getting paid less because they are women then I'd side with them

this isn't relevant to the case nor article at hand.

Quote

But, their own failure to keep documents for this sorta situation is their own fault

they never had documents in the first place.

Quote

I'm simply stating that if you don't have proof then you don't have a case

they do have proof, the fact that google is refusing to provide data, which google states is true. the other proof they have is that there is a law stating that google should provide the data.

Quote

The women can't prove their case, and that's their fault

there are no woman, you make a lot of assumptions without proof.

Quote

"I was there man!  I saw things!"  Is not evidence

and it never was their evidence. their evidence is that google refuses to provide data (which google confirms) and that they should do so because its the law (the law they refer to exists). now the lawsuit is about if that law makes it mandatory for google to supply the data.

Quote

If they had actual evidence then they would have won the case, but they don't

this is simply not true. the justice system isn't 100% accurate. they can lose even if they have evidence, they can win very late because of that too.

Quote

So, they're trying to pressure Google into giving it for them

no shit, that's what the lawsuit is about.

Quote

A judge denied them, and they're going for a retrial bitching that Google didn't give them the evidence?

evidence?? there is no judge in this case that denied them? they aren't even going for a retrial?? are we even reading the same article and case?

Quote

Google is innocent until proven guilty, and the media has no right to force them for coverage

the media isn't forcing them for coverage, the media is reporting on an open court case which google tried to get closed and dismissed because the DoJ made remarks over it and because the guardian is reporting over it. the judge denied that, so if anything the judge denied google not the accusers like you said above.

Quote

But, hey what if I were to sue you for that time you worked at Carl's Jr, gave me less fries because I'm a guy, and I said that I have compelling evidence

the lawsuit has nothing to do with money nor egalitarianism. it has to do with google not giving the data required for a routine inspection.

Quote

Too bad, I could sue your workplace for not giving up the security camera footage.  Don't like it?  Confirmation bias.

thats not even close to whats going on here. the irony is that you completely assuming what the article is about only confirms my claim of a confirmation bias on your side.

Quote

One is nothing but accusations with a line stating they had "compelling evidence" then went on about Google not wanting media coverage

it gave one quote with an accusation in it, without stating that it was truth or not. they also gave a quote from google, does that mean they are horribly twisting the story in favor of google?

Quote

The next one was about Google not providing evidence for them

no, it wasn't. you didn't read it otherwise you would know that it wasn't. it was about google not complying to the governments demands from a routine inspection, to which the government now says they found evidence about gender discrimination and need the extra data to cross reference it. this is a logical thing to say because google argued that the data they requested was excessive, they argued that it wasn't because it was relevant for a case they are building.

Quote

Innocent until proven guilty.  That's how the legal system works

completely agree.

Quote

The media has no evidence other than accusations/claims

the media made no claims about gender discrimination. it only made claims about little facts surrounding the lawsuit such as dates and times, quotes from the involved, and opinions from experts they deemed relevant.

Quote

There was only 1 vague thing in the original article stating that they had "compelling evidence"  everything else was an accusation

it was not an accusation, it was an argument to why google should've complied with their request. whether that internal research is correct or not is completely irrelevant to the case.

Quote

This is going way over your head

no, this is going way over your head. just look at my comments under quotes from you. i don't know what else to say than: you're utterly misunderstanding what this lawsuit and article are about. but maybe i'm wrong, i'm always open to correction. i have nothing against you, i have something against what you said because it was wrong, and you are still defending it so im still going against you.

[tlink]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

OP's article only had 1 line about evidence when I finally read it.  Most of what you linked me to was the main page of the DoL.  You linked me to 1-3 things of accusations and no evidence.  I also love how you keep going on and on after saying you were done.

so you agree that your original statement is completely misguided and just conforming to what you wanted it to be? you agree that you made huge leaps in reasoning with the assumptions made about the case without actually reading the article? that was what this discussion was about, not whether or not they had evidence for gender discrimination because that is irrelevant to the article and case.

[Spenser1337]

The way it works is that you prove someone guilty, they don't have to prove themselves innocent. 

 

There is no evidence of google having a pay gap or there being a real pay gap in general. Stop

[Mutoh]

OP thanks for the laughs. Your nerd rage is beautiful.

[tlink]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, that's what you're assuming.  The first few comments, ya I didn't read. 

so you agree that your original comment was completely misguided? that is what this argument is about, nothing more nothing less. that you thought it was about something else is simply moving the goalpost.