Google gender pay gap

[tlink]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

So, you agree you have yet to read the original article and aren't done?  

 

"Asked for a response to Google’s denial, 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.”"  

 

What is the compelling evidence?  

this is literally the definition of moving the goalpost.

[tlink]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

You contradicted yourself, and you have done literally the same thing.  Yet only I'm the one at fault?  That was the original point of the arguments of page 1.  We were arguing that they had no compelling evidence.  You are the one who primarily linked the DoL's home page, quoted accusations and arguments as if they were the evidence.  All I did was blame the typical accuser instead of the DoL.   Funny that Google has yet to be proven guilty since the DoL has no compelling evidence.

feel free to quote me where i said or even implied that what they said was truth. i only quoted them to show the intention of the lawsuit and what it was about as far as i know, at least that was my only intention. even if i did, this still is moving the goalpost from the original point. and also feel free to show where i am moving the goalpost?

[HKZeroFive]

One of the many threads that demonstrates why we can't have nice things.

[Centurius]

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

I have several questions.

 

^This answers some of them.

 

My other question/s include the following.

 

Let's pretend gender has nothing to do with it.  What if said person does less?  So what if they are a different gender?!  What if that person just doesn't do the same amount of work as say the person getting more.  If they do less then they get paid less.  Or, do they get paid less because of gender?  People always point the finger because they find one difference.  Nobody ever looks at how much work the said person does, or if said person has warnings for being late frequently or whatever.

The analysis whether a company does or does not have a pay gap due to gender is basically never based on looking at two persons but rather company-wide averages and medians and compensates for possible other factors.

[Spenser1337]

1 hour ago, tlink said:

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.

 

Why would google comply with bogus claims backed by 0 evidence?

 

"hey apple I bet you're racist release the salary of all your employees "

"No problem We'll be right on it!"

 

lets live on earth for a minute 

[tlink]

Just now, Spenser1337 said:

Why would google comply with bogus claims backed by 0 evidence?

 

"hey apple I bet you're racist release the salary of all your employees "

"No problem We'll be right on it!"

 

lets live on earth for a minute 

because their argument was never that they should give the information because they are sexist. their argument was that it was the law that they should give the information, google said that the information requested was excessive, the government said they are doing an investigation because they found compelling evidence. none of that says that they should give data because they are sexist, it says they should give data because they are required by law to follow special rules about gender pay equality. they found evidence that that wasn't the case, so they want google to give additional data so they can confirm/deny. their claim about the evidence that google has a gender equality problem is irrelevant to whether or not google should provide data, what about their claim is relevant? that they are doing an investigation.

[Centurius]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

The point we were trying to make is that the original case was about a discrimination that the DoL claimed they had compelling evidence towards.  Then they said something along the lines of, "If Google has nothing to hide then gives us all the evidence."  Google wouldn't budge, so they were trying to push the case towards that.  Hence it's a bs case.  They have no evidence!  It's all arguments and accusations because a Government agency didn't get their way, and even a judge saw that.

They don't need evidence, as Google has federal contracts they are legally obligated to provide data to the Department of Labor.

[tlink]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

The point we were trying to make is that the original case was about a discrimination that the DoL claimed they had compelling evidence towards.  Then they said something along the lines of, "If Google has nothing to hide then gives us all the evidence."  Google wouldn't budge, so they were trying to push the case towards that.  Hence it's a bs case.  They have no evidence!  It's all arguments and accusations because a Government agency didn't get their way, and even a judge saw that.

nope, never the point. the point was that

Quote

The government got a report, not proof.  The accuser is using their gender, and that's why there is media coverage.

is complete bogus. the government didn't get the report, they are trying to get it. there is no accuser in this lawsuit, since the lawsuit isn't about gender equality. that was the point, you spectacularly missed that.

[tlink]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

The accuser is the DoL.

 

You've been pretty bipolar and contradicted yourself.  You're very hard to follow.

not in relevance to this lawsuit. in this lawsuit they made no accusations towards google other than breach of government contract.

[Centurius]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Never said it wasn't.  Was just saying that it's complete bs and why they're doing it.  Because they don't have the compelling evidence.  They even played it off as, "If you have nothing to hide give us all the evidences."

I'm not sure how it's bs. It is the responsibility of the DoL to make sure employees of its contractors are paid equally, to achieve this they require the information that Google holds to ascertain whether or not such a gap exists.

 

As for other evidence, do keep in mind that if the government publishes its evidence against Google to the media that Google reasonably could have the case dismissed. We'll have to wait for that until it goes to public court and the evidence becomes public record.

[tlink]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

So, there is an accuser?

not to this:

Quote

The accuser is using their gender

there is nobody accusing someone with their gender as argumentation.

[tlink]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

It's simply bs the way they went about it.  First, they said they have compelling evidence.  Then they went on with the approach of "If you have nothing to hide give it to us now!"  I'm not saying give it to the media, but at least present Google with the evidence or at least the court.  They never did that.  It's just their poor poker face.

this is not what happened, you are literally twisting the facts. they FIRST asked for the data, THEN (months later) they said they are doing an internal research on some evidence they have.

[Centurius]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

It's simply bs the way they went about it.  First, they said they have compelling evidence.  Then they went on with the approach of "If you have nothing to hide give it to us now!"  I'm not saying give it to the media, but at least present Google with the evidence or at least the court.  They never did that.  It's just their poor poker face.

Quite frankly it's irrelevant, Google has the obligation to provide the records to the government due to its contracts. It doesn't matter if they have evidence or not.

[tlink]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

So, you are contradicting yourself still.

no, not in the context of which i said it. i could have been clearer in my wording and will try to do that next time.

[tlink]

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

That's what happened in the original article.  I guess you didn't read.

the lawsuit started in January, the things said about an investigation hapened in april, which is clearly stated in the article. google even used their statement during the lawsuit as an argument to why the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Quote

Court documents reveal that Google unsuccessfully argued that a judge should dismiss a lawsuit filed by the US Department of Labor (DoL), claiming that a government attorney may have violated ethics rules by doing an interview with the Guardian on 7 April.

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.

from the guardian article on 7 april:

Quote

“We found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce,” Janette Wipper, a DoL regional director, testified in court in San Francisco on Friday.

Reached for comment Friday afternoon, Janet Herold, regional solicitor for the DoL, said: “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.”

note that this compelling evidence is completely irrelevant to their argumentation in court.

[tlink]

note that they don't even claim what the compelling evidence says is true, simply that the existence of it is a reason for further research:
 

Quote

Labor officials detailed the government’s discrimination claims against Google at the Friday hearing while making the case for why the company should be forced to comply with the DoL’s requests for documents. 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.

 

[tlink]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

They're being highly unprofessional about which is Google's argument.  It's highly understandable why Google would not want to work with a department that's being childish in their approach to get their way.   If anything it seems more like Google is protesting their method of it.  Hence the first amendment approach for dismissal.

they refused to give the documents before this approach, your argument is completely invalid because it relies on things happening in a different order than that they happened. the lawsuit was started first, then the statement was made. then the statement was defended by saying that its hypocritical of google to be allowed to talk to the press but the accuser isn't. which seems more childish to you? the person saying they have more rights or the person saying they have equal rights?

[flibberdipper]

I have to post this whenever I see the words "wage gap" otherwise I feel incomplete. 

 

[Thunderpup]

 

 

5 hours ago, tlink said:

why the fuck is google bitching about this if they have nothing to hide?

To play devil's advocate for a minute.  Google could be concerned with the information being leaked to the press in some degree.  Given the way the press operates, and the outrage culture prevalent on social media, it wouldn't be long before someone took the data and presented it out of context to allude to Google being in the wrong. 

I'm not saying that's actually the case with this issue, but given how sticky the subject of wage gap is; it wouldn't be surprising to me if it actually ended up being just that.

[tlink]

1 hour ago, Thunderpup said:

 

 

To play devil's advocate for a minute.  Google could be concerned with the information being leaked to the press in some degree.  Given the way the press operates, and the outrage culture prevalent on social media, it wouldn't be long before someone took the data and presented it out of context to allude to Google being in the wrong. 

I'm not saying that's actually the case with this issue, but given how sticky the subject of wage gap is; it wouldn't be surprising to me if it actually ended up being just that.

could be, but if that was the case they could get huge sums of money from the government. they knew this was a risk when they signed up as government contractor.

[LAwLz]

16 minutes ago, tlink said:

could be, but if that was the case they could get huge sums of money from the government.

Why would Google get "huge sums of money from the government" if the media caused an outrage against Google?

[tlink]

Just now, LAwLz said:

Why would Google get "huge sums of money from the government" if the media caused an outrage against Google?

because the media won't have access to it unless the government leaked it, or google did it themselves in some sort of fraud scheme but lets not go there lol. the documents they request are really really private, they have all contact information included and wages linked to names etc.

[Centurius]

11 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Why would Google get "huge sums of money from the government" if the media caused an outrage against Google?

Because the government would be in breach of contract if they did not properly protect the private data and liable for damages incurred as well as possible punitive damages.

[LAwLz]

11 minutes ago, tlink said:

because the media won't have access to it unless the government leaked it, or google did it themselves in some sort of fraud scheme but lets not go there lol. the documents they request are really really private, they have all contact information included and wages linked to names etc.

1 minute ago, Centurius said:

Because the government would be in breach of contract if they did not properly protect the private data and liable for damages incurred as well as possible punitive damages.

 

That's not how I am interpreting these events.

This is what the article says:

Quote

Google also attempted to restrict press access during a hearing last month. 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.

Google asked for the media to not be at the hearing, but the DoL disagreed.

If the media is at the hearings, then they can have access to the private data since that is being used as evidence/counter-evidence.

 

In other words, this is what happened.

>There is a hearing and the media is there, watching and listening in.

>The Guardian starts reporting on it, posting information about the case.

>Google gets worried that they will have an angry mob after them because of outrage on social media if the press starts posting about the case.

>Google asks to have a private hearing with the DoL, so that the press do not get access to information about the case.

>The court disagrees and allows the press access.

>We now have articles like these, attacking Google.

[Centurius]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

 

That's not how I am interpreting these events.

This is what the article says:

Google asked for the media to not be at the hearing, but the DoL disagreed.

If the media is at the hearings, then they can have access to the private data since that is being used as evidence/counter-evidence.

 

In other words, this is what happened.

>There is a hearing and the media is there, watching and listening in.

>The Guardian starts reporting on it, posting information about the case.

>Google gets worried that they will have an angry mob after them because of outrage on social media if the press starts posting about the case.

>Google asks to have a private hearing with the DoL, so that the press do not get access to information about the case.

>The court disagrees and allows the press access.

>We now have articles like these, attacking Google.

The case started because Google is not providing information to the government that it is legally obligated to. Court cases are in principle public matters, unless they involve matters of national security or involve minors. That is by design and is to guarantee the transparency of the judiciary. As such the DoL was well in its rights to object and the judge ruled in accordance with law to deny the motion.

 

None of the information requested would become a matter of public record as that information not being given to the government is the reason why they are in court in the first place, to ensure the enforcement of the contract.