7 ms·
U.S. Labor department sues Google for compensation data
- forrestthewoods 10y agoLabor department can't access IRS filings?
- notyourwork 10y agoEverything has a process, it is not surprising government entity X cannot access government entity Y stuff automatically. Would you assume the CIA can access the FBI documents? Its not always so obviously simple.
- chris11 10y agoI'm not a lawyer but it looks like the IRS is basically prohibited from releasing tax records unless there is a court order or the request has something to do with tax administration, social security, or medicare. So I'm not sure the IRS would be able to give the Labor department those records. https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-governments/disclosure-laws https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-...
- nrjdhsbsid 10y agoAny other perspectives on this? Racial and gender diversity is clearly lacking in tech and I have a feeling that's even more concentrated at the "top" employers. Not sure if we can do much about it though. Anyone that's been to school can see it's clearly something happening before college level. Seems like 5% or less of CS program students are women or minorities besides Asians, that doesn't give tech companies much to choose from. The lack of diversity is being driven by something at highschool level or below, it's stupid to blame tech companies for something so obvious.
- jahewson 10y agoIt's actually more like 20% women in CS programs now, and it was 30% a decade ago. It would be stupid to attribute that 50% decline to changes at high school or below though, wouldn't it? And what does any of this have to do with equal compensation? If 0.01% of CS graduates were women they should still receive the same pay as men do.
- robotresearcher 10y ago> It would be stupid to attribute that 50% decline to changes at high school or below though, wouldn't it? Why?
- jahewson 10y agoBecause there have not been changes at high school. Meanwhile there have been huge and obvious changes in tech itself (mobile) and the way the tech industry is viewed in the media, which would be the obvious place to start looking for answers.
- foota 10y agoI agree that the institution that is high school has not significantly changed wrt this in the last decade, however there is plenty of room for the experience of being a high school to have changed in the last decade.
- 10y ago
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoI'd argue the CNN article contains more info: http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/04/technology/google-labor-department-lawsuit/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/04/technology/google-labor-depa... And links to the actual lawsuit: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsreleases/OFCCP20162406_0.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease... "Google has repeatedly refused to provide names, contact information, job history and salary history details that the government has requested for its employees."
- codeonfire 10y agoThis is the same office that is shaking down Palantir for not hiring more than 44% of Asian engineer applicants. Asians only make up 4.4% of the population. Looks like they're trying to find out who's got money at Google.
- jahewson 10y agoGoogle already publishes diversity statistics. So the purpose of this audit has to be something else - such as making sure that e.g. women are not being systematically paid less than men in the same position.
- codeonfire 10y agoThey want names and contact information of all 2015 and 2014 employees to go with the money. You don't need that to compare wages.
- hudibras 10y agoThey don't publish statistics on employees' ages, disabilities, or veteran status, though.
- forgottenpass 10y agoGoogle already publishes diversity statistics. Oh, of course! It seems so obvious. I see why so many people say the government is dumb and inefficient now. Why didn't they just check Google's marketing materials, take them at face value, and not want to know anything else in the first place?
- DTLUsuNJ9z9R 10y ago>This is the same office that is shaking down Palantir for not hiring more than 44% of Asian engineer applicants. Asians only make up 4.4% of the population. How is this relevant? Are you implying that Palantir's engineering team should consist only of 4.4% Asians? Also, that 4.4% comes from US demographics, right? Should Palantir not consider international applicants?
- 10y ago
- polishTar 10y agoThe OFCCP is now demanding Google provide names and private contact information of tens of thousands of employees and ex-employees (some of which haven't been been associated with Google for years)[1]. Unless the OFCCP can give a really compelling reason why this sensitive info is suddenly now required for their "compliance evaluations", Google has a very real obligation to fight overbroad data requests in ALL cases. [1] https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsreleases/OFCCP20162406_0.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...
- IslaDeEncanta 10y agoIf Google didn't want to reveal this information, they shouldn't have taken federal contracts.
- jeffdavis 10y agoDo you know that they are in breach, or are you just assuming?
- foota 10y agoIt sounds like Google views the information requested as not being necessary for certifying compliance and that they have supplied other information requested.
- DiabloD3 10y agoOTOH, Google is essentially forced to take federal contracts, and cannot provide a reason that is acceptable to shareholders on why not.
- hudibras 10y agoAs the filing says, Google signed a contract which included a clause agreeing to "permit the Government to inspect and copy any books, accounts, records (including computerized records), and other material that may be relevant" etc. What did they expect would happen?
- polishTar 10y agoThey're only required to provide information that is "pertinent to compliance...". The question is whether or not the private contact details of tens of thousands of employees and ex-employees is pertinent. Google thinks not.
- yuhong 10y agoI dislike employment anti-discrimination laws. They were originally designed for manual labor jobs and the like. I would be willing to compromise by limiting them to these kinds of jobs.
- sdenton4 10y agoYou're seriously suggesting legalizing racial and gender discrimination for all jobs except digging ditches? Please consider any group that you were born into, and imagine being denied entry to an industry based solely on your inclusion in that group. Or perhaps being admitted, but at a fraction of the pay off someone bit in your group. Anti discrimination laws exist because historically dominant groups in the US have treated people from protected classes very, very poorly in matters of employment, housing, and access to services. Removal of these laws could very easily lead to reinstatment of segregation or other kinds of severe abuses that we as a society have decided are odious. We can see this directly with the pretty blatant anti black voting laws being enacted in many of the southern states after the supreme Court gutted the voting Rights act recently.
- yuhong 10y agoManual labor was just an example. The key is that the job performance for example is easily measurable.
- sdenton4 10y agoAre you arguing that discrimination should be illegal only when it's difficult to cover up? Not sure I see where you're coming from here.
- yuhong 10y agoWell, you need evidence to prove discrimination, and not all discrimination leave evidence. This is unlike things like theft or injury.
- 10y ago
- asher_ 10y agoThis whole topic is very bothersome, as many of the comments in the thread so far have pointed out. For anyone who is generally for these kinds of policies (equality, diversity, whatever), can you please explain your position from the ground up? I am genuinely asking, because from my point of view there are huge assumptions made that seem to me, on the surface, to be unjustified.
- ubernostrum 10y agoOne version is: we're still crawling out from under the very long shadow of centuries (in the US, arguably millennia in many other places) of codified society-wide discrimination, enforced by law and by custom, to ensure that people of a certain gender or a certain race aren't allowed to pursue particular career paths or do particular things with their lives. It is ludicrous to think that this has been completely toppled and undone with no lingering sequelae whatsoever, entirely within living memory (large, organized nationwide movements in the US for sexual and racial equality have only reached the point of realistically being able to even start fighting for equal access to industries and jobs in the last 50-60 years or so), and that now we just somehow know that the distributions of people in industries we happen to see right now are the "natural" distributions, produced free of bias, prejudice or discrimination. Especially when high-paying/high-prestige industries still disproportionately are made up of (relative to the general population) the gender and race which historically rigged things to their benefit. Any claim that bias has been removed and we still got this result is incredibly suspicious in the face of historical evidence. Thus, explicit, active measures should be employed to watch for and counteract the bias which is highly likely to still exist and be in operation. Another version is: because every time an industry has claimed to be meritocratic in its hiring process, that low diversity is because "that group just isn't interested in our field", etc., it's turned out -- on actual inspection -- to be false. The classic example is orchestra blind auditions: once reviewers were unable to know the gender of a candidate, suddenly a lot more women were discovered to be qualified to play in orchestras! Given how often this type of thing has happened in other fields, there is no reason to presume that tech is some sort of special exception. Think of it like the principle of mediocrity in cosmology, where constantly-recentered claims of "well, where we are is special and unique" continually got blown out of the water until people learned to assume that where we are is average. Attempts to label tech as the one industry that really is somehow a unique outlier in being free of bias and that a majority of the human race just "naturally isn't interested in" or "naturally aren't as good at" are overwhelmingly likely to be blown out of the water sooner or later. Where we are now is not some special ordained natural law engraved into our DNA. And yet people consistently argue that tech is that one unique special outlier where it really is the case that women/black people/etc. "just aren't interested" or "naturally aren't as good". Thus, explicit, active measures should be employed to watch for and counteract the bias which is highly likely to still exist and be in operation.