5 ms·

> The department also said that during its investigation, which began in 2014, Oracle refused to provide relevant information about its pay practices. That's t

> The department also said that during its investigation, which began in 2014, Oracle refused to provide relevant information about its pay practices. That's the part that doesn't help Oracle at all in this. If you really don't have anything to hide/cleanup, why avoid providing useful information for 2+ years? (Granted, 'relevant information' might be loosely defined here) Tangent: I know several employers use the concept of a "salary band" for roles. I.e. entry level "Software Engineer" can make between $70k and $85k depending on some metric. I wonder how often our preconceived biases/prejudice are used as an excuse to put people in lower salary bands. Is there even merit to these? On one hand, people have different skill levels even in a role. On the other, shouldn't the salary be tied to title?

j4kp07 10y ago
> If you really don't have anything to hide/cleanup, why avoid providing useful information for 2+ years? Would you mind if a snoop through your wife's underwear drawer? You have nothing to hide. Right? Why do you close your window blinds at night? You have nothing to hide. Right? Would you mind if a place a GPS tracker on your vehicle for data collection purposes? You have nothing to hide. Right?
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Corporations are not people my friend. They do not (and should not) have the same rights. EDIT: Going through my wife's underwear drawer is not the same as having to provide payroll data to enforce labor law. EDIT 2: If you're a government contractor, you have certain labor rights obligations, by law. If you violate those, the US government has the authority to pursue you. "The department in a complaint filed with an administrative judge in Washington said the company was prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination given the hundreds of millions of dollars it receives as a contractor with the federal government." "The U.S. Labor Department has sued Oracle America Inc, alleging that the technology company systematically paid its white, male employees more than other workers and unlawfully favored Asian applicants in its recruiting and hiring efforts." It's in the first two paragraphs! Does anyone read the article anymore?
  - Trundle 10y ago
    They are owned by people though and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      > They are owned by people though That does not mean the corporate entity has personhood and the rights that status conveys.
      - Trundle 10y ago
        The data they requested didn't have personhood either yet the discussion went straight to whether the corporation does. Why is that if ownership doesn't encompass property rights?
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Because ownership rights are not absolute. The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances to ensure you're compliant with your required tax liability payments, why would you think the Department of Labor wouldn't be permitted the same? EDIT: > I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry. Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? The law is all that matters, as that's what will be enforced.
        Trundle 10y ago
        When you denied corporations having personhood despite them having personhood in the eyes of the law, I assumed you were interested in discussing the concept from an ethics pov rather than a legal one. I'm sure the department of labor knows exactly what it can and can't request and even if it doesn't it, an entity with lawyers on payroll, would definitely have more of an idea on US law than me, a non-American non-lawyer. I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry.
        Trundle 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- yarou 10y ago
  Well, if you want that expectation of privacy, maybe you shouldn't have become a federal contractor.
- Mtinie 10y ago
  Not the same context, are they? Federal investigators asking to review documents and information that portain to areas that they provide regulation for is completely different than someone arbitrarily digging through a spouse's underwear drawer.
  - j4kp07 10y ago
    > Not the same context, are they? Of course it is. The context is/was (as stated by the previous poster), if you have nothing to hide, then why not be completely open? Which is what my point is; You don't need to justify your reasoning for privacy. It is a constitutional right. No justification is needed.
    - Mtinie 10y ago
      Again, completely different context. You, as an individual in the United States have a Constitutional right to privacy through the Fourth Amendment. Governed businesses operating in the United States have no such right.
- ghurtado 10y ago
  That's a pretty complete list of false equivalences.
- Infinitesimus 10y ago
  Come on, you know this isn't an argument about privacy. This is a public company and federal contractor. That status has some expectation and if the article is to be believed, those expectations include "don't racially discriminate". This isn't DoJ harassing some poor startup. This is "hey, it seems you're discriminating against these people based on things you shouldn't legally discriminate on. Can you provide us with data to show otherwise?"
  - j4kp07 10y ago
    "hey, it seems you're discriminating against these people based on things you shouldn't legally discriminate on. Can you provide us with data to show otherwise?" Hey, we're going to assume you are guilty. Can you prove otherwise?
    - azernik 10y ago
      "Hey, you signed a contract saying you will provide us with these papers on request. Are you gonna do so or not?"
FT_intern 10y ago
Companies don't have anything to gain (and much to lose) from disclosing their pay practices and information.
- azernik 10y ago
  They have much more lose by violating their obligations under the contracts they signed for government work. See page 5 of the complaint: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsreleases/OFCCP20170071.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...
kyrra 10y ago
The actual court filing has more details[0]. The "refused to provide relevant data" is outlined on Page 5, points 12-15. Point 12 main part: "Oracle refused to produce ... prior year compensation data for all employees and complete hiring data for PT1[Professional Technical 1, individual contributors] roles during the review period of Jan 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014...". [0] https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsreleases/OFCCP20170071.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...
user5994461 10y ago
> Tangent: I know several employers use the concept of a "salary band" for roles. And you should know that it doesn't matter. If you're too expensive, you simply need to join with the appropriate role/title. e.g. Senior something instead of Software Engineer.
damnfinecoffee 10y ago
>On one hand, people have different skill levels even in a role. On the other, shouldn't the salary be tied to title? I think bonuses are a great way to account for this. Give everyone with the same title the same salary and then take individual performance into consideration for bonuses so the better workers get more compensation in the end
ChuckMcM 10y ago
Demanding a release of payroll data is simply a pressure tactic. Disclosing pay practice information is something the company really doesn't want to do, it only marginally helps the plaintiff but the plaintiff can make the case that they need that information for their case. It puts pressure on the company to settle before a judge orders them to hand over the data.
- azernik 10y ago
  According to the full complaint [1], release of payroll data was a contractual obligation for Oracle due to its government contracts. [1] https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsreleases/OFCCP20170071.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
rewrew 10y ago
You never cooperate with the feds. Any competent attorney will tell you that. They'd be putting their company further at risk by doing so.

j4kp07 10y ago

> If you really don't have anything to hide/cleanup, why avoid providing useful information for 2+ years? Would you mind if a snoop through your wife's underwear drawer? You have nothing to hide. Right? Why do you close your window blinds at night? You have nothing to hide. Right? Would you mind if a place a GPS tracker on your vehicle for data collection purposes? You have nothing to hide. Right?

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Corporations are not people my friend. They do not (and should not) have the same rights. EDIT: Going through my wife's underwear drawer is not the same as having to provide payroll data to enforce labor law. EDIT 2: If you're a government contractor, you have certain labor rights obligations, by law. If you violate those, the US government has the authority to pursue you. "The department in a complaint filed with an administrative judge in Washington said the company was prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination given the hundreds of millions of dollars it receives as a contractor with the federal government." "The U.S. Labor Department has sued Oracle America Inc, alleging that the technology company systematically paid its white, male employees more than other workers and unlawfully favored Asian applicants in its recruiting and hiring efforts." It's in the first two paragraphs! Does anyone read the article anymore?
- Trundle 10y ago
  They are owned by people though and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    > They are owned by people though That does not mean the corporate entity has personhood and the rights that status conveys.
    - Trundle 10y ago
      The data they requested didn't have personhood either yet the discussion went straight to whether the corporation does. Why is that if ownership doesn't encompass property rights?
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Because ownership rights are not absolute. The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances to ensure you're compliant with your required tax liability payments, why would you think the Department of Labor wouldn't be permitted the same? EDIT: > I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry. Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? The law is all that matters, as that's what will be enforced.
        Trundle 10y ago
        When you denied corporations having personhood despite them having personhood in the eyes of the law, I assumed you were interested in discussing the concept from an ethics pov rather than a legal one. I'm sure the department of labor knows exactly what it can and can't request and even if it doesn't it, an entity with lawyers on payroll, would definitely have more of an idea on US law than me, a non-American non-lawyer. I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry.
        Trundle 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
yarou 10y ago
Well, if you want that expectation of privacy, maybe you shouldn't have become a federal contractor.
Mtinie 10y ago
Not the same context, are they? Federal investigators asking to review documents and information that portain to areas that they provide regulation for is completely different than someone arbitrarily digging through a spouse's underwear drawer.
- j4kp07 10y ago
  > Not the same context, are they? Of course it is. The context is/was (as stated by the previous poster), if you have nothing to hide, then why not be completely open? Which is what my point is; You don't need to justify your reasoning for privacy. It is a constitutional right. No justification is needed.
  - Mtinie 10y ago
    Again, completely different context. You, as an individual in the United States have a Constitutional right to privacy through the Fourth Amendment. Governed businesses operating in the United States have no such right.
ghurtado 10y ago
That's a pretty complete list of false equivalences.
Infinitesimus 10y ago
Come on, you know this isn't an argument about privacy. This is a public company and federal contractor. That status has some expectation and if the article is to be believed, those expectations include "don't racially discriminate". This isn't DoJ harassing some poor startup. This is "hey, it seems you're discriminating against these people based on things you shouldn't legally discriminate on. Can you provide us with data to show otherwise?"
- j4kp07 10y ago
  "hey, it seems you're discriminating against these people based on things you shouldn't legally discriminate on. Can you provide us with data to show otherwise?" Hey, we're going to assume you are guilty. Can you prove otherwise?
  - azernik 10y ago
    "Hey, you signed a contract saying you will provide us with these papers on request. Are you gonna do so or not?"

FT_intern 10y ago

Companies don't have anything to gain (and much to lose) from disclosing their pay practices and information.

azernik 10y ago
They have much more lose by violating their obligations under the contracts they signed for government work. See page 5 of the complaint: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsreleases/OFCCP20170071.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...

kyrra 10y ago

The actual court filing has more details[0]. The "refused to provide relevant data" is outlined on Page 5, points 12-15. Point 12 main part: "Oracle refused to produce ... prior year compensation data for all employees and complete hiring data for PT1[Professional Technical 1, individual contributors] roles during the review period of Jan 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014...". [0] https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsreleases/OFCCP20170071.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...

user5994461 10y ago

> Tangent: I know several employers use the concept of a "salary band" for roles. And you should know that it doesn't matter. If you're too expensive, you simply need to join with the appropriate role/title. e.g. Senior something instead of Software Engineer.

damnfinecoffee 10y ago

>On one hand, people have different skill levels even in a role. On the other, shouldn't the salary be tied to title? I think bonuses are a great way to account for this. Give everyone with the same title the same salary and then take individual performance into consideration for bonuses so the better workers get more compensation in the end

ChuckMcM 10y ago

Demanding a release of payroll data is simply a pressure tactic. Disclosing pay practice information is something the company really doesn't want to do, it only marginally helps the plaintiff but the plaintiff can make the case that they need that information for their case. It puts pressure on the company to settle before a judge orders them to hand over the data.

azernik 10y ago
According to the full complaint [1], release of payroll data was a contractual obligation for Oracle due to its government contracts. [1] https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsreleases/OFCCP20170071.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

rewrew 10y ago

You never cooperate with the feds. Any competent attorney will tell you that. They'd be putting their company further at risk by doing so.