7 ms·

And according to the article the DoL has provided no evidence of this extraordinary claim. But of course since the headline is framed as a[n indirect] quote, th

And according to the article the DoL has provided no evidence of this extraordinary claim. But of course since the headline is framed as a[n indirect] quote, the Guardian supposedly can't be accused of spreading fake news if it turns out that the DoL is full of shit. How convenient.

stale2002 10y ago
Well then maybe Google should hand over those salary figures that the government is asking for, as required by law. Hopefully the investigation that the department of labor is doing will prove or disprove these claims.
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  > as the DoL claims is required by law Unless you're a lawyer with more-than-public knowledge about this case, you're not qualified to determine whether or not Google has fully complied with the law, which they maintain they have.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Well then we shall see won't we? If Google isn't engaging in discrimination then they have no reason not to release the info to the government. Maybe it isn't technically illegal for Google to withhold this info. If so, they would be free to not release it. And us not idiot engineers and the media would be free to use this as evidence that Google must obviously be discriminating. The court of public opinion has different standards than the court of law. Don't like it? Think you're innocent? Then release the info and prove it! I see no reason to give large for profit companies the benefit of the doubt.
    - belovedeagle 10y ago
      "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." Are we really going with this argument? I thought we had grown past this stage now.
      - stale2002 10y ago
        With for profit companies, that have a history of illegally keeping down salaries, as proven by a court of law? Yeah, absolutely, we are going there.
        SamReidHughes 10y ago
        The New York Times is a for profit company. Does it have no fourth amendment rights?
        stale2002 10y ago
        Court of law != court of public opinion. If the New York Times was involved in a major scandal, and their response was "I plead the 5th", and refused to give any details, well I as a human being absolutely can judge them on their decision to not explain themselves, and I absolutely can judge them guilty. Don't like it when I judge you guilty and treat you as guilty? Then be more transparent and try and convince me otherwise.
        belovedeagle 10y ago
        > Court of law != court of public opinion. This is quickly becoming older than the stupid "First Amendment only applies to government so it's okay to censor opinions we don't like!" trope. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just some quaint legal principle, it's supposed to be a foundation of American society (and many like it). The legal system is ultimately just a mirror of society; if we disdain such principles for long enough they'll disappear from the courts as well. Many people would be happy to see that happen; perhaps you're one of them, perhaps not.
        SamReidHughes 10y ago
        Okay, that makes sense if you automatically believe whatever your government tells you.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      Replace "Google" with "black people" or "muslims" and "discrimination" with "committing crimes". You can say exactly the same thing about any ethnic/religious minority that has ever had a member convicted of committing a crime about trying them in the court of public opinion, instead of innocent until proven guilty. "What were you doing last night? Give me evidence I want but am not legally entitled to. What are you hiding?"
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
According to the article, the DoL has found pay discrepancies and wants more data to confirm its findings. From the article: Herold added: “The government’s analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry.” 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. “We want to understand what’s causing the disparity,” she said. Herold told the Guardian that the department “seeks additional information to ensure the accuracy of the department’s findings, because if the findings are confirmed, this is a troubling situation”.
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  You are incorrect. According to the article, according to DoL, the DoL has found etc. There is a big difference, and my original statement is the correct one assuming that the Guardian is being truthful (which they probably are). If the DoL had provided evidence then the Guardian themselves would state that the DoL has found this evidence. You can't go to court and tell the judge and/or jury, "I found such-and-such evidence which proves that Google discriminates!", you have to actually provide that evidence.
  - rpedela 10y ago
    They aren't going to provide evidence publicly for an ongoing investigation and lawsuit. That doesn't mean they don't have evidence.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
    Sorry you're being downvoted. Your original comment was about The Guardian's coverage of the DOL's suit and I think you were being a little unfair, because The Guardian did a good job of explaining what the DoL aske for, and why. The article title is to the point - it sayst that the DoL is accusing Google of discriminating over gender. That's what's happened, so what else could they have reported?
  - YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

stale2002 10y ago

Well then maybe Google should hand over those salary figures that the government is asking for, as required by law. Hopefully the investigation that the department of labor is doing will prove or disprove these claims.

belovedeagle 10y ago
> as the DoL claims is required by law Unless you're a lawyer with more-than-public knowledge about this case, you're not qualified to determine whether or not Google has fully complied with the law, which they maintain they have.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Well then we shall see won't we? If Google isn't engaging in discrimination then they have no reason not to release the info to the government. Maybe it isn't technically illegal for Google to withhold this info. If so, they would be free to not release it. And us not idiot engineers and the media would be free to use this as evidence that Google must obviously be discriminating. The court of public opinion has different standards than the court of law. Don't like it? Think you're innocent? Then release the info and prove it! I see no reason to give large for profit companies the benefit of the doubt.
  - belovedeagle 10y ago
    "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." Are we really going with this argument? I thought we had grown past this stage now.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      With for profit companies, that have a history of illegally keeping down salaries, as proven by a court of law? Yeah, absolutely, we are going there.
      - SamReidHughes 10y ago
        The New York Times is a for profit company. Does it have no fourth amendment rights?
        stale2002 10y ago
        Court of law != court of public opinion. If the New York Times was involved in a major scandal, and their response was "I plead the 5th", and refused to give any details, well I as a human being absolutely can judge them on their decision to not explain themselves, and I absolutely can judge them guilty. Don't like it when I judge you guilty and treat you as guilty? Then be more transparent and try and convince me otherwise.
        belovedeagle 10y ago
        > Court of law != court of public opinion. This is quickly becoming older than the stupid "First Amendment only applies to government so it's okay to censor opinions we don't like!" trope. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just some quaint legal principle, it's supposed to be a foundation of American society (and many like it). The legal system is ultimately just a mirror of society; if we disdain such principles for long enough they'll disappear from the courts as well. Many people would be happy to see that happen; perhaps you're one of them, perhaps not.
        SamReidHughes 10y ago
        Okay, that makes sense if you automatically believe whatever your government tells you.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    Replace "Google" with "black people" or "muslims" and "discrimination" with "committing crimes". You can say exactly the same thing about any ethnic/religious minority that has ever had a member convicted of committing a crime about trying them in the court of public opinion, instead of innocent until proven guilty. "What were you doing last night? Give me evidence I want but am not legally entitled to. What are you hiding?"

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

According to the article, the DoL has found pay discrepancies and wants more data to confirm its findings. From the article: Herold added: “The government’s analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry.” 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. “We want to understand what’s causing the disparity,” she said. Herold told the Guardian that the department “seeks additional information to ensure the accuracy of the department’s findings, because if the findings are confirmed, this is a troubling situation”.

belovedeagle 10y ago
You are incorrect. According to the article, according to DoL, the DoL has found etc. There is a big difference, and my original statement is the correct one assuming that the Guardian is being truthful (which they probably are). If the DoL had provided evidence then the Guardian themselves would state that the DoL has found this evidence. You can't go to court and tell the judge and/or jury, "I found such-and-such evidence which proves that Google discriminates!", you have to actually provide that evidence.
- rpedela 10y ago
  They aren't going to provide evidence publicly for an ongoing investigation and lawsuit. That doesn't mean they don't have evidence.
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
  Sorry you're being downvoted. Your original comment was about The Guardian's coverage of the DOL's suit and I think you were being a little unfair, because The Guardian did a good job of explaining what the DoL aske for, and why. The article title is to the point - it sayst that the DoL is accusing Google of discriminating over gender. That's what's happened, so what else could they have reported?
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago