4 ms·

What they're counting matters. It seems if Google has the goal of hiring more females than industry average, then the stats are stacked against them when you lo

What they're counting matters. It seems if Google has the goal of hiring more females than industry average, then the stats are stacked against them when you look at their worker pay distribution, even if Google isn't doing anything wrong. Suppose the population is distributed in their experience and productivity, and that you can measure these to some extent. Suppose your field has way more males than females. This is not your fault, more of a pipeline thing, but you want to be more equal internally than the outside world is. Most people commend this kind of thing. If you are fairly paying both genders, wouldn't you necessarily have to take more unproductive and inexperienced female engineers to reach your goal? And if you're fairly paying based on those criteria, won't the female population be paid less as you try to take on a more-than-average number of them? I'm not saying any of this is how it ought to be, just that it seems like a typical conclusion with napkin math, and would result in these allegations while Google is actually trying to do good. Interestingly if equal pay were not a thing, I would expect the opposite headline: That Google would pay women much more than men to work so that they could attempt to correct a gender imbalance internally that exists in the external population (software workers).

user5994461 10y ago
> If you are fairly paying both genders, wouldn't you necessarily have to take more unproductive and inexperienced female engineers to reach your goal? And if you're fairly paying based on those criteria, won't the female population be paid less as you try to take on a more-than-average number of them? If you are fairly paying both genders, it's fair to assume that women would be paid less statistically. They usually retire from work mid-career for pregnancy and possibly for a much longer time to raise the child (when it's not the man doing it, and when the couple don't have a nursery/grandparent, etc...). Retiring from work at the peak time for career growth is a disastrous move on one's income. (Be it a man or a woman).
- dleslie 10y ago
  Clearly more men need to take time off work to help raise their children.
- CharlesW 10y ago
  > They usually retire from work mid-career for pregnancy and possibly for a much longer time to raise the child… No. Here's how it actually works in a modern family unit in a high-earning, dual-income Silicon Valley household: Mommy takes time off when babby is born, as does daddy because it's not 1960. At some point during this sabbatical help is hired, and then mommy and daddy go back to work and establish their new work/home balance. The end. It's not conceptually that different than sabbaticals not involving babies. It certainly doesn't explain systemic pay discrimination.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    Sabbaticals also hurt careers. You don't get a raise and a bonus for being away 1 year when you are 25-30. This affects negatively many future years of income, because your future prospects are affected by your current job.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Nobody argues that there is no cost associated with the choice to have kids.
    - CharlesW 10y ago
      > Sabbaticals also hurt careers. I'm sure sabbaticals (and even vacations) hurt careers in some scenarios, at some companies. I was responding to the notion that this was "retirement", and unique to the woman. > You don't get a raise and a bonus for being away 1 year when you are 25-30. People take parental leave for weeks (6-8 is typical), not a year.
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      This is a strange position. On average every person should raise a family for the continuation of the humankind. Therefore this should affect everyone equally.
      - true_religion 10y ago
        On average it affects all women equally because women are physically affected by the specifics of having babies. However, some men just choose to sacrifice their family life instead of lowering their pay rate one iota. So you should see an effect on family income but divergences in gendered income.
oval-atom 10y ago
Considering that there are probably hundreds of companies listed as Federal Contractors, and among them, the major Defense Contractors with thousands of employees. I would find it difficult to believe that Google has any grounds that would make them an exception to complying with the Federal requirement of submitting Compensation Data. From experience I can assure that Defense Contractors would have exploited any loophole or angle to relieve them of fulfilling this Federal requirement. Of note here is that Google was asked to submit this data back in September of 2015 and have been given numerous opportunities to meet their obligation. “Diversity and equal pay” of the workforce has been a very visible topic as of late, so you would think that Google would take a position of being in the forefront, and setting an example especially in the tech industry. It hasn’t been too long ago, Microsoft was being chastised for its apparent lack of diversity and equal pay. Google was not forced to be a Federal Contractor; they accepted that position and therefore accepted the responsibility of meeting the Federal requirement from the beginning. If Google had a problem then, they should have not accepted the responsibility of being a Federal Contractor. Maybe Google has taken the position that they are “Too Big to Comply” or they do have something to hide. But the old adage applies, “They knew what they were getting into in the first place”, and they undoubtedly accepted compensation.
- kyrra 10y ago
  I recommend reading some of the news that started this 3 months ago[0]. Quote from Google's response: "However, the handful of OFCCP requests that are the subject of the complaint are overbroad in scope, or reveal confidential data, and we’ve made this clear to the OFCCP, to no avail. These requests include thousands of employees’ private contact information which we safeguard rigorously." [0] https://www.law360.com/articles/877558/dol-sues-google-over-withheld-compensation-data https://www.law360.com/articles/877558/dol-sues-google-over-...
  - oval-atom 10y ago
    Again, Google entered into a contractual agreement to be compensated as a Federal Contractor. DoL's request is part of that contract. Google's stand for protecting private contact information is basically mute. The IRS also contains much of that information. I recommend reading the official complaint. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104 https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104

user5994461 10y ago

> If you are fairly paying both genders, wouldn't you necessarily have to take more unproductive and inexperienced female engineers to reach your goal? And if you're fairly paying based on those criteria, won't the female population be paid less as you try to take on a more-than-average number of them? If you are fairly paying both genders, it's fair to assume that women would be paid less statistically. They usually retire from work mid-career for pregnancy and possibly for a much longer time to raise the child (when it's not the man doing it, and when the couple don't have a nursery/grandparent, etc...). Retiring from work at the peak time for career growth is a disastrous move on one's income. (Be it a man or a woman).

dleslie 10y ago
Clearly more men need to take time off work to help raise their children.
CharlesW 10y ago
> They usually retire from work mid-career for pregnancy and possibly for a much longer time to raise the child… No. Here's how it actually works in a modern family unit in a high-earning, dual-income Silicon Valley household: Mommy takes time off when babby is born, as does daddy because it's not 1960. At some point during this sabbatical help is hired, and then mommy and daddy go back to work and establish their new work/home balance. The end. It's not conceptually that different than sabbaticals not involving babies. It certainly doesn't explain systemic pay discrimination.
- user5994461 10y ago
  Sabbaticals also hurt careers. You don't get a raise and a bonus for being away 1 year when you are 25-30. This affects negatively many future years of income, because your future prospects are affected by your current job.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Nobody argues that there is no cost associated with the choice to have kids.
  - CharlesW 10y ago
    > Sabbaticals also hurt careers. I'm sure sabbaticals (and even vacations) hurt careers in some scenarios, at some companies. I was responding to the notion that this was "retirement", and unique to the woman. > You don't get a raise and a bonus for being away 1 year when you are 25-30. People take parental leave for weeks (6-8 is typical), not a year.
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    This is a strange position. On average every person should raise a family for the continuation of the humankind. Therefore this should affect everyone equally.
    - true_religion 10y ago
      On average it affects all women equally because women are physically affected by the specifics of having babies. However, some men just choose to sacrifice their family life instead of lowering their pay rate one iota. So you should see an effect on family income but divergences in gendered income.

oval-atom 10y ago

Considering that there are probably hundreds of companies listed as Federal Contractors, and among them, the major Defense Contractors with thousands of employees. I would find it difficult to believe that Google has any grounds that would make them an exception to complying with the Federal requirement of submitting Compensation Data. From experience I can assure that Defense Contractors would have exploited any loophole or angle to relieve them of fulfilling this Federal requirement. Of note here is that Google was asked to submit this data back in September of 2015 and have been given numerous opportunities to meet their obligation. “Diversity and equal pay” of the workforce has been a very visible topic as of late, so you would think that Google would take a position of being in the forefront, and setting an example especially in the tech industry. It hasn’t been too long ago, Microsoft was being chastised for its apparent lack of diversity and equal pay. Google was not forced to be a Federal Contractor; they accepted that position and therefore accepted the responsibility of meeting the Federal requirement from the beginning. If Google had a problem then, they should have not accepted the responsibility of being a Federal Contractor. Maybe Google has taken the position that they are “Too Big to Comply” or they do have something to hide. But the old adage applies, “They knew what they were getting into in the first place”, and they undoubtedly accepted compensation.

kyrra 10y ago
I recommend reading some of the news that started this 3 months ago[0]. Quote from Google's response: "However, the handful of OFCCP requests that are the subject of the complaint are overbroad in scope, or reveal confidential data, and we’ve made this clear to the OFCCP, to no avail. These requests include thousands of employees’ private contact information which we safeguard rigorously." [0] https://www.law360.com/articles/877558/dol-sues-google-over-withheld-compensation-data https://www.law360.com/articles/877558/dol-sues-google-over-...
- oval-atom 10y ago
  Again, Google entered into a contractual agreement to be compensated as a Federal Contractor. DoL's request is part of that contract. Google's stand for protecting private contact information is basically mute. The IRS also contains much of that information. I recommend reading the official complaint. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104 https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104