3 ms·

The issue of possible underpayment aside, It has to be in the interest of the company to provide as little information as they can. It's a court case. The atto

The issue of possible underpayment aside, It has to be in the interest of the company to provide as little information as they can. It's a court case. The attorneys wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't use every legal means at their disposal. And they may in fact have a point (to an extent). Government shouldn't be able to accuse a firm of something, then demand the firm spend money assembling data to prove the governments case. The fact Google "makes a bunch of money so no big deal" (which is what the .gov attorneys are apparently arguing) is irrelevant to that principal.

ubernostrum 9y ago
Government shouldn't be able to accuse a firm of something, then demand the firm spend money assembling data to prove the governments case. First of all: when you sue someone, you do get to demand exactly that. They also get to demand it of you! It's called "discovery", and it's a bog-standard basic normal everyday part of lawsuits. Second of all: if you have a look through the reporting on this, Google was being audited for compliance with equal-pay laws and refused to supply records the government said were relevant to the audit. So the government is now suing to force Google to hand over the records. Auditors are allowed to do that, and being required to assemble and hand over information is pretty much the literal definition of an audit.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  This isn't a civil suit though. And fishing expeditions (at the firms cost) shouldn't be allowed. We'll see what the court decides.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    An audit isn't a fishing expedition. Being audited for compliance with relevant laws is part of being in business; if it's an unbearable burden, your options are 1. Get out of business, or 2. There is no second option.
    - mythrwy 9y ago
      Any reasonable audit also has clearly defined limits though. Like I say, we'll see what the court decides.
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        Your comments strongly advocated for the "limits" being that no company could ever be compelled to compile or produce information for an audit at its own expense. Have you now recognized the error in your earlier position, since you seem to be trying to walk it back?
        mythrwy 9y ago
        I've tried to figure out how I can walk back on something nowhere near what I stated in the first place but haven't come up with a solution yet. So until I do I'll have to answer "no" to your question.
        ubernostrum 9y ago
        Government shouldn't be able to accuse a firm of something, then demand the firm spend money assembling data to prove the governments case. Direct quote of you. This is exactly what the government is allowed to do. This is exactly how an audit works when they think they've found something. The government needs the information to determine whether the company is in compliance. The company has the information. How else would you solve this, besides the government having the power to compel production of the information?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        mythrwy 9y ago
        So, your second statement isn't what I originally stated at all. This isn't how an "audit" works at all, an "audit" and an accusation are two different things entirely. Your bias has apparently led you into reading things that aren't there. A common fallacy so don't feel bad. "The government needs information" I'm not sure it really does to this extent, but assuming you are right, how much legal responsibility does Google have to provide it? And this is exactly what we are going to find out from the courts. Back to the original point, the attorneys for Google have no duty, and in fact, every duty, to minimize the amount of information provided.
erroneousfunk 9y ago
Sorry, commenting on an old post, but I had to make this point: "Government shouldn't be able to accuse a firm of something, then demand the firm spend money assembling data to prove the governments case." Try telling that to the IRS, or OSHA, or any one of a dozen other organizations tasked with certain aspect of US business oversight. If the IRS says "a preliminary investigation showed that you may be underpaying taxes, please show us business records for such-and-such" you absolutely have to do it. It has nothing to do with a lawsuit, even, although a lawsuit is certainly going to follow if you don't comply. If OSHA says "there's a string of unusual injuries that we believe were easily preventable at your workplace, please turn over employee training records and we'd like to do a walkthrough of your work site" -- you can't just say "No" In this case, Google, a federal contractor, is suspected by the Department of Labor for systematically underpaying women. They have EVERY RIGHT to request relevant US employee records. This isn't "asking Google to prove their case," this is a reasonable demand for data that they have the right to.

ubernostrum 9y ago

Government shouldn't be able to accuse a firm of something, then demand the firm spend money assembling data to prove the governments case. First of all: when you sue someone, you do get to demand exactly that. They also get to demand it of you! It's called "discovery", and it's a bog-standard basic normal everyday part of lawsuits. Second of all: if you have a look through the reporting on this, Google was being audited for compliance with equal-pay laws and refused to supply records the government said were relevant to the audit. So the government is now suing to force Google to hand over the records. Auditors are allowed to do that, and being required to assemble and hand over information is pretty much the literal definition of an audit.

mythrwy 9y ago
This isn't a civil suit though. And fishing expeditions (at the firms cost) shouldn't be allowed. We'll see what the court decides.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  An audit isn't a fishing expedition. Being audited for compliance with relevant laws is part of being in business; if it's an unbearable burden, your options are 1. Get out of business, or 2. There is no second option.
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    Any reasonable audit also has clearly defined limits though. Like I say, we'll see what the court decides.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      Your comments strongly advocated for the "limits" being that no company could ever be compelled to compile or produce information for an audit at its own expense. Have you now recognized the error in your earlier position, since you seem to be trying to walk it back?
      - mythrwy 9y ago
        I've tried to figure out how I can walk back on something nowhere near what I stated in the first place but haven't come up with a solution yet. So until I do I'll have to answer "no" to your question.
        ubernostrum 9y ago
        Government shouldn't be able to accuse a firm of something, then demand the firm spend money assembling data to prove the governments case. Direct quote of you. This is exactly what the government is allowed to do. This is exactly how an audit works when they think they've found something. The government needs the information to determine whether the company is in compliance. The company has the information. How else would you solve this, besides the government having the power to compel production of the information?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        mythrwy 9y ago
        So, your second statement isn't what I originally stated at all. This isn't how an "audit" works at all, an "audit" and an accusation are two different things entirely. Your bias has apparently led you into reading things that aren't there. A common fallacy so don't feel bad. "The government needs information" I'm not sure it really does to this extent, but assuming you are right, how much legal responsibility does Google have to provide it? And this is exactly what we are going to find out from the courts. Back to the original point, the attorneys for Google have no duty, and in fact, every duty, to minimize the amount of information provided.

erroneousfunk 9y ago

Sorry, commenting on an old post, but I had to make this point: "Government shouldn't be able to accuse a firm of something, then demand the firm spend money assembling data to prove the governments case." Try telling that to the IRS, or OSHA, or any one of a dozen other organizations tasked with certain aspect of US business oversight. If the IRS says "a preliminary investigation showed that you may be underpaying taxes, please show us business records for such-and-such" you absolutely have to do it. It has nothing to do with a lawsuit, even, although a lawsuit is certainly going to follow if you don't comply. If OSHA says "there's a string of unusual injuries that we believe were easily preventable at your workplace, please turn over employee training records and we'd like to do a walkthrough of your work site" -- you can't just say "No" In this case, Google, a federal contractor, is suspected by the Department of Labor for systematically underpaying women. They have EVERY RIGHT to request relevant US employee records. This isn't "asking Google to prove their case," this is a reasonable demand for data that they have the right to.