4 ms·

I read the article first and then came in to read the comments. I feel that most people commenting did not actually read the whole article. To put it simply: I

by esturk 8y ago

I read the article first and then came in to read the comments. I feel that most people commenting did not actually read the whole article. To put it simply: It is not just about pay equity in a particular level. It is also about the ingress and egress rate of a level. As the article mentions, some woman was hired as L3 while all of her co-workers were hired as L4. Was she overpaid as a L3? Maybe. But she was underpaid overall because she could've gotten L4. Similarly, women and under represented minorities also face similar issues in promotions.

tziki 8y ago
Sure, but there's zero data to suggest either of those are a factor at Google. That's just moving the goal post.
- organsnyder 8y ago
  How is that moving the goal post? The question at hand is whether individuals are fairly compensated based on their amount of experience and ability to contribute. Compensation is affected by job title, therefore job title is absolutely relevant.
  - renholder 8y ago
    >Compensation is affected by job title, therefore job title is absolutely relevant. Levels (on hiring) can be affected by negotiation. You can, quite literally, negotiate a better level before signing the employment contract. Why Miss Ellis' level was only Level 3 and everyone around her seemed to be hired at a Level 4, I won't even presume to know but I think it is a disservice to argue over facets surrounding something not publicly known specifically because those facts aren't known. For example, the man that was hired - after Ms. Ellis was hired - was also hired four years after he graduated university and came on at Level 4. Did he graduate with a master's? Did he have the same (or more) experience dev'ing? Is there any other plausible reason than the nefarious one we assume? If not, then, sure let's deride away. If so, then are we saying that prior experience and education level[s] (or quality) should not matter? That there should be a "maximum minimum level" for all workers entering the force?

by esturk 8y ago

tziki 8y ago

Sure, but there's zero data to suggest either of those are a factor at Google. That's just moving the goal post.

organsnyder 8y ago
How is that moving the goal post? The question at hand is whether individuals are fairly compensated based on their amount of experience and ability to contribute. Compensation is affected by job title, therefore job title is absolutely relevant.
- renholder 8y ago
  >Compensation is affected by job title, therefore job title is absolutely relevant. Levels (on hiring) can be affected by negotiation. You can, quite literally, negotiate a better level before signing the employment contract. Why Miss Ellis' level was only Level 3 and everyone around her seemed to be hired at a Level 4, I won't even presume to know but I think it is a disservice to argue over facets surrounding something not publicly known specifically because those facts aren't known. For example, the man that was hired - after Ms. Ellis was hired - was also hired four years after he graduated university and came on at Level 4. Did he graduate with a master's? Did he have the same (or more) experience dev'ing? Is there any other plausible reason than the nefarious one we assume? If not, then, sure let's deride away. If so, then are we saying that prior experience and education level[s] (or quality) should not matter? That there should be a "maximum minimum level" for all workers entering the force?