6 ms·

Class-action lawsuit over gender pay disparity at Google

anchpop 5y ago
I originally thought somehow 10,000 people are claiming Google did something wrong and coordinated to make this lawsuit happen. I'm not a lawyer but I think that might not be the case. Looks like it's a class action lawsuit being done on behalf of 10,000 women, not necessarily initiated or organized by all of them. > Four women who worked at Google have won class-action status to proceed with their gender pay disparity lawsuit, reports Bloomberg. The latest ruling in the protracted legal battle means the suit can now apply to 10,800 women who held various positions at the tech giant since 2013.
- nitwit005 5y ago
  Yes, the title seems fairly misleading.
throwawinsider 5y ago
HA-HA! It's only a fraction of the consequences of preaching equality of everything for it's own sake in your doodles, and in all your PR.
brokencode 5y ago
What a clickbait title. Four women are suing Google in a class action lawsuit that could apply to around 10k women. It’s not like 10k women are actively engaged in this.
- dang 5y ago
  I've attempted to make the title less misleading. If there's a better (more accurate and neutral one) we can change it again.
crgabrieljr 5y ago
Isn't anchoring (to current pay) a hiring tactic that virtually all companies use with all applicants, regardless of gender? Does that somehow have an outsized impact on women? Sincere questions.
- yosefjaved1 5y ago
  I can't say virtually all but a lot of companies do this; however, it depends if they can get that info. My personal opinion is that it's not a good practice and should be eliminated by all companies. I would even be supportive of having regulation passed. I believe you should hire someone based on the role and the value it provides as opposed to anchoring to the applicant's current pay. I would guess that this practice does impact women more often than men; however, I'm not certain. In general, getting rid of the practice would make pay more equitable across all genders.
  - crgabrieljr 5y ago
    I agree it is not a good practice. My experience has been that hiring managers and/or recruiters ask the question, and some people answer it truthfully for one reason or another (probably something psychological, maybe related to upbringing, which may have a gender implication).
- Puts 5y ago
  Probably. I think the point is that if you as a women is underpaid at your current job it will continue when you switch workplace. Even if the same applies to men it doesn't matter if they presumably had a fair pay already in the previous job.
- sys_64738 5y ago
  What one gets payed for their current role is irrelevant in the hiring game for the next role. You simply deflect away and let them name their opening offer. Is this the real issue about negotiating tactics to maximize the pay you get?
sjaak 5y ago
Why do companies not only hire women if it is cheaper?
- slater 5y ago
  Even worse (?) gender discrimination, and not enough ladies in the workforce?
- valdiorn 5y ago
  Because the gap exists for reasons besides "sexism".
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Such as?
    - meowkit 5y ago
      Women are less likely to negotiate. Women are more likely to be the primary caretaker, causing them to often times leave the workforce early and lose out on valuable experience if they choose to return.
    - californical 5y ago
      This article has lots of good reasons: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2021/05/25/the-gender-pay-gap-why-its-still-here/?sh=6e0e3ce17baf https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2021/05/25/the-gende... I think one of the most significant is that women tend to be more likely to go for jobs that may pay slightly less but offer more benefits like flexibility. There are also greater societal issues with how a child is raised that lead to girls gravitating towards certain career aspirations, and away from others — especially noticeable in engineering.
  - DamnYuppie 5y ago
    Agreed, experience, time in the role, and tech stacks all play a part. Long ago I had a female peer, with whom I was good friends, complain that she made less than me. We had completely different backgrounds and worked on different systems. I was on an async messaging platform and she did Java web development. She was one of the highest paid in her group but was fixated on my salary as she found out how much I made when I was purchasing a home and her friend was my real estate agent. It was all quite sad really.
globular-toast 5y ago
What if the women just aren't as good? Will they get paid more just because they are women? Isn't that sexism?
IshKebab 5y ago
I'm sure this is true but presumably they have to show that the disparity exists because Google deliberately chose to pay women less. That's going to be a tall order!
dhbradshaw 5y ago
It will be interesting to see how the numbers play out. I'm confident they'll have the resources and knowledge necessary to check for interesting effects like Simpson's paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
someonehere 5y ago
When I read articles titled like this, I wonder, “doesn’t someone in HR look at the data and raise red flags? Isn’t that their job?” The only thing I can think of is some exec forcing HR to turn a blind eye to this data. Or maybe there’s something we’re not being told?
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Actually they did look at the data. Google had to go back and pay MEN more. They did that last year I think. This is a case that's been dismissed once so whether it had any merit is very tbc...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

I originally thought somehow 10,000 people are claiming Google did something wrong and coordinated to make this lawsuit happen. I'm not a lawyer but I think that might not be the case. Looks like it's a class action lawsuit being done on behalf of 10,000 women, not necessarily initiated or organized by all of them. > Four women who worked at Google have won class-action status to proceed with their gender pay disparity lawsuit, reports Bloomberg. The latest ruling in the protracted legal battle means the suit can now apply to 10,800 women who held various positions at the tech giant since 2013.

nitwit005 5y ago
Yes, the title seems fairly misleading.

throwawinsider 5y ago

HA-HA! It's only a fraction of the consequences of preaching equality of everything for it's own sake in your doodles, and in all your PR.

brokencode 5y ago

What a clickbait title. Four women are suing Google in a class action lawsuit that could apply to around 10k women. It’s not like 10k women are actively engaged in this.

dang 5y ago
I've attempted to make the title less misleading. If there's a better (more accurate and neutral one) we can change it again.

crgabrieljr 5y ago

Isn't anchoring (to current pay) a hiring tactic that virtually all companies use with all applicants, regardless of gender? Does that somehow have an outsized impact on women? Sincere questions.

yosefjaved1 5y ago
I can't say virtually all but a lot of companies do this; however, it depends if they can get that info. My personal opinion is that it's not a good practice and should be eliminated by all companies. I would even be supportive of having regulation passed. I believe you should hire someone based on the role and the value it provides as opposed to anchoring to the applicant's current pay. I would guess that this practice does impact women more often than men; however, I'm not certain. In general, getting rid of the practice would make pay more equitable across all genders.
- crgabrieljr 5y ago
  I agree it is not a good practice. My experience has been that hiring managers and/or recruiters ask the question, and some people answer it truthfully for one reason or another (probably something psychological, maybe related to upbringing, which may have a gender implication).
Puts 5y ago
Probably. I think the point is that if you as a women is underpaid at your current job it will continue when you switch workplace. Even if the same applies to men it doesn't matter if they presumably had a fair pay already in the previous job.
sys_64738 5y ago
What one gets payed for their current role is irrelevant in the hiring game for the next role. You simply deflect away and let them name their opening offer. Is this the real issue about negotiating tactics to maximize the pay you get?

sjaak 5y ago

Why do companies not only hire women if it is cheaper?

slater 5y ago
Even worse (?) gender discrimination, and not enough ladies in the workforce?
valdiorn 5y ago
Because the gap exists for reasons besides "sexism".
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Such as?
  - meowkit 5y ago
    Women are less likely to negotiate. Women are more likely to be the primary caretaker, causing them to often times leave the workforce early and lose out on valuable experience if they choose to return.
  - californical 5y ago
    This article has lots of good reasons: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2021/05/25/the-gender-pay-gap-why-its-still-here/?sh=6e0e3ce17baf https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2021/05/25/the-gende... I think one of the most significant is that women tend to be more likely to go for jobs that may pay slightly less but offer more benefits like flexibility. There are also greater societal issues with how a child is raised that lead to girls gravitating towards certain career aspirations, and away from others — especially noticeable in engineering.
- DamnYuppie 5y ago
  Agreed, experience, time in the role, and tech stacks all play a part. Long ago I had a female peer, with whom I was good friends, complain that she made less than me. We had completely different backgrounds and worked on different systems. I was on an async messaging platform and she did Java web development. She was one of the highest paid in her group but was fixated on my salary as she found out how much I made when I was purchasing a home and her friend was my real estate agent. It was all quite sad really.

globular-toast 5y ago

What if the women just aren't as good? Will they get paid more just because they are women? Isn't that sexism?

IshKebab 5y ago

I'm sure this is true but presumably they have to show that the disparity exists because Google deliberately chose to pay women less. That's going to be a tall order!

dhbradshaw 5y ago

It will be interesting to see how the numbers play out. I'm confident they'll have the resources and knowledge necessary to check for interesting effects like Simpson's paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

someonehere 5y ago

When I read articles titled like this, I wonder, “doesn’t someone in HR look at the data and raise red flags? Isn’t that their job?” The only thing I can think of is some exec forcing HR to turn a blind eye to this data. Or maybe there’s something we’re not being told?

LatteLazy 5y ago
Actually they did look at the data. Google had to go back and pay MEN more. They did that last year I think. This is a case that's been dismissed once so whether it had any merit is very tbc...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]