5 ms·

Other side of the story: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3e05wg/what_happens_when_you_talk_about_salaries_at/ctap9sx https://www.reddit.com/r/techn

Other side of the story: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3e05wg/what_happens_when_you_talk_about_salaries_at/ctap9sx https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3e05wg/what_hap... Either way both are completely unverifiable. Take both with a huge fistful of salt until both parties are interviewed and quoted and research is done into what happened.

caskance 11y ago
No they aren't. Plenty of people here know someone who works at Google.
- EStudley 11y ago
  And those stories are.. also completely unverifiable?
  - caskance 11y ago
    I guess, if you're willing to stretch the definition of unverifiable far enough that it becomes completely meaningless.
    - vog 11y ago
      Indeed. Well, rigorous proof is possible within mathematics[1]. However, applying that measure to verifying reality is nonsense. Even within maths, rigorous proofs require decoupling of the abstract proposition (what you prove) from reality (your assumptions). [1] and "theoretical X" for X in {"computer science", "physics", "chemistry", ...}, which all are essentially math as well.
  - vog 11y ago
    If you don't accept multiple insider information as verification, what would you accept?
    - FilterSweep 11y ago
      Leaked emails :)
cmiles74 11y ago
This really reads like more of the same story, I don't see these two narratives to be in opposition. For sure, one reads pretty angry at Google and the other is clearly pro-Google but the facts are much the same.
- sergiotapia 11y ago
  Well, no. The ex-employee says management was pissed and hush hush. The reddit comment says management mentioned it openly in one of their scheduled all-hands weekly meeting. Quote: "Friend says the sheet was addressed a company all-hands meeting (it wasn't the focus of the meeting, apparently they have an all-hands every week and it was mentioned. Can that be right tho? Aren't there like tens of thousands of people all across the world? How can you have an all-hands meeting the world over every week? anyway...)"
  - cmiles74 11y ago
    Maybe I'm just too cynical and jaded, but to me it just sounds like damage control from the management side. Once word got around about this spreadsheet, what else can management do? As management, you let everyone know that you know about it and you backpeddle from your problematic "we will fire you for your involvement" position. Someone from Human Resources affirms what everyone now knows (from doing a quick Google search), that this is not grounds for dismissal but that it makes things hard for management, so on and so forth.
  - Steko 11y ago
    Maybe you should read the comment again, it does not say management brought it up. My understanding of these google meetings is anyone can bring up things. Also: (1) The fact that management can discuss something does not mean they do not object to it. There are many degrees of disapproval. (2) Management is not a monolith, it's composed of many people taking many sometimes contradictory actions -- the fact that Joe was not harassed on Friday does not mean that Joe was not ever harassed.
Steko 11y ago
Linked comment from 'guy on reddit who claims to have a friend at google' doesn't actually dispute substance of @EricaJoy's claims although it thinks it does. Seeing the upvoted comments here makes me /sigh for HN, a bunch of BS, FUD and victim blaming.
- exstudent2 11y ago
  This is not victim blaming. This is about the validity of a story that was at the very least poorly reported by Wired. All we have is a one sided report from a former employee.
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  Both sides of the story are equal: unsubstantiated.
chockablock 11y ago
One 'side' is a non-anonymous first-person account from one of the major parties in the described event. The other 'side' is a post from Redditor 'dickbutt_md', who claims to have called up "a friend" who works at Google. In dickbutt's account, the friend claims not to know Joy personally, and not to have been involved in the events, but manages to describe Joy as "passive aggressive" and "not classy", and closes by saying "Google is fucking awesome and anyone who says otherwise is talking out their ass." I kind of wish this were not the top-voted comment on an HN thread about pay equity.
- sergiotapia 11y ago
  It would not be the first time we've been duped by people with an agenda. See the whole dongle shitfest for an example. So until Wired does actual research into what happened and quotes people, who the hell knows what happened. The purpose of my comment above was just to share an opposing side of the story. It's good to question things.
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  Here is an (apparently) non-anonymous comment from HN which seems to be saying the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908030
  - acdha 11y ago
    There are a few things in common but that account is far more professional – note the lack of personal disparagement directed at her and the direct acknowledgement that they had significant problems in parts of the company. Explaining how salary disparities might have happened is very different from saying she's making it up or calling them a rabble-rouser.
    - cpncrunch 11y ago
      Erica is strongly implying that she was discriminated against either because of her colour or her sex, but these reports seem to suggest that there were other reasons for her PB rejection and the salary disparities, and therefore her entire spiel is (probably) invalid. Some disparagement seems reasonable, unless she has some more evidence to back up her claims of discrimination.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
"My friend at google" is about as reliable a source as "my uncle who works at Nintendo".
- tantalor 11y ago
  Which is also a really awesome game for those who haven't played it! http://correlatedcontents.com/?p=1868 http://correlatedcontents.com/?p=1868

caskance 11y ago

No they aren't. Plenty of people here know someone who works at Google.

EStudley 11y ago
And those stories are.. also completely unverifiable?
- caskance 11y ago
  I guess, if you're willing to stretch the definition of unverifiable far enough that it becomes completely meaningless.
  - vog 11y ago
    Indeed. Well, rigorous proof is possible within mathematics[1]. However, applying that measure to verifying reality is nonsense. Even within maths, rigorous proofs require decoupling of the abstract proposition (what you prove) from reality (your assumptions). [1] and "theoretical X" for X in {"computer science", "physics", "chemistry", ...}, which all are essentially math as well.
- vog 11y ago
  If you don't accept multiple insider information as verification, what would you accept?
  - FilterSweep 11y ago
    Leaked emails :)

cmiles74 11y ago

This really reads like more of the same story, I don't see these two narratives to be in opposition. For sure, one reads pretty angry at Google and the other is clearly pro-Google but the facts are much the same.

sergiotapia 11y ago
Well, no. The ex-employee says management was pissed and hush hush. The reddit comment says management mentioned it openly in one of their scheduled all-hands weekly meeting. Quote: "Friend says the sheet was addressed a company all-hands meeting (it wasn't the focus of the meeting, apparently they have an all-hands every week and it was mentioned. Can that be right tho? Aren't there like tens of thousands of people all across the world? How can you have an all-hands meeting the world over every week? anyway...)"
- cmiles74 11y ago
  Maybe I'm just too cynical and jaded, but to me it just sounds like damage control from the management side. Once word got around about this spreadsheet, what else can management do? As management, you let everyone know that you know about it and you backpeddle from your problematic "we will fire you for your involvement" position. Someone from Human Resources affirms what everyone now knows (from doing a quick Google search), that this is not grounds for dismissal but that it makes things hard for management, so on and so forth.
- Steko 11y ago
  Maybe you should read the comment again, it does not say management brought it up. My understanding of these google meetings is anyone can bring up things. Also: (1) The fact that management can discuss something does not mean they do not object to it. There are many degrees of disapproval. (2) Management is not a monolith, it's composed of many people taking many sometimes contradictory actions -- the fact that Joe was not harassed on Friday does not mean that Joe was not ever harassed.

Steko 11y ago

Linked comment from 'guy on reddit who claims to have a friend at google' doesn't actually dispute substance of @EricaJoy's claims although it thinks it does. Seeing the upvoted comments here makes me /sigh for HN, a bunch of BS, FUD and victim blaming.

exstudent2 11y ago
This is not victim blaming. This is about the validity of a story that was at the very least poorly reported by Wired. All we have is a one sided report from a former employee.
res0nat0r 11y ago
Both sides of the story are equal: unsubstantiated.

chockablock 11y ago

One 'side' is a non-anonymous first-person account from one of the major parties in the described event. The other 'side' is a post from Redditor 'dickbutt_md', who claims to have called up "a friend" who works at Google. In dickbutt's account, the friend claims not to know Joy personally, and not to have been involved in the events, but manages to describe Joy as "passive aggressive" and "not classy", and closes by saying "Google is fucking awesome and anyone who says otherwise is talking out their ass." I kind of wish this were not the top-voted comment on an HN thread about pay equity.

sergiotapia 11y ago
It would not be the first time we've been duped by people with an agenda. See the whole dongle shitfest for an example. So until Wired does actual research into what happened and quotes people, who the hell knows what happened. The purpose of my comment above was just to share an opposing side of the story. It's good to question things.
cpncrunch 11y ago
Here is an (apparently) non-anonymous comment from HN which seems to be saying the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908030
- acdha 11y ago
  There are a few things in common but that account is far more professional – note the lack of personal disparagement directed at her and the direct acknowledgement that they had significant problems in parts of the company. Explaining how salary disparities might have happened is very different from saying she's making it up or calling them a rabble-rouser.
  - cpncrunch 11y ago
    Erica is strongly implying that she was discriminated against either because of her colour or her sex, but these reports seem to suggest that there were other reasons for her PB rejection and the salary disparities, and therefore her entire spiel is (probably) invalid. Some disparagement seems reasonable, unless she has some more evidence to back up her claims of discrimination.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

"My friend at google" is about as reliable a source as "my uncle who works at Nintendo".

tantalor 11y ago
Which is also a really awesome game for those who haven't played it! http://correlatedcontents.com/?p=1868 http://correlatedcontents.com/?p=1868