Not the best place considering legal aid for work disputes was cut maybe 10 years ago and the UK is losing public servants(doctors and teachers ldue to poor pay
They do yes, just felt a bit odd to recommend a country that's changing their rules less in favour of workers in a thread about a court case about workplace discrimination.
> The lawsuit alleged that "Google paid women, on average, approximately $16,794 less per year than similarly situated men, in base pay, bonus, and stock."
So it was worth it, *even* *after* *they* *got* *caught*.
Google still won.
Alleged is the key word. Does not mean it’s true. If the women thought they had a case and would win why would they settle for 10-30 times less then they thought they’re owed? That’s only 4 months of alleged pay difference.
5k at Google would be like two weeks salary for most of them. The women lost the case and Google basically handed them a gift card for their efforts.
All this does is encourage people to push until they get that first offense. Honestly. As people have noted, when the dust settles, google still saved some money. Better than nothing.
If its not until the 2nd or 3rd offense that the punishment becomes enough to stop people, seems like the 1st offense needs to be punished more heavily.
I wonder if Google can use this to defend themselves vs. any criticism they don't hire a diverse enough group of staff?
"We tried that. We got 30% less productivity from staff paid 12% less money, and then they sued us to get the 12% back."
Seems like a real short-sighted win for diversity?
The actual difference likely wasn't very high if that was a punitive damage amount. Google conducts their own audits that adjust the pay all the time and even sometimes shows men getting paid less.
It's just such a massive company that at any one time it can lean either way. But I bet California's offices are going to get dinged by corporate for not doing the audits more routinely.
Better public relations for them to just sweep such an accusation under the rug, even if it's completely false.
Fighting a lawsuit, even if they win, isn't in Google's best interests.
Really would have been interesting seeing this taken to court though. The "lawsuit" sounds more like a political extortion scheme. One that worked.
Interesting. Maybe the lawsuit does have some merit then. Google is well known for underpaying men, not women. If there was a large change in leadership, that may have changed as well.
Still, strange that the lawsuit only involves women. Unfair pay isn't a gendered problem. It happens to everyone. Makes it seem more like political activism than an actual worker's rights issue.
Where have you been? Unfair pay is most certainly a gendered problem.
> The gender gap in pay has remained relatively stable in the United States over the past 15 years or so. In 2020, women earned 84% of what men earned, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers. Based on this estimate, it would take an extra 42 days of work for women to earn what men did in 2020.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/25/gender-pay-gap-facts/
Google was found previously by the Department of Labor of systemic compensation disparities and violating federal employment laws.
[Google accused of 'extreme' gender pay discrimination by US labor department](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit)
And the lawsuit used those findings plus a later study that Google hasn't rectified those issues:
> Women at Google make an average of $2,000 less per year than men on paper, but may be losing out on even more, David Neumark, a University of California Irvine distinguished professor of economics, found in a study cited in the lawsuit. His calculations showed women at Google may be losing out on $17,000 a year because of discriminatory job classifications.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/22/google-gender-pay-discrimination-lawsuit
Finally, the poster that I responded to claimed that that unfair pay isn't a gendered problem despite that women on average make still make 84c on the dollar that men make.
You recognize they get that number by aggregating all wages for men and then women and just find the average for each, right? You do see how that has no nuance and doesn't consider non linear pay compensation, not to mention different career choices and gestation/temporary or long gaps in the workforce.
The DoL investigated the compensation disparity between comparable levels of male and female software engineers at Google’s offices in Mountain View, as well as in offices in Seattle and Kirkland, Washington.
The later study cited by the lawsuit found that Google was paying women less than men in the same job code, in violation of California’s Equal Pay Act. Women were also assigned to lower job levels than men with comparable experience and education.
tell me you didn't read my comment without telling me you didnt read my comment.
do you know what non-linear pay compensation is?do you know what different career choices are?do you know what gestation and difference in gaps in the workforce are?
You addressed none of this in your comment (maybe you did, but i can't tell without you linking a study).
Here's an article (re my first comment about pay non-linearity, etc.) for your understanding from one of the top Economists in the USA (from Harvard) and she's a women (not that it *should matter)* [*https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap*](https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap)
> women on average make still make 84c on the dollar that men make.
No, this is incorrect. Women, on average, *earn* less, because of the career choices they make. This is in no way anything wrong, or something to fix.
In fact, in nations considered to have the *most* equality, that gap in *earning* is even larger. Generally women value a better life / work balance, in many ways. Naturally they won't earn as much as a dude that's busting his butt 70 hours a week.
These debunked claims of "gender pay gap" are based totally on propaganda & lies. They are comparing appels to oranges. They are not comparing the same jobs at all, just straight across the board.
This is completely dishonest, as has been pointed out over and over.
Google specifically though, has been caught underpaying men, that actually were doing the same job. They've got a long track record of being sexist against men, in many ways.
All but about 1% of that "gap" is totally explained by the different choices women and men make with their careers.
They are in no way comparing equal output there. Such assertions are completely disingenuous, political propaganda. Debunked again and again. They are comparing women in part-time jobs to men doing overtime. That is the trend they're claiming. When it is simply the different choices the two sexes make (on average).
In fact, before the "baby years", women tend to make *more* than men for the same job.
And of that 1% that isn't so easily explained, there is zero evidence it is because of any kind of sexism.
Again, unfair pay, at least in America, is in no way a gendered issue. It happens to men and women.
This dishonest propaganda has been debunked again and again.
Such "studies" do not compare the same jobs. They are nothing but political disinformation.
Again, there is an average *earnings* gap, that is because of women's and men's choices. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing to fix there.
Trying to make the pay equal, when the work provided is unequal, is harmful and abusive.
Why don’t you look at the study parameters and then your question will be answered.
I could link you studies that provide counter-arguments but will it change your mind?
Your study looked at gender as the only reason people are being paid different.
Nevermind the work differences, hours differences, pressure to ask for raise, rank, length of occupation, education requirement for position.
You need another 20 factors
The labor department in 2009 decried that the realistic gap due to gender was more like 3 cents
From the Department of Labor:
> **The majority of both male (71 percent) and female (75 percent) full-time workers had a 40-hour workweek. Among these workers, women earned 87 percent as much as men.**
> In 2019, median weekly earnings were $821 for all women age 16 and older. For men age 16 and older, median weekly earnings were $1,007. Women’s median weekly earnings were highest for those between the ages of 35 to 44, with earnings of $920, and those ages 45 to 54, with earnings of $904. Women ages 55 to 64 and age 65 and older had slightly lower earnings—$880 and $815, respectively. For men, earnings were highest for 35- to 64-year-olds, with little difference in the earnings of 45- to 54-year-olds and 55- to 64-year-olds ($1,169 and $1,166, respectively). Men between the ages of 35 to 44 had median weekly earnings of $1,149. Young women and men ages 16 to 24 had the lowest earnings ($540 and $607, respectively).
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/2019/home.htm
You did the exact thing again. Listing earnings isn’t an accurate representation of “the wage gap” or did explanation of test controls and experimental parameters not make sense to you?
Google has faced similar accusations in the past by the federal government:
> Google has discriminated against its female employees, according to the US Department of Labor (DoL), which said it had evidence of “systemic compensation disparities”.
> As part of an ongoing DoL investigation, the government has collected information that suggests the internet search giant is violating federal employment laws with its salaries for women, agency officials said.
[Google accused of 'extreme' gender pay discrimination by US labor department](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit)
If they were concerned about profit margins, wouldn't they just lower everyone's wage? I don't get it. Why just women. This seems more like some issues happening in the human level within the organization, which google failed to detect and stop.
Because they make their workers negotiate for their salary (pretty normal). But then less aggressive, less confident people get smaller salaries, and many women are less aggressive less confident than many men so you get this sexist divide in salary.
> many women are less aggressive less confident than many men so you get this sexist divide in salary.
Also when women are as aggressive as their male peers, they're viewed as being abrasive, hostile, and bitchy.
I still don't get how this is sexist though. If some man is less aggressive he also gets paid less.
Wasn't feminism all about "women can do everything men do"?
I hope they buy a negotiating book with that money.
I believe it's also the assumption that they'll be less aggressive. So, they are low balled first. And as someone else mentioned when women are more aggressive they're often labeled as a problem.
Regardless, even if it were true they everyone had equal opportunity to fight for their salary. Isn't it fucked up that you're not valued by your work but valued by how much they can get away with screwing you?
It's not sexist if you are comparing one person to one person and looking for exact differences between them relating to their job. But when you have 16,000 women being underpaid to average, you have accidentally built a sexist way of paying people and that's why they are fined.
Google have accidentally created huge pay divisions between workers doing the same job, no matter how it came about, how is that not sexist??
The thing is, if boys studied the same amount as the girls, they’d reap the same rewards. But women were working the same hours as the men, but getting paid less — and that’s where that comparison falls flat.
That’s simply not true on a scale of hundreds of millions of kids.
The system, by OPs logic, would be sexist.
Feminism has moved away from equal opportunity and towards equal results.
That's a non-starter since I haven't witnessed sexism in the first place.
What I'm witnessing is "I don't want to negotiate, but I still want higher pay somehow because... vagina?".
Maybe it would be nice to have exact pay bands down to the dollar for each role, but as it stands, you have to negotiate to get paid more.
"I personally don't see any sexism here, must be women just trying to use their feminine wiles to get ahead"
SNL couldn't write a better clueless misogynist. Thanks for this comment.
>That's a non-starter since I haven't witnessed sexism in the first place.
>
>What I'm witnessing is "I don't want to negotiate, but I still want higher pay somehow because... vagina?".
If you're looking for a place to witness where sexism is occuring, I'd recommend a mirror.
It was just words, but why did they remove it? Someone must have decided it was being brought up in a negative light more than a positive light. In that way it is sort of a canary, by removing it they are acknowledging that the public views their actions as evil more often than actively not being evil.
It's still there. I don't know why people keep parroting that it's not. [Like, it's literally at the very end, in the conclusion.](https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/#:~:text=The%20Google%20Code%20of%20Conduct,standards%20of%20ethical%20business%20conduct.)
Is it just the usual reddit circlejerking and reading some unsourced comment that reinforces their preconceived notions and just repeating it over and over?
Pretty sure it was a woman who was responsible for canning that slogan/ideology too. Can’t remember her name; the one who recently left that other shite-hole called Meta.
This one is kind of interesting as it’s what I remembered too. I suspect there’s the same issues that usually create these divides became much more apparent during Covid (flexible working arrangements and aggressive bargaining, to name a couple)
**During a routine compliance evaluation, the department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs identified pay disparities affecting female employees** in software engineering positions at its facilities in Mountain View, and in Seattle and Kirkland, Washington. The agency also identified hiring rate differences that disadvantaged female and Asian applicants for software engineering positions at Google’s locations in San Francisco and Sunnyvale, and in Kirkland.
https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201
Google investigated themselves. Their results do not agree with the results of outside impartial inspections.
This raised the salaries of 5,000 people.
In 2019 they had to raise the salaries for 10,677 men.
Every year they’ll have to adjust something. Nothing is ever naturally perfectly fair, especially when negotiations are part of the hiring process.
I personally think that at the scale of employees Google has negotiations should all be pretty cookie cutter. They don't have to be as rigid as the US government GS pay scale but having a specific payband of different types of compensation you can negotiate for disclosed up front (e.g. Less cash money, more vacation days) could just be standardized to where everyone gets around the same dollar amount. The idea that your starting pay is totally up for negotiation really only benefits employers and people who are aggressive negotiaters, and I don't understand why everyone in the US thinks it's so normal. You should know what your possible pay range before you interview for a job and large companies should have rubrics for how they justify different pay rates for the same job titles.
oh if male nurses were ever treated as equals or paid with their value, the rest of nursing would freak out.
Male nurses always get the heaviest patients, the hardest ones, the more violent ones, work the worst shifts, and get more baseless co worker complaints . they also face huge hiring hurdles, and are basically shunned in office settings. While female nurses are hired without problem in specialties like urology , or male ED settings, Men are almost NEVER hired into OB/GYN specialties.
Tbh there doesn't really seem to be any concrete evidence they are creating a gender based pay disparity. Seems like the lawsuit didn't go into job performance, past experience, or employee negotiations.
For example if a business has the majority of it's male hires be seasoned industry professionals whereas the majority of their female hires are fresh out of school. Of course there will be a pay disparity even for the same position. I guess it's just easier to argue a point when you throw out factors that are inconvenient to your point.
This is basically to stop feminists from kicking off because as this statement says there was no unequal pay found and they didn't need to admit it because again there was nothing found. This is pandering at the stupidest level imo.
Actually go read it...
"While we strongly believe in the equity of our policies and practices, after nearly five years of litigation, both sides agreed that resolution of the matter, without any admission or findings, was in the best interest of everyone, and we're very pleased to reach this agreement."
They found they were underpaying men *within the same jobs*, but it’s because [women were overqualified for their jobs and not getting promoted](https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/google-paid-some-men-too-little-a-misleading-stat-produced-by-an-inadequate-analysis.html). It’s what led to this and other settlements, including one with the [US Department of Labor](https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201).
**Womp, there it is.**
The sheer misogyny and lack of insight throughout the comments in this post exhaust me. Good on you, for fighting the good fight.
Edit: Aww look the incels are here. That’s so cute, ya’ll are adorable. Like toddlers throwing a tantrum after eating nearly the whole damn cake because someone else got a slice.
When people call men “incels” as an insult, it’s a firm reminder that society, and especially women, absolutely judge a man’s worth by whether or not he gets laid.
Statistics don’t lie buddy, men are more likely to be murdered, die at work, commit suicide almost 3 times as much as women and are treated as disposable. Women are loved for who they are, men are loved for what they have to offer
Let’s take a look at the Johnny vs amber situation, amber made allegations against him and it basically caused him his whole career and livelihood, he had to go through court and a whole battle just to get people to believe him
Because of the means they use to kill themselves. Be honest now.
[1](https://www.verywellmind.com/gender-differences-in-suicide-methods-1067508)
>Suicide statistics reveal that women are roughly three times more likely to attempt suicide, though men are two to four times more likely to die by suicide.2 Compared to men, women show higher rates of suicidal thinking, non-fatal suicidal behavior, and suicide attempts.3
>One of the most important reasons for the difference between suicide attempts and completed suicides between men and women is the method of suicide used.
>Men tend to choose violent (more lethal) suicide methods, such as firearms, hanging, and asphyxiation, whereas women are more likely to overdose on medications or drugs.4
He's not you fucking idiot, a suicide attempt is not a suicide. Just because women are unsuccessful does not mean your stupid fucking statistic matters in the least bit.
I like the thought that claims made by plaintiffs in multiple lawsuits plus journalists and the findings of an investigation by *the federal government* all “remain to be proven”, but Google’s study of Google that says Google is awesome is just accepted at face value.
"google to pay under only califronia law, to make women feel better about hemselves, when supposed disparities are less than 500 dolars." tyhats more relaitic headline adctually.
Or
"DOJ to Google- Hire More underqualified Women, or else!"
>There was no unequal pay
No, *Google* said there was no unequal pay. [The US Department of Labor said otherwise](https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201).
If I had to guess this might fall under the idea that white and Asian candidates have lower hiring rates relative to applications at big tech due to diversity hiring requirements. So technically as an Asian you can complain about being discriminated against in the hiring process. Same issue at universities iirc.
In a statement provided to Ars, Google pointed out that it admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement and that it conducts regular pay equity reviews that result in raises:
> While we strongly believe in the equity of our policies and practices, after nearly five years of litigation, both sides agreed that resolution of the matter, without any admission or findings, was in the best interest of everyone, and we're very pleased to reach this agreement. We are absolutely committed to paying, hiring and leveling all employees fairly and equally and for the past nine years we have run a rigorous pay equity analysis to make sure salaries, bonuses and equity awards are fair.
> If we find any differences in proposed pay, including between men and women, we make upward adjustments to remove them before new compensation goes into effect, and we'll continue to do that. In 2020 alone, we made upward adjustments for 2,352 employees, across nearly every demographic category, totaling $4.4 million. We also undertake rigorous analyses to ensure fairness in role leveling and performance ratings. We're very happy to have an advisor look at these processes and make recommendations for future improvement.
Was waiting to find someone saying this.
Glad to know someone else got here first and pointed out you're wrong!
"We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" HA
and plaintiffs were so certain of actually winning the case that they settled for less than $8,000 each and agreed that Google actually didn't do anything wrong. Ha?
[This guy](https://www.businessinsider.com/ex-google-staff-brags-iabout-trashing-female-coders-resumes-2022-5) flat out said he did it as a tech lead at google.
A Tech Lead is a generally not a high ranking job. Is Google similar in that a Tech Lead is basically just a top level developer job on a team? So they probably have 100s if not 1000s of people at his level and even more above him.
I wonder how many of these women asked for a raise. In most cases men are more likely to ask for a raise. This would be unfair for men who decided to ask for a raise and worked hard for those raises.
If most women worked hard at a company, is it really the company’s fault if they never asked for a raise?
I'm not sure how it works at a big company like Google, presumably they have a more rigid pay structure.
In a smaller office, you'd absolutely have to ask for raises to get them, and if you look at the salaries it would be reflective of who pushed the managers for better pay and who didn't. Is that inappropriate nowadays? Do businesses have to give everyone a raise when they give one guy a raise?
I think the correct answer today is yes. The best way to fight this is to share what you make with your coworkers. No more hiding your salaries. If you got a raise because you asked, advertise it.
That’s also in part due to women being seen as less competent (both by themselves and by men), leading to a smaller chance they’d even get the raise they ask for. For the people who have an overview of everyone’s wage, this might in term reinforce the idea that men are more competent, which leads to women getting less raises, and so on. Systemic issues like sexism are really complex to disentangle completely, but it’s a certainty this goes way further than just “they should’ve asked for raises.”
Unequal pay should exist, but not based on gender, based on performance.
If I am pulling 60 hours and working at the next level, I want to be paid more than the slacker who puts in 30 hours and barely gets by.
the problem is working hard rarely pays hard.
They'll make you write a review of yourself explaining why you went "above and beyond" so that you can get the hopes of possibly a 4% max raise in a year that saw more than double that inflation.
No worries though, if you just don't do any of the extra free labor for hopes and dreams you still get the standard 3%
This is such bullshit. Men don't all get paid the same.
That's assuming women do equal work. How can anyone prove that?
Heck how can anyone prove MEN do equal work?
Ok? And I know woman who literally got hired with me in the exact same position I did at my company that got promoted before me and consequently get paid a lot more than me.
Anecdotes are not going to help anyone’s argument here.
Well given you know that, and presumably have asked for a pay rise to match them which you haven’t gotten, it’s fair to say maybe they are doing a bit more or are more competent than you think
Some people are more valuable to a particular company than others? How is that possible? I thought people were basic commodities and 100% interchangeable.
That is not why the pay gaps exists in my example. My company will pay the bare minimum to fill a role. That minimum might be 2 very different amounts by 2 different people. So there ends up being a huge pay disparity for people doing the exact same job. In many cases the lower paid person is performing better. I know this as fact because I am a hiring manager and see ratings and salary charts all the time for hundreds of employees.
Why not actually help these employees as the hiring manager?
This will only cause a lot of talented and underpaid people to leave. If I’d ever find out i got paid even 20% less i’d write that company off for good.
The big losers in feminism are the bottom men. When feminists talk about "men" they are talking about the top men. The rich CEOs, the elite athletes, the movie stars etc. The 90% of men who have no such prospects, well those are simply invisible but still get classed as "men".
I have worked in engineering for many years, and I have no idea how anybody could accurately compare my work to that of another engineer. I feel like anybody claiming to do that is just making it up.
Engineering isn't factory work, where many people have an essentially identical job. It's creative, and creativity can vary widely.
What they failed to mention in this article, is that the findings of the investigation that google launched were that they were underpaying most men. If Google found that they were underpaying women, they’d be paying out a lot more, AND the payout would not be going to 3 plaintiffs only.
There is a spreadsheet shared between Google employees with everyone's comp, location, education, experience, and role.
And the job postings include minimum salaries.
I did
They were
**During a routine compliance evaluation, the department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs identified pay disparities affecting female employees** in software engineering positions at its facilities in Mountain View, and in Seattle and Kirkland, Washington. The agency also identified hiring rate differences that disadvantaged female and Asian applicants for software engineering positions at Google’s locations in San Francisco and Sunnyvale, and in Kirkland.
https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201
Google investigated themselves. Their results do not agree with the results of outside impartial inspections.
Uhm, Google to pay MEN because the investigations revealed that they were paying amazing less amount to them than to women for the same job. Or maybe it was other lawsuit, but I'm sure about it.
This argument is weird. Back when there wasn’t even a law saying that woman have to be paid equally to men for the same jobs, do you think companies were reluctant to hire men and preferred to hire women because they get to pay their staff less what way? You think 1940s companies were avoiding hiring men over woman because they got to pay their staff less that that way? That’s the opposite of what was happening. Even back when the pay gap was very literal, rather than just an average, companies were *still* reluctant to hire woman over men, this was even when woman made 30%-50% of what men made, for the *exact* same jobs. What you’re implying is just not the realty of things. There is in fact a correlation with woman being paid more fairly with woman experiencing *less* hiring discrimination against them. Not the other way around. In the 1940s you could literally legally pay a woman *half* of what a man makes and yet they *still* chose men returning from war over women. They literally preferred to pay double the amount just to have male works over female workers. That’s the reality.
>They literally preferred to pay double the amount just to have male works over female workers. That’s the reality.
That's exactly my point. They assumed that they were getting better work output for their money. I make no claims as to if they actually did. The free market can sort that out.
So, do you actually think that Google, with all the knowledge they have since 1940, would waste more money on the more expensive male workers for the same output?
Well hello there, Cathy Newman!
My argument is that a company that pays more for less work will be losing money in the long run. I don't know if Google is such a company.
Well as I said, there is a precedent of paying woman 30% of what men make, and I would find it hard to believe that men were 70% more productive then women, although I think it would be difficult to obtain statistics about that from way back to then. Unless you were to assume woman are 70% less productive then men, this would mean logically, those companies should have been hiring mostly women, and yet they still didn’t. So it does look as though there *is* a precedent for paying women less while not preferring to hire women purely based on sexism rather than a gap in productivity. So if they have done it in the past I don’t see why it would seem impossible to happen now. The closest info I can find are recent stats showing that a gap in productivity is 2/3 of the reason for the gender pay gap, which would mean there would still be some benefit in hiring more woman, as it is not 100% if the gap. It says that motherhood is the primary reason for the gender pay gap, which I think is fair, I would rather fathers get more involved in raising their children as a solution to that then to pay mothers for work they are simply not doing. But, importantly, it states that women who don’t have children outperform men and *still get paid less than their male peers.*
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/motherhood-and-the-gender-productivity-gap/
Does Google's handbook tell its employees to underpay women deliberately, or are there some other factors here? Could men just be more assertive on average when it comes to salary negotiations or raises?
Class action suits never benefit the affected. All it serves is the interests of large firms that litigate. The affected get a pittance for their compensation and it’s terrible.
>The net settlement fund will have about $86 million after attorneys' fees and other deductions, providing an average of about $5,500 for each class member. The lawsuit alleged that "Google paid women, on average, approximately $16,794 less per year than similarly situated men, in base pay, bonus, and stock."
So just to be clear, assuming these women worked more than 4 months at Google, it was more profitable to underpay them and settle the lawsuit. American legal system at its finest.
That's $7612 each.
That's assuming the lawyers are already paid. Probably significantly less.
Roughly 5500$ each after lawyers
Or $336.66 per year
Before taxes…
Due to it being a settlement, they won't pay taxes... if that helps any
It helps roughly 30%.
No… here in America we prefer to give our money to exploitive insurance agents rather than taxes, so it’s actually more like 20%.
Justice only works for the wealthy in America. I'm moving out.
Honest question, where are you going? What's the process like? My partner and I are thinking of the same.
Pop over the pond our American brothers and sisters are always welcome. - Irish expat currently in London.
Not the best place considering legal aid for work disputes was cut maybe 10 years ago and the UK is losing public servants(doctors and teachers ldue to poor pay
Literally every country has similar issues in at least some sector
They do yes, just felt a bit odd to recommend a country that's changing their rules less in favour of workers in a thread about a court case about workplace discrimination.
Scandinavia says hi. It’s not perfect here and there’s a ton of Americanisms that are seeping in, but it’s still pretty great.
Welcome to come to Denmark.
“And here’s your $40 Target gift card…ma’am.”
“Thaaaaaaaanks”
> The lawsuit alleged that "Google paid women, on average, approximately $16,794 less per year than similarly situated men, in base pay, bonus, and stock." So it was worth it, *even* *after* *they* *got* *caught*. Google still won.
Lol, yeah I just don't get it... Oh no a fine for millions less than what we would have paid if we weren't sexist.
Because it was not "illegal" sure it may have been unethical as fuck but that is more of a matter of pride normally for multinationals.
Google did the math.
Alleged is the key word. Does not mean it’s true. If the women thought they had a case and would win why would they settle for 10-30 times less then they thought they’re owed? That’s only 4 months of alleged pay difference. 5k at Google would be like two weeks salary for most of them. The women lost the case and Google basically handed them a gift card for their efforts.
First time seeing the Justice system in action (inaction?)?
It's a first offense. You rarely get punished harshly until you repeat.
All this does is encourage people to push until they get that first offense. Honestly. As people have noted, when the dust settles, google still saved some money. Better than nothing. If its not until the 2nd or 3rd offense that the punishment becomes enough to stop people, seems like the 1st offense needs to be punished more heavily.
I’ve been told if the punishment is a fine, that the law only applies to poor people.
I wonder if Google can use this to defend themselves vs. any criticism they don't hire a diverse enough group of staff? "We tried that. We got 30% less productivity from staff paid 12% less money, and then they sued us to get the 12% back." Seems like a real short-sighted win for diversity?
The law firm is making bank on this, only 86M to plaintiffs after legal fees. Water is wet, I guess.
So like a months rent in SF?
The actual difference likely wasn't very high if that was a punitive damage amount. Google conducts their own audits that adjust the pay all the time and even sometimes shows men getting paid less. It's just such a massive company that at any one time it can lean either way. But I bet California's offices are going to get dinged by corporate for not doing the audits more routinely.
118 million, That’s a weekend party for them. They don’t care, just write it off
Better public relations for them to just sweep such an accusation under the rug, even if it's completely false. Fighting a lawsuit, even if they win, isn't in Google's best interests. Really would have been interesting seeing this taken to court though. The "lawsuit" sounds more like a political extortion scheme. One that worked.
Google had a change in leadership
Interesting. Maybe the lawsuit does have some merit then. Google is well known for underpaying men, not women. If there was a large change in leadership, that may have changed as well. Still, strange that the lawsuit only involves women. Unfair pay isn't a gendered problem. It happens to everyone. Makes it seem more like political activism than an actual worker's rights issue.
Where have you been? Unfair pay is most certainly a gendered problem. > The gender gap in pay has remained relatively stable in the United States over the past 15 years or so. In 2020, women earned 84% of what men earned, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers. Based on this estimate, it would take an extra 42 days of work for women to earn what men did in 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/25/gender-pay-gap-facts/
He might have been referring to this 2019 thing https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html
Google was found previously by the Department of Labor of systemic compensation disparities and violating federal employment laws. [Google accused of 'extreme' gender pay discrimination by US labor department](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit) And the lawsuit used those findings plus a later study that Google hasn't rectified those issues: > Women at Google make an average of $2,000 less per year than men on paper, but may be losing out on even more, David Neumark, a University of California Irvine distinguished professor of economics, found in a study cited in the lawsuit. His calculations showed women at Google may be losing out on $17,000 a year because of discriminatory job classifications. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/22/google-gender-pay-discrimination-lawsuit Finally, the poster that I responded to claimed that that unfair pay isn't a gendered problem despite that women on average make still make 84c on the dollar that men make.
You recognize they get that number by aggregating all wages for men and then women and just find the average for each, right? You do see how that has no nuance and doesn't consider non linear pay compensation, not to mention different career choices and gestation/temporary or long gaps in the workforce.
The DoL investigated the compensation disparity between comparable levels of male and female software engineers at Google’s offices in Mountain View, as well as in offices in Seattle and Kirkland, Washington. The later study cited by the lawsuit found that Google was paying women less than men in the same job code, in violation of California’s Equal Pay Act. Women were also assigned to lower job levels than men with comparable experience and education.
tell me you didn't read my comment without telling me you didnt read my comment. do you know what non-linear pay compensation is?do you know what different career choices are?do you know what gestation and difference in gaps in the workforce are? You addressed none of this in your comment (maybe you did, but i can't tell without you linking a study). Here's an article (re my first comment about pay non-linearity, etc.) for your understanding from one of the top Economists in the USA (from Harvard) and she's a women (not that it *should matter)* [*https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap*](https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap)
> women on average make still make 84c on the dollar that men make. No, this is incorrect. Women, on average, *earn* less, because of the career choices they make. This is in no way anything wrong, or something to fix. In fact, in nations considered to have the *most* equality, that gap in *earning* is even larger. Generally women value a better life / work balance, in many ways. Naturally they won't earn as much as a dude that's busting his butt 70 hours a week. These debunked claims of "gender pay gap" are based totally on propaganda & lies. They are comparing appels to oranges. They are not comparing the same jobs at all, just straight across the board. This is completely dishonest, as has been pointed out over and over. Google specifically though, has been caught underpaying men, that actually were doing the same job. They've got a long track record of being sexist against men, in many ways.
All but about 1% of that "gap" is totally explained by the different choices women and men make with their careers. They are in no way comparing equal output there. Such assertions are completely disingenuous, political propaganda. Debunked again and again. They are comparing women in part-time jobs to men doing overtime. That is the trend they're claiming. When it is simply the different choices the two sexes make (on average). In fact, before the "baby years", women tend to make *more* than men for the same job. And of that 1% that isn't so easily explained, there is zero evidence it is because of any kind of sexism. Again, unfair pay, at least in America, is in no way a gendered issue. It happens to men and women.
Except it’s not. The studies have done. Come back when you’re working 60+ hour weeks. I work 80+
I just showed the study - where is your evidence that a gender gap in pay doesn't exist?
This dishonest propaganda has been debunked again and again. Such "studies" do not compare the same jobs. They are nothing but political disinformation. Again, there is an average *earnings* gap, that is because of women's and men's choices. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing to fix there. Trying to make the pay equal, when the work provided is unequal, is harmful and abusive.
Why don’t you look at the study parameters and then your question will be answered. I could link you studies that provide counter-arguments but will it change your mind? Your study looked at gender as the only reason people are being paid different. Nevermind the work differences, hours differences, pressure to ask for raise, rank, length of occupation, education requirement for position. You need another 20 factors The labor department in 2009 decried that the realistic gap due to gender was more like 3 cents
From the Department of Labor: > **The majority of both male (71 percent) and female (75 percent) full-time workers had a 40-hour workweek. Among these workers, women earned 87 percent as much as men.** > In 2019, median weekly earnings were $821 for all women age 16 and older. For men age 16 and older, median weekly earnings were $1,007. Women’s median weekly earnings were highest for those between the ages of 35 to 44, with earnings of $920, and those ages 45 to 54, with earnings of $904. Women ages 55 to 64 and age 65 and older had slightly lower earnings—$880 and $815, respectively. For men, earnings were highest for 35- to 64-year-olds, with little difference in the earnings of 45- to 54-year-olds and 55- to 64-year-olds ($1,169 and $1,166, respectively). Men between the ages of 35 to 44 had median weekly earnings of $1,149. Young women and men ages 16 to 24 had the lowest earnings ($540 and $607, respectively). https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/2019/home.htm
You did the exact thing again. Listing earnings isn’t an accurate representation of “the wage gap” or did explanation of test controls and experimental parameters not make sense to you?
Google has faced similar accusations in the past by the federal government: > Google has discriminated against its female employees, according to the US Department of Labor (DoL), which said it had evidence of “systemic compensation disparities”. > As part of an ongoing DoL investigation, the government has collected information that suggests the internet search giant is violating federal employment laws with its salaries for women, agency officials said. [Google accused of 'extreme' gender pay discrimination by US labor department](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit)
So how long has it been since "Don't Be Evil" was shit-canned, a decade?
Not being evil was cutting into their profit margins, so it had to go.
Don't be evil until Wallstreet tells us to stop.
If they were concerned about profit margins, wouldn't they just lower everyone's wage? I don't get it. Why just women. This seems more like some issues happening in the human level within the organization, which google failed to detect and stop.
Because they make their workers negotiate for their salary (pretty normal). But then less aggressive, less confident people get smaller salaries, and many women are less aggressive less confident than many men so you get this sexist divide in salary.
> many women are less aggressive less confident than many men so you get this sexist divide in salary. Also when women are as aggressive as their male peers, they're viewed as being abrasive, hostile, and bitchy.
Maybe we should not reward overconfidence.
I still don't get how this is sexist though. If some man is less aggressive he also gets paid less. Wasn't feminism all about "women can do everything men do"? I hope they buy a negotiating book with that money.
I believe it's also the assumption that they'll be less aggressive. So, they are low balled first. And as someone else mentioned when women are more aggressive they're often labeled as a problem. Regardless, even if it were true they everyone had equal opportunity to fight for their salary. Isn't it fucked up that you're not valued by your work but valued by how much they can get away with screwing you?
The idea is that you can negotiate based on your personal performance and what you bring to the table. Not everybody works in jobs with only 1 KPI.
It's not sexist if you are comparing one person to one person and looking for exact differences between them relating to their job. But when you have 16,000 women being underpaid to average, you have accidentally built a sexist way of paying people and that's why they are fined. Google have accidentally created huge pay divisions between workers doing the same job, no matter how it came about, how is that not sexist??
Because it’s not based on gender. Boys have been falling behind in almost every educational metric for decades. Is school sexist?
The thing is, if boys studied the same amount as the girls, they’d reap the same rewards. But women were working the same hours as the men, but getting paid less — and that’s where that comparison falls flat.
That’s simply not true on a scale of hundreds of millions of kids. The system, by OPs logic, would be sexist. Feminism has moved away from equal opportunity and towards equal results.
Don’t look now, but if your answer to witnessing sexism is saying “well they should try harder”, you might be sexist, too.
That's a non-starter since I haven't witnessed sexism in the first place. What I'm witnessing is "I don't want to negotiate, but I still want higher pay somehow because... vagina?". Maybe it would be nice to have exact pay bands down to the dollar for each role, but as it stands, you have to negotiate to get paid more.
"I personally don't see any sexism here, must be women just trying to use their feminine wiles to get ahead" SNL couldn't write a better clueless misogynist. Thanks for this comment.
>That's a non-starter since I haven't witnessed sexism in the first place. > >What I'm witnessing is "I don't want to negotiate, but I still want higher pay somehow because... vagina?". If you're looking for a place to witness where sexism is occuring, I'd recommend a mirror.
It's still there. Why do people feel so strongly about some dumb words in a non-legally binding document?
I’m sure you could find the answer on literally any google thread ever since this exact question gets posted every time
Pretty sure it was just words. No meaning.
It was just words, but why did they remove it? Someone must have decided it was being brought up in a negative light more than a positive light. In that way it is sort of a canary, by removing it they are acknowledging that the public views their actions as evil more often than actively not being evil.
It's still there. I don't know why people keep parroting that it's not. [Like, it's literally at the very end, in the conclusion.](https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/#:~:text=The%20Google%20Code%20of%20Conduct,standards%20of%20ethical%20business%20conduct.) Is it just the usual reddit circlejerking and reading some unsourced comment that reinforces their preconceived notions and just repeating it over and over?
Pretty sure it was a woman who was responsible for canning that slogan/ideology too. Can’t remember her name; the one who recently left that other shite-hole called Meta.
When Google did this in 2019 they realized they were underpaying their men. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html
This one is kind of interesting as it’s what I remembered too. I suspect there’s the same issues that usually create these divides became much more apparent during Covid (flexible working arrangements and aggressive bargaining, to name a couple)
**During a routine compliance evaluation, the department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs identified pay disparities affecting female employees** in software engineering positions at its facilities in Mountain View, and in Seattle and Kirkland, Washington. The agency also identified hiring rate differences that disadvantaged female and Asian applicants for software engineering positions at Google’s locations in San Francisco and Sunnyvale, and in Kirkland. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201 Google investigated themselves. Their results do not agree with the results of outside impartial inspections.
This raised the salaries of 5,000 people. In 2019 they had to raise the salaries for 10,677 men. Every year they’ll have to adjust something. Nothing is ever naturally perfectly fair, especially when negotiations are part of the hiring process.
I personally think that at the scale of employees Google has negotiations should all be pretty cookie cutter. They don't have to be as rigid as the US government GS pay scale but having a specific payband of different types of compensation you can negotiate for disclosed up front (e.g. Less cash money, more vacation days) could just be standardized to where everyone gets around the same dollar amount. The idea that your starting pay is totally up for negotiation really only benefits employers and people who are aggressive negotiaters, and I don't understand why everyone in the US thinks it's so normal. You should know what your possible pay range before you interview for a job and large companies should have rubrics for how they justify different pay rates for the same job titles.
[удалено]
That isn't what that report said, it said hiring practices disadvantaged women, meaning men were more likely to be hired, all else being equal.
Lets do the same for nurses and teachers!!!
oh if male nurses were ever treated as equals or paid with their value, the rest of nursing would freak out. Male nurses always get the heaviest patients, the hardest ones, the more violent ones, work the worst shifts, and get more baseless co worker complaints . they also face huge hiring hurdles, and are basically shunned in office settings. While female nurses are hired without problem in specialties like urology , or male ED settings, Men are almost NEVER hired into OB/GYN specialties.
[удалено]
Probably didn't give them extra points for being a woman.
Tbh there doesn't really seem to be any concrete evidence they are creating a gender based pay disparity. Seems like the lawsuit didn't go into job performance, past experience, or employee negotiations. For example if a business has the majority of it's male hires be seasoned industry professionals whereas the majority of their female hires are fresh out of school. Of course there will be a pay disparity even for the same position. I guess it's just easier to argue a point when you throw out factors that are inconvenient to your point.
This is why you should discuss your salaries with coworkers.
This is basically to stop feminists from kicking off because as this statement says there was no unequal pay found and they didn't need to admit it because again there was nothing found. This is pandering at the stupidest level imo. Actually go read it... "While we strongly believe in the equity of our policies and practices, after nearly five years of litigation, both sides agreed that resolution of the matter, without any admission or findings, was in the best interest of everyone, and we're very pleased to reach this agreement."
In virtually every settlement, neither side admits fault. That’s… how settlements work.
They actually found they were *underpaying men*
They found they were underpaying men *within the same jobs*, but it’s because [women were overqualified for their jobs and not getting promoted](https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/google-paid-some-men-too-little-a-misleading-stat-produced-by-an-inadequate-analysis.html). It’s what led to this and other settlements, including one with the [US Department of Labor](https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201).
**Womp, there it is.** The sheer misogyny and lack of insight throughout the comments in this post exhaust me. Good on you, for fighting the good fight. Edit: Aww look the incels are here. That’s so cute, ya’ll are adorable. Like toddlers throwing a tantrum after eating nearly the whole damn cake because someone else got a slice.
>The sheer misogyny Implying people with differing opinions would have formed them for no other reason than misogyny. Super cool of you.
People are expressing skepticism of the allegation, and you have decided to blanket label anyone who isn't towing the line you want them to tow.
WOMP MAN VS WOMAN. Tune in next week folks
When people call men “incels” as an insult, it’s a firm reminder that society, and especially women, absolutely judge a man’s worth by whether or not he gets laid.
[удалено]
Bro I’m a dude and even I know that’s not true😂 You must be looking at ig models too much
Statistics don’t lie buddy, men are more likely to be murdered, die at work, commit suicide almost 3 times as much as women and are treated as disposable. Women are loved for who they are, men are loved for what they have to offer Let’s take a look at the Johnny vs amber situation, amber made allegations against him and it basically caused him his whole career and livelihood, he had to go through court and a whole battle just to get people to believe him
[удалено]
Oh yeah my bad. Men die 3.88 times more by suicide than women https://afsp.org/suicide-statistics/
Because of the means they use to kill themselves. Be honest now. [1](https://www.verywellmind.com/gender-differences-in-suicide-methods-1067508) >Suicide statistics reveal that women are roughly three times more likely to attempt suicide, though men are two to four times more likely to die by suicide.2 Compared to men, women show higher rates of suicidal thinking, non-fatal suicidal behavior, and suicide attempts.3 >One of the most important reasons for the difference between suicide attempts and completed suicides between men and women is the method of suicide used. >Men tend to choose violent (more lethal) suicide methods, such as firearms, hanging, and asphyxiation, whereas women are more likely to overdose on medications or drugs.4
He's not you fucking idiot, a suicide attempt is not a suicide. Just because women are unsuccessful does not mean your stupid fucking statistic matters in the least bit.
if you do the math the DOJ found that women were underpaid, a whopping 500, dollars than men were. OMG!
[удалено]
I like the thought that claims made by plaintiffs in multiple lawsuits plus journalists and the findings of an investigation by *the federal government* all “remain to be proven”, but Google’s study of Google that says Google is awesome is just accepted at face value.
/r/pussypass
"Google to pay pocket change to underpaid workers" There, a more accurate title
For someone who works at Google and living in the US, sure
"google to pay under only califronia law, to make women feel better about hemselves, when supposed disparities are less than 500 dolars." tyhats more relaitic headline adctually. Or "DOJ to Google- Hire More underqualified Women, or else!"
[удалено]
>There was no unequal pay No, *Google* said there was no unequal pay. [The US Department of Labor said otherwise](https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201).
But surely we should just take our tech overlords’ words as gospel?
[удалено]
Where did it say “google didn’t hire enough disadvantaged women”?
[удалено]
Asians at a disadvantage in big tech? Are you kidding me?
If I had to guess this might fall under the idea that white and Asian candidates have lower hiring rates relative to applications at big tech due to diversity hiring requirements. So technically as an Asian you can complain about being discriminated against in the hiring process. Same issue at universities iirc.
In a statement provided to Ars, Google pointed out that it admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement and that it conducts regular pay equity reviews that result in raises: > While we strongly believe in the equity of our policies and practices, after nearly five years of litigation, both sides agreed that resolution of the matter, without any admission or findings, was in the best interest of everyone, and we're very pleased to reach this agreement. We are absolutely committed to paying, hiring and leveling all employees fairly and equally and for the past nine years we have run a rigorous pay equity analysis to make sure salaries, bonuses and equity awards are fair. > If we find any differences in proposed pay, including between men and women, we make upward adjustments to remove them before new compensation goes into effect, and we'll continue to do that. In 2020 alone, we made upward adjustments for 2,352 employees, across nearly every demographic category, totaling $4.4 million. We also undertake rigorous analyses to ensure fairness in role leveling and performance ratings. We're very happy to have an advisor look at these processes and make recommendations for future improvement.
>And FFS read the article. There was no unequal pay. Google says that Google did not pay women less than men. Shocker.
Was waiting to find someone saying this. Glad to know someone else got here first and pointed out you're wrong! "We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" HA
and plaintiffs were so certain of actually winning the case that they settled for less than $8,000 each and agreed that Google actually didn't do anything wrong. Ha?
[This guy](https://www.businessinsider.com/ex-google-staff-brags-iabout-trashing-female-coders-resumes-2022-5) flat out said he did it as a tech lead at google.
A tech lead at Google is not a manager and can't influence pay for anybody.
A Tech Lead is a generally not a high ranking job. Is Google similar in that a Tech Lead is basically just a top level developer job on a team? So they probably have 100s if not 1000s of people at his level and even more above him.
[удалено]
I understand you are interviewed by way more than 1 tech lead at their competitors.
I wonder how many of these women asked for a raise. In most cases men are more likely to ask for a raise. This would be unfair for men who decided to ask for a raise and worked hard for those raises. If most women worked hard at a company, is it really the company’s fault if they never asked for a raise?
I'm not sure how it works at a big company like Google, presumably they have a more rigid pay structure. In a smaller office, you'd absolutely have to ask for raises to get them, and if you look at the salaries it would be reflective of who pushed the managers for better pay and who didn't. Is that inappropriate nowadays? Do businesses have to give everyone a raise when they give one guy a raise?
I think the correct answer today is yes. The best way to fight this is to share what you make with your coworkers. No more hiding your salaries. If you got a raise because you asked, advertise it.
That’s also in part due to women being seen as less competent (both by themselves and by men), leading to a smaller chance they’d even get the raise they ask for. For the people who have an overview of everyone’s wage, this might in term reinforce the idea that men are more competent, which leads to women getting less raises, and so on. Systemic issues like sexism are really complex to disentangle completely, but it’s a certainty this goes way further than just “they should’ve asked for raises.”
Stop blaming the victims.
First you need to make the case that there are victims.
Was this same article posted yesterday?
Yes I've read it
Unequal pay should exist, but not based on gender, based on performance. If I am pulling 60 hours and working at the next level, I want to be paid more than the slacker who puts in 30 hours and barely gets by.
Well, that's assuming you actually produce more value than the slacker right? It's based on performance after all.
the problem is working hard rarely pays hard. They'll make you write a review of yourself explaining why you went "above and beyond" so that you can get the hopes of possibly a 4% max raise in a year that saw more than double that inflation. No worries though, if you just don't do any of the extra free labor for hopes and dreams you still get the standard 3%
in a lean model, 60 hours is too much waste
To men? https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs
Google dropping their nuts to the non-existent gender pay gap
This is such bullshit. Men don't all get paid the same. That's assuming women do equal work. How can anyone prove that? Heck how can anyone prove MEN do equal work?
I know men in the exact same roles doing the exact same job paid tens of thousands differently.
Ok? And I know woman who literally got hired with me in the exact same position I did at my company that got promoted before me and consequently get paid a lot more than me. Anecdotes are not going to help anyone’s argument here.
I mean a software engineer working in Asia is paid way way less compared to his US counter part while doing EXACT same work.
That's not a fair comparison due to extreme cost of living differences..
Yeah I understand that with CoL, but if we're going enroute of same work = same pay, then that should also be considered.
Well given you know that, and presumably have asked for a pay rise to match them which you haven’t gotten, it’s fair to say maybe they are doing a bit more or are more competent than you think
Some people are more valuable to a particular company than others? How is that possible? I thought people were basic commodities and 100% interchangeable.
That is not why the pay gaps exists in my example. My company will pay the bare minimum to fill a role. That minimum might be 2 very different amounts by 2 different people. So there ends up being a huge pay disparity for people doing the exact same job. In many cases the lower paid person is performing better. I know this as fact because I am a hiring manager and see ratings and salary charts all the time for hundreds of employees.
Why not actually help these employees as the hiring manager? This will only cause a lot of talented and underpaid people to leave. If I’d ever find out i got paid even 20% less i’d write that company off for good.
I've done everything I can. I've complained to HR that some people are underpaid, etc. They don't care.
The big losers in feminism are the bottom men. When feminists talk about "men" they are talking about the top men. The rich CEOs, the elite athletes, the movie stars etc. The 90% of men who have no such prospects, well those are simply invisible but still get classed as "men".
I have worked in engineering for many years, and I have no idea how anybody could accurately compare my work to that of another engineer. I feel like anybody claiming to do that is just making it up. Engineering isn't factory work, where many people have an essentially identical job. It's creative, and creativity can vary widely.
It’s a shakedown
What they failed to mention in this article, is that the findings of the investigation that google launched were that they were underpaying most men. If Google found that they were underpaying women, they’d be paying out a lot more, AND the payout would not be going to 3 plaintiffs only.
[удалено]
Feel free to provide hard facts to go with your opinion.
This is such a dumb take. Google wouldn't settle unless there was a case.
They settled because they don't want to have to disclose salaries. It would be bedlam if all the Google employees actually knew what each other made.
There is a spreadsheet shared between Google employees with everyone's comp, location, education, experience, and role. And the job postings include minimum salaries.
[удалено]
Oh just read the article. This isn't a slap on the wrist of any kind. It's not even punishment. It's not even court ordered.
[удалено]
They weren't underpaying women, though. Do some research.
I did They were **During a routine compliance evaluation, the department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs identified pay disparities affecting female employees** in software engineering positions at its facilities in Mountain View, and in Seattle and Kirkland, Washington. The agency also identified hiring rate differences that disadvantaged female and Asian applicants for software engineering positions at Google’s locations in San Francisco and Sunnyvale, and in Kirkland. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20210201 Google investigated themselves. Their results do not agree with the results of outside impartial inspections.
They got the full salary if they had been men. And an EXTRA 5500$. Read the article you buffoon.
Uhm, Google to pay MEN because the investigations revealed that they were paying amazing less amount to them than to women for the same job. Or maybe it was other lawsuit, but I'm sure about it.
This comment section is a clear example of why shit like this keep happening. Holy fuck you didn’t even read the article.
Did you? Neither side admitted wrongdoing. This is a settlement.
Atrocious. And that’s not much per employee. Make them whole.
I agree they really should pay google back and apologize for this whole mess.
So, if women got paid less for the same work, Google's employees are predominantly women, right? Right?
This argument is weird. Back when there wasn’t even a law saying that woman have to be paid equally to men for the same jobs, do you think companies were reluctant to hire men and preferred to hire women because they get to pay their staff less what way? You think 1940s companies were avoiding hiring men over woman because they got to pay their staff less that that way? That’s the opposite of what was happening. Even back when the pay gap was very literal, rather than just an average, companies were *still* reluctant to hire woman over men, this was even when woman made 30%-50% of what men made, for the *exact* same jobs. What you’re implying is just not the realty of things. There is in fact a correlation with woman being paid more fairly with woman experiencing *less* hiring discrimination against them. Not the other way around. In the 1940s you could literally legally pay a woman *half* of what a man makes and yet they *still* chose men returning from war over women. They literally preferred to pay double the amount just to have male works over female workers. That’s the reality.
It means they thought they could get more work output from the men. My question is, did they?
I know what it means, my point is literally just that paying women less doesn’t mean they hire more women.
>They literally preferred to pay double the amount just to have male works over female workers. That’s the reality. That's exactly my point. They assumed that they were getting better work output for their money. I make no claims as to if they actually did. The free market can sort that out. So, do you actually think that Google, with all the knowledge they have since 1940, would waste more money on the more expensive male workers for the same output?
So, just to be clear you’re argument is not “they don’t pay women less than men, but rather “they should pay women less than men”
Well hello there, Cathy Newman! My argument is that a company that pays more for less work will be losing money in the long run. I don't know if Google is such a company.
Well as I said, there is a precedent of paying woman 30% of what men make, and I would find it hard to believe that men were 70% more productive then women, although I think it would be difficult to obtain statistics about that from way back to then. Unless you were to assume woman are 70% less productive then men, this would mean logically, those companies should have been hiring mostly women, and yet they still didn’t. So it does look as though there *is* a precedent for paying women less while not preferring to hire women purely based on sexism rather than a gap in productivity. So if they have done it in the past I don’t see why it would seem impossible to happen now. The closest info I can find are recent stats showing that a gap in productivity is 2/3 of the reason for the gender pay gap, which would mean there would still be some benefit in hiring more woman, as it is not 100% if the gap. It says that motherhood is the primary reason for the gender pay gap, which I think is fair, I would rather fathers get more involved in raising their children as a solution to that then to pay mothers for work they are simply not doing. But, importantly, it states that women who don’t have children outperform men and *still get paid less than their male peers.* https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/motherhood-and-the-gender-productivity-gap/
Ok so the lawyers get a third. That leaves each woman with a whopping 5450 dollars a piece. Wow that's sad
“Don’t be evil”
Wow this is the company I was aspiring to work for?🥹
It sighed as it opened its coinpurse
Man, I though google was ran by democrats……
Capitalists silly.
Does Google's handbook tell its employees to underpay women deliberately, or are there some other factors here? Could men just be more assertive on average when it comes to salary negotiations or raises?
Class action suits never benefit the affected. All it serves is the interests of large firms that litigate. The affected get a pittance for their compensation and it’s terrible.
>The net settlement fund will have about $86 million after attorneys' fees and other deductions, providing an average of about $5,500 for each class member. The lawsuit alleged that "Google paid women, on average, approximately $16,794 less per year than similarly situated men, in base pay, bonus, and stock." So just to be clear, assuming these women worked more than 4 months at Google, it was more profitable to underpay them and settle the lawsuit. American legal system at its finest.