Google pays $11M to job-seekers who alleged age discrimination(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Google pays $11M to job-seekers who alleged age discrimination
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/22/google-pays-11m-to-jobseekers-who-alleged-age-discrimination
176 comments
Love it. Have found that the closer you get to hardware groups at any of the FAANG's, the higher the average age. Met several happily employed grandparents in the groups, adding value and telling the best stories.
> Have found that the closer you get to hardware groups at any of the FAANG's, the higher the average age.
Hm that makes sense given the relative infancy of the software industry.
Not to mention that enrollment in CS programs has been increasing so the talent pool is skewed towards younger people
Hm that makes sense given the relative infancy of the software industry.
Not to mention that enrollment in CS programs has been increasing so the talent pool is skewed towards younger people
Almost every rejected hire is apparently a "close call" ;-)
That could be true, statistically, if the initial screening interviews are high-signal.
Is there any published research-level evidence that FAANG interviews are high-signal?
I'm no expert, but the only published research I've read on this is "Thinking, Fast and Slow", and the original researcher has recently cast doubt on his own results on that study. Regardless, the evidence there was that all that mattered was "any objectively measurable metric" -- which would mean that FAANGs are wasting a lot of time and money on useless interviews. (Of course they have money to throw away, but still...)
I'm no expert, but the only published research I've read on this is "Thinking, Fast and Slow", and the original researcher has recently cast doubt on his own results on that study. Regardless, the evidence there was that all that mattered was "any objectively measurable metric" -- which would mean that FAANGs are wasting a lot of time and money on useless interviews. (Of course they have money to throw away, but still...)
You mean, beyond the companies being successful and effective, and famous for the skill of their workforce? Beyond 9 of the top 10 most valuable companies in America being tech firms that all interview in similar ways?
What kind of evidence that tech interviews work well are you looking for, exactly? Isn't the obvious evidence of your own eyes sufficient?
What kind of evidence that tech interviews work well are you looking for, exactly? Isn't the obvious evidence of your own eyes sufficient?
Not the above poster, but if they only hire 10% of their interviewees, that's a sign that not every interview is a "close call', which is the context of an interview being high signal here.
>the original researcher has recently cast doubt on his own results on that study
Do you have a reference for this? I'm interested in reading more.
Do you have a reference for this? I'm interested in reading more.
This HN post/discussion from 2017 [0] may be of some help.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228712
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228712
I worked at one of those companies. They were very self-certain that their hiring was high signal. They were likewise completely disinterested in doing a control group test where we randomly hire people from the fail pool and see how they compare once hired.
The phone screens are terrible signal. They intentionally give everyone who can spell Java or C an on-site to get multiple opinions. No one wants to be the single person who commits to a No Hire.
I'm much younger than you, but I also interviewed with Google last year, got rejected after on-site, apparently a "close call" too. Did you grind leetcode enough? ;)
Developer and former recruiter here. You cannot trust the reason you have been rejected to be honest. You can only believe that they were clear about rejecting you.
For example, "it was a close call" could mean:
- you were late to the interview, and we didn't like that
- we closed the job and stopped recruiting everyone
- you had mustard on your shirt, and we didn't like that
- an interviewer was late to an interview, insisted you proceeds anyway, and you could not possibly have received a vote of confidence for the questions asked in the time allotted
And so on and so on. The only things you can really trust are got hired, didn't get hired, and never heard back. That's it.
For example, "it was a close call" could mean:
- you were late to the interview, and we didn't like that
- we closed the job and stopped recruiting everyone
- you had mustard on your shirt, and we didn't like that
- an interviewer was late to an interview, insisted you proceeds anyway, and you could not possibly have received a vote of confidence for the questions asked in the time allotted
And so on and so on. The only things you can really trust are got hired, didn't get hired, and never heard back. That's it.
What signal gave you "close call" impression?..
The recruiter told me I had 3 really positive reviews and 2 somewhat positive and 1 negative review. It's usually more feedback than I expect from companies but it was good to hear. It also matched with my expectations knowing how the interview went. She apparently took it to another hiring committee and they said no as well.
The recruiter told me I had 3 really positive reviews and 2 somewhat positive and 1 negative review.
And apparently at Google - the negatives carry the day.
And apparently at Google - the negatives carry the day.
That's true at a lot of organizations. The cost of a false positive hire typically vastly outweighs the cost of a false negative, particularly when you have the luxury of being perceived as a premiere employer in the space (from which follows a steady stream of qualified applicants).
I know the rationale. Then again if it's just one 1 person out of 6 (including 3 other persons who gave "very positive" reviews) then maybe that one person is just being ... negative. As the modern interviewing culture (not so subtly) incentivizes them to be.
"Somewhat Positive" means No Hire, so it was 3/6.
So "somewhat positive" = "negative" actually"?
That's what I was getting at - apparently it's negativity-driven, all the way down.
That's what I was getting at - apparently it's negativity-driven, all the way down.
Well, if the other candidates had 6 positive reviews, it makes sense.
Why? How many openings were there, and how many other applicants?
Fewer than the number of candidates that got 6 positive reviews?
In my case, it was the recruiter in Dublin, where I interviewed, writing "it looks like we are coming to a successful conclusion" about a week before I got the generic dismissal email.
(A quick note/disclaimer: I am extremely happy in my current situation, and work for a great manager; no interest in moving, despite my flippant comment.)
The signal was what I was told when I got a subsequent unsolicited contact from a Google recruiter. She communicated this information to me verbally. (I believed her, and in retrospect still do. She was great during the whole process; never gave me the slightest indication that she was in any way deceptive or dishonest.)
The signal was what I was told when I got a subsequent unsolicited contact from a Google recruiter. She communicated this information to me verbally. (I believed her, and in retrospect still do. She was great during the whole process; never gave me the slightest indication that she was in any way deceptive or dishonest.)
I'm 35. I've yet to learn a programming language. I've always been intimidated by starting and choosing a language.
I've started to loosen up regarding that and finally finding a path I could take. However, instead now I'm intimidated by the job market and age discrimination.
I've started to loosen up regarding that and finally finding a path I could take. However, instead now I'm intimidated by the job market and age discrimination.
Depends on the market... Pacific coast is definitely skewed young. Phoenix, Houston, Austin and Atlanta will be a little older. Phoenix in particular leans a bit older, I'm 44 and average in the group I'm currently working with is within 5 years of my age.
A lot of the work is more boring business oriented work, and not a lot of startups. But it's steady, there's plenty of it and it pays relatively well compared to cost of living.
Start with Dive Into Python... then decide on something you want to make for yourself and work from there. Python is one of the better options to start from. JS is my personal favorite, second is now Rust, but they're harder to jump into as a beginner.
A lot of the work is more boring business oriented work, and not a lot of startups. But it's steady, there's plenty of it and it pays relatively well compared to cost of living.
Start with Dive Into Python... then decide on something you want to make for yourself and work from there. Python is one of the better options to start from. JS is my personal favorite, second is now Rust, but they're harder to jump into as a beginner.
Phoenix salaries are abysmal. I looked for work about 5 years ago and senior positions had an advertised range of up to 60k. I left the area, maybe it’s different now.
From my experience, most Sr Developers are 100-120k, unless it's PHP. For niche skills it can be closer to 140k. Even 5 years ago. Not sure where you were looking or your specific skillset.
According to glassdoor, the average for "Senior Software Developer" is 93k in Phoenix. So, I'm a little off. Of course, I've also seen "senior" roles requiring all of "2 years experience" with the core technology (that's 18 years old). So YMMV. Also worth noting that the cost of living here largely offsets this.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/phoenix-senior-software-d...
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/phoenix-senior-software-d...
I must live in a bubble. I’m staff and cash comp is ~210k, no stock as it’s privately owned company.
the above poster posted non sf salaries. I'm in the dallas area and 110-150 is pretty much the norm for senior developers, it is much harder to get any higher down here.
I’m not in SF. I work remote from the south.
Well shoot good for you but it is not the norm in my experience
Any stats showing that those places skew older, or is that just your perception?
Just my own experience... Of course, I did read something a while ago that stated since software development began, roughly half of all software developers had less than 5 years of experience. The reflects growth and attrition in addition to youth. So definitely young people out there.
From my experience, at least half of the devs I've worked with have been within 5 years of my age (currently 44) and where I am now, and my last two positions that's been the case as well.
From my experience, at least half of the devs I've worked with have been within 5 years of my age (currently 44) and where I am now, and my last two positions that's been the case as well.
Start with Python and a highly-rated book on Amazon. You will learn the same concepts with any language. You will have more fun an learn faster with an easy language like Python.
One option might be to transition as fast as possible into scrum master/product owner and then project manager.
You can always find an excuse.
I feel if they're learning strictly to find work and it's not something they do for fun then it's a legitimate concern due to time it takes to learn to get to an employable level. As you get older you need to be more smart with how you spend your time.
Excellent! Any resource suggestions for a digital signal processing novice? More interested on the musical end, but also in general.
Here is an excellent resource:
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/
The first online book linked from the author's homepage is:
MATHEMATICS OF THE DISCRETE FOURIER TRANSFORM (DFT) WITH AUDIO APPLICATIONS SECOND EDITION
IMHO the author does a brilliant job of presenting the mathematics with rigor, but with accessible "on-ramps" via examples.
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/
The first online book linked from the author's homepage is:
MATHEMATICS OF THE DISCRETE FOURIER TRANSFORM (DFT) WITH AUDIO APPLICATIONS SECOND EDITION
IMHO the author does a brilliant job of presenting the mathematics with rigor, but with accessible "on-ramps" via examples.
It's great, that you got to interview stage. What I mostly found that most discrimination happens before someone gets to the interview phase, which makes sense, as it makes interviewing cheaper.
Most old people don't learn as many new things as younger ones, which makes it harder for older people who do to get the chance to prove themselves.
Most old people don't learn as many new things as younger ones, which makes it harder for older people who do to get the chance to prove themselves.
Not my experience. I've learned how to tweak my resume to a job spec while at the same time not giving an impression of my age (getting a degree with the Open University in my 40s really helps with that). It's at the face to face interview stage that the wheels tend to fall off my cart - nothing I could prove as 'ageist' behaviour, more like they're disappointed in me (or discounting me) before we sit down to chat?
"Most old people don't learn as many new things as younger ones..." - this is demonstrably ageist. People performing a mid-life career change can be as focussed and driven to succeed in IT as anyone; the determination to acquire and master new skills is, in my view, a personality thing, not an age-related thing.
"Most old people don't learn as many new things as younger ones..." - this is demonstrably ageist. People performing a mid-life career change can be as focussed and driven to succeed in IT as anyone; the determination to acquire and master new skills is, in my view, a personality thing, not an age-related thing.
I've seen plenty of mid-life career changers.. some to doctors even and they all have been successful. I agree ageist and short sighted.
To some extent it could also be that you’re presenting as young?
FWIW - My only concern with older folks is that they’re either jaded, stuck in their ways technologically, or obstinate towards being managed by people younger than them. Strong opinions held strongly is a net negative. This isn’t everyone or even a majority, but it’s quite a few.
FWIW - My only concern with older folks is that they’re either jaded, stuck in their ways technologically, or obstinate towards being managed by people younger than them. Strong opinions held strongly is a net negative. This isn’t everyone or even a majority, but it’s quite a few.
> they’re either jaded, stuck in their ways technologically, or obstinate towards being managed by people younger than them
Again, (mostly) stereotyping:
"jaded" - I'd argue this hits a lot of front end developers after about 5 years. How many new frameworks have there been in the last 5 years? There comes a point when any sane person will look at the newest "killer" framework and decide to wait a couple of years before investing time in learning it, just in case next year's "killer" framework turns out to be more fun to learn.
"stuck in their ways" - this is more a personality thing, I think. Most people will find their comfort zone pretty quickly, and then get grumpy when asked/required to venture outside of it. Risk aversion and/or laziness doesn't, in my view, increase significantly with age.
"obstinate towards being managed" - this one is a problem that everyone has to face as they grow older. The sad fact (from what I've seen in my age group) is that some people just cannot come to terms with the ageing process, that there's going to be younger people who are better placed to do a team-leader/manager job than they are (because: longer experience in the industry). But that is something that can be worked on - the important thing is to demonstrate a willingness to at least give it a go, offer support to the younger manager (be a wise owl, not an old owl), and be an excellent team player. At least that's my attitude.
Again, (mostly) stereotyping:
"jaded" - I'd argue this hits a lot of front end developers after about 5 years. How many new frameworks have there been in the last 5 years? There comes a point when any sane person will look at the newest "killer" framework and decide to wait a couple of years before investing time in learning it, just in case next year's "killer" framework turns out to be more fun to learn.
"stuck in their ways" - this is more a personality thing, I think. Most people will find their comfort zone pretty quickly, and then get grumpy when asked/required to venture outside of it. Risk aversion and/or laziness doesn't, in my view, increase significantly with age.
"obstinate towards being managed" - this one is a problem that everyone has to face as they grow older. The sad fact (from what I've seen in my age group) is that some people just cannot come to terms with the ageing process, that there's going to be younger people who are better placed to do a team-leader/manager job than they are (because: longer experience in the industry). But that is something that can be worked on - the important thing is to demonstrate a willingness to at least give it a go, offer support to the younger manager (be a wise owl, not an old owl), and be an excellent team player. At least that's my attitude.
This isn’t everyone or even a majority, but it’s quite a few.
In other words: not only is there no hard data behind this view; there isn't any (from a gut perspective) that much of a correlation -- but it's a strong opinion, strongly held nonetheless.
In other words: not only is there no hard data behind this view; there isn't any (from a gut perspective) that much of a correlation -- but it's a strong opinion, strongly held nonetheless.
Its just an anecdote, not data, and it isn't an opinion I hold strongly! This is based on like 15 people.
> Strong opinions held strongly is a net negative.
Strong opinions like your opinion on older folks?
Strong opinions like your opinion on older folks?
I certainly could've and should've added a lot more context, or refrained from sending off a quick post without giving it more thought. I was trying to list the ways in which I've seen some programmers who happen to be older be a negative - not that anyone should make the assumption of any single older person, or that there's not equal or greater problems with younger people. Just different.
>>Most old people don't learn as many new things as younger ones
Most old people don't need to learn as many new things. It's called "experience."
Most old people don't need to learn as many new things. It's called "experience."
You can call it “experience”, but that won’t help you find many TurboPascal jobs in 2019. At some point, experience is something that allows you to learn new things quicker and more efficiently, not something to be used as an excuse for not learning new things.
>Most old people don't learn as many new things as younger ones
... are you sure about that? I'd avoid sweeping generalizations, it does not help your argument.
... are you sure about that? I'd avoid sweeping generalizations, it does not help your argument.
I've found that with myself, as I get older I get more selective with what new stuff I learned. I've seen so many fads come and go, and don't really have a whole lot of time ahead of me, so I need to make sure that what I learn really counts.
As I'm getting older all my organs are working less, and my brain is slower as well (though I'm able to think just as deeply as before).
At the same time I'm much more concious about spending my thinking energy, and because of my experience I'm making much more money than when I was younger _despite_ my slower thinking.
Discrimination involves hate, and I definately not hate old people, just accept the facts of life (and I'm also hoping for a cure for aging).
At the same time I'm much more concious about spending my thinking energy, and because of my experience I'm making much more money than when I was younger _despite_ my slower thinking.
Discrimination involves hate, and I definately not hate old people, just accept the facts of life (and I'm also hoping for a cure for aging).
> Discrimination involves hate
Not always, no. That would give an unworkably narrow definition.
Not always, no. That would give an unworkably narrow definition.
In a discussion about age discrimination, yes, sweeping generalizations do support the argument. He’s not wrong.
By demonstrating age discrimination?
You are the proof that there is age discrimination in interviews. If you are in tech there's a high chance you've been on the interviewer side and you already gave your opinion based on this bias.
I'd say they already know the paradigms & architectures so they don't throw themselves at the latest fad as easily and above all seem to value family more highly and lets be honest. Back in the day you had to learn some pretty amazing tech (assembler and low memory data structures) just to get by.
But yeah, just today there was a comment here on Hacker News saying (I'm paraphrasing): I learnt C then C++ then Java, then enough was enough. Which is just sad, that's like going from oatmeal to porrige.
But yeah, just today there was a comment here on Hacker News saying (I'm paraphrasing): I learnt C then C++ then Java, then enough was enough. Which is just sad, that's like going from oatmeal to porrige.
The flip side of that coin is the drain that comes from...
Learning C, then C++, then Rust, then Java, then Ruby (rails), then Objective-C, then Swift, then JavaScript, then Angular, then React, then Flutter, then ....
Depending on the timeframe in which all that learning happens, there's simply no way you can reach expert level with such a diversified knowledge base.
Learning C, then C++, then Rust, then Java, then Ruby (rails), then Objective-C, then Swift, then JavaScript, then Angular, then React, then Flutter, then ....
Depending on the timeframe in which all that learning happens, there's simply no way you can reach expert level with such a diversified knowledge base.
> there’s simply no way you can reach expert level with such a diversified codebases.
What are you talking about? I’ve checked in production code in 4 languages in a day.
Once you learn your first few languages you should be able to learn the new syntax of a language in a day or two and a good portion of their idioms in the next month (as you know more languages you’ll notice what’s unique about each language and glean idioms from online tutorials and your local codebases).
Being a polyglot is a huge part of many in our industry, especially full stack development. For one project alone I had to work with a backend that was part Java and part Go that hosted customers’ Node backend. I oversaw client SDKs in Objective-C, Java, and C++ and helped prototype the server-side SDK for Go. That’s not fatigue, it’s enjoyable and a skill I can offer my team. Sure I get rusty with a language, but it doesn’t take long to blow off the dust with a skill.
What are you talking about? I’ve checked in production code in 4 languages in a day.
Once you learn your first few languages you should be able to learn the new syntax of a language in a day or two and a good portion of their idioms in the next month (as you know more languages you’ll notice what’s unique about each language and glean idioms from online tutorials and your local codebases).
Being a polyglot is a huge part of many in our industry, especially full stack development. For one project alone I had to work with a backend that was part Java and part Go that hosted customers’ Node backend. I oversaw client SDKs in Objective-C, Java, and C++ and helped prototype the server-side SDK for Go. That’s not fatigue, it’s enjoyable and a skill I can offer my team. Sure I get rusty with a language, but it doesn’t take long to blow off the dust with a skill.
From what I've seen, some people are passionate voracious learners. This does not correlate with age. However, it may be harder to find these (very valuable) people among a younger population than an older one. If someone has slowed down in the area of constant learning, their existing knowledge may be more recent if they are younger. The "constant learner" signal stands out more prominently for older developers.
Recently the Danish company KMD was caught utilising a no hiring of anyone above the age of 36 policy. A practice they’ve apparently used for a decade. That’s illegal and they’ll likely be punished, but the interesting part is that they are doing terrible.
They have the largest amount of scandals, the largest amount of settlements for not meeting what they promised and the largest financial drop of any major Danish IT company.
This could be happening for a range of reasons. With hiring practices like that, their management is probably questionable, but hiring young certainly doesn’t seem to have helped them much.
They have the largest amount of scandals, the largest amount of settlements for not meeting what they promised and the largest financial drop of any major Danish IT company.
This could be happening for a range of reasons. With hiring practices like that, their management is probably questionable, but hiring young certainly doesn’t seem to have helped them much.
> but hiring young certainly doesn’t seem to have helped them much.
A proper team has a mix of old and young, because they bring different skills to the table. Young people tend to be more energetic and enthusiastic, while older people have already learned that you don't store customer passwords unencrypted and check that backups are being done.
A proper team has a mix of old and young, because they bring different skills to the table. Young people tend to be more energetic and enthusiastic, while older people have already learned that you don't store customer passwords unencrypted and check that backups are being done.
If it took 10 years to discover an official policy in a major company, good fucking luck demonstrating discrimination in 99% of the cases.
Why are these numbers so small? Even more so to the fine for data protection violations. The point of these sort of things are to make companies think twice. While 11m is a lot of cash it is nothing compared to Google's total income, and would not even been half a years salary for those they refused to hire. Seems like they got let off easy on this one.
This is just speculation, but...
The plaintiffs may have settled because they thought it was unlikely they would prevail if this went to trial, so it would be better take a guaranteed payout.
Google may have settled because they figured that the PR hit of a lengthy age discrimination trial would be worth more than $11M, regardless of whether they won.
The plaintiffs may have settled because they thought it was unlikely they would prevail if this went to trial, so it would be better take a guaranteed payout.
Google may have settled because they figured that the PR hit of a lengthy age discrimination trial would be worth more than $11M, regardless of whether they won.
I doubt any company, especially in SV, takes a PR hit from age discrimination, which seems to be widely accepted and barely punished. Google just wants to swat away the plaintiffs like annoying gnats.
Isn't it normal for class-action lawsuits to have a low payout per person?
It's definitely normal for the class members to receive little payout per person, but a lot of that tends to have to do with astronomical legal expenses.
No. Lawyers get about half. That's a lot, but class members each getting a pittance isn't much different from getting twice a pittance. Substantial payments to everyone in a class would wipe out the defendant.
Is that actually bad? I'm not really sure why preserving entities that severely wrong large classes is necessarily a desirable goal.
The real winners of the current setup are legal firms. Doesn't matter who is suing who, or who wins or loses. Lawyers are going to get paid.
I had it described to me that class actions are less about making the wronged parties whole, and more about forming large enough sticks to beat misbehaving entities about the head with.
In a class action, lawyers don’t get paid if they lose.
How much would've it cost to actually litigate this? I'm wondering if this settlement was similar to how much it would've cost to litigate and they just wanted the people to go away.
Considering that it is a claim from a _prospective_ employee about the interview process, the settlement of 35k per person seems relatively generous.
"Generous" is hard for me to have an opinion about. $11M is less than a rounding error for Google.
"Fair" isn't as hard. It's not fair, if (as I suspect) Google is guilty of age discrimination. There should be greater consequences than just trying to pay people what they might've lost financially from the discrimination.
Or, to put it another way: Google deserves to be punished if this was actually happening.
"Fair" isn't as hard. It's not fair, if (as I suspect) Google is guilty of age discrimination. There should be greater consequences than just trying to pay people what they might've lost financially from the discrimination.
Or, to put it another way: Google deserves to be punished if this was actually happening.
If you see it from the other side, it is more than 50,000 for each of the 200 people, even if the lawyers will likely get 1/3 of that, it remains 35,000 US$ or so.
For what?
Having been NOT hired (but making it to the interview).
Presumably, even if a bit "old" according to Google standards, these people are anyway "top notch" in programming and almost surely soon found an appropriate job at some other company.
So, the compensation is seemingly very hypothetical, covering what? 2-3 months of wages for someone hypothetically getting 140,000-200,000 US$ per year.
Or is it because the applicant could have been hired at 160,000 US$ per year but only makes - poor little thing - 125,000 US$ from the company that hired him/her, and so first year is covered?
For what?
Having been NOT hired (but making it to the interview).
Presumably, even if a bit "old" according to Google standards, these people are anyway "top notch" in programming and almost surely soon found an appropriate job at some other company.
So, the compensation is seemingly very hypothetical, covering what? 2-3 months of wages for someone hypothetically getting 140,000-200,000 US$ per year.
Or is it because the applicant could have been hired at 160,000 US$ per year but only makes - poor little thing - 125,000 US$ from the company that hired him/her, and so first year is covered?
Engineers at google can make way over 200k in salary and even more in total compensation. Given these guys were over 40, and many of them likely seasoned it is likely they would have made way more than the numbers you are suggesting.
I don't doubt that, it was just an attempt to put the numbers in pespective, if you believe that it is only 1 month or 15 days of wage it is ok as well, but what was the actual inconvenience to them?
Let's bring it to the extreme, 35,000 US$ for the hassle of making four (fruitless) interviews?
Let's bring it to the extreme, 35,000 US$ for the hassle of making four (fruitless) interviews?
The point of the payout is not really for the people who did not get a job -- its just a good place to put the money. These lawsuits are actually to punish the companies so they change their ways. 11m as pointed out is a rounding error for google. I would be surprised zero happens at google related to age determination as a result of this lawsuit.
Had the lawsuit resulted in 1B -- something significant -- I can assure you that something would change in the way they handle older applicants.
Had the lawsuit resulted in 1B -- something significant -- I can assure you that something would change in the way they handle older applicants.
It's very demoralizing to be realize nobody wants to hire you because you're over a certain age. So this is not about the inconvenience of wasting time with the interview but more generally about age discrimination.
I perfectly understand the issue, I work (I might say worked) in a field where - for completely different reasons - the work opportunities are scarce to non existant for senior people, but the question was more about how the sum was quantified.
Being the target of discrimination (be it age, sex, race, religion, whatever) is a terrible experience, but it is not easy to determine the amount of a monetary compensation.
As the parent noted, the $11 M are a rounding error to google, still the amount each person received should not be excessive because google is so big.
I mean, let's say that in an alternate world the amount would be calculated on the gross profits of google and the total amount had been US$ 110 Millions instead (still peanuts).
Would have it been "fair" that each refused applicant got 350,000 US$? (a couple years wage)
Or 3,500,000 each (more like 20 years) would have been adequate?
Being the target of discrimination (be it age, sex, race, religion, whatever) is a terrible experience, but it is not easy to determine the amount of a monetary compensation.
As the parent noted, the $11 M are a rounding error to google, still the amount each person received should not be excessive because google is so big.
I mean, let's say that in an alternate world the amount would be calculated on the gross profits of google and the total amount had been US$ 110 Millions instead (still peanuts).
Would have it been "fair" that each refused applicant got 350,000 US$? (a couple years wage)
Or 3,500,000 each (more like 20 years) would have been adequate?
I don't have an opinion about the compensation, some could argue that it is or it isn't excessive. My understanding is that the wealthier the company the less likely they are to change their bad practices when fined a small amount compared to their size.
Here's an interesting story, somehow related to the size of the fine vs. the wealth of the person given the fine, though this is in Finland and about a speeding ticket.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...
Considering what they would have earned the first year at Google if they weren't discriminated against that looks more like a drop in the bucket.
Doesn't your statement assume that they were all good enough to actually be hired?
All good enough to be hired AND that if they were, that the job they eventually did get paid substantially less. That is very possible, but it's still a loaded assumption indeed.
They were all good enough to get in person interviews at least[1]. If I read that document correctly Google would have been able to argue about the qualifications of various individuals and have them removed from the lawsuit after discovery concluded. Of course I am not a lawyer so I might be wrong.
[1]see court document on https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/bizwomen/news/latest-news...
[1]see court document on https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/bizwomen/news/latest-news...
Phone screens at google are not foolproof, and some candidates get to skip them for various reasons. I've seem some candidates make it to onsite and then be unable to answer my warmup question of: write a function that takes an integer, leaves all the zero bits alone, changes all the one bits into zero bits, and returns the result.
How is a disguised return 0 anything remotely resembling a good question? I highly suspect most people who are "unable to answer" are actually just misunderstanding the question, since it's phrased in such a bizarre way. The way you phrased it, I'm not even 100% sure that "return 0" is the answer you're looking for!
It is a warm up meant to take 20 seconds. Before we get to something actually meaningful
That’s the right return value of course but ignoring everything else doesn’t actually meet the requirements of the question. Of course in a live situation you can ask if that’s ok or if they actually want useless bit twiddling.
But there's no such thing, semantically, as "leaving zero bits alone". The value 0 has no notion of "where it came from". The expression "x & 0" is semantically equivalent to the expression "0", in that they represent the same value.
In my view, the fact that the question even lends itself to philosophical debate like this just illustrates how exceptionally bad the question is, even by Google standards.
In my view, the fact that the question even lends itself to philosophical debate like this just illustrates how exceptionally bad the question is, even by Google standards.
Oh I don’t disagree. Literally going through bit by bit and zeroing any bit not equal to zero would be grossly inefficient especially if you know it’s unnecessary.
It's not grossly inefficient to do 64 iterations of an arithmetic loop for a trick toy function that has no reason to ever be called in practice.
As far as I understood the document Google could have argued to have individual members of the class action dismissed based on qualifications after discovery concluded. The "in person interview" was just the initial requirement to join the class action and not a guarantee that they would remain part of it. The article I linked already mentioned 269 and that dropped to 227 in the bloomberg article linked by the guardian, so around a sixt no longer qualified for one reason or the other.
> leaves all the zero bits alone, changes all the one bits into zero bits, and returns the result.
Unless you have a weird integer implementation there is no way to avoid touching individual bits. So if( x ) x = 0; return x; is the best I can come up with.
> leaves all the zero bits alone, changes all the one bits into zero bits, and returns the result.
Unless you have a weird integer implementation there is no way to avoid touching individual bits. So if( x ) x = 0; return x; is the best I can come up with.
[deleted]
Although it has settled the case, Google denies the allegations that it was unfairly dismissive of older applicants.
Why is Google still making denials and statements after settling the action?
Why is Google still making denials and statements after settling the action?
>Why is Google still making denials and statements after settling the action?
You know that thing we totally denied? Now that we've settled, we can admit it.
Cue four thousand new lawsuits
That's why.
You know that thing we totally denied? Now that we've settled, we can admit it.
Cue four thousand new lawsuits
That's why.
> Why is Google still making denials and statements after settling the action?
This is standard in any settlement, which is typically a release of liability. Part of the boilerplate in these contracts is that both parties are compromising not because of guilt but because of the uncertainty of litigation.
Even were Google in the right, a long protracted legal battle against claimed discrimination will constantly remind people that there’s alleged age discrimination. Nipping the negative PR in the bud is probably clearly worth it.
As an aside, ageism is pretty apparent in most companies where I’ve worked. There’s a huge expectation of “up or out”. I was on a hiring committee where I’m ashamed I didn’t stand up for a candidate who the committee decided had too much “experience” to be slotted at level X and therefore not offered any job. At least that shame gave me the courage to speak up the next time I ended up in that position.
This is standard in any settlement, which is typically a release of liability. Part of the boilerplate in these contracts is that both parties are compromising not because of guilt but because of the uncertainty of litigation.
Even were Google in the right, a long protracted legal battle against claimed discrimination will constantly remind people that there’s alleged age discrimination. Nipping the negative PR in the bud is probably clearly worth it.
As an aside, ageism is pretty apparent in most companies where I’ve worked. There’s a huge expectation of “up or out”. I was on a hiring committee where I’m ashamed I didn’t stand up for a candidate who the committee decided had too much “experience” to be slotted at level X and therefore not offered any job. At least that shame gave me the courage to speak up the next time I ended up in that position.
Because last time Google denied doing something like this it turned out there was a paper trail all the way to the CEO.
(The top email basically said: why are you emailing me this. This is illegal. Don't create a paper trail!!)
(The top email basically said: why are you emailing me this. This is illegal. Don't create a paper trail!!)
Google has a history of age discrimination and losing in court, going back to the founders of the company.
See Reid v Google where Brian Reid, a key developer of the tech we use, was told his ideas "were too old to matter" and that he was an "old fuddy duddy."
Google fought it and lost.
https://www.law.com/therecorder/almID/1202464321723/?slretur...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_(computer_scientist...
See Reid v Google where Brian Reid, a key developer of the tech we use, was told his ideas "were too old to matter" and that he was an "old fuddy duddy."
Google fought it and lost.
https://www.law.com/therecorder/almID/1202464321723/?slretur...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_(computer_scientist...
>Google fought it and lost.
"The case was settled out of court", settlement is not a loss, its being allowed to sweep your dirty deeds under the rug with no consequences.
"The case was settled out of court", settlement is not a loss, its being allowed to sweep your dirty deeds under the rug with no consequences.
Source?
https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage...
Another fun fact from that lawsuit: Steve Jobs threatened Palm with a patent war if they didn't join the cartel. Oh, it was a fun time to work in the valley...
Another fun fact from that lawsuit: Steve Jobs threatened Palm with a patent war if they didn't join the cartel. Oh, it was a fun time to work in the valley...
Actual quote if you didn't find it:
Eric Schmidt:
"I would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later? Not sure about this.. thanks Eric"
Eric Schmidt:
"I would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later? Not sure about this.. thanks Eric"
Because sometimes it's cheaper to settle, even if you didn't do something.
Google has salaried in-house counsel. I'm pretty sure they could afford to go to court more easily than the plaintiffs.
Companies settle all the time. It's common for insurance claims, for example. At a not-for-profit organization I'm involved with, a homeless person punched someone on the sidewalk outside their property. The victim then turned around and sued the organization, who had nothing to do with the incident except that it technically happened on their property (which is in an urban area). The president of the organization wanted to fight the case in court (on principle, because he felt that he shouldn't be liable, though he did express sympathy to the victim). The not-for-profit's insurance company wanted none of it and they settled for something like 50K. I'm sure that the insurance company has better lawyers than your average joe, but I'm also sure that they run the numbers and look at the risks (financial and reputational) and then make a decision whether to fight a case in court or not.
What kind of person sues a homeless person or an organization housing the homeless?
a) to be fair, this homeless person punched them in the face
b) the organization does medical research, not work with the homeless. It just happens to be that the victim was walking on their property when a homeless person who was also passing by punched them in the face. The victim was indeed hurt and needed to go to the hospital. But the president of the organization felt that someone getting punched on the sidewalk (which is in an urban area... we're not talking a large property) was unfortunate, but not something his org should be responsible for. However, the insurance company didn't want to deal with the lawsuit, so they settled.
Sure, but if you get a judge that decides that the penalty should be salary from the time you were interviewed to the settlement date for each of the plaintiffs, the cost could be many times higher. Not to mention this simply won't look good in the public spotlight, regardless of how right Google may be.
It's also almost impossible to prove on both sides. Even if Google has insane numbers showing how many young vs old people they hire, it's totally possible that the younger ones are simply more experienced with the technologies/paradigms Google is looking for. A judge might not see it the same way though.
It's also almost impossible to prove on both sides. Even if Google has insane numbers showing how many young vs old people they hire, it's totally possible that the younger ones are simply more experienced with the technologies/paradigms Google is looking for. A judge might not see it the same way though.
[deleted]
I think you significantly underestimate the cost of discovery/wasting time of non-legal folks.
Isn't it usually the defendants that attempt to drown the plaintiffs in discovery-related paperwork? This is an employment dispute, surely Google's own lawyers have a much better handle on the legalese of their own HR practices (and of labour laws in the state) than the plaintiffs?
These days, game playing happens on all sides.
(See, e.g., the Kevin Spacey lawsuit for a recent example in the news)
Again, the question is not who would win. It's whether it is worth winning.
Let me use a strong amount of hyperbole to try to make this part of the point.
Imagine a 3 year old challenges you to a fight. They are completely and totally adamant about it. You certainly could win. Is it worth winning? Or would it be better to try to give them ice cream and get them to stop bugging you. Now imagine this fight will take 5-7 years :)
Despite what random comments on hacker news say, these are basically settled on a regular basis as cost of doing business.
If they were arbitration (heresy, i know) or some other cheaper/less intensive method of dispute resolution, google would likely (and often does) fight it.
But court cases are just really expensive and time consuming. The average civil litigation takes 5-7 years to resolve.
(See, e.g., the Kevin Spacey lawsuit for a recent example in the news)
Again, the question is not who would win. It's whether it is worth winning.
Let me use a strong amount of hyperbole to try to make this part of the point.
Imagine a 3 year old challenges you to a fight. They are completely and totally adamant about it. You certainly could win. Is it worth winning? Or would it be better to try to give them ice cream and get them to stop bugging you. Now imagine this fight will take 5-7 years :)
Despite what random comments on hacker news say, these are basically settled on a regular basis as cost of doing business.
If they were arbitration (heresy, i know) or some other cheaper/less intensive method of dispute resolution, google would likely (and often does) fight it.
But court cases are just really expensive and time consuming. The average civil litigation takes 5-7 years to resolve.
Given the number of legal actions involving google, those people are probably extremely busy...
They settled and deny wrongdoing to limit the impact. Now we have to wait for another set of age discrimination lawsuits to get more info about Google's practices... or we have to wait for the Government to get involved. Settling, basically tries to get the fire out before the Government decides to see what is going on. Given that Google has a hiring committee that reviews all applicants, this doesn't look good for Google... It'd be hard to argue that it's just a few managers and that it isn't a systematic issue rather than an "unconscious bias". Any company arguing "culture fit" in hiring decisions is making a poor argument. It's also hypocritical when they state that they want "diversity" in opinions, workers, etc...
We may also get more insight if/when Google goes after Federal contracts which have reporting requirements and stronger applicant protections.
We may also get more insight if/when Google goes after Federal contracts which have reporting requirements and stronger applicant protections.
Maybe because it is settled and not proven in court?
Maybe because it is settled
Right, this is why it confuses me because it's been declared settled, a formal resolution outside of the court, the matter is resolved independently between the parties. It seems odd to settle this kind of class-action allegation while continue making statements about it after the fact.
Is my understanding of this incorrect?
Right, this is why it confuses me because it's been declared settled, a formal resolution outside of the court, the matter is resolved independently between the parties. It seems odd to settle this kind of class-action allegation while continue making statements about it after the fact.
Is my understanding of this incorrect?
Settlement offers this fun gap where they've paid people to not pursue them further, but don't have to actually admit they did anything wrong. And obviously, Google doesn't want people to believe they discriminate against people unfairly, so of course if they legally can, they're going to stand by their position that they don't. Even if they do and had to pay people to settle a case for it.
And obviously, Google doesn't want people to believe they discriminate against people unfairly, so of course if they legally can, they're going to stand by their position that they don't
This is about on par with where my thinking was on this. I'm aware that these settlements are often contingent upon agreements from both parties regarding disclosing details of the settlement, and I suppose I assumed there was something in place here that prevented parties from speaking out about the settlement other than to release a statement saying 'a settlement was reached'.
Evidently not the case here. Thanks.
This is about on par with where my thinking was on this. I'm aware that these settlements are often contingent upon agreements from both parties regarding disclosing details of the settlement, and I suppose I assumed there was something in place here that prevented parties from speaking out about the settlement other than to release a statement saying 'a settlement was reached'.
Evidently not the case here. Thanks.
I think it's common to forbid the parties from saying derogatory comments about the other party. Google can continue to say whatever it wants about itself.
Aka, the plaintiffs probably can't argue with Google's claim that they don't age discriminate, and Google probably can't say bad things about the people that sued them for it. But Google can continue to claim it treats all applicants fairly.
Aka, the plaintiffs probably can't argue with Google's claim that they don't age discriminate, and Google probably can't say bad things about the people that sued them for it. But Google can continue to claim it treats all applicants fairly.
Yes. Companies often issue press statements after settling a case.
That's the entire point of settling vs going to trial. The problem goes away and they don't have to admit to anything. They also make the plaintiffs sign lengthy NDAs to prevent them from saying anything about it.
Why would they now admit to doing something illegal? They just settled the case!
I'm 37, I'm starting to get worried about my age being a problem. But to hell with blaming employers who don't want me, it's their call. I think that maybe the actual problem is that by 40 they expect that I should be leading teams not just stuck at senior dev. Personally I want out of tech as I see supply and demand acting on wages (I'm in UK). Pretty soon, as far as I can estimate, it will go the way manufacturing went in the west: gone or heavily unionised blue collar like Germany which I don't want to be.
Anecdotal: was recently trying to apply to one of Google’s engineering positions in Zürich (I already tried to do that 7 years ago, did not pass the interview, now I think I am better equipped) Got a referral from one of my Googler friends.
In 2 days, I’ve got a very dismissive letter from Google, which amounted to “we decided that your profile and experience is no match for this position — and by the way, don’t bother applying to other similar positions at other Google offices. Case closed”.
My CV only got better since my last interview at Google, and while I didn’t pass it with flying colors, it wasn’t completely bad, too. I wonder if my current age played the part. Meanwhile, at Google jobs site, there were many positions marked as “fresh alumni of 2019 only” — perhaps that’s their perfect target.
In 2 days, I’ve got a very dismissive letter from Google, which amounted to “we decided that your profile and experience is no match for this position — and by the way, don’t bother applying to other similar positions at other Google offices. Case closed”.
My CV only got better since my last interview at Google, and while I didn’t pass it with flying colors, it wasn’t completely bad, too. I wonder if my current age played the part. Meanwhile, at Google jobs site, there were many positions marked as “fresh alumni of 2019 only” — perhaps that’s their perfect target.
Or, you know, they just have entry level positions and don't want to pay for a senior dev.
Last month we launched our website/job board to fight ageism in tech
we had a huge response launching here on HN and I believe it’s a hidden problem we need to tackle.
https://noageismintech.com
we had a huge response launching here on HN and I believe it’s a hidden problem we need to tackle.
https://noageismintech.com
Very fun link inside the article https://www.businessinsider.com/jk-scheinberg-apple-engineer...
"JK Scheinberg, the engineer who spent 21 years working at Apple and is best known for persuading Steve Jobs to move the Mac from PowerPC to Intel in 2005, was rejected from a job at an Apple store a few years later. "
I wonder if Woz himself would pass the muster :)
"JK Scheinberg, the engineer who spent 21 years working at Apple and is best known for persuading Steve Jobs to move the Mac from PowerPC to Intel in 2005, was rejected from a job at an Apple store a few years later. "
I wonder if Woz himself would pass the muster :)
What's the reasoning behind not hiring older developers? Besides the lack of flexibility in personality and old guy sentiments, they are usually solid developers and have a lot of knowledge. I've learned so many things by osmosis by just being around them. Is it solely that they can grind young developers into the ground at a low salary? Nearly every young developer in my short time as a developers thinks they are Mr. Robot, whereas the older guys give a much better sense of what programming is really all about in the context of reality.
I'd love to hire some talented individuals with this level of experience. Any recommendations on where I can post positions that don't attract the typical west coast brogrammer set?
> don't attract the typical west coast brogrammer set
Isn't this just discrimination against a different demographic?
Isn't this just discrimination against a different demographic?
Maybe, but you know it is totally legal to discriminate against people under 40 in the US, right? Not saying it’s ethical or otherwise a good idea, but it won’t get the DoL on your case.
$38,500 per person assuming 30% fee going to lawyers. Seems kind of low.
Will anything happen if you lie about your age on an application? I don't see how your age, race, or sex should be taken into consideration unless you are doing a job that requires strenous physical labor.
Even if you avoid providing your DOB, you almost always have to put the year you graduated college, and that makes it pretty easy to ballpark age.
I leave my graduation date off -- it's never been a problem.
In the UK it is against the law to ask people for their age on an application form (eg: no date of birth field). Also against the law to ask questions at interview which can be interpreted as ageist. The only exceptions are for legislated occupations such as joining the armed forces.
Interesting, their current interview practices is age discrimination - i.e. they are tailored for fresh grads. I wonder if every non-fresh-grad candidate is eligible for such compensation :)
Technically they didn't admit guilt, but from a PR point of view they did.
So from that respect, they probably opened themselves up for further scrutiny from future applicants whether they engaged in ageism or not.
I suspect they feared during the discovery process things would be found in the internal communications that do show some kind of -ism or other things that would just look bad for them, so throwing $11m at the problem to go away quickly seemed better.
So from that respect, they probably opened themselves up for further scrutiny from future applicants whether they engaged in ageism or not.
I suspect they feared during the discovery process things would be found in the internal communications that do show some kind of -ism or other things that would just look bad for them, so throwing $11m at the problem to go away quickly seemed better.
I've interacted with several Googlers over the hears who said point-blank that Google won't hire people over 40.
That's funny, I was just rehired at Google. I'm over 40. 4/6 of my coworkers are over 40. I sat on hiring committee for 4 years before I left a couple of years ago (FB is a terrible place to work, BTW), and we _NEVER_ discussed the age of a candidate. Looking around my office (a major US office), and I'd estimate > 50% are over 40.
I can prove (by counterexample) that this statement is false - I was hired at 41.
In fact, I'm somewhat dubious that there's any googler who doesn't have a reasonably close colleague hired above the age of 40.
In fact, I'm somewhat dubious that there's any googler who doesn't have a reasonably close colleague hired above the age of 40.
Fully half of my current team at Google will be very surprised to hear that
I was offered to join this lawsuit but I didn't because I didn't feel discriminated or anything.
How does this work for the claimants, do they get ~$50,000 each (it says more than 200 people but doesn't quantify it) or do the legal costs swallow up most of that
According to Ars they get about $35k:
> Of the $11 million payout in the settlement, $2.75 million will go to lawyers representing the class, Bloomberg reports. Fillekes will get an extra $10,000 as the lead plaintiff. The remaining cash works out to around $35,000 per plaintiff.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/google-pays-11-m...
> Of the $11 million payout in the settlement, $2.75 million will go to lawyers representing the class, Bloomberg reports. Fillekes will get an extra $10,000 as the lead plaintiff. The remaining cash works out to around $35,000 per plaintiff.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/google-pays-11-m...
That seems kind of low. I would assume software engineers capable of interviewing at google would be somewhat well off, and take the risk for a bigger payout.
Perhaps the law firm had final say?
Perhaps the law firm had final say?
As always, lawyers get paid, not actual plaintiff.
mcguire(2)
My family came up with a new name for my category of programmers: the gerihacktric demographic.. :-)
I have interviewed with Alphabet twice, no offers. One time apparently it was a close call..
It would be fun to be the all-time record holder for oldest new hire!