Google Pays Female Workers Less Than Male Counterparts, Labor Department Says(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Google Pays Female Workers Less Than Male Counterparts, Labor Department Says
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-pays-female-workers-less-than-male-counterparts-labor-department-says-1491622997
135 comments
Considering that there are probably hundreds of companies listed as Federal Contractors, and among them, the major Defense Contractors with thousands of employees. I would find it difficult to believe that Google has any grounds that would make them an exception to complying with the Federal requirement of submitting Compensation Data. From experience I can assure that Defense Contractors would have exploited any loophole or angle to relieve them of fulfilling this Federal requirement. Of note here is that Google was asked to submit this data back in September of 2015 and have been given numerous opportunities to meet their obligation. “Diversity and equal pay” of the workforce has been a very visible topic as of late, so you would think that Google would take a position of being in the forefront, and setting an example especially in the tech industry. It hasn’t been too long ago, Microsoft was being chastised for its apparent lack of diversity and equal pay. Google was not forced to be a Federal Contractor; they accepted that position and therefore accepted the responsibility of meeting the Federal requirement from the beginning. If Google had a problem then, they should have not accepted the responsibility of being a Federal Contractor. Maybe Google has taken the position that they are “Too Big to Comply” or they do have something to hide. But the old adage applies, “They knew what they were getting into in the first place”, and they undoubtedly accepted compensation.
I recommend reading some of the news that started this 3 months ago[0]. Quote from Google's response:
"However, the handful of OFCCP requests that are the subject of the complaint are overbroad in scope, or reveal confidential data, and we’ve made this clear to the OFCCP, to no avail. These requests include thousands of employees’ private contact information which we safeguard rigorously."
[0] https://www.law360.com/articles/877558/dol-sues-google-over-...
"However, the handful of OFCCP requests that are the subject of the complaint are overbroad in scope, or reveal confidential data, and we’ve made this clear to the OFCCP, to no avail. These requests include thousands of employees’ private contact information which we safeguard rigorously."
[0] https://www.law360.com/articles/877558/dol-sues-google-over-...
Again, Google entered into a contractual agreement to be compensated as a Federal Contractor. DoL's request is part of that contract. Google's stand for protecting private contact information is basically mute. The IRS also contains much of that information. I recommend reading the official complaint. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104
user5994461(2)
I can't read the whole article, but does it (or DOL documents) include details like amount of experience and job function?
I've heard that much (not all) of the aggregate gap (i.e., on the national level) goes away after controlling for those variables.
Curious if that applies here, and if so, to what degree.
Edit: consider recent headlines promoting outrage at Marissa Mayer's successor earning double her salary because he's a man. Turns out he's a veteran executive with 20 years of C-level experience. Mayer didn't have that. It may be an extreme example, but it's a good reminder to be cautious about pay gap assertions.
I've heard that much (not all) of the aggregate gap (i.e., on the national level) goes away after controlling for those variables.
Curious if that applies here, and if so, to what degree.
Edit: consider recent headlines promoting outrage at Marissa Mayer's successor earning double her salary because he's a man. Turns out he's a veteran executive with 20 years of C-level experience. Mayer didn't have that. It may be an extreme example, but it's a good reminder to be cautious about pay gap assertions.
I can't find the source but I read something recently that said that after controlling for position and experience the pay gap is around 7%. Off the cuff, I find that to match my intuition. If you could hire women engineers for 80% of the equivalent man, then all companies would wan't to hire every other companies women at 90% of equivalent because they would still be getting a deal and the women would get a big pay bump. This is not happening.
There is a pay gap and we should fix that. It is also very likely to vary widely in different industries. I also wonder if it all really caused by closed minded hirers who pay women less because they are going to be "too emotional" or other such nonsense.
There is a pay gap and we should fix that. It is also very likely to vary widely in different industries. I also wonder if it all really caused by closed minded hirers who pay women less because they are going to be "too emotional" or other such nonsense.
That 7% isn't uniform through all age groups. At below age 25 women at the some education and position earn more than men. from age 25-35 the wage gap reverts, and from age 35 and up men earn more than women. With a work force that generally starts at age 20 and stop work at around age 60 the total result gives you that 7%.
So what would a rational fix be to that?
So what would a rational fix be to that?
What's your source on a gap with higher earning women below age 25? All I can find is http://www.aauw.org/files/2017/01/spring2017-the-simple-trut... which doesn't control for education or position, but with women going to college in higher numbers than men...
I can't find any statistics that show women out-earning men, at any age or education level, in the US.
I can't find any statistics that show women out-earning men, at any age or education level, in the US.
I'm not sure how to fix it because it is such a human thing. Women might need to learn to be more aggressive in negotiation or come with more detail salary numbers to demand higher wages. In some industries though, there is an excess of workers and that will always make the gap worse as people will take what they can get. I think the best step forward is that in as many companies as possible, women who are in a position of management to fight to make sure that all the women in their groups are being treated as fairly as the men.
Of course that is the reason. People aren't underpaying women because they think they can get away with it to save money, they under pay because they think the women is worth less than an equivalent male.
If you have to hire women overproportionally to achieve a certain quota this seems like a logical and even justifiable conclusion.
> If you could hire women engineers for 80% of the equivalent man, then all companies would wan't to hire every other companies women at 90% of equivalent because they would still be getting a deal and the women would get a big pay bump. This is not happening.
Of course it's not happening, because according to your own response, people of both genders who have less experience get paid less.
People get paid in accordance with their experience. There is no arbitrage opportunity.
Of course it's not happening, because according to your own response, people of both genders who have less experience get paid less.
People get paid in accordance with their experience. There is no arbitrage opportunity.
People get paid in accordance with their cultural presentation, their self-confidence, their political skills, and their ability to display tempered aggression when valuing themselves and seeking pay rises.
There's some correlation with experience, but experience is often not the primary determinant of pay.
There's some correlation with experience, but experience is often not the primary determinant of pay.
I make about 10% less than my co-worker. We were hired for the exact same position with the same amount of experience (hired out of school). I just did not negotiate as well as he did.
I think trying to fully equalize pay (outside any obvious pay gap like women making 80% compared to men) across the board will remove the ability to negotiate.
I think trying to fully equalize pay (outside any obvious pay gap like women making 80% compared to men) across the board will remove the ability to negotiate.
Yup. I suspect if we remove the ability to negotiate such that everyone with the same title or at the same level gets paid equally that there will be an increase in the number of titles and levels to compensate. If that doesn't happen at the very least those candidates who believe they are worth more will not negotiate the salary but negotiate the title instead.
Exactly. I think this would end up like the restaurants that tried out a no-tipping policy. All of their best servers left and turnover went from low to incredibly high. The best engineers would negotiate on title, or ask for creation of a new title, or just go somewhere that would allow that.
I'm a woman and fairly aggressive and experienced negotiator. When I negotiate for myself, I find the gap is about 10%. When I used to work as an agent and I was negotiating on the behalf of others, it was the exact opposite. I was able to get my clients about 10% more with less work even though I was less skilled at negotiation than other agents. If I was better, I'm curious if I could've gotten 15% or 20%.
In tech though, I end up making more money than my male co-workers because engineers in general are such terrible negotiators.
It's very hard to find female engineers at all, but many years ago (before Glassdoor) I did manage to interview at one company (~200 employees) with 25% female engineers. Their offer was 40-60% of market value and their benefits were awful. My guess is that the men at that company were making 60%, and women 50%.
I interviewed at another company where there were 100 women employees. The only men were the 3 founders, all 10 warehouse workers, and all 4 on the tech team. Interviewed with the founder and I got an offer. It was low but I could not get him to budge a dime so I turned him down. He called over 6 times after that trying to get me to take the job. He seemed genuinely confused about why I wouldn't take it. I'm pretty sure he was a very nice and reasonable boss with the one exception of pay. He was just delusional in that department.
I interviewed at a ton of these companies almost none of them are thinking "Haha! We can get away with paying our workers 70% of market value," instead they are truly deluded. I think women are more likely to just accept the low pay and not negotiate at all.
When interviewing, I used to just get this intuitive feeling like "I don't think this place pays well," and it took me many years to realize what I was just seeing was too many female employees.
In tech though, I end up making more money than my male co-workers because engineers in general are such terrible negotiators.
It's very hard to find female engineers at all, but many years ago (before Glassdoor) I did manage to interview at one company (~200 employees) with 25% female engineers. Their offer was 40-60% of market value and their benefits were awful. My guess is that the men at that company were making 60%, and women 50%.
I interviewed at another company where there were 100 women employees. The only men were the 3 founders, all 10 warehouse workers, and all 4 on the tech team. Interviewed with the founder and I got an offer. It was low but I could not get him to budge a dime so I turned him down. He called over 6 times after that trying to get me to take the job. He seemed genuinely confused about why I wouldn't take it. I'm pretty sure he was a very nice and reasonable boss with the one exception of pay. He was just delusional in that department.
I interviewed at a ton of these companies almost none of them are thinking "Haha! We can get away with paying our workers 70% of market value," instead they are truly deluded. I think women are more likely to just accept the low pay and not negotiate at all.
When interviewing, I used to just get this intuitive feeling like "I don't think this place pays well," and it took me many years to realize what I was just seeing was too many female employees.
Most people are unaware of their own implicit bias. Others who share the same implicit bias will also see no problem whatsoever. It is the people who get stepped on by it that notice it.
I think this is a big part of why discussions about things like sexism typically are shit shows. The people doing stupid stuff honestly do not see it and feel wrongfully accused. The people getting crapped on by it tend to feel "Are you fucking kidding me???!!!! This is painfully obvious!!!!"
And discussions get stuck right there.
I think this is a big part of why discussions about things like sexism typically are shit shows. The people doing stupid stuff honestly do not see it and feel wrongfully accused. The people getting crapped on by it tend to feel "Are you fucking kidding me???!!!! This is painfully obvious!!!!"
And discussions get stuck right there.
It's an odd situation. The government isn't giving out any numbers, but they are saying things like:
"The government’s analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry."
Pretty strong language when you aren't yet willing to back it up. Google's replies are equally strong in the other direction:
"Every year, we do a comprehensive and robust analysis of pay across genders and we have found no gender pay gap."
Saying there's no gender pay gap at all is pretty bold as well.
"The government’s analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry."
Pretty strong language when you aren't yet willing to back it up. Google's replies are equally strong in the other direction:
"Every year, we do a comprehensive and robust analysis of pay across genders and we have found no gender pay gap."
Saying there's no gender pay gap at all is pretty bold as well.
The government can't give out numbers when Google is denying them access to the records. I've written the details in another comment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14067113
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14067113
If they have no numbers, how did they reach the conclusion they state above?
DoL has NOT reached any conclusion. DoL has a suspicion based on 2015 snapshot of salaries. They want to understand why there's a disparity. It may or may not be due to a gender wage gap but for that conclusion to be reached you need to have access to data they have requested from Google.
Right, but the DOL is absolutely stating things that sound like conclusions, not suspicions:
"We found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce"
That statement obviously depends on numbers they already have, and are not sharing.
"We found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce"
That statement obviously depends on numbers they already have, and are not sharing.
No, they DoL is not stating anything like conclusions. Read through the court documents again.
> Wipper said the department found pay disparities in a 2015 snapshot of salaries and said officials needed earlier compensation data to evaluate the root of the problem and needed to be able to confidentially interview employees.
They found pay disparities in a 2015 snapshot and now want to investigate further.
> Wipper said the department found pay disparities in a 2015 snapshot of salaries and said officials needed earlier compensation data to evaluate the root of the problem and needed to be able to confidentially interview employees.
They found pay disparities in a 2015 snapshot and now want to investigate further.
>No, they DoL is not stating anything like conclusions. Read through the court documents again
I included the direct quote from the DoL that I was referring to when I said it sounded like a conclusion.
I included the direct quote from the DoL that I was referring to when I said it sounded like a conclusion.
Google employees pay taxes.
[deleted]
> Does it include details like amount of experience and job function
The DoL hasn't released any data to back up their claim. Up to what is published for the moment, it's a blanket, overly broad, unsustained accusation by the DoL which makes the IT market look bad.
I'm appalled that no journalist (whether the WSJ or the others who relayed the info) do their work of putting the claims in perspective, and instead, just quote the nationwide non-normalized averages.
The DoL hasn't released any data to back up their claim. Up to what is published for the moment, it's a blanket, overly broad, unsustained accusation by the DoL which makes the IT market look bad.
I'm appalled that no journalist (whether the WSJ or the others who relayed the info) do their work of putting the claims in perspective, and instead, just quote the nationwide non-normalized averages.
What you heard is an apology for sexism. Almost all structural/systematic discrimination can be controlled out of your comparison if you normalize it for the factors of the, er, structural/systematic discrimination.
Leaving the workforce is generally believed to negatively impact people of every gender's ability to contribute productively. If you want to claim that women or types of absences specific to women are special, the burden of proof is on you.
EDIT: I see you've removed the claim I was addressing in an edit. Wish I'd quoted it.
EDIT: I see you've removed the claim I was addressing in an edit. Wish I'd quoted it.
Yeah, because it masked my main point. I'm happy to answer for it though. That "general belief" is simply another systematic problem. I've left the workforce numerous times to go do something interesting (defining the initial parameters of a new human life definitely fall into this category, but that's not the only social construction that can pull women out of the workforce), and it's increased my skill-set every time. As a result the idea that a gap on someone's CV is a negative is grossly antithetical to me when hiring, but I've heard it far too often from other managers who expect their teams to be, essentially, slaves to a corporate machine.
My point of view on gender role & pay disparity reinforcement mechanisms in institutional structures is often dramatically unpopular with traditional managers, but since my teams get results I don't care.
My point of view on gender role & pay disparity reinforcement mechanisms in institutional structures is often dramatically unpopular with traditional managers, but since my teams get results I don't care.
>I've left the workforce numerous times to go do something interesting (defining the initial parameters of a new human life definitely fall into this category, but that's not the only social construction that can pull women out of the workforce), and it's increased my skill-set every time.
Well, these are not the types of leaves we're discussing.
Besides this is anecdotal at best. It's not like most "gaps on a CV" lead to "increased skill-sets".
Well, these are not the types of leaves we're discussing.
Besides this is anecdotal at best. It's not like most "gaps on a CV" lead to "increased skill-sets".
[deleted]
It is exactly what I'm discussing.
Most gaps on a CV are due to someone going off to do something else interesting, like study, or see the world and meet new types of people, or to deal with some major life challenge or event, all of which I correlate to increased professional utility. If someone can't see or use that, they're a poor manager.
Most gaps on a CV are due to someone going off to do something else interesting, like study, or see the world and meet new types of people, or to deal with some major life challenge or event, all of which I correlate to increased professional utility. If someone can't see or use that, they're a poor manager.
Studying? Major life challenges? Those are not the kinds of gaps that are applicable to this discussion. The gaps the parents alludes to are taking time off working to be with the kids and such. And those are not especially correlated to any "increased professional utility".
And even the ones you mention, with the exception of studing, most of what you described would still be either irrelevant or detrimental to "professional utility". The typical white-upper-middle-class "trip to see the world" is more of a Gen-X/millenial cliche than some eye-opening cultural experience.
And even the ones you mention, with the exception of studing, most of what you described would still be either irrelevant or detrimental to "professional utility". The typical white-upper-middle-class "trip to see the world" is more of a Gen-X/millenial cliche than some eye-opening cultural experience.
You clearly have some entrenched (and false) opinions about how talent and capability develops, some huge blind spots about the reasons for women's moves in and out of the workforce, and deep preconceptions about what people should and shouldn't be doing.
Since that reveals a rigid thinker, I will not bother to debate.
Since that reveals a rigid thinker, I will not bother to debate.
Yeah, the kind of "deep preconceptions" that are based on actual reality...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/01/women-more-t...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/01/women-more-t...
From your linked article:
>Part of this is due to the fact that gender roles are lagging behind labor force trends.
The study you linked looked specifically at the USA, which is very much behind the rest of the civilized world when it comes to gender equality. Other countries have solved this problem of gender discrimination by mandating paternity leave as well as maternity leave.
>Part of this is due to the fact that gender roles are lagging behind labor force trends.
The study you linked looked specifically at the USA, which is very much behind the rest of the civilized world when it comes to gender equality. Other countries have solved this problem of gender discrimination by mandating paternity leave as well as maternity leave.
But if you are ok with pay differences based on expert and job function, that's fine.
Nope. The pay differences are often themselves used as a reinforcement of sexism, rather than as a recognition of net contribution. It's one of the mechanisms of systematic discrimination.
NB: not commenting on whether this an issue at Google specifically.
NB: not commenting on whether this an issue at Google specifically.
How can you show that it's specifically discrimination on gender rather than ability or a function of both?
By having managers as colleagues in any large business, and paying attention to what they do.
> I've heard that much (not all) of the aggregate gap (i.e., on the national level) goes away after controlling for those variables.
The question you may ask here however is: Does it matter? I mean I agree that it matters from "getting the facts straight", but maybe not necessarily from the conclusions.
If the pay gap is due to less experience, less education etc., then you're seeing effects of earlier discrimination in society. Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the society to compensate for that?
The question you may ask here however is: Does it matter? I mean I agree that it matters from "getting the facts straight", but maybe not necessarily from the conclusions.
If the pay gap is due to less experience, less education etc., then you're seeing effects of earlier discrimination in society. Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the society to compensate for that?
What if men and women naturally have different priorities as far as what jobs they want to take and how much they want to work?
That's blasphemy. You are only allowed to think that physiology and millions of years of different evolutionary developments are totally irrelevant, and that this is the year zero: all divergent cultural and historical choices between the sexes were only and solely the result of oppression and discrimination, and sexes only differ in having different reproductive organs.
What if that same excuse has been used as far back as you choose to look for all sorts of discrimination? It's not that it can't possibly be right, but it's a hypothesis to be forced to, not to grab and promote above all others. And we just haven't been forced to it yet.
Is it then Google's fault to fix society?
jimmywanger(2)
Note that this is not originally a WSJ story; for those without a subscription, you'll learn just as much by reading from the same news source that WSJ is commenting on (and which they link to in this article):
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...
Of course, when I say "just as much" I mean "not much", because neither party has released anything substantive to rebut the other's claims. Until then, the court of public opinion is going to be both passionate and completely uninformed. But if I'm being cynical, that's probably the point of reporting on it at this stage.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...
Of course, when I say "just as much" I mean "not much", because neither party has released anything substantive to rebut the other's claims. Until then, the court of public opinion is going to be both passionate and completely uninformed. But if I'm being cynical, that's probably the point of reporting on it at this stage.
Until the government releases their methodology it is hard to know how factual this assessment is.
Google has done a lot of work internally to even up the gap and claims that they have achieved parity.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...
Either party could squelch the un-informed debate by releasing the data and the methods used to arrive at their conclusions.
Google has done a lot of work internally to even up the gap and claims that they have achieved parity.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...
Either party could squelch the un-informed debate by releasing the data and the methods used to arrive at their conclusions.
DoL is suing Google to access for data in order to complete their evaluation of a pay gap. DoL suspects a pay disparity. It needs more data to come to a definition conclusion for which it asked Google and was denied access.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14067113
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14067113
Don't you think the headline is a bit premature then?
> Either party could squelch the un-informed debate by releasing the data and the methods used to arrive at their conclusions.
Just like the overall gender pay gap in the US, right?
Just like the overall gender pay gap in the US, right?
Yes, but no single company could release that data.
Here a company is singled out with a very specific and easy to prove or falsify claim given the data.
Here a company is singled out with a very specific and easy to prove or falsify claim given the data.
It is hard to discern what is going on, and it feels strange to say I trust Google ahead of the government.
Google is full of engineers who prize logic and fairness above most else, and culturally most the engineers I meet in most places espouse gender parity and equality. In light of this, it is hard to believe Google would not find a way to even up payscales. That said, while non-management says one thing it is often the case that management find a way to enact the opposite.
Something in me feels like this has the air of a dirty underhanded PR-war to it, and the government is trying to pressure Google into something we don't know about...
Google is full of engineers who prize logic and fairness above most else, and culturally most the engineers I meet in most places espouse gender parity and equality. In light of this, it is hard to believe Google would not find a way to even up payscales. That said, while non-management says one thing it is often the case that management find a way to enact the opposite.
Something in me feels like this has the air of a dirty underhanded PR-war to it, and the government is trying to pressure Google into something we don't know about...
> It is hard to discern what is going on
DoL suspects pay disparities and asks for more data from Google to see if their suspicion is true or false. Google refuses access to the data. DoL takes Google to court for access to data.
DoL suspects pay disparities and asks for more data from Google to see if their suspicion is true or false. Google refuses access to the data. DoL takes Google to court for access to data.
It sounds like they have more than just a suspicion,
> “We found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce,” Janette Wipper, a DoL regional director, testified in court in San Francisco on Friday. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa... (no pay wall)
> “We found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce,” Janette Wipper, a DoL regional director, testified in court in San Francisco on Friday. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa... (no pay wall)
While I generally agree with your main point, I have witnessed engineers who espouse equality publicly until their own remuneration is the topic of discussion, at which point self-interest kicks in and "of course I should earn more than A, because x, y, z ..." becomes the private narrative.
While a lot of progress has been made in reducing the gender wage gap in tech, we still have a long way to go.
While a lot of progress has been made in reducing the gender wage gap in tech, we still have a long way to go.
> "of course I should earn more than A, because x, y, z ..."
Unless "x, y, and z" include "because I'm a man and she's a woman" then I don't really understand your point. Of course most employees think they're underpaid, and they can all come up with reasons, due to performance on the job, specific incidents, experience, and level of education why they should be paid more.
How is that related at all to gender wage gap in any industry, let alone tech specifically?
Unless "x, y, and z" include "because I'm a man and she's a woman" then I don't really understand your point. Of course most employees think they're underpaid, and they can all come up with reasons, due to performance on the job, specific incidents, experience, and level of education why they should be paid more.
How is that related at all to gender wage gap in any industry, let alone tech specifically?
Of course everyone tries to have the best salary possible, the same is expected for both men and women and that's a good thing.
I mean, even if I'm willing to get a hit on my salary in the name of gender equality, I'm pretty sure the money will go in upper management's pocket and not my female counterparts.
I mean, even if I'm willing to get a hit on my salary in the name of gender equality, I'm pretty sure the money will go in upper management's pocket and not my female counterparts.
I agree. Google is one of the companies with the other big cos that take diversity and pay gaps very seriously. This is a very bold claim by DOL and Wsj publishing it just for eye balls says a lot about our government and journalists nowadays.
"Make outrageous stories for readers so they click ads"
"Make outrageous stories for readers so they click ads"
Google is in the core of Silicon Valley, extremely liberal, socially conscious, etc. etc., pretty much from top to bottom. To be honest, if the government were correct here my reaction to this news isn't a renewed belief in the need to do better... my reaction is that if even Google, hypothetically (since I'm not assuming that Google is necessarily wrong), couldn't manage to have equal pay, with all of its immense resources, its obvious desire to handle this correctly for all kinds of reasons, and with all of the money that is metaphorically sloshing down every hallway for them, it's time to just pack it in and give up on the idea of doing any better than Google. (Note that doesn't mean everybody else is "done", but that they shouldn't be expected to do any better than Google.) That would imply to me and probably most people that apparently this problem is just unsolvable past this point; what is anyone else who isn't as abundantly resourced as Google supposed to do that Google isn't already doing?
I'm actually inclined to believe Google on this one moreso than a government, because as much as for any other company in the world they have the resources to create a reasonable definition of parity and then not particularly blink to achieve that parity by simply paying certain people more, with no other compromises needed. (Most companies would need some sort of compromise to use that plan, because one way or another the books need to balance.)
(And please do me the favor of reading this message carefully again if you're really enraged by it and want to just smash the downvote button... if that's your reaction you may need to double-check your reading.)
I'm actually inclined to believe Google on this one moreso than a government, because as much as for any other company in the world they have the resources to create a reasonable definition of parity and then not particularly blink to achieve that parity by simply paying certain people more, with no other compromises needed. (Most companies would need some sort of compromise to use that plan, because one way or another the books need to balance.)
(And please do me the favor of reading this message carefully again if you're really enraged by it and want to just smash the downvote button... if that's your reaction you may need to double-check your reading.)
This isn't just the WSJ, also the LA times and Guardian have similar stories, all based on the recent court appearance (just search using that headline).
It's a reasonable topic to report on, the government is accusing of Google of "extreme" (in their words) discrimination.
It's a reasonable topic to report on, the government is accusing of Google of "extreme" (in their words) discrimination.
It would be surprising and novel if the DoL statisticians had produced an unambiguous correct analysis. They're working in a complex field, and under pressure and regulated to use the wrong tools in many cases---so I'm sure plenty of the people there are excellent and could do great work---DoL statistics in general are not a good basis for action.
Example: DoL is required by law to track non-white applicants and hiring to jobs. Alice is not white, and applies to ten open jobs at Example.com, a hot new startup. She's hired for one. DoL reports this as 90% of non-white applicants being rejected. If 10 non-white applicants each apply for all those ten jobs and are all hired, one job each, that's 90% rejection.
A mix of law and regulation requires counting this way. Near one edge case (plausibly including SV today!) the error doesn't matter much. But as you get anywhere near justice, this isn't helpful.
So without seeing the details of this analysis, I'm skeptical that DoL's way of counting is helpful here.
Example: DoL is required by law to track non-white applicants and hiring to jobs. Alice is not white, and applies to ten open jobs at Example.com, a hot new startup. She's hired for one. DoL reports this as 90% of non-white applicants being rejected. If 10 non-white applicants each apply for all those ten jobs and are all hired, one job each, that's 90% rejection.
A mix of law and regulation requires counting this way. Near one edge case (plausibly including SV today!) the error doesn't matter much. But as you get anywhere near justice, this isn't helpful.
So without seeing the details of this analysis, I'm skeptical that DoL's way of counting is helpful here.
I think you are constructing a strawman. If rejection statistics were indeed calculated as you describe, it would scale with the number of job seekers crossed with the demographic. I am going to go with DoL statisticians not being idiots.
Strawman or not, the public has a right to the methodology and criteria behind the DoL's claim, without which we are free to disbelieve their allegations without justifying ourselves.
We should hold both Google and the DoL to the same standard, nowhere does "trust us" form a compelling argument.
The US Dept. of Labor is suing Google for not revealing compensation data [0].
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has suspicion on pay disparities and in order to investigate further sent a request to Google to access some records (Point 9) [1]. Google denied OFCCP access to these records. Now, DoL has taken Google to court to get access to the records they need to investigate further and complete their evaluation. I wonder why Google is being so evasive about it.
[0] https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104
[1] https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has suspicion on pay disparities and in order to investigate further sent a request to Google to access some records (Point 9) [1]. Google denied OFCCP access to these records. Now, DoL has taken Google to court to get access to the records they need to investigate further and complete their evaluation. I wonder why Google is being so evasive about it.
[0] https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104
[1] https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...
> I wonder why Google is being so evasive about it.
The article says that Google thinks the DOL is going on a fishing expedition. They turned over records, but like most private companies, don't like turning over records for no reason, especially about highly confidential information such as compensation packages.
The article says that Google thinks the DOL is going on a fishing expedition. They turned over records, but like most private companies, don't like turning over records for no reason, especially about highly confidential information such as compensation packages.
> The article says that Google thinks the DOL is going on a fishing expedition.
That's because the system is designed in such a way. The DoL can't make a case without access to meaningful data. So, if the system is designed to make access difficult this is what we end up with.
> They turned over records
They did not turn over records - that's what the entire lawsuit is about as mentioned in the court documents.
That's because the system is designed in such a way. The DoL can't make a case without access to meaningful data. So, if the system is designed to make access difficult this is what we end up with.
> They turned over records
They did not turn over records - that's what the entire lawsuit is about as mentioned in the court documents.
Clearly they've turned over at least some records before. They're making their case with 2015 data.
I don't think so. The lawsuit clearly mentions that Google denied access to data. In fact, Google attorney is on record saying that we denied access too.
Then what is the 2015 data mentioned in the article?
The DoL claims "discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry", while Google claims "every year, we do a comprehensive and robust analysis of pay across genders and we have found no gender pay gap".
DoL is probably lacking data, and has a somewhat simplistic methodology (i.e., they see woman are paid less, but they don't know why). I highly doubt Google is intentionally discriminating against woman, I actually think they are probably trying very hard to have equal employment practices. But they still might be discriminating without knowing it.
Here is what could e happening: The DoL says "you pay women less, even when they have the same experience". Google says "we pay for performance, not experience, when you take performance into account there is no pay gap".
What Google might be missing is that there are unconscious biases causing performance reviews of woman to be more negative. I think that is highly likely. My understanding is that Google is highly reliant of performance reviews and performance pay, so under those conditions the DoL might be correct in saying discrimination is "quite extreme, even in this industry".
DoL is probably lacking data, and has a somewhat simplistic methodology (i.e., they see woman are paid less, but they don't know why). I highly doubt Google is intentionally discriminating against woman, I actually think they are probably trying very hard to have equal employment practices. But they still might be discriminating without knowing it.
Here is what could e happening: The DoL says "you pay women less, even when they have the same experience". Google says "we pay for performance, not experience, when you take performance into account there is no pay gap".
What Google might be missing is that there are unconscious biases causing performance reviews of woman to be more negative. I think that is highly likely. My understanding is that Google is highly reliant of performance reviews and performance pay, so under those conditions the DoL might be correct in saying discrimination is "quite extreme, even in this industry".
Assuming labor markets are liquid, if the pay gap is true it means either:
1. Women really want to work for Google and take less pay than working at other employers or
2. Women at almost all employers are receiving less money.
There were times not too long ago when there were Jewish quotas. Nobelist Physicist Richard Feynman was denied entry into Columbia and he went to MIT instead.
Nobelist Medicine & Physiology Author Kornberg was one of 3 of 200 Jewish applicants to get into medical school from his university.
Those universities/firms that didn't have Jewish quotas and discrimination got a good boost in performance over those who had quotas and discrimination.
If they women are only getting paid less at Google and not other firms then they should change firms. If other firms are paying less, then Feds should go after them as well and not single out Google. Any firm that pays women as much as men should be able to hire the competent women from Google.
In another part of the WSJ article, there is a complaint that most of the employees are male and asian or white. They should examine the portion of people attending top engineering schools: male and asian or white.
There were times not too long ago when there were Jewish quotas. Nobelist Physicist Richard Feynman was denied entry into Columbia and he went to MIT instead.
Nobelist Medicine & Physiology Author Kornberg was one of 3 of 200 Jewish applicants to get into medical school from his university.
Those universities/firms that didn't have Jewish quotas and discrimination got a good boost in performance over those who had quotas and discrimination.
If they women are only getting paid less at Google and not other firms then they should change firms. If other firms are paying less, then Feds should go after them as well and not single out Google. Any firm that pays women as much as men should be able to hire the competent women from Google.
In another part of the WSJ article, there is a complaint that most of the employees are male and asian or white. They should examine the portion of people attending top engineering schools: male and asian or white.
> Those universities/firms that didn't have Jewish quotas and discrimination got a good boost in performance over those who had quotas and discrimination.
Counterpoint: a recent study suggested that corporate boards with gender quotas worked better, because it meant they didn't overlook competent female executives in favour of mediocre male ones.
Counterpoint: a recent study suggested that corporate boards with gender quotas worked better, because it meant they didn't overlook competent female executives in favour of mediocre male ones.
Doesn't that counterpoint still fall prey to the same problem of isolating only a correlated variable? I.e., having qualified female board members could confer a competitive gender advantage, but putting women on the board regardless of their hiring prowess doesn't guarantee similar results.
The thing with quotas like this is that they're not being put on the board “regardless of their hiring prowess”. You hire the best people you can find of both genders.
Sometimes that will mean a less qualified person will be put there who otherwise wouldn't, but that's by no means a guarantee. And it cuts both ways: if sexism meant that previously, better candidates who happened to be women were not getting hired, now they will be; on the other hand, the quota may mean that better candidates who happen to be men won't be hired.
Sometimes that will mean a less qualified person will be put there who otherwise wouldn't, but that's by no means a guarantee. And it cuts both ways: if sexism meant that previously, better candidates who happened to be women were not getting hired, now they will be; on the other hand, the quota may mean that better candidates who happen to be men won't be hired.
>Those universities/firms that didn't have Jewish quotas and discrimination got a good boost in performance over those who had quotas and discrimination.
I'm sympathetic to this point, but this particular example assumes that the discriminating entity is focusing solely on performance. Harvard and Yale maintained and increased their social cachet over non-discriminating entities like MIT and Cornell by instituting Jewish quotas. Future donors from the majority demographic were willing to pay for "culture fit". This supposedly irrational strategy worked so well that it has been reprised and copied by other institutions against other demos. Inefficiency can be remarkably persistent if it enjoys the status of a social norm and satisfies other values.
I'm sympathetic to this point, but this particular example assumes that the discriminating entity is focusing solely on performance. Harvard and Yale maintained and increased their social cachet over non-discriminating entities like MIT and Cornell by instituting Jewish quotas. Future donors from the majority demographic were willing to pay for "culture fit". This supposedly irrational strategy worked so well that it has been reprised and copied by other institutions against other demos. Inefficiency can be remarkably persistent if it enjoys the status of a social norm and satisfies other values.
> Assuming labor markets are liquid
Is like assuming a spherical cow.
Is like assuming a spherical cow.
Markets don't solve everything, especially institutionalized racism or gender inequality. It is a lazy solution to a very harmful problem.
Well, many would hire programmers /engineers/ lawyers/ doctors/ professors for competence regardless of race.
In an era of slavery, many would not. In an era of Jim Crow and segregation, many would not. In the era of the 60s civil rights movement, many would not. In fact during those times a minority would hire for competence regardless of race.
Simply telling the discriminated to "go work somewhere else" is just encouraging those who discriminate, and is a lazy solution to a complex problem.
Simply telling the discriminated to "go work somewhere else" is just encouraging those who discriminate, and is a lazy solution to a complex problem.
> '"go work somewhere else" is just encouraging those who discriminate, ...'
I once heard lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who at age 28 was the youngest full professor in Harvard law history, say that he didn't get one job offer from 40 different white shoe law firms. His lawyer son when interviewing did far better.
Today's marketplace is way too competitive to discriminate. Those who discriminate simply allow the competition to get better talent. Nobody should work in a workplace where they are not wanted when there are workplaces that would want them.
I once heard lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who at age 28 was the youngest full professor in Harvard law history, say that he didn't get one job offer from 40 different white shoe law firms. His lawyer son when interviewing did far better.
Today's marketplace is way too competitive to discriminate. Those who discriminate simply allow the competition to get better talent. Nobody should work in a workplace where they are not wanted when there are workplaces that would want them.
Discriminators might get punished by the market, but that's no reason that they shouldn't also get punished by the law too.
They shouldn't get away with illegally discriminating just because they are also making themselves less competitive.
They shouldn't get away with illegally discriminating just because they are also making themselves less competitive.
At what point is a company responsible for discrepancies in pay due to behavioral differences that likely exist between genders. Most jobs have a salary range for each title and they present candidates an initial figure at the low end of that range. To get a figure at the top end of that range, the candidate needs to initiate negotiation and have the skills/experience/practice doing so, including the knowledge that they need to do things like talk about competing offers and avoid divulging their previous salary.
There is plenty of research showing negotiating differences between the sexes (including differences in negotiating based on the gender of the counterparties relative to one another).
Shouldn't the government instead compare discrepancies between initial offers for the same position instead of actual salary negotiated?
If they don't use initial offer, then the business needs to correct for this and every way I can think of to correct destroys the firm's ability to recruit the difficult candidates while still remaining competitive with other firms. The firms that correct for these differences will pay more on average for labor than its competitors and will likely lose out on the capable candidates that know their self worth and demand compensation that reflects that.
There is plenty of research showing negotiating differences between the sexes (including differences in negotiating based on the gender of the counterparties relative to one another).
Shouldn't the government instead compare discrepancies between initial offers for the same position instead of actual salary negotiated?
If they don't use initial offer, then the business needs to correct for this and every way I can think of to correct destroys the firm's ability to recruit the difficult candidates while still remaining competitive with other firms. The firms that correct for these differences will pay more on average for labor than its competitors and will likely lose out on the capable candidates that know their self worth and demand compensation that reflects that.
Can someone who actually has access to the story answer the following questions for me. Is this before or after controlling for:
- field of work. Is this the whole company or just devs?
- years at the company.
- age, as a crude proxy for total experience at all companies.
Also does it say the magnitude of the gap?
There's a number of ways this headline could be true, all may be unfortunate from a societal perspective, but it only shows bias on Google's part if this is after controlling for the things companies say they base their pay on.
- field of work. Is this the whole company or just devs?
- years at the company.
- age, as a crude proxy for total experience at all companies.
Also does it say the magnitude of the gap?
There's a number of ways this headline could be true, all may be unfortunate from a societal perspective, but it only shows bias on Google's part if this is after controlling for the things companies say they base their pay on.
They also base the pay on negotiation, something which men are much more aggressive about and that woman who negotiate hard are judged unfairly.
This often happens in cultures - not sure Google is such a culture - were you negotiate your initial salary, raises and need to push for promotions.
When advising women on interviewing I always suggest they ask for more money than they are comfortable with.
When advising women on interviewing I always suggest they ask for more money than they are comfortable with.
> When advising women on interviewing I always suggest they ask for more money than they are comfortable with.
I do the same for men.
Saw a few guys jump ship recently for significant raises. Turns out they were badly underpaid :D
I do the same for men.
Saw a few guys jump ship recently for significant raises. Turns out they were badly underpaid :D
Yes me too ;-) But especially with women. Since reading "Negotiating Your Salary: How to Make $1000 a Minute" a long time ago I've applied this to myself.
Methodology is important here. A lot of the logic behind pay gap talk assumes that the jobs men and women do in the same company are exactly the same, as if these are assembly line jobs and worker output can be compared in a direct and straightforward manner. Anyone who works in tech knows that what each person contributes varies greatly and there's no way to directly compare what two people do or even the amount of experience they bring to the table when they're hired.
[deleted]
What is that Google would gain from this? Not that they are strapped for money. It could only lead to such bad publicity. And if the women engineers were hired by Google, they obviously are good at it. Can't understand the rationale behind it, if true.
My incoming is already intimate knowledge to the state and my employer. Why isn't the DoL doing this type analysis across all employers? What exactly has to be divulged that the gov doesn't already know?
Has anyone ever considered that women regardless of industry get paid less because they don't negotiate for more? As a female from the tech and other industries including talent acquisition rarely do I come across another female who asks for more or alternative compensation in either the hiring, review, or promotion stage of their career. As a benefits manager I've known the top limit companies will pay and sat quietly as female executives accepted offers that were 20-30k away from what the company was willing to give. Bottom line if you don't ask for more you won't get it. Men ask, women rarely do.
I'm not certain why anyone would be surprised. Remember the spreadsheet from 2015?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=google+spreadsheet+compensation+le...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=google+spreadsheet+compensation+le...
They should replace all their men with women and reap the profits
Companies like google are obsessed with diversity. The idea that they'd systematically pay women less is laughable - you will not find more liberal environments outside of academia.
I can't help but wonder if this is politically motivated.
I can't help but wonder if this is politically motivated.
Just identify those workers as male. Problem solved.
Another (non-paywall) article:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...
Seems like it is early days on this lawsuit. The DoL are asking for more documentation about employee's pay and Google is calling it a "fishing expedition." This is definitely one to watch, but I won't be drawing any conclusions this early in this lawsuit (since even the DoL say they need more documentation to prove their case).
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...
Seems like it is early days on this lawsuit. The DoL are asking for more documentation about employee's pay and Google is calling it a "fishing expedition." This is definitely one to watch, but I won't be drawing any conclusions this early in this lawsuit (since even the DoL say they need more documentation to prove their case).
Prior HN comments and no paywall Guardian story:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14063043
Link to avoid paywall https://www.facebook.com/flx/warn/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.c...
Non-paywalled but not identical version: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-w...
There is no such thing as equal pay for equal work. Two people within the same gender aren't paid equal in the Tech or any Professional services Industry forget across genders. More importantly, can someone define what equal work is? Same role/title doesn't translate to equal work. Every person has different capabilities even within in the same role and if it happens to be that a Woman outperforms than her peers then she should be paid equal or more and I wholeheartedly support that but the sad part with Women is that they never talk about such cases but instead Just hangs on to the phrase "Equal pay for Equal work" so they know if they make enough noise they can get equal pay but they never mention a word about equal work. And after working for 10 years in the Industry (which means I am young so don't think I am talking about some B.C era) and statistically speaking most of the time it had always been men who did tasks that are above and beyond from their regular duties.
Sheryl Sandberg Just spits out some none sense. She just got so Lucky to be the COO at FB in the first place. she thinks that if a company can control # years of experience, education level, and blah blah then that will be the deciding factor for Equal pay. I am like really? So two people with same amount of years of experience can perform the same way? Two people with the same education level are equally bright? What if one person went to college Doofus and another went to Stanford? I am sure going to better college doesn't automatically translate into a bright and efficient person for the company but it is an accomplishment one should acknowledge for their hard work. so in short, none of these factors can be controlled and the way most companies Judge pay depends on how well one performs in the Interview which is very much reasonable. If we do the Sheryl Sandberg way we actually don't need an HR department (which Btw, is lot of Women) we can just write a program to accept or reject applicants if is really that straight forward to control the factors she is talking about. I think it would be great if someone can actually make Sheryl Sandberg to code on a daily basis and deal with all the production issues.
I went to an Ivy League school and I worked as a TA for many Computer Science courses. I had worked with many students (both Men and Women) I had seen them getting Jobs at Google and FB and whenever they told me they got into Google or FB I used to ask my students so What questions did they ask you? Typically it is Algorithms most of the time as we all know and I can for sure say that the Algorithms questions asked to Men are way Significantly harder than Women. Now why is this not highlighted? Because companies like Google, FB wants to highlight that they hired Women. I bet my entire savings (I truly mean it) that if I go Google even today and pick random sample of 50 (25 Men Vs 25 Women) and randomly ask the Algorithm questions Men will significantly outperform Women because I know the level of difficulty questions asked for a Women and Men to get into Google. This is totally unfair. And I hate Men for giving up on these issues.
I am sure most companies know all of this. They want to pay equal because they don't want to deal with one more hassle. If I am a CEO of a large organization I will be all over the media asking Women define what Equal work is before they start talking about Equal Pay. And I would look at it case by case If a woman outperforms her peers then As a CEO I would actually pay more period.
JAbberJaw(1)
I can't wait to see Googles response. I have no idea why they would even open themselves up to this criticism when they could easily align the salaries.
Google already responded, they essentially claim there is no gap, that there was one in the past but that they worked very hard to close that gap. They also question the governments methods to arrive at their conclusions.
Without data to back up either position debate is pretty much meaningless.
Without data to back up either position debate is pretty much meaningless.
That's good to know. Not sure why I was downvoted for wanting to know Google's response.
Google basically claims they have internal programs and have reached pay parity globally. The DoL says that's not true based on the data they've viewed. There seems to be a lot of lawyer scaremongering on both sides, I'd wait for this case to progress more before choosing a side.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...
They responded and denied it; frankly it's plausible that they're correct (but also that they're not). It's not yet fair to assume one party is correct over the other while both try to drive the media presentation. Let it play out.
I would lean towards both being correct depending on how they looked at the data. If you did purely education level, degree field and years of experience related to position then I would expect minimal deviation. However, you can go further tweaking how you look at each of those variables.
They did respond, they denied any pay gap.
[deleted]
Suppose the population is distributed in their experience and productivity, and that you can measure these to some extent.
Suppose your field has way more males than females. This is not your fault, more of a pipeline thing, but you want to be more equal internally than the outside world is. Most people commend this kind of thing.
If you are fairly paying both genders, wouldn't you necessarily have to take more unproductive and inexperienced female engineers to reach your goal? And if you're fairly paying based on those criteria, won't the female population be paid less as you try to take on a more-than-average number of them?
I'm not saying any of this is how it ought to be, just that it seems like a typical conclusion with napkin math, and would result in these allegations while Google is actually trying to do good.
Interestingly if equal pay were not a thing, I would expect the opposite headline: That Google would pay women much more than men to work so that they could attempt to correct a gender imbalance internally that exists in the external population (software workers).