Lawsuit Accuses Google Of Gender Wage Gap, Segregation

[Guest]

A class-action lawsuit filed by three former Google employees alleges that the search giant pays women less than men for similar work, and segregates them into front-end (women) or back-end (men) jobs with different pay ceilings.

Lawsuit Accuses Google Of Gender Wage Gap, Segregation : Read more

 

[Gam3r01]

The first sign of an unprofessional lawsuit is posting about it on social media, tweeting about your class action lawsuit is just pitiful.

 

[Zaporro]

lol another one of these SJW bullshits

 

[derekullo]

I should file an opposing lawsuit for young white males.

Whenever I'm at Bestbuy, in casual clothing, looking at OLED's people automatically assume I know tech and ask about the difference between OLED and QLED or which router to choose or i7 / Ryzen.

I do explain the difference in detail, but when they ask to check out I have to inform them that I don't work here.

This is also a form of gender discrimination.

Any other person at Bestbuy, including female personnel, could have answered there questions.

As for the alleged pay gap, if you accepted the pay to get the job why should it matter how it compares to what others are making?

If I applied for a job for $40 an hour and I felt I deserved to be paid $40 it wouldn't bother me in the slightest of my coworker was paid $45 an hour.

If I applied for that same job and they offered me $30 an hour and I felt I deserved to be paid $40 I would counter offer with $40 an hour and if they refused I would keep looking for another job that is a better use of my time.

I wouldn't take the hypothetical $30 an hour then create a website showcasing how others which happen to be of a different sex/gender make more than I do because I fail at negotiating.

If you feel you aren't getting the pay or promotions you deserve then discuss it with your manager and work out a solution or walk away and find a company that respects your abilities.

 

[mrmez]

Heard they're going to have a female James Bond.
They're calling her 00 70 cents on the dollar.

 

[therealduckofdeath]

Oh no, there's a white guy above who's been discriminated against! Let's focus on fixing his problems first, to keep the status quo.

 

[AnimeMania]

I should file an opposing lawsuit for young white males.

Whenever I'm at Bestbuy, in casual clothing, looking at OLED's people automatically assume I know tech and ask about the difference between OLED and QLED or which router to choose or i7 / Ryzen.

[Clip]

If I applied for a job for $40 an hour and I felt I deserved to be paid $40 it wouldn't bother me in the slightest of my coworker was paid $45 an hour.

[Clip]

Are you sure you were giving off young white males vibes and not nerdy geek vibes?

It is fine to pay people whatever you want when they are starting, but once they have been there a while and you know they can do the job and are staying, you should standardize the pay. It is cheaper than the lawsuits and bad press, especially for Corporations. If you want to discriminate use bonuses and company perks.

The first sign of an unprofessional lawsuit is posting about it on social media, tweeting about your class action lawsuit is just pitiful.

I wonder if you google "Google" and "lawsuit" would this story pop up?

 

[coolitic]

This irony of this lawsuit is hilarious.

 

[Morbus]

How dare these SJWs try to fix socially unjust problems?! I'm so freaking tired of hearing people complain they're treated unjustly, why can't just shut up and be happy with what they have?!

 

[brian.h.schaefer]

I am a little confused? What do they mean by "front-end" and "back-end"? Considering this is Google I would think of these terms being used for developers. The statistics show that women are more prevelant in the front-end side of development, as opposed to backend development. Backend developers also, on average, make more money than front-end developers do.

Maybe my assumptions are completely wrong, I have no idea.

 

[gggplaya]

Google hires mostly engineers, even for business rolls. They prefer to promote engineers than pull some harvard grad out of business school to manage. The problem is, women only make up about 13% of engineers at best, and that's even including the pseudo-engineering like physics and biology, which are natural sciences, not necessarily engineering. In reality, I graduated in a class with about 500 engineers, and in my class, we had like 6 girls. Women are an extreme minority in engineering. When competing for promotions against so many men in the same field, who may actually be more qualified for the position. Yea, promotions will be harder to come by. Also, they probably have to lower their standards for women in order to meet affirmative action quotas. Which again, makes their male peers more qualified for promotion.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Google hires mostly engineers, even for business rolls. They prefer to promote engineers than pull some harvard grad out of business school to manage. The problem is, women only make up about 13% of engineers at best, and that's even including the pseudo-engineering like physics and biology, which are natural sciences, not necessarily engineering. In reality, I graduated in a class with about 500 engineers, and in my class, we had like 6 girls. Women are an extreme minority in engineering. When competing for promotions against so many men in the same field, who may actually be more qualified for the position. Yea, promotions will be harder to come by.

That doesn't make sense. Why would the ratio of male to female engineers in a company make a difference in how hard it is for a woman to get a promotion? If you're competing against 20 people, why would it matter if those people are male or female? I mean, if there are far less women then there will obviously be less women getting promoted, but that wouldn't inherently make it harder for a female to to get promoted compared to a male in the same position. Also, the lawsuit is about more than just rate of promotion

Also, they probably have to lower their standards for women in order to meet affirmative action quotas. Which again, makes their male peers more qualified for promotion.

Any evidence to support this? Anecdotally, although there were few women in my engineering classes, they were disproportionately towards the top of the class in terms of grades (not that grades necessarily translate into workplace performance though).

 

[gggplaya]

Google hires mostly engineers, even for business rolls. They prefer to promote engineers than pull some harvard grad out of business school to manage. The problem is, women only make up about 13% of engineers at best, and that's even including the pseudo-engineering like physics and biology, which are natural sciences, not necessarily engineering. In reality, I graduated in a class with about 500 engineers, and in my class, we had like 6 girls. Women are an extreme minority in engineering. When competing for promotions against so many men in the same field, who may actually be more qualified for the position. Yea, promotions will be harder to come by.

That doesn't make sense. Why would the ratio of male to female engineers in a company make a difference in how hard it is for a woman to get a promotion? If you're competing against 20 people, why would it matter if those people are male or female? I mean, if there are far less women then there will obviously be less women getting promoted, but that wouldn't inherently make it harder for a female to to get promoted compared to a male in the same position. Also, the lawsuit is about more than just rate of promotion

But as far as promotions, it's very simple. If you have 30 people applying for a position, and only 1 is a woman. The chances of the woman getting the job is slim. They have to compete against 29 male candidates. The chance of a male getting the position is extremely high. If we assumed that the employee pool were fixed, then if the female applied for 30 management positions, it's likely she'd get one. However, employee pools aren't fixed, it's constantly refilling with more talent. So that pool is likely getting filled with more male talent. I don't know how it is at google, but at my company years of experience tend to have less weighting than it probably should. Many of our managers are in the late 20's and 30's. Those are mangers where engineers direct report to, above them tend to be managers 40+ years old.

Google should employ their own internal affirmative action to management. Say if 8% of their engineers are women, and there are 5000 engineering managers, then 400 women should be managers, and try to work the numbers towards that.

The problem starts at home. Society tends to raise women differently. They watch different cartoons, play with different toys, and take part in different family activities. Like some families will have the girls cook while others have the boys work on cars etc... I don't raise my kids like that. When my kids turn 18 each child will have to be equally prepared for the world in all aspects. I think this is a large contributing factor with the lack of females in engineering.

Also, they probably have to lower their standards for women in order to meet affirmative action quotas. Which again, makes their male peers more qualified for promotion.

Any evidence to support this? Anecdotally, although there were few women in my engineering classes, they were disproportionately towards the top of the class in terms of grades (not that grades necessarily translate into workplace performance though).

The statistical percentage of women engineer graduates are well documented from various sources. 13% is about average. Silicon Valley companies such as Facebook and LinkedIN have publicly stated they've iniatiated affirmative action for women. And with the scandals like at Uber and now Google, you can bet more companies will also take the initative for affirmative action. Google itself recently fired an engineer for talking about the affirmative action happening at google in regards to men and women. So yes, it is taking place at google: http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/google-fires-engineer-noticing-men-women-different/

 

[TJ Hooker]

But as far as promotions, it's very simple. If you have 30 people applying for a position, and only 1 is a woman. The chances of the woman getting the job is slim. They have to compete against 29 male candidates. The chance of a male getting the position is extremely high. If we assumed that the employee pool were fixed, then if the female applied for 30 management positions, it's likely she'd get one. However, employee pools aren't fixed, it's constantly refilling with more talent. So that pool is likely getting filled with more male talent. I don't know how it is at google, but at my company years of experience tend to have less weighting than it probably should. Many of our managers are in the late 20's and 30's. Those are mangers where engineers direct report to, above them tend to be managers 40+ years old.
Google should employ their own internal affirmative action to management. Say if 8% of their engineers are women, and there are 5000 engineering managers, then 400 women should be managers, and try to work the numbers towards that.

Yes, I realize that if only X% of your employees are female, only X% of promotions would go to females assuming a completely fair workplace and equally skilled employees. However, the lawsuit is alleging that women are being promoted slower than equally skilled men. So the question is not 'what are the odds that a given promotion goes to a woman' (which would obviously be lower than for a man if there are more men than women). The question is 'if you're a woman, what are your odds of being promoted relative to an equally skilled man?' Assuming a fair workplace and equally skilled employees, an individual woman should have the same chance at a promotion as any individual man; the answer to that question does not depend on the male to female ratio of the workplace.
Not sure how what you said about employee turnover and young managers is relevant.

The statistical percentage of women engineer graduates are well documented from various sources. 13% is about average. Silicon Valley companies such as Facebook and LinkedIN have publicly stated they've iniatiated affirmative action for women. And with the scandals like at Uber and now Google, you can bet more companies will also take the initative for affirmative action. Google itself recently fired an engineer for talking about the affirmative action happening at google in regards to men and women. So yes, it is taking place at google: http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/google-fires-engine...

I asked what evidence you had that underqualified or less skilled women are being hired for the sake of meeting affirmative action quotas. The proportion of female engineers or the fact that affirmative action programs in STEM exist is not evidence of that. Not unless quotas are mandating that >13% of engineering hires go to women (and even then that wouldn't necessarily mean a company is having to lower its standards to meet that quota). The article you linked doesn't address any of this, and frankly isn't relevant to what I said.

 

[gggplaya]

But as far as promotions, it's very simple. If you have 30 people applying for a position, and only 1 is a woman. The chances of the woman getting the job is slim. They have to compete against 29 male candidates. The chance of a male getting the position is extremely high. If we assumed that the employee pool were fixed, then if the female applied for 30 management positions, it's likely she'd get one. However, employee pools aren't fixed, it's constantly refilling with more talent. So that pool is likely getting filled with more male talent. I don't know how it is at google, but at my company years of experience tend to have less weighting than it probably should. Many of our managers are in the late 20's and 30's. Those are mangers where engineers direct report to, above them tend to be managers 40+ years old.
Google should employ their own internal affirmative action to management. Say if 8% of their engineers are women, and there are 5000 engineering managers, then 400 women should be managers, and try to work the numbers towards that.

Yes, I realize that if only X% of your employees are female, only X% of promotions would go to females assuming a completely fair workplace and equally skilled employees. However, the lawsuit is alleging that women are being promoted slower than equally skilled men. So the question is not 'what are the odds that a given promotion goes to a woman' (which would obviously be lower than for a man if there are more men than women). The question is 'if you're a woman, what are your odds of being promoted relative to an equally skilled man?' Assuming a fair workplace and equally skilled employees, an individual woman should have the same chance at a promotion as any individual man; the answer to that question does not depend on the male to female ratio of the workplace.
Not sure how what you said about employee turnover and young managers is relevant.

The statistical percentage of women engineer graduates are well documented from various sources. 13% is about average. Silicon Valley companies such as Facebook and LinkedIN have publicly stated they've iniatiated affirmative action for women. And with the scandals like at Uber and now Google, you can bet more companies will also take the initative for affirmative action. Google itself recently fired an engineer for talking about the affirmative action happening at google in regards to men and women. So yes, it is taking place at google: http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/google-fires-engine...

I asked what evidence you had that underqualified or less skilled women are being hired for the sake of meeting affirmative action quotas. The proportion of female engineers or the fact that affirmative action programs in STEM exist is not evidence of that. Not unless quotas are mandating that >13% of engineering hires go to women (and even then that wouldn't necessarily mean a company is having to lower its standards to meet that quota). The article you linked doesn't address any of this, and frankly isn't relevant to what I said.

It is relevant, because the memo was about the affirmative action like diversity programs at google. It was linked as evidence that you asked for, stating that google had such a program.

Affirmative action can work in 2 ways, either to solve clear discrimination by HR and hiring managers, or it will force an employer to lower standards of applicants to work towards a particular percentage of employees. I just find it hard to believe that out of 5000 managers, google would have that many who are chauvinistic. I would think those types would be a minority. Also submitting into evidence the fact that other silicon valley tech companies have to institute their own affirmative action diversity programs to try and lure women engineers, I would heavily lean towards not enough qualified female applicants as the cause of the shortage. In such a case, you would have to take less qualified female applicants over male applicants into order to hit target numbers.

 

[TJ Hooker]

It is relevant, because the memo was about the affirmative action like diversity programs at google. It was linked as evidence that you asked for, stating that google had such a program.

Affirmative action can work in 2 ways, either to solve clear discrimination by HR and hiring managers, or it will force an employer to lower standards of applicants to work towards a particular percentage of employees. I just find it hard to believe that out of 5000 managers, google would have that many who are chauvinistic. I would think those types would be a minority. Also submitting into evidence the fact that other silicon valley tech companies have to institute their own affirmative action diversity programs to try and lure women engineers, I would heavily lean towards not enough qualified female applicants as the cause of the shortage. In such a case, you would have to take less qualified female applicants over male applicants into order to hit target numbers.

Even if a minority of people in the hiring process are sexist, it could still have an effect on the hiring of women. If anything, being a large company with that many managers seems like it would increase your odds that at least some of them are sexist. And given the many subjective aspects of the hiring process, it's entirely possible for subtle sexism to exist that would skew things against women.

There are other potential reasons a company could feel the need for affirmative action initiatives to lure female engineers. Maybe some women are shying away from silicon valley tech companies because of the reputation they have as being a boys club, or some other aspect that might make them seem less appealing for a woman to work there. In that case it wouldn't be the company lowering their standards to hire enough women to meet a quota, but trying to make themselves look appealing to skilled female employees who may otherwise look elsewhere. And we have no idea if Google even has quotas they're trying to meet, as your source doesn't contain any details on what form Google's affirmative action initiatives take.

So again, all you've established is that affirmative action programs exist (at Google and elsewhere), not what form they take or what effects they are having on the quality of people getting hired. Is it possible that this results in hiring less skilled employees at least some of the time? Yeah, absolutely. However, other possible explanations and outcomes exist. You haven't provided any substantial evidence that your explanation is the right one.

For the record, I'm not taking a stance on this lawsuit. I have no idea if it has merit or not.

 

[gggplaya]

It is relevant, because the memo was about the affirmative action like diversity programs at google. It was linked as evidence that you asked for, stating that google had such a program.

Affirmative action can work in 2 ways, either to solve clear discrimination by HR and hiring managers, or it will force an employer to lower standards of applicants to work towards a particular percentage of employees. I just find it hard to believe that out of 5000 managers, google would have that many who are chauvinistic. I would think those types would be a minority. Also submitting into evidence the fact that other silicon valley tech companies have to institute their own affirmative action diversity programs to try and lure women engineers, I would heavily lean towards not enough qualified female applicants as the cause of the shortage. In such a case, you would have to take less qualified female applicants over male applicants into order to hit target numbers.

Even if a minority of people in the hiring process are sexist, it could still have an effect on the hiring of women. If anything, being a large company with that many managers seems like it would increase your odds that at least some of them are sexist. And given the many subjective aspects of the hiring process, it's entirely possible for subtle sexism to exist that would skew things against women.

There are other potential reasons a company could feel the need for affirmative action initiatives to lure female engineers. Maybe some women are shying away from silicon valley tech companies because of the reputation they have as being a boys club, or some other aspect that might make them seem less appealing for a woman to work there. In that case it wouldn't be the company lowering their standards to hire enough women to meet a quota, but trying to make themselves look appealing to skilled female employees who may otherwise look elsewhere. And we have no idea if Google even has quotas they're trying to meet, as your source doesn't contain any details on what form Google's affirmative action initiatives take.

So again, all you've established is that affirmative action programs exist (at Google and elsewhere), not what form they take or what effects they are having on the quality of people getting hired. Is it possible that this results in hiring less skilled employees at least some of the time? Yeah, absolutely. However, other possible explanations and outcomes exist. You haven't provided any substantial evidence that your explanation is the right one.

For the record, I'm not taking a stance on this lawsuit. I have no idea if it has merit or not.

You're right, i offer no proof, only evidence that such programs exist. Also, no elaboration as to the extent of said programs, as those are internal to HR for sure. Also, i add that i'm only stating one part of the problem, i'm not saying it's the whole problem, but merely a factor in the issue. There are multiple problems that compound into an uphill environment for women in STEM jobs.

But truly, the issue we have within our control is how we raise our children at home. Raising them with certain gender roles will continue to have effect on women loving and working in STEM jobs.