back to article Big Red's big pay gap: $13,000 gulf between male and female Oracle staffers – reports

Oracle is under fire for allegedly paying women staffers $13,000 less on average than their male counterparts. The figure was released on Friday, as part of a pay discrimination lawsuit filed against Big Red in the San Mateo County state court of California in 2017. The latest filing, submitted ahead of a joint case …

  1. silent_count

    All else being equal...

    If Jane and John have equal productivity but Jane's wage bill is $13k less, why would a company employ John? Whoever is bringing this lawsuit needs to explain why there are any male employees left who haven't been out-competed by their equally skilled but cheaper-to-employ sisters.

    I have little love for Oracle but even less for nonsense lawsuits.

    1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: All else being equal...

      Because the people who decide to pay men more are also the people who do the hiring?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All else being equal...

        So these evil corporate, sexist pigs aren't the smart, cost-conscious business people they're accused of being? This really should mean that MORE women are employed, since they are cheaper to employ (in theory).

        None of the figures quoted really matter without context, specifically hours worked. Many studies have found the gender pay gap is actually a motherhood pay gap, owing to women with children valuing their time off and work flexibility more than men. Comparing single men to single women nearly eliminates the entire gap.

        1. Jimmy2Cows
          Flame

          Re: All else being equal...

          Indeed. It (dons asbestos underwear) ignores the glaring fact that certaintly in the UK women are legally entitled to 12 months paid maternity leave, while men are not.

          2 weeks paternity leave really isn't the same thing.

          Not sure about the US but there many enlightened countries with similar rules.

          On this basis alone there's are a vast difference. Men and women doing the same job in the same company, to the same level on the same terms, are not actually on the same terms.

          To be truly comparative, one needs to compare the additional cost of such female-only benefits perhaps aggregated over the average employment duration of those claiming maternity leave. This alone may drop the difference significantly.

          Anyone calling this out regularly gets flamed as a sexist mysoginst pig.

          Oh well. Flame on!

          1. israel_hands

            Re: All else being equal...

            You're somewhat behind the times. In the UK men get 2 weeks paid paternity leave and both parents can then split the 12 months parental leave between them however they wish.

            So it is entirely equal these days.

            Source: I'm about to take 6 weeks parental leave with my son when the missus goes back to work. And I already had 2 weeks paternity leave when he was born.

            1. LucreLout Silver badge

              Re: All else being equal...

              In the UK men get 2 weeks paid paternity leave and both parents can then split the 12 months parental leave between them however they wish.

              So it is entirely equal these days.

              Correction: They can split it however the woman decides.

              And in 100% of the cases I know of since that law arrived, is split 100% in favour of the woman, and 0% in favour of the man. I quote "That's MY maternity leave and HE's not getting any of it". I wonder why employers might be expected to make the same assumption.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: All else being equal...

            > ignores the glaring fact that certaintly in the UK women are legally entitled to 12 months paid maternity leave, while men are not.

            Some facts to spoil your little misogynistic rant:

            - UK statutory maternity leave can be shared, so men are equally entitled

            - UK statutory maternity leave is 39 weeks (50 if shared)

            - the first 6 weeks is at 90% of average weekly earnings

            - the remaining 33 weeks is at £145.18 (or 90% of AWE if lower)

            Managing on £145 per week is hardly the holiday you're insinuating. But since you appear to be a SJW I suggest you have a go when you have a child.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: All else being equal...

              Whilst I have no doubt there is genuine inequality between men and women in the workplace, calling for 'equal pay' is not going to work; one needs to look at 'equal cost' - how much employing a person costs.

              On that basis, women do cost more over their working lifetimes. many take several block of maternity leave (and sorry, the existence of a splitting option in the UK does not mean the leave is taken even remotely equally). This requires backfilling of roles, for those periods, which can be expensive, and many women go part time or flexi time, which require more staff to cover days / core hours. Women then have the temerity to live longer, costing more in pensions.

              None of this is unreasonable behaviour, but it does mean that a cohort of women will cost more than a cohort of men. If you want true equality, then that is equality of cost, and one of the very few variables available to the business in that cost is wages.

              That absolutely does not mean that first like Oracle should use this as a smoke screen to take the piss on wages, but it does mean that 'equal pay' is, in fact, inequitable, and for this reason meets resistance.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: All else being equal...

            On average there are as many men having children as women. As well as the points already made showing how little you know about the current laws, for every woman taking off maternity leave, or health appointments there is usually a man also benefiting from those same benefits for their partner.

            So even if one partner does not take up their parental leave they get the full benefit of the parental leave anyway due to their partner having and using that benefit.

            1. TheVogon Silver badge

              Re: All else being equal...

              "On average there are as many men having children as women"

              Well I know there are plenty of single women having children. Not quite sure how you work out as many men are having the same!

          4. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

            Re: All else being equal...

            In Feraldom, the feral legal requirements for maternity leave are 6 weeks unpaid though the company can choose to pay for the leave period. Some states mandate more generous benefits.

        2. xeroks

          Re: All else being equal...

          This found that women were paid on average $13,000 less than men, **even after controlling for various factors such as career level, performance review scores and office location**

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: All else being equal...

            Great. So it's time to start hiring nothing but women, because profit.

            Any takers willing to fire all the men and only hire women, so they can pocket the money? Clearly, there's an opportunity here for you evil corporate types.

        3. veti Silver badge

          Re: All else being equal...

          Moral: If you want people to defend Oracle, this is how.

          It's Oracle. And even for them, all it takes is a particularly detailed, offensive and egregious pay gap story, and suddenly the Internet is full of (mostly male, I imagine) commentators rushing to defend them.

          Capita, are you paying attention?

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: All else being equal...

          "None of the figures quoted really matter without context..."

          are u quite sure about that? that's a pretty bold claim, given this particular study had controls for exactly the kinds of things you're talking about.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: All else being equal...

            Actually, I'm completely sure. The original article in WIRED stated that the study controlled for "career level, performance review scores, office location, tenure at Oracle, and overall work experience". Further controls to isolate just single men vs. single women would have eliminated the gap due to the difference in choices made by parental men vs. parental women.

      2. HandleAlreadyTaken

        Re: All else being equal...

        The numbers I saw bandied around the internet put the difference between male and female wages between 10% and 30% (allegedly for the same work). Especially in labor-heavy businesses, having a 10 to 30 percent lower cost is a crushing advantage over the competition. So why don't all-female (including HR) companies simply out-compete the sexist ones?

      3. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: All else being equal...

        Because the people who decide to pay men more are also the people who do the hiring?

        And yet HR are predominantly women. So that theory doesn't work, regardless of industry.

    2. Jim 59

      Re: All else being equal...

      "... Marilyn Clark, alleged that she had discovered a colleague was making about $20,000 (22 per cent) more than her when she found a pay stub he had left behind in a common area."

      Welcome to the party pal. I'm a man and have often worked with colleagues earning way more then me, Usually because they were more experienced and better software engineers, but sometimes just because they negotiated a better deal or joined when the job market was high. This is the norm in business, I'm afraid.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All else being equal...

        Early in my career I was 'stuck' at a low pay rate. Pay for starting engineers increased rapidly with the first few years experience. But because of bad timing (starting a new job just after their annual performance reviews) and a pay increase percentage cap where I worked, I ended up far behind my outside peers. Those two years of missing pay increases had huge negative impact on my pay for a half decade or more. Plenty of people want to hire you, but it was a pretty hard-and-fast rule that it would only be at a 10-20% increase over your current salary, no matter what that salary was.

        1. Dabbb Bronze badge

          Re: All else being equal...

          "rule that it would only be at a 10-20% increase over your current salary, no matter what that salary was."

          And how would they know unless you tell them that yourself ? Genuine question, here in Oz you might get asked this question but you can say anything you want and I've yet to hear anyone being asked to prove it.

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: All else being equal...

        >but sometimes just because they negotiated a better deal or joined when the job market was high

        I worked in the mathematical modelling group of a consultancy, most people had come from academic jobs or fresh PhDs and the salary was based on your last pay + small %

        The business development consultants had all come from banking jobs and started on 3-4x as much - although they never seemed to book any sales. In the end all the techies left and the company folded.

    3. Jim 59

      Re: All else being equal...

      Marilyn again, on being shocked to find a colleague is paid 20% more:

      "I just couldn't believe it. I was angry," she told The Guardian. "I felt like I had been punched in the gut."

      Angry eh? I interviewed and hired a database guy once and, reviewing the hiring letter, was shocked to find he was to be paid more than me. Rather than call the police, I bided my time and found another job paying about 20% more than him. I think this is a normal part of people's careers.

    4. iRadiate

      Re: All else being equal...

      Ridiculous comment. It's not a simple equation about John and Jane. You need to look at the hiring policy over a period of time.

      E.g

      John works for oracle. He's an Oracle Financials consultant. Oracle find they need more consultants so they go on a recruitment drive and employ 3 more people: Jack, Amit and Jane. All 3 have equal skills. Amit and Jane are paid less than Jack; Amit because he's brown and Jane because she doesn't have a penis. What's more after a year in their new roles Jack gets a larger bonus. Now prove that Jack is the more productive person. If you're white and male you'll never get it. I'm brown. I work for oracle. I get paid less than my white counterparts. I always have in every company I've worked for. Fact. If I try to do anything about it I'll get a reputation for being difficult and will probably make things worse for myself. Those women in the US should be congratulated for being brave.

      1. cornetman

        Re: All else being equal...

        That's all very well and good (well not really) but you actually didn't answer his question.

        For any company that is cost conscious, why would they pay men more than women if they are doing the same job? Why wouldn't the company be full of lower paid women since that would improve the bottom line? For that matter, why wouldn't the company be full of brown women if they could get away with paying them even less?

        And don't even try to assert that it doesn't happen. Why do you think all these companies are outsourcing to India?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: All else being equal...

          > why would they pay men more than women if they are doing the same job ?

          Because they’re sexist. Duh!

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: All else being equal...

          That is the point of the argument. There is an argument that white males are paid more because of a false perception that they are worth more even when there is evidence that their female counterparts or minority counterparts are just as good.

          This is exactly what an unconscious bias leading to direct or indirect discrimination is. Due to it being less overt and many companies, commentators or individuals not believing or accepting that either this is the case or that it is a possibility means that the wages and bonuses of these groups is lower.

          It is difficult to produce effective trials within a single organisation to support this. However blind CVs with names, gender defining traits etc removed have shown a greater bias towards discriminated groups.

          Maternity leave when taken by a single female has shown to have a greater impact on the career and pay of women than the same period of absence by a male (for instance due to a period of travel, unemployment or health).

          Therefore thoughts will turn to whether females or other discriminated races are genetically or culturally poorer at jobs than males. Significant amounts of evidence based on like for like schooling would suggest this is not true and so perceptions around that are already showing evidence of prejudice and bias.

          The arguments stated above generally have looked to reaffirm inbuilt bias to support an internal view (most likely around a group that has similar characteristics to the accused) rather than support an alternative argument.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If you're white and male you'll never get it

        To make a statement that someone can't do something because of their sex is sexist, or because of their skin color then it is racist. It is, by definition, the clearest examples of sexism or racism you can find.

        So, you do realize that you just self-identified yourself as both sexist and racist, right? Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether the statement is true or not -- it is still racist ad sexist even if true.

        Welcome to the world of "Political Correctness"

        1. iRadiate

          Re: If you're white and male you'll never get it

          Wrong. I never said you can't do something because of colour or sex. What I said was that you won't 'get it'. As a male I'll never fully understand the discrimination that women face. As an able bodied person I'll never fully understand the issues disabled people face . That doesn't make me or anyone a bad person. It's simply the reality of the world. If you haven't taken a step in another person's shoes you will never fully understand their struggles. Hence why most of the comments here will be made on the basis of not fully understanding the issue.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: If you're white and male you'll never get it

            If you say a man cannot "get it" because he is a man, then you have in fact made that the determination based upon his sex. You have LITERALLY made it the only criteria for making the decision.

            The statement, whether or not it is factually correct, is sexist.

            The statement that a white man cannot do ANYTHING (such as understand the plight of someone else) is racist.

            As I said, welcome to the world of political correctness. Anything you say, whether true or not, can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion and social media.

            1. iRadiate

              Re: If you're white and male you'll never get it

              Wong again.

              Let's make things really simple. You will never understand the struggles a fish faces because you're not a fish.. Does that make me fishist for making a statement based solely on your species.? You've misunderstood what the letters 'ist' mean at the end of sexist or racist. You'll never understand the struggles a homeless person faces because I'm assuming you have a roof over your head. Does that make me a person who DISCRIMINATES against homeless people? No it bloody doesn't. That's what sexist and racist means. I don't discriminate . I do my best to understand the others point of view while fully accepting that because of my gender and colour I probably won't fully get it. That's all I'm saying. As white males you'll never fully understand what females and non whites of any gender go through on a daily basis in their workplace. It's not meant to be a criticism. Its just a fact that you need to bear in mind when commenting on issues that you yourself are not directly affected by.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: If you're white and male you'll never get it

                You still seem to completely miss the point, or perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the words being used.

                "Discriminate" means to make a distinction between two things.

                If you are making a distinction based on sex, then you are discriminating. If you make a distinction based on the color of skin, then you are discriminating. Heck, if you choose your rental car by color you are still discriminating.

                When you say a man can't "get it" because he is a man, then not only are you are being discriminatory, you are also being sexist - because you have used sex as the factor to draw a distinction, and you are applying a stereotype against men on the basis of that distinction.

                Whether or not your statement is true is immaterial to the argument. You can be factually true and discriminatory at the same time - they are not mutually exclusive.

                You keep saying that I am wrong -- but I didn't disagree with you on the substance of your point - I just pointed out that you were being racist and sexist in your statements -- apparently unknowingly so -- and that you were running afoul of political correctness because you can't always be politically correct and tell the truth at the same time.

                1. Swarthy Silver badge
                  Stop

                  Re: If you're white and male you'll never get it

                  @AC - I get what the point you are trying to make, but you are being overly pedantic (and this coming from a semi-rabid pedant), and abusing reductio ad absurdum to the point where you have created a strawman.

                  Yes, one definition of "discrimination" is "(a) Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." But that is a separate definition from "(b) unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories". Arguing that a==b is what lands you in strawman category.

                  I'm tempted to compare your argument with equating 'wind' as in "wind the string around the spool" with 'wind' as in moving air; but then I would be guilty of the self-same false equivalency.

                  1. cornetman

                    Re: If you're white and male you'll never get it

                    No, *you* don't get it.

                    Firstly, when people use the word discrimination, very often they actually mean "unfair discrimination".

                    It's sloppy use of language.

                    Secondly, saying that a white man can't empathise with what a woman or disabled person does or doesn't suffer is a gross generalisation and patently unsubstantiatable. Even in the boundary cases, do you discount the lived experiences of trans gender people, or those that were disabled and have been cured? Whether or not someone can empathise has absolutely nothing to do with skin colour or gender.

                    You just cannot reasonably make such broad statements about people based on such attributes. Everybody's mixture of culture, history, family mores, language religion makes individuals far more complex than any broad generalisations we can make about them.

                    Generalisations are great for population analysis, but you cannot reliably apply them back to individuals.

      3. Donn Bly

        Re: All else being equal...

        An as employee in a free market YOU get to decide how much you make. A prospective employer makes an offer, and you are free to accept or decline the offer.

        If you accept it, it is YOUR OWN FAULT if you accepted an offer lower than average. Furthermore, you are only WORTH as much as the person behind you on the list is willing to take for the same job, no matter how much you think you are worth. Your labor is essentially a commodity, treat it as such.**

        The solution? Know your worth, and don't accept less. Don't wait for them to tell you what they think you are worth, step up and make your worth known. If you remain unemployed then you overestimated your worth. If you want to increase your worth, learn some marketable skills.

        It is up to you and you alone. Quit blaming others. It is not the job of society to train or educate you, and it is not the job of society to employ you.

        ** Think of your labor as a gallon of milk. As a consumer you can go into any number of grocery stores to buy your milk. The price is going to vary from store to store. Some decide go to the cheapest store, some decide to go to a more convenient store and pay more. The fact that someone else paid more for the milk at a convenient store doesn't make the lower price of the grocery store "unfair" to the milk or to the farmer who produced it. It also doesn't mean that the person going to the convenient store was price gouged. There are many more factors than just price that go into a purchasing decision.

      4. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: All else being equal...

        Oracle find they need more consultants so they go on a recruitment drive and employ 3 more people: Jack, Amit and Jane. All 3 have equal skills.

        Never happens. I've never worked with any two people with equal skills, never mind 3 of them. Excluding day one grads, obviously.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All else being equal...

        "Amit and Jane are paid less than Jack; Amit because he's brown and Jane because she doesn't have a penis" only in the company where someone as biased as you does the recuiting

        Jack, Amit, Jane and John all got the wage they accepted, it will ofc be the lowest the employer can get away with however all of them are free to take another job for more money if they are willing to make the effort.

        I have been in the situation where I was the best but got paid the least, there was no point in complaining I just moved when the market was ripe. In my last case the low offer was because one of the interviewers wanted a women instead to make up their diversity quota and because he was a sad perv.

        The sad fact is that if take what you are offered then that is what you will get, once you have a job then getting another is much less stressful and you have an upper hand in the wage negotations since you always have the option not to leave.

        IMHO these people were clearly happy to remain with the wage since they stayed, that is until the opportunity to sue their employer became an option. It must be said there have been a spate of employers being sued by their female employees and relatively few white males suing during the same period, my thinking is that this is increasingly becoming a employment factor such that those diverse workers who do not expect an extra payout just fo rbeing diverse are going to suffer because of their grasping peers

        My working experience is that those that stay are typically the same ones who cannot/will not move to better money elsewhere, if you leave then your employer finds out just how valuable you actually were and will ring up offering more money to return, there is no down side to this, the managers who let you leave get slapped and you get more money so why didn't this group? Were they less mobile, proactive in their job searches than their peers or was it just that they knew they could always sue for the difference once it became large enough for some shyster to become interested in doing the dirty work for them, an option I might add that is not availible to me because I am unforgivably white, male and heterosexual. Life in my ignored group is that much harder since no one is interested in saving me from abuse and I am force to do it myself.

    5. Marketing Hack Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: All else being equal...

      The important measure is men and women in the same job with the same level of experience/qualifications/seniority. From the article, it looks like this difference is about 4%, due in large part to Oracle basing starting pay on a person's previous pay. Still a problem, but not nearly as large.

      Just to say "men get significantly more than women" doesn't look at the roles the men and women are in. In general, Silicon Valley pays technologists more than business-side personnel (damn!), so if your engineers, architects and coders are mostly male (which we all know they are), then that skews the comparison between genders.

    6. Steve Knox
      Holmes

      Re: All else being equal...

      If Jane and John have equal productivity but Jane's wage bill is $13k less, why would a company employ John?

      Because they can make at least $0.01 more off of John than John costs them.

    7. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: All else being equal...

      It's because women are less desirable employees in a free market. Be that wrong and / or illegal, it is also a fact. For instance because of maternity leave, childcare, likelihood of leaving career, etc.

      If I ran my own small company I would be less likely to employ female employees for those reasons. They have a cost and a risk. And those realities are reflected in the market.

      .

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: I would be less likely to employ female employees for those reasons

        In the 21st century we expect both parents to care for the children so all those excuses apply equally to both sexes. We have a man on our team at the moment who's on 3 day weeks as he's a new Dad!

        Maybe you should only employ eunuchs?

        1. DougS Silver badge

          Re: I would be less likely to employ female employees for those reasons

          This would indicate a reason in favor of companies practicing age discrimination. In reverse, by hiring both men and women over 50 who are far less likely to take advantage of paternal leave.

        2. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: I would be less likely to employ female employees for those reasons

          YOU might expect that but it's not the reality. Women have to take maternity leave. For men it's optional and much shorter in most countries. And in many relationships the father is not around. Also men are far more likely to return to work.

    8. NotAnotherAccount

      Atlassian

      Maybe the cost to the company is similar/the same.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Equal Opportunity cars

    So, when Larry offers young woman US$30k cars ("Can I buy you a car?")... does that mean he's on average offering young men US$43k cars? :)

    1. Laura Kerr

      Re: Equal Opportunity cars

      Depends if he swings both ways.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Equal Opportunity cars

      In essence yes - given that the benefits package is normally linked to your base salary.

  3. Jediben

    Same role? Same tenure at the company? Same contract terms? Same qualifications? Come back when all the above = true.

    Then tell everyone the way to calculate this because if it works it should be universally applicable.

    1. alain williams Silver badge

      $13,000 gulf

      Taking global averages is not illuminating

      Women made 3.8% less in base salaries on average than men in the same job categories, 13.2% less in bonuses, and 33.1% less in stock value, it alleges.

      To me it appears that there might be a 3.8% disadvantage to women. Bonuses tend to be paid as a result of performance thus, for whatever reason, men appear to be more productive; I assume that something similar is at work for stock value.

      But: without looking at all individual cases it is hard to be sure.

    2. xeroks

      This found that women were paid on average $13,000 less than men, **even after controlling for various factors such as career level, performance review scores and office location**

      1. cornetman

        > **even after controlling for various factors such as career level, performance review scores and office location**

        Did they also control for:

        1) Willingness to suck up to the boss

        2) Willingness to stay really late (something that is often not recorded officially at all)

        3) Willingness to buy into the corporate culture

        4) Continuous employment unbroken by time off for childbirth (that's actually quite a big one)

        5) Willingness to bargain hard for pay, a trait that is significantly greater in men, or so the psychologists tell us.

        1. sabroni Silver badge

          @cornetman

          None of the things you list have anything to do with gender.

          What the fuck are you on about?

          1. cornetman

            Re: @cornetman

            > Continuous employment unbroken by time off for childbirth (that's actually quite a big one)

            >> None of the things you list have anything to do with gender.

            WTF? Did you even read my comment?

            All of the above factors are *at least* known gender-biased selectors.

        2. Siberian Hamster

          5) Willingness to bargain hard for pay, a trait that is significantly greater in men, or so the psychologists tell us.

          This I think is the over riding factor in all of this.

          I'm willing to bet beer tokens that the moment a study is done to relate the level of 'risk taking' behaviour in regards to negotiating for a higher salary against not getting a job there will be a direct correlation.

          I joined a new company where they took on three of us each covering a different sector, two guys and a girl. Talking together a few months later, I was the only one to ask to discuss starting salary. I started almost 10% higher than both the others, even though being honest we were all at about the same level of experience and knowledge.

    3. Steve Knox
      Facepalm

      From the article:

      "This found that women were paid on average $13,000 less than men, even after controlling for various factors such as career level, performance review scores and office location."

      LEARN TO READ.

      1. sabroni Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        LEARN TO READ

        Cha! Much easier to downvote.

      2. Dabbb Bronze badge

        What it does not mention is whether it was same job and duties.

        HR drone can be on same career level, have same performance review score and even be in same office location as an engineer but would never be on a same pay because there's abundance of HR drones and shortage of engineers.

        LEARN TO THINK.

  4. Wellyboot Silver badge

    BS statement translation.

    1>>>Oracle's practice of using a staffer's prior pay to set starting rates<<< - Well that's a big help in improving equality, they're waiting until everyone else does it first. Are all graduate entries paid the same? (prior pay=$zip)

    2>>>It also claimed that drawing up such a report "would be costly and time-consuming"<<< Could it provide unwelcome evidence for the class action?

    3>>>"would not lead to meaningful gains in support of workforce diversity and gender pay equity".<<< would job applications from those well qualified but considered to be incorrectly diverse & gendered disappear?.

    4>>>unconscious bias programme<<< - Is it none responsive to any attempt at getting it to be proactive.

    5>>>"there is a very real threat to its competitive position" if its diversity information was made public.<<< Do they think there're so bad they'd be blackballed by companies not wanting to be associated with them?

    As corporate 'defending their position' statements go, this is 'full-auto' to both feet.

    1. Steve K Silver badge

      Re: BS statement translation.

      drawing up such a report "would be costly and time-consuming"

      Surely this exercise should not be either of the above since they will be using their own Oracle HR Applications (maybe Cloudy) to do so.

      If this is not the case then what will the Oracle salespeople be saying to prospects who are looking to buy Oracle HR Apps to manage their own HR and determine similar information....?

      1. dnicholas Bronze badge

        Re: BS statement translation.

        Almost like they are unable to write a database query or something. I know Oricle has it particularities but come on guys

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: BS statement translation.

        >If this is not the case then what will the Oracle salespeople be saying to prospects who are looking to buy Oracle HR Apps to manage their own HR and determine similar information....?

        I suspect this is a major selling point. With this $$$ upgrade our HR software is completely incapable of calculating anything that will get you into trouble.

  5. RobertLongshaft

    More radical feminism, well if California wants to bang the drum for this nonsense they should be the first to be devoured.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. DougS Silver badge

      Its funny how hardcore conservatives

      So badly want to see California fail. It must really drive them crazy that California continues to be so successful despite all the Trump hating liberals who live there and control its state government, but they continue to claim its days are numbered despite all evidence to the contrary.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What are you brits going on about?

    Paid maternity leave - WTF is that?

    1. johnboy1

      Re: What are you brits going on about?

      Yes, we have shared parental leave in the UK.

      https://www.gov.uk/shared-parental-leave-and-pay

    2. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: What are you brits going on about?

      "Paid maternity leave - WTF is that?"

      It's standard benefit for civilised industrialised countries - much like universal healthcare.

  7. c1ue

    I understand the indignation, but the cure doesn't seem workable.

    First: companies never want employees to know what other employees make. This is counterproductive as it never helps the corporation - it only makes labor costs higher since no one ever advocated for a pay cut to decrease the average on "their side" - sex or whatever.

    Second: Even if averages were the same, there would still be complaints about he/she being paid more than they're worth. Publishing averages forces companies to have to answer difficult, if not impossible, questions on why anyone is below average. It also introduces a mechanistic quality to pay - much like past Japanese salaryman views on "lifetime earnings". Is this really beneficial, especially given that nobody has lifetime employment?

    Third: I am fascinated to see how this dynamic plays out, should these precedents get set. Male/female must have the same averages. What about married/single? gay/straight? female gay vs. male gay? Hispanic straight male vs. Asian trans-sexual (to) female?

    What if one high paying member of a given demographic quits, and drops the average of that demographic significantly - should someone else be bumped up to compensate?

    Could be a great jobs program for Maths PhDs to try and balance all of the demographics into a "fair" average.

    Equitable pay is absolutely a problem, but I really don't see how focusing on averages helps.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      It happens in govt jobs and the military - pay grades are all known and published.

      No major or senior-scientific-officer gets paid twice as much as another because their previous job was at a bank rather than a charity

      1. c1ue

        The government and military jobs aren't in an organization that works for profit. I would posit that this introduces a fundamentally different dynamic.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Making it all public seems to work OK in Norway: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40669239

      1. c1ue

        It all depends - Norway is safe. Would you be comfortable knowing that anyone could look up your income and assets in a less safe nation and/or local area?

        Norway also has Scandinavian high taxes - which, I believe, causes leveling out incomes.

  8. Dabbb Bronze badge

    So all men who are doing same job as me but paid less must be women. The less they paid the more women they are. Noted.

  9. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

    Ambivalent

    While I am not sure about the details and the devil is in the details and merits of this case, given Leisure Suit Larry general sliminess I could believe his minions would do something this crass and illegal. Silly Valley has been showing itself in many cases to be some of the worst employers around and companies with some of the worst ethics. They make the Victorian Era Robber Barons look like choir boys if not saints when it comes to treating employees fairly.

  10. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  11. LucreLout Silver badge

    Not this again....

    This found that women were paid on average $13,000 less than men, even after controlling for various factors such as career level, performance review scores and office location, according to The Guardian.

    Which means nothing at all. There's a number of people at my corporate level with the same appraisal score, that earn less than I do. That's because they have less work experience and fewer skills, and thus work at a slower rate. That gap, is much larger than USD 13k.

    Neumark is said to have claimed that the probability of the discrepancy happening by chance was less than one in a billion.

    It'll be due to the number of years worked. Those maternity breaks just don't and won't get recognised as work by future employers no matter how much your employer at the time had to pay in maternity leave. The only way to close that gap is to give both parents the same amount of time off thus ensuring men also have identical career gaps. It's by far the simplest thing legislators could do.

    The analysis found that women made 13.2 per cent less in bonuses, and 33.1 per cent less in stock value.

    Well, there's only one share price, so that can't be discriminating. Bonuses are used in lieu of overtime, because it's cheaper than paying overtime. Perhaps they should investigate number of hours worked rather than hours per contract and see if that explains some of the difference. Some of it might indeed by discrimination. All of it isn't.

    Females also made 3.8 per cent less in base salaries on average than men in the same job categories. This discrepancy is partly due to Oracle's practice of using a staffer's prior pay to set starting rates. California banned this practice in October 2017 to crack down on discrimination.

    Again, that's because nobody is counting years at home with baby as useful work experience. Its a maternity gap not discrimination.

    CA. might think it's banned prior salary as a discriminator, but it hasn't. I simply tell the agent what I'll take in order to go for interview and as such it still plays into my job offer. How could it not?

    Marilyn Clark, alleged that she had discovered a colleague was making about $20,000 (22 per cent) more than her when she found a pay stub he had left behind in a common area.

    Pay swings between role and review grade are way higher than that at most employers, once you reach a certain level, even within race & gender segments. 22% feels significant, but it isn't.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    That probably explains why at Big Red in Reading

    Most all the men are in high power BM's and Au's and the women in lesser cars and sheds-on-wheels.

    Saddinit?

  13. LucreLout Silver badge

    CPD

    Another factor discounted from their research is the time per employee spent in their own time furthering their tech skills. That extra hour a day I spend to stay on top of the game always comes in handy when I want a different employer or job. Those trying to do it only on company timeand not a minute of their own time may have my gender, and may have been in the industry as long, but they're missing more than 6500 hours of exposure. If we trust the BS metric of taking 10,000 hours to master something then my level of mastery and theirs can never be the same thing.

    Thus we lay to rest for all time the myth of similar employees. There are no similar employees, let alone identical ones.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      you're getting embarrassing now

      If it makes you feel better we agree. You're super special and should be paid more than the mean girls.

  14. Snarf Junky

    Part of the problem with this is that there is a general confusion between Gender Pay Gap and Equal Pay and this is an article about the latter really. The there has been legislation for some time stating it that people should be paid equally for doing the same job resulting in a number of court cases where (usually) women have been awarded quite substantial amounts of back pay. The gender pay gap is different though and it is not a legal thing but an indication of the proportional gender of the workforce is paid more or less than the other on average. This won't normally be addresses by legislation but by companies operating a culture where people of all genders feel able to and have the skills to do any job.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019