Are Women Paid Less
Are women paid less than H1-B visa slaves?
Google is on the defensive after its gender pay equality campaign was panned in court by Uncle Sam. Janette Wipper, a Department of Labor regional director, said her investigators "found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce" within the web ads giant. She was speaking in court …
Would you rather the job and taxes it pays go entirely overseas?
Funnily enough - yes. That is better than having yet another modern day slave. That is better for the society as a whole than that slave bringing in a wife which is mandated by the current immigration law to be a housewife for 5+ years. It is better than the wife, dragging a mother in-law on her tail to exercise on-site control over the "son in-law development plan" which is for all of them is plain and simple "my daughter's husband will be a manager". No ifs, no buts, no coconuts - management or death.
If they are brought in this results in a huge population without any different goal in life but climbing the greasy pole by hook or by crook (policed by the monster in law at home). The 20 years of H1B have created a toxic workplace culture throughout the industry. They are one of the primary reason there is no innovation any more and you cannot get any work done in half of the companies in the valley. This is getting even worse now as the second generation is coming into the workplace with no engineering background, Ivy league MBA degree paid by dada upon grandma's orders and hired only because they are someone's son. If you think South West Asia nepotism is bad, you have not seen anything - watch the improved valley version as it unfolds in the next two decades.
It will take decades to repair that damage and it can be repaired only if there is education census requirement on the dependants and they are allowed to work too (Australian style). Then, the mother in law will be told to take her "son in law development plan" where sun does not shine and we will start getting engineers not manager wannabes imported via that channel.
"Are women paid less than H1-B visa slaves?"
If you advertise a crappy very low paid job in IT, in my experience it's overwhelmingly those 2 categories that apply.
I've worked with a lot of different developers, admittedly most were male. I've seen tonnes of shit male developers, but very few shit female developers. I think it is partly due to having to deal with people like you that they feel they need to justify themselves.
Most male developers don't justify themselves, they just assume they are gods.
Are women paid less than H1-B visa slaves?
H1-B visa slaves don't count because they don't have any political clout. They don't get to vote, and there aren't any H1-B visa slaves with political influence. Their role in American politics is to be demonised for stealing jobs and being potential terrorists. Some H1-B visa slaves are also women. I don't know how their pay compares to male H1-B visa slaves.
USA government contracts for the time being are subject to equal opportunity compliance.
You fail compliance, you lose the contract. Plain and simple. So on that front the shareholders will not allow Google to outwait anyone.
What may change, however, is that the department of Labour can be put into line by the Great Orange Baboon to enforce all of this significantly less strictly.
...of the Chocolate Factory's salary structure to ensure compliance with federal laws on equal pay. Google respond with some bullshit tweet about equal pay?
Well I'm convinced there's nothing to investigate, it's not like Google would tell lies.
If Google has actually done the analysis, why not just hand that over to the DoL, is what I'm curious about. Are they safeguarding their algorithm? Surely the DoL can get from the IRS a list of Google employees, their protected characteristics, and their compensation, and do their own non-Google-optimized runthrough? Which now makes me wonder - since DoL could theoretically do that currently for any company at all, then maybe they really are after the algorithm?
The converse should also be true.
The DoL's algorithm is publicly available (or should be). How hard is it for Google to run the DoL algorithm on their labor force and see if they comply? That would seem to be the smart thing to do, if you're a high profile company in danger of being audited.
Unless, of course, you have something to hide...
(wonder when DoL will take a good hard look at Amazon?)
"How hard is it for Google to run the DoL algorithm on their labor force and see if they comply?"
Government stats tend to use the algorithm select sum(pay) group by gender. Or the advanced ones do select sum(pay) group by role, gender. They aren't overly useful because men work overtime more than women, because women take maternity leave and because women are offered more - and take up - flexible working.
For Google to comply with the government methodology it'd have to pay women more than men, or force them into less social working patterns. Hopefully they won't be obliged to do so.
Government stats tend to use the algorithm select sum(pay) group by gender. Or the advanced ones do select sum(pay) group by role, gender. They aren't overly useful because men work overtime more than women, because women take maternity leave and because women are offered more - and take up - flexible working.
You miss the point. Men shouldn't work more overtime than women and should be taking just as much time out for childcare / paternity leave as the women do. It's a systematic bias, which presumably is against the US law (IDK, IANAL.)
Maybe I'm very wrong here, but men tend to be the ones who apply for the technical, code-based roles and women tend to apply for touchy-feely-, style-over-substance- or dealing-with-people-roles, at least in my experience. How can one say that the person at the codeface deserves more or less than the one who spins a very favourable picture of one version of reality for a living?
I was under the impression that Google paid well for the best people, regardless of their sex.
I suppose this is why Google is asking for the data and methodology. Google almost certainly has the better statisticians.
I think it's more to put things on an as uneven footing as they can manage.
From the article: Other than making an unfounded statement which we heard for the first time in court, the DoL hasn't provided any data or shared its methodology
I note with interest that Google isn't offering to share its methodology here either, a fact often flagged when it comes to discussion about Google's monopoly gateway position to find sites and data online.
re "touchy-feely-, style-over-substance- or dealing-with-people-roles"
These are the people who end up "supervising" the technical, code-based roles , and , inexplicably , getting paid more to do so
Just a wild stab in the dark, but: could it possibly be that those jobs are harder than you think they are, or require skills you don't have?
The thing I find sinister about all this is that simply making the accusation becomes the punishment for most people: it means you will be tied up in court for a decade fighting the primary accusation (which is designed to blacken the company's name) and then anything else they think they can get an angle on from the discovery process. Your coffers will be sucked dry paying the only winners in this game: the lawyers.
I don't suppose it matters so much for Google as they have very deep pockets, but for small firms....I guess they had just better get used to the gummint micromanaging their pay scales and making sure they don't reward superior performance by a non-approved demographic.
If you just pay all your workers fairly -- equal pay for work of equal value -- then you will never fear being dragged into court, or embarrassed, or anything. You just show your jobs and pay grades and that's that.
Nope. That doesn't stop you being accused of it, which you then end up defending against if it's done for financial reasons or because you're in the way of a government, a government official or, say, a company that likes your customers. If you're a small shop, you won't have the moolah to do that because you'll be out of funds before you can win.
That is the great injustice of the 21st century: you can be at the receiving end of an anonymous reputation-damaging campaign by practically anyone who is either bored, has taken a personal dislike to you or who has political/financial motives to do so, and there's sod all you can do against it because only THEN you will find that the likes of Google and Twitter will deign to wave the "user privacy" flag around. If you need any further evidence of just how dangerous that can be, well, it got Trump in place and by the look of it, his mates are itching to bomb the crap out of North Korea, irrespective of possible consequences.
If you just pay all your workers fairly -- equal pay for work of equal value -- then you will never fear being dragged into court, or embarrassed, or anything. You just show your jobs and pay grades and that's that.Did you realize, as you were writing it, that it translated directly into "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"?
There are significant problems and complexities with this seemingly simple prescription. First is the question of who is permitted to determine whether two different jobs have equal value and what jobs are tied to which pay grades. Credentials are not worth a lot even when fresh and decline rapidly in utility to the point they are effectively worthless in 5 or 10 years (to be extremely generous in some areas of IT). Different employees with the same technical skills and credentials are likely to be working on things of different value, and their personal characteristics may make them differentially productive. Employees with different supervisors rarely will be evaluated in exactly the same way - the employees are not the same, the jobs are not the same, and the supervisors inevitably will not apply the evaluation rules in exactly the same way. Anyone thinking there is a workaround for this is delusional; the best management can do is limit the effects and reassign employees or supervisors to obtain better skill and personality matches. In all likelihood, the only employees who actually receive equal pay for equal value work are those paid on a piecework basis. Even salespeople paid 100% commission on product sold may have different value due to differences in their target purchaser populations.
"You just show your jobs and pay grades and that's that" doesn't work all that well in many classifications in the US federal government, where in my experience we often lost the best employees to the private sector, and there is no reason to think it is reasonable in the private sector either.
The big problem with investigations like this is that employment contracts are civil contracts. Regulation should, therefore, be limited to ensuring that minimum standards, such as hours worked, minimum wage, equal opportunity, etc. are met and that the playing field is as level as possible (collective bargaining). More than that and it quickly becomes interference with a company's ability to trade.
In terms of equal pay this means little more than candidates with the same qualifications doing the same job should start at the same pay grade. But there must always be room for individual negotiations and this is where the problems start: men are generally better at negotiating higher salaries but they might also get preferential treatment if they're prepared to work longer or unsociable hours, which is likely to favour men. People might also get offered better jobs because of their looks – anyone who thinks this doesn't happen, hasn't spent much time in the workforce – which might favour women. But employers are unlikely to gain a significant advantage by systematically paying men more than women to do the same thing. Where flexibility in wages is important is where you see bonus schemes or non-salary benefits such as company cars.
Looks can work either way. I know of one instance in which an extremely attractive and well-qualified female applicant was downrated - by an attractive female manager - because it was thought that if hired she would be a distraction to her male co-workers. In the event, we hired her. She was not a significant distraction in the office, and turned out to be an outstanding (and rapidly promoted) employee.
These two things end the problem, choose weasely:
Either companies fire all men and hire only women. (If women earn less they are cheaper employees and thus more profit)
Or by governmental mandate we make every single woman earn 10% more than a man, thus ending the mythical pay gap forever.
Choose the form of the destructor.
And please leave us alone, we're tired of PC bullshit.
Evidence, not so much. The pay gap (or lack there of) is a statistical emergent that appears and disappears, like Brigadoon, depending on who is massaging compiling the numbers.
However, the fact that the pay gap has been "25 cents on the dollar" for alt least the past 30 years leads me to conclude that it's crap. No social or economic indicator has been that stable for that long. If it were 17% one year, 30% a few years later, dropping to 10% after that, I would be less skeptical, but 25%, solid, for 30+ years makes me inclined to doubt the veracity of the figures.
The problem with the wage gap is not so much that it does not exist as that those who proclaim it are not honest about it. The 70% or 75% number bandied about seems to reflect all employees, without taking into account that the range of jobs held by women is not the same as that held by men, even in the same field, and most of the gap can be accounted for by that alone. Historically, female physicians have tended to be better represented in pediatrics and family practice, specialties where average compensation is lower than various surgical specialties in which men are better represented. Moreover, women are much more likely than men to leave the work force for varying periods in connection with child raising, and as a result may be absent for a significant part of the mid-career period when large organizations are selecting for upper management positions and in any case may not be maintaining and increasing technical skills.
I would not argue that this type of thing is necessarily right, although in a relatively free economy it is pretty much inevitable and monkeying around with it is likely to have unintended and undesirable long term effects. However, it is not something employers can reasonably be tasked to correct because so much of it is embedded in the overall culture in which they exist. Large companies probably are better at it than small ones, but even they are limited in what they can do by such things as the entry applicant pool.
"The DoL sued Google earlier this year seeking to get its hands on the details of the Chocolate Factory's salary structure to ensure compliance with federal laws on equal pay. Google countered by claiming not only is it in compliance with the laws"
If Google actually offers equal pay, it would be incredibly easy to prove it by just showing the DoL what they asked for. The fact that Goggle is willing to go to court, not to prove anything but in an attempt to avoid having anyone actually see any evidence, is fairly conclusive proof that they do not, in fact, do what they claim.
What's equal pay? Only if you can answer that question is it easy to show. If Google release figures in open court then they will be massaged to show whatever outcome the publisher wants to show and Google will suffer reputation damage.
Google will pay men more by one metric, simply because Sergey, Sunday, Eric and Larry are all men. If Larry and Sergey had been female they wouldn't, but there's nothing they can do about that short of gender reassignment surgery.
The two are using different definitions. DoL tends to think that pay should be the same for roughly similar positions. Google for the same positions. Thus both can be right by their own definitions.
So, managers should get paid the same, right? HR managers should be paid the same as coding managers? Well, umm.....OK, managers of those overseeing the Goog Algo itself should get paid the same as the manager of the Doodles? Err, well, ......OK, so managers of Python coders, the managers with the same education, experience and place of work, should be paid the same, regardless of gender (or melanin content, who they try to pick up on date night etc)?
Roughly speaking mind, the DoL is towards the beginning of that cry for equal pay, Google towards the end. Who you think is right about what equal pay should mean is up to you but that is where the argument is.
According to breitbart.com (YMMV) Senator Elizabeth Warren's office pays women $0.71 cents on the dollar vs. men. Former Senator Hillary Clinton paid women $15k less per year than men. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton paid women $16k less per year than men. For presidential candidate Hillary Clinton paid women $7k less per year than men. I am sure their are plenty of examples on both side of the isle, but I am lazy so just using the one source.
I think this is more about someone in DoL trying to make a name for themselves, or possibly an excuse to build a who's-who list of Google employees using personal information.
It's actually a very interesting topic. You can build a scrupulously 'fair' compensation strategy based on role, evaluations, years or service, and experience ... that still consistently underpays women. One reason for this is that women are more likely than men to take time outside of the workforce to raise children. Some claim that to be 'fair' because they have fewer years of service and experience. But it's also 'unfair' because they can be equally competent contributing performers to the organization and yet still be paid less than their male counterparts. A convoluted, intriguing, and non-trivial problem.
Pay varying as a result of life choices is an interesting definition of unfairness.
That I understand words rather than code is obviously unfair given that freelance journos don't earn like coders perhaps? Or is it only unfair if it's because I chose this route?
Conspiracy Idea # 5
This is just a follow through by Trump after dumping the privacy rules and now net neutrality both of which Google had a big hand it. If he can discredit them or at least distract people, it will allow the corporations to take over.... Anyone that helped with protecting the people or their privacy is an enemy and must be destroyed.