Oracle accuses US of underhand tactics because discrimination case 'doomed to fail' Oracle has accused the US Department of Labor (DoL) of bringing new claims into a pay discrimination suit because it knows its original case against the Silicon Valley corp will fail, and of "coordinating" with the lawyers for plaintiffs in a civil case. The Silicon Valley corp said a second set of claims filed by the DoL's …
Oracle and a number of different government and state departments are at war over how best to run government IT.
Oracle has traditionally been the US public sectors favourite ERP/big database vendor which has led to deals where pretty much everything was licensed to use Oracle solutions making it appear very cost effective. Between changes in licensing on Oracles side and improvements in how the US government runs both IT and procurement, Oracles access to the pork barrel has started to become restricted. There is a lot of unhappiness on the US government side of this because they believe Oracle have been screwing them for a long time (I’m not disagreeing but it’s hard to judge without solid numbers) while Oracle see the shift to cloud vendors moving government systems to non-Oracle vendors or open source which is hurting Oracles sales.
Speculating further, I would suggest Oracles cloud business was setup to allow Oracle to continue to sell to The US government as much as private businesses and between the DoD JEDI contract and other contracts already given to AWS/Azure/Google, that Oracle cloud may end up as an expensive mistake and Iracle using another cloud vendor. If so, that will dramatically alter their market position over the next 5+ years.
Let's see if I have this right. Oracle is accusing someone else of nefarious behavior?
I have no idea if the government is doing something underhanded or not, but for Oracle to make such an accusation is like the BOFH accusing the PFY of unnecessary violence towards users.
LMAO
Yeah, apparently they haven't figured out that the plan "if you can't compete, litigate" has its limits. Once people decide you're the bad guy in the room the rest doesn't matter as much. Eventually the law serves justice, despite itself.
Remember when innovation to increase the size of the pie mattered more than fighting over an ever-smaller pie?
Heck, I've had to go to court a time or few over things - and always won - because I was in the right...and my (good, I think) lawyers never had to pull histrionics or the usual Oracle "try to move the goalposts" crap. In fact, I can think of at least one case we won (more easily at least) because the other side did that stuff and the judge didn't like it.
I actually liked my lawyers...
Of course, many people like their personal representative politician too - I understand the issue.
For instance, it said, the complaint "assumes that employees who share a job title or job code perform similar work".
Huh? I thought that's factually the purpose of job codes and titles, otherwise why do they exist? They are for comparative purposes. Otherwise they are just feel-good labels. Further, the codes are required for reporting to the government, especially the Department of Labor, and aren't the least bit optional.
I also rather like how signed legal agreements become, in Oracle's lies, secret oral agreements. Wow. Just wow.
Job title - Senior, job code - AFAIR Oracle uses IC-number for non-management positions.
Now explain me, dear Sherlock, why in your opinion IC5 Senior Recruiter should be paid same as IC5 Senior Database Developer, even if they are based in same country and office.
Actually, explain me why do you think that two IC5 Senior Database Developers from same team, irrespective of their sex, should be paid exactly the same.
Actually, explain me why do you think that two IC5 Senior Database Developers from same team, irrespective of their sex, should be paid exactly the same.
It's not about comparing two individuals. It is about getting the average all of the IC5 Senior DB Devs, then comparing the average of all Male against the average of all Females (or whatever attribute you decide to use to do the slicing - gender, race, age, geographic location...) and seeing if there is a significant variation. Now, the issue is, who decides if the difference is significant? I have just had to prepare the data for a similar exercise downunder.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
