321–330 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You act like the DOJ is just shooting from the hip here. Yes, it's believable, because the DOJ said under penalty of perjury in a federal court that it's happening. Hand-wavey "not believable" replies are ridiculous.
If that were actually true we could dispense with the jury system.
That means we so far have: * Palantir sued for not hiring enough Asians [0] * Google sued for not turning over compensation data [1] * Oracle sued for hiring too many Asians While it's possible that discriminatory processes have happened at all these places, it seems these lawsuits can be targeted at whoever one wishes. It's always going to be possible to find data that indicates discrimination, unless companies hire…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since graduating college I've stayed continuously employeed at several different Bay Area tech startups, so I'm pretty sure I have at least decent technology skills. Yet I've been to several interviews where questions about race/ethnicity were brought up (and I failed to get offers from those companies that ask such questions). I can only imagine what it's like being a woman going for these positions. My point, a lot…
I am sure this has been mentioned to death. But I always find this contradictory. Companies cannot be soley profit driven if at same time they artifically reducing supply of eligable candidates. That makes no business sense. So if companies are rejecting someone that means as whole (read net), they are expecting more bang for the buck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since graduating college I've stayed continuously employeed at several different Bay Area tech startups, so I'm pretty sure I have at least decent technology skills. Yet I've been to several interviews where questions about race/ethnicity were brought up (and I failed to get offers from those companies that ask such questions). I can only imagine what it's like being a woman going for these positions. My point, a lot…
I am sure this has been mentioned to death. But I always find this contradictory. Companies cannot be soley profit driven if at same time they artifically reducing supply of eligable candidates. That makes no business sense. So if companies are rejecting someone that means as whole (read net), they are expecting more bang for the buck.
Another employer with significant hiring with such practises is CISCO
Couple points: First, this is where the meat is: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170118-0 Second: "...Oracle nevertheless preferred Asian applications over other qualified applicants in the Professional Technical 1, Individual Contributor Job group and in the Product Development job group at statistically significant rates." [1] [1] https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease... --…
"...Oracle nevertheless preferred Asian applications...at statistically significant rates." I would be very wary about what counts as 'statistically significant'. If I flip a coin 10 times and it lands heads 10 times, is that 'statistically significant'? Not if I'm going through a jar with 1000 coins. And splitting Oracle's workforce into 'job groups' makes it much easier to find spurious rates of discrimination. Eg.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Certainly not at a big corporation where there should be enough of an employee pool to have it at least somewhat reflect the general population of the region. That is a drastic oversimplification. The employee pool can only hope to be reflective of the pool of those who seek employment at that company and are qualified. Which can only hope to be reflective of the employee marketplace for that industry at large. Whi…
Since graduating college I've stayed continuously employeed at several different Bay Area tech startups, so I'm pretty sure I have at least decent technology skills. Yet I've been to several interviews where questions about race/ethnicity were brought up (and I failed to get offers from those companies that ask such questions). I can only imagine what it's like being a woman going for these positions. My point, a lot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
State intervention depends on the cause(s). Direct intervention against the employer like this would make sense if there was deliberate discrimination in violation of the law. I agree the state should be acting at a much higher level to solve these problems. This could take the form of education incentives to get a more diverse workforce or do something about income inequality that prevents some demographics from pur…
I agree with this comment. I don't think the DOL would act unless it had information that goes beyond just over representation of certain races in the company's labor force. Anecdotally, a friend who was interviewing with Oracle was given a lowball offer by a Oracle recruiter of the same ethnicity and told that it was "a very good offer for a person like you". At the time I believed it was just a rogue interviewer, b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am sure this has been mentioned to death. But I always find this contradictory. Companies cannot be soley profit driven if at same time they artifically reducing supply of eligable candidates. That makes no business sense. So if companies are rejecting someone that means as whole (read net), they are expecting more bang for the buck.
Companies aren't magic market machines, they're run by fallible people who make lazy "gut" decisions all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Demanding a release of payroll data is simply a pressure tactic. Disclosing pay practice information is something the company really doesn't want to do, it only marginally helps the plaintiff but the plaintiff can make the case that they need that information for their case. It puts pressure on the company to settle before a judge orders them to hand over the data.
According to the full complaint [1], release of payroll data was a contractual obligation for Oracle due to its government contracts. [1] https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...