21–30 of 177 posts
My family came up with a new name for my category of programmers: the gerihacktric demographic.. :-)
I have interviewed with Alphabet twice, no offers. One time apparently it was a close call..
It would be fun to be the all-time record holder for oldest new hire!
Although it has settled the case, Google denies the allegations that it was unfairly dismissive of older applicants. Why is Google still making denials and statements after settling the action?
Why are these numbers so small? Even more so to the fine for data protection violations. The point of these sort of things are to make companies think twice. While 11m is a lot of cash it is nothing compared to Google's total income, and would not even been half a years salary for those they refused to hire. Seems like they got let off easy on this one.
Considering that it is a claim from a _prospective_ employee about the interview process, the settlement of 35k per person seems relatively generous.
"Fair" isn't as hard. It's not fair, if (as I suspect) Google is guilty of age discrimination. There should be greater consequences than just trying to pay people what they might've lost financially from the discrimination.
Or, to put it another way: Google deserves to be punished if this was actually happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because sometimes it's cheaper to settle, even if you didn't do something.
Google has salaried in-house counsel. I'm pretty sure they could afford to go to court more easily than the plaintiffs.
Why are these numbers so small? Even more so to the fine for data protection violations. The point of these sort of things are to make companies think twice. While 11m is a lot of cash it is nothing compared to Google's total income, and would not even been half a years salary for those they refused to hire. Seems like they got let off easy on this one.
Isn't it normal for class-action lawsuits to have a low payout per person?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering that it is a claim from a _prospective_ employee about the interview process, the settlement of 35k per person seems relatively generous.
Considering what they would have earned the first year at Google if they weren't discriminated against that looks more like a drop in the bucket.
So from that respect, they probably opened themselves up for further scrutiny from future applicants whether they engaged in ageism or not.
I suspect they feared during the discovery process things would be found in the internal communications that do show some kind of -ism or other things that would just look bad for them, so throwing $11m at the problem to go away quickly seemed better.
Throwaway because I work at Google. I interviewed Cheryl Fillekes twice. I did not know her age, and it did not matter. Her issue was incompetence. One of the very few "strong no hire" ratings I ever gave out.
Why bother with a throwaway... sounds like you've narrowed it down pretty well if ever investigated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering what they would have earned the first year at Google if they weren't discriminated against that looks more like a drop in the bucket.
Doesn't your statement assume that they were all good enough to actually be hired?