311–320 of 382 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no wage gap. Men and women are paid roughly the same for the same position. Aggregate differences in gender pay are due to choice of career not discrimination. Time for this myth to die.
Decades of highly-reproduced social study performed by professionals called a "myth" by a simplistic narrative 1-liner by anonymous commenter on HN. Cool.
Google is a company that wants to have access to all the information in the world. But if somebody rightfully publishes some information that is sensitive to Google, look what happens...
In the reddit comment thread for this u/dickbutt_md had a lengthy comment that seemed to call into question some of the details of this story. His facts weren't first hand, but then again, sometimes a little distance can help with objectivity. In any event, I tend to take comments from possibly-disgruntled former employees with a pinch of salt.
And we have HN posters reposting it like it means something.
I think we just hit the peak of this "do anything to discredit a woman who has a beef with a tech company" thing.
Not that it matters and it was already said elsewhere, but peer bonus can be awarded only once for one thing. And it makes sense in a 50k+ company, where some social interaction happens and a single person can become peer-bonus-celebrity easily. It's not a good thing to incentivize :) Also if I were a manager sifting through some kind of peer bonus app I'd too be tempted to mark all as rejected after a while. There w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is probably exactly what she expected. And if this were a small group politely sharing with each, there likely would not be retaliation. But once you make it "a thing", and are impacting the culture of an organization, then you have stepped into politics. The reactions at that point are going to be exaggerated, and not necessarily relevant to the original topic. I don't like politics, and stories like this are e…
Again, another argument that "she should have known". No. If Google retaliated against her for sharing salary information, this is illegal, and they need to be punished. A bunch of hand waving about "politics" and "the way things are" is completely meaningless and irrelevant, and smacks of some sort of mild corporate Stockholm syndrome.
Absolutely. Which is why I don't understand why everyone is discussing this. Erica Joy apparently doesn't consider it illegal retaliation (and what we know is definitely not enough to warrant such a cunclusion), otherwise she would file a suit. Are we totally sure we didn't just misunderstand her?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they did do anything wrong against her. She didn't get her peer bonuses for starting this spreadsheet?
You don't think they retaliated, or you don't think that it would be wrong for them to retaliate?
(And I personally think, peer bonuses should be rejected in such cases Because otherwise it becomes a pure popularity-contest. But that's just, like, my opinion :) )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Equal pay is still regarded as a sinister "hidden agenda"? It's 2015, guys.
If you're intellectually honest, yes, still is a hidden agenda.
Googler here on a throwaway. I personally know Erica and followed her career. it is quite frankly bizarre to see her biting back against Google given the opportunities she was given. Erica was a tech stop employee, which is Google's help desk. in terms of technical ability, hiring standards for tech stop are lower than for SRE, where she ended up. every non-erica tech stopper, including me, who wants to transfer into…
If that's the case it looks like she wasn't aware of it; especially if you're suggesting a door was opened for her maybe there's some more transparency that's needed in the process.
>the similarities to michaelochurch are strong.
IIRC he was wronged and he got an apology for it: https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/my-name-is-c...
Aside from Erica and her situation do you feel the salary sharing was a good thing? Did it negatively impact Google?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I didn't even at first take it to mean "the company can retaliate". I assumed the manager was referring to unrest & animosity at people undeservedly making more money than others.
Which is still not the employee's problem, and so bringing it up is, to me, very much a threat.
They're just asking for insight into why this could be a problem (think 3rd grade, "Do you know why this is wrong?") and she shoots back aggressively. I think her inability to produce any sort of thought besides oppression shows that she probably isn't able to handle issues like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they usually don't feel the need to trick users into sharing more than they'd want Like the time they didn't feel the need to harass everyone into signing up for G+ any time one used an unrelated service?
No, not like that. How did you determine that sharing more than you want was like getting you to sign up for a service?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they usually don't feel the need to trick users into sharing more than they'd want Like the time they didn't feel the need to harass everyone into signing up for G+ any time one used an unrelated service?
That's totally different, antsar. I'm 95% sure the motive for that was to simply grow the user base of G+ and try to get more people to know that the platform even exists.