Live data from Hacker News

What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

wired.com

331–340 of 382 posts

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't really my point here. Explicitly exposing facts is the attitude I'd expect from this community, instead of ridiculing and wrongly correlating it with ideologies.

The term "Social Justice Warrior" is often used to dismiss people who argue against discrimination in various arenas. If you want to be taken seriously in discussions about discrimination, then perhaps avoid it. Putting that aside, I share pjc50's bemusement that arguing for equal pay qualifies as a "hidden agenda". I also don't find speculation the same as "explicitly exposing facts".

You're blind because you're an r-selected leftist with a tiny amygdala and hence barely any capacity to recognize a threat in the making. (This is just my hypothesis, don't take it seriously)

Put the pieces together. She's a woman. She confuses differences in personal productivity for "fairness and justice" (clear mark of a leftist). She tweets a story larger than 140 characters (low IQ, as most leftists). She acts naively as if protection from the law will protect her from companies with lawyers (leftist delusion).

Don't beat yourself up about not seeing the threat. r/K selection strategy basically breeds two different species of people. I can't imagine what it must be like to be like you and not see that communism is taking over through Cultural Marxism, either.

> The term "Social Justice Warrior" is often used to dismiss people who argue against discrimination in various arenas. If you want to be taken seriously in discussions about discrimination, then perhaps avoid it.

Is that the principle? I'll prove to you you're a leftist hypocrite.

'The term "misogynist" is often used to dismiss people who argue against the idea that feminists work for equality'

And yet leftists are the biggest offenders of this principle. They are the first to call people misogynists, anti-semites, homophobic, etc. Those are pure ad-hominem that the leftist never cares to correct; until they THINK they found something like that being done by the other side. Except, dear scott_s, that SJW is NOT name calling. It is accurate labeling. Just like saying leftist isn't name calling. We just don't want to talk ad infinitum about your flavor of democracy - it's wrong in principle (mob rule). An SJW is a person that has internalized key teachings of the Frankfurt School and other Cultural Marxist doctrines through the current education system and the media. That's all. And it shows, in you, in the girl tweeting about Google salary spreadsheets, and every other leftist. It shows.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an employee you should kind of care about the company's problems, especially if they're ones that you caused. It doesn't read like a threat to me as much as it's a "Do you even realize the internal repercussions of everyone discussing their salaries?" 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 in…

Those repercussions are irrelevant in their entirety because it is both legal and right to discuss compensation. There's nothing for her to consider as wrong and inconveniencing an employer by exercising completely and utterly protected rights is not, in any way or by any stretch of the word, her problem. The company may have a problem with openness and truthfulness, but it's not hers, and to lay it at her feet speak…

I don't think she's an SJW and putting quotes around it doesn't mean I ever said that (I didn't). I just think she's a shitty employee.

Whether or not it's legal for her to discuss those things, it's also legal for her employer to be upset that she's making the work environment more difficult for others.

The problem with these noble issues is that there's a view that you can do no wrong as long as you're fighting for what's right. She clearly sees herself as some Snowdenesque whistle-blower, and she's surprised that it's cold in Russia.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#333
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is an (apparently) non-anonymous comment from HN which seems to be saying the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908030

There are a few things in common but that account is far more professional – note the lack of personal disparagement directed at her and the direct acknowledgement that they had significant problems in parts of the company. Explaining how salary disparities might have happened is very different from saying she's making it up or calling them a rabble-rouser.

Erica is strongly implying that she was discriminated against either because of her colour or her sex, but these reports seem to suggest that there were other reasons for her PB rejection and the salary disparities, and therefore her entire spiel is (probably) invalid.

Some disparagement seems reasonable, unless she has some more evidence to back up her claims of discrimination.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#334
post #167

Other side of the story: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3e05wg/what_hap... Either way both are completely unverifiable. Take both with a huge fistful of salt until both parties are interviewed and quoted and research is done into what happened.

Linked comment from 'guy on reddit who claims to have a friend at google' doesn't actually dispute substance of @EricaJoy's claims although it thinks it does. Seeing the upvoted comments here makes me /sigh for HN, a bunch of BS, FUD and victim blaming.

Both sides of the story are equal: unsubstantiated.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#335
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few things in common but that account is far more professional – note the lack of personal disparagement directed at her and the direct acknowledgement that they had significant problems in parts of the company. Explaining how salary disparities might have happened is very different from saying she's making it up or calling them a rabble-rouser.

Erica is strongly implying that she was discriminated against either because of her colour or her sex, but these reports seem to suggest that there were other reasons for her PB rejection and the salary disparities, and therefore her entire spiel is (probably) invalid. Some disparagement seems reasonable, unless she has some more evidence to back up her claims of discrimination.

Or, as many others have pointed out, that her experience with her immediate management and group can be true without being representative of the entire company.

Note that, unlike the unverifiable hecklers, deelowe did not claim that her experience was invalid or that the numbers in the spreadsheet were inaccurate but instead discussed the question of sampling bias or simply the sample size being small enough to be skewed by other known factors.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an employee you should kind of care about the company's problems, especially if they're ones that you caused. It doesn't read like a threat to me as much as it's a "Do you even realize the internal repercussions of everyone discussing their salaries?" 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 in…

Those repercussions are irrelevant in their entirety because it is both legal and right to discuss compensation. There's nothing for her to consider as wrong and inconveniencing an employer by exercising completely and utterly protected rights is not, in any way or by any stretch of the word, her problem. The company may have a problem with openness and truthfulness, but it's not hers, and to lay it at her feet speak…

It might not be illegal, but you have to realize you've labeled yourself as a pain in the ass, or someone willing to irritate and cause problems for a company, thus this will probably affect your ability to be promoted, or work on important projects / teams.

Everyone can respond how it is legal, their right, etc, but the fact that you are now known as a troublemaker won't bode well for you.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those repercussions are irrelevant in their entirety because it is both legal and right to discuss compensation. There's nothing for her to consider as wrong and inconveniencing an employer by exercising completely and utterly protected rights is not, in any way or by any stretch of the word, her problem. The company may have a problem with openness and truthfulness, but it's not hers, and to lay it at her feet speak…

I don't think she's an SJW and putting quotes around it doesn't mean I ever said that (I didn't). I just think she's a shitty employee. Whether or not it's legal for her to discuss those things, it's also legal for her employer to be upset that she's making the work environment more difficult for others. The problem with these noble issues is that there's a view that you can do no wrong as long as you're fighting for…

> it's also legal for her employer to be upset that she's making the work environment more difficult for others

I guess I'm not done, because I am compelled to point out that this is completely false. That's the entire point of all of the legality around the protection of these discussions under United States law: that, no, your employer cannot be "upset" at you for choosing to exercise that right.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those repercussions are irrelevant in their entirety because it is both legal and right to discuss compensation. There's nothing for her to consider as wrong and inconveniencing an employer by exercising completely and utterly protected rights is not, in any way or by any stretch of the word, her problem. The company may have a problem with openness and truthfulness, but it's not hers, and to lay it at her feet speak…

It might not be illegal, but you have to realize you've labeled yourself as a pain in the ass, or someone willing to irritate and cause problems for a company, thus this will probably affect your ability to be promoted, or work on important projects / teams. Everyone can respond how it is legal, their right, etc, but the fact that you are now known as a troublemaker won't bode well for you.

If a company decides that exercising one's rights is "troublemaking", that company should be utterly destroyed without hesitation or remorse.

The corporation exists solely at the sufferance of the society that grants it its charter. Someday maybe we'll remember this instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not be illegal, but you have to realize you've labeled yourself as a pain in the ass, or someone willing to irritate and cause problems for a company, thus this will probably affect your ability to be promoted, or work on important projects / teams. Everyone can respond how it is legal, their right, etc, but the fact that you are now known as a troublemaker won't bode well for you.

If a company decides that exercising one's rights is "troublemaking", that company should be utterly destroyed without hesitation or remorse. The corporation exists solely at the sufferance of the society that grants it its charter. Someday maybe we'll remember this instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.

Sorry but not really...You could be totally in the right to say whatever you want on a conference call, make promises to a customer that you've decided for yourself matter that the company has no way of fulfilling, these things are all legal and fine, but you aren't going to be getting promoted any time soon.

The world is not black and white, no matter how naive folks here believe it to be.

Re: What happens when you talk about salaries at Google

#340
post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erica is strongly implying that she was discriminated against either because of her colour or her sex, but these reports seem to suggest that there were other reasons for her PB rejection and the salary disparities, and therefore her entire spiel is (probably) invalid. Some disparagement seems reasonable, unless she has some more evidence to back up her claims of discrimination.

Or, as many others have pointed out, that her experience with her immediate management and group can be true without being representative of the entire company. Note that, unlike the unverifiable hecklers, deelowe did not claim that her experience was invalid or that the numbers in the spreadsheet were inaccurate but instead discussed the question of sampling bias or simply the sample size being small enough to be sk…

As I pointed out in my comment, I'm talking about the accusations of racism/sexism. In particular the accusations of racism regarding her peer bonuses, telling the "known racist" to "fuck off", etc. That seems to be completely unsubstantiated/refuted.

It's fair enough being upset about your peer bonuses being rejected. What is not okay is to just to some invalid conclusion about racism and then slander your company in public.

Post reply on HN