Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Sued by 3 Female Ex-Employees Who Say It Pays Women Less Than Men

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 297 posts

Re: Google Sued by 3 Female Ex-Employees Who Say It Pays Women Less Than Men

#121

Post by dasil003 »

aceon48 wrote: post #95
stale2002 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The business reason as to why a company would discriminate against certain groups is perfectly rational. I mean, if a company can get away with paying women 70 cents on the dollar, because women are worse at negotiating or have less negotiation power (ie everyone ELSE is also discriminating against them, therefore they have less counter offers), then of course they would do it. It has nothing at all to do with "makin…

Your argument is irrational. If a company could get away with paying someone 70%, they would only hire the 70 percenters, or at least disproportionality. Google has roughly 20% female engineers, in line with the 20% female CS grad population. Seriously... if there's some nefarious bias, it would mean a company hiring more women than expected, bc they can "under" pay them. Silly irrational people.

Well no, Google wants to hire all the best engineers they can find, even if they have to pay more. Obviously they don't want to pay more than they have to, but their primary concern is capturing as much of the top talent as they can.

Re: Google Sued by 3 Female Ex-Employees Who Say It Pays Women Less Than Men

#122

Post by great_psy »

bandrami wrote: post #114

The fun part of these articles is reading all the comments that literally post proximate causes for the gender wage gap and somehow conclude from that that the gap (which they just validated) does not exist. This whole process infuriates me. The gender wage gap is an empirical question. It exists. If we believe it's a problem (I do; you may not), it has the easiest solution in the world: give women more money. Seriou…

I don't understand how just giving a group of people more money will solve the problem. That's is an artificial way of addressing it, it's just a band aid.

Let's look at the causes , and address those.

I think that's how you solve it. It is pretty sexist to say , "give someone more money because they are a women"

Re: Google Sued by 3 Female Ex-Employees Who Say It Pays Women Less Than Men

#123

Post by ihm »

broodbucket wrote: post #111
tptacek wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hahahaha it's funny because "nursing" is a gendered term for a class of front-line medical occupation that is almost certain to be vital to the provisioning of cost-effective health care in the 21st century where it is vitally important that we both raise the status of the profession to get more people into the labor force to do it and also to raise its status among consumers so less people have to wait for ludicrous…

Because one of the several definitions of "nursing" is gendered does not mean it is a "gendered term", especially when used in a non-gendered context. Unless I'm immune to the irony, this looks like a ridiculous out of place outburst.

You don't think that people are accustomed to thinking of "nurse" as a female role?

Re: Google Sued by 3 Female Ex-Employees Who Say It Pays Women Less Than Men

#124

Post by linkregister »

tptacek wrote: post #102
lumberingjack wrote: post #100

I still wonder why the gender equality issue in nursing has not been addressed we need more men as nurses! What is it like 12 women to 1 men nurse we have to fix this its is out of hand. /s

Hahahaha it's funny because "nursing" is a gendered term for a class of front-line medical occupation that is almost certain to be vital to the provisioning of cost-effective health care in the 21st century where it is vitally important that we both raise the status of the profession to get more people into the labor force to do it and also to raise its status among consumers so less people have to wait for ludicrous…

Nursing is also a bad defense for discrimination in software development because male nurses typically excel in the field. There are no lawsuits by aggrieved male nurses because they get promoted and are approved for special positions at the same rate as their peers.

Not to mention, lifting a 300 pound patient, perfecting an IV stick, or shouting down a raging alcoholic is pretty fucking manly.

Re: Google Sued by 3 Female Ex-Employees Who Say It Pays Women Less Than Men

#125

Post by ajross »

stretchwithme wrote: post #62
feminist17 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies pay some employees more for pretty good reasons. I think you give companies too much credit. Those pretty good reasons are typically that that's how much they asked, it wasn't unreasonable, and they passed the interviews. People's salaries are all over the map for the same sorts of positions, and it's not just IT and development. But, even though it might not be a clearcut answer to whether there is discr…

I tend to think that successful companies tend to know what they are doing better than observers.

But the problem is "know what they are doing" can still be unfair. Consider: you're staffing up a company and need folks now. You've found two candidates who seem equally qualified and want to hire them. Both are asking for only a modest raise over their current salaries, but one happens to make 50% more than the other due to arbitrary reasons[1] having nothing to do with qualifications.

What do you do? Realistically you give them both what they ask and pay them unfairly. Congratulations, you're now part of the problem.

[1] Yeah, one is a dude.

Re: Google Sued by 3 Female Ex-Employees Who Say It Pays Women Less Than Men

#126

Post by zaptheimpaler »

linkregister wrote: post #109
kamaal wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Here's another percentage what percentage of women and men didn't waste a thought on how they looked in their teenage years because they where so obsessed on how computers worked? Most people are not in the job because they like create things or build things. They are there because they want a job and nothing more. And they want a job where (unit of money)/(unit of work) has a higher value. That means they have to…

I find it interesting that HN commenters frequently take it for granted that someone who tinkered with programming at an early age and do side projects is a better performer at work. I have never seen any multiple-data-point evidence presented to support it. Sure, various prominent entrepreneurs used computers as hobbyists (Gates, Zuckerberg), but does that apply to the typical programmer? We all encountered students…

In every single industry and craft, those with more work experience are typically paid more than whose with less.

There is little difference between "experience programming during a job" and "experience programming for fun". It is the same activity.

So of course those with more experience should be expected (on average) to better than those with less. Of course those who seek out more experience due to passion will (on average) be better than those who don't.

It's not an unusual thing to expect at all. People who care more do better.. in every human endeavor, and this is widely accepted by society. It only seems unusual when newcomers cry "unfair" when they see others enjoying the fruits of their labor.

You can ask for data - great, we don't know the answer. But if I had to guess one way or the other, based on all human experience, yes I would lean heavily towards experience. Its why professors know more than students, why Edison invented a lightbulb after a thousand other failed inventions, it is the basis for the very concept of an expert - its why we appoint a doctor instead of a physicist to run a hospital. Its pretty goddamn fundamental - people get better at things with time, so those with more time tend to be better.

Re: Google Sued by 3 Female Ex-Employees Who Say It Pays Women Less Than Men

#127

Post by Consultant32452 »

Romanulus wrote: post #99
stretchwithme wrote: post #25

Companies pay some employees more for pretty good reasons. I don't think they're thinking "Jim's a dude so we should pay him $50K more than Sally." No, they're paying somebody more because they don't want them to leave. And if they are paying you less than somebody else, it's probably partially because they don't think you are as much of a flight risk. And if Google is wrong about these decisions, I'd guess we'd see…

What you're talking about is referred to as a 'market opportunity', which in this case doesn't hold water since I don't know of any successful all-female (or majority-female) tech companies.

In order to believe that you have to believe that literally 100% of tech hiring companies/managers are sexist. If even ONE was not, they'd wind up with all the women because they'd be willing to pay those women more money than every other company. I'm very open to the idea that there's sexism in tech, but the idea that literally 100% of everyone is sexist doesn't seem plausible.

Re: Google Sued by 3 Female Ex-Employees Who Say It Pays Women Less Than Men

#128

Post by sidlls »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #115
kamaal wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Here's another percentage what percentage of women and men didn't waste a thought on how they looked in their teenage years because they where so obsessed on how computers worked? Most people are not in the job because they like create things or build things. They are there because they want a job and nothing more. And they want a job where (unit of money)/(unit of work) has a higher value. That means they have to…

So true. People didn't give two shits about the nerds and the tiny useless portion of the world known as computing they occupied 20 years ago - back then it was less glamorous and less money involved. They scoffed at the morons who not only did computers at work but continued to think, write and do "work" after work! Now theres money involved everyone wants in! Now those same leeches demand to be given the same roles…

I don't know what's more funny (or sad): that you think engineers are no longer as looked down on or compensated at a lower rate than their "work" should otherwise merit or that you seem to have completely missed the part about "equal experience" in your haste to poohpooh them that desire equal treatment for it as inferior.

Re: Google Sued by 3 Female Ex-Employees Who Say It Pays Women Less Than Men

#129

Post by flukus »

linkregister wrote: post #109
kamaal wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Here's another percentage what percentage of women and men didn't waste a thought on how they looked in their teenage years because they where so obsessed on how computers worked? Most people are not in the job because they like create things or build things. They are there because they want a job and nothing more. And they want a job where (unit of money)/(unit of work) has a higher value. That means they have to…

I find it interesting that HN commenters frequently take it for granted that someone who tinkered with programming at an early age and do side projects is a better performer at work. I have never seen any multiple-data-point evidence presented to support it. Sure, various prominent entrepreneurs used computers as hobbyists (Gates, Zuckerberg), but does that apply to the typical programmer? We all encountered students…

It would be a hard study to do, many of the non-tinkerers will never enter the industry in the first place. For a fair evaluation I think you'd have to look at first year comp-sci students and then see where they are in 10 years.

Personally I think the correlation I've seen personally is strong enough that I'd be shocked if a study proved it otherwise.

Re: Google Sued by 3 Female Ex-Employees Who Say It Pays Women Less Than Men

#130

Post by hkmurakami »

ransom1538 wrote: post #34

Flat salaries may fix this? You basically join at the same bracket publicly. No performance bonuses and all salaries increases are directly based on years put in. Everyone joins with the same options across the board. For each male hired there must be a female hired. No roles. Everyone has the same title: "Engineer". Off sites are strictly prohibited. Is this what the lawyers want?

You've described the typical "up or out" professional services firm.
Post reply on HN