31–40 of 156 posts
Google can and absolutely should be paying these people more in compensation.
does anyone care if they perform better or does even suggesting that make me a racist in the modern world?
Exactly. You can't just simply assume that job performance is statistically independent of various seemingly unrelated traits. If you suspect age discrimination, you also can't just assume that age is uncorrelated with performance. Or being short sighted, or even things like weight or height. They may be uncorrelated, or they may be correlated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the same numbers "Latinx+" are actually over-represented at Google and white people underrepresented. Neither by a large amount though. With how close the numbers actually are I wonder if the different biases of different HR people and hiring managers actually cancelled out pretty well.
> By the same numbers "Latinx+" are actually over-represented at Google… That's probably the case for much of California, where they're HQed.
Google is guilty of a lot of things but this is a drive-by shakedown by predatory law firms.
Got any evidence for that? Is Google in the habit of paying out giant HR-related settlements for something other than protecting good ol' boys like Andy Rubin? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-se... Google has enough money to hire the best law firms too. Why would any law firm engage in frivolous litigation against a potential future client? The linked settlement is 10X that of this one, whic…
Because the chances is getting a payout is greater than the chances of ever working for Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same as the background rate: https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/software-engineer/dem...
By the same numbers "Latinx+" are actually over-represented at Google and white people underrepresented. Neither by a large amount though. With how close the numbers actually are I wonder if the different biases of different HR people and hiring managers actually cancelled out pretty well.
Am I interpreting this correctly? It sounds like the lawsuit is filed on behalf of at least 6,632 employees. $28,000,000 distributed amongst that many is roughly $4,221.95. That's not even accounting for the law firm's stake. That seems like an absurdly low amount to pay to folks to say "sorry we screwed your career over". Google can and absolutely should be paying these people more in compensation.
does anyone care if they perform better or does even suggesting that make me a racist in the modern world?
Exactly. You can't just simply assume that job performance is statistically independent of various seemingly unrelated traits. If you suspect age discrimination, you also can't just assume that age is uncorrelated with performance. Or being short sighted, or even things like weight or height. They may be uncorrelated, or they may be correlated.
I've been on the employer side of this... you fire someone who's performing badly, and then they come back 4 months later and sue the company for [insert made up thing here].
In our case, an ex-employee is suing us for not accommodating an anxiety and migraine disability, which they never disclosed and never requested accommodations for. So now we face a discrimination lawsuit (from a non-minority) based completely on falsehoods and things that never happened.
The reason people do this is because it works! Employers will almost always settle before it goes in front of a judge in order to avoid the hassle and cost of defending the claim.
I wonder why “Black” employees were asked to be excluded from the lawsuit before Google agreed to settle.
This got down to a pretty low level of details, not only specifically cutting the class down to "Hispanic, Latinx, Indigenous, Native American, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and/or Alaska Native" employees but also explicitly excluding anyone in any of those groups who identified as Black.